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

[lessthanjake]

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.

After closer inspection, it appears 3 players all in the Top 20 of a 25-year range on the same team is going to be unique

Well no, Wilt/West/Baylor will definitely be in the top 20 in their 25-year range. And DocMJ mentioned a few other teams that stand a good chance (for instance, Magic/Kareem/Worthy).

Also, I really think with Bobby Jones and Draymond that the one who ends up placing better in their era just comes down to which one happened to play in an era where we have RAPM data. There’s like virtually zero chance Draymond would make the list if the Warriors were the ones who played in the pre-RAPM era, and I think there’s a good chance Bobby Jones would be thought of even more highly if we had such data for him (i.e. higher than already being 70-75 in the RealGM Top 100).

It’s also worth noting that the question of talent vs. fit is not really answered by how someone will place in these rankings. If Draymond Green was on a team that he didn’t fit well in (for instance, one where he couldn’t be a major ball-handler/offensive decision-maker), then he’d almost certainly be nowhere near this list. In a real sense, the fact that the Warriors fit so well is a huge factor in where his ranking will end up, so using that ranking as a proxy for talent is not exactly valid. Which is to say that Draymond’s ranking is in part a consequence of how easy it is to fit with the superstars that were on his team with him. As DocMJ has noted in this thread, Draymond almost certainly would’ve had to take a major step back if he’d played with someone like Giannis, and in that scenario there’s very little chance Draymond would be a candidate for this list, even though Draymond’s talent would be the same. Being able to give Draymond optimal room to shine while maintaining their own impact is a big part of the feather in the cap of Steph and Durant! That’s actually part of the point here! So I would say Draymond being able to rank so highly is not something that downplays Steph/Durant, but rather highlights how easy it is to fit with them and how they and the rest of the Warriors were able to produce the GOAT team.

[ReggiesKnicks]

All that aside, I also have a separate question -- what makes you higher on the 2022 RS than the 2021 RS? I've also been deciding between 2021 and 2022 for his best year and would love some insight from others on the comparison.

Isn't it sort of obvious what made the 2022 RS better?

2021 Giannis: 40.3 Points/100 on 166.7 TS+, 5.3 ORB%, 17.5 TRB%, 28.7 AST%, 4.9 STL%+BLK%, 13.2 TOV%, 32.5 USG%, 10.2 WS, 9.0 BPM, 409 +/-
2022 Giannis: 43.6 Points/100 on 211.1 TS+, 6.6 ORB%, 18.7 TRB%, 31.7 AST%, 5.6 STL%+BLK%, 12.2 TOV%, 34.9 USG%, 12.9 WS, 11.2 BPM, 397 +/-

[DraymondGold]

All that aside, I also have a separate question -- what makes you higher on the 2022 RS than the 2021 RS? I've also been deciding between 2021 and 2022 for his best year and would love some insight from others on the comparison.

Isn't it sort of obvious what made the 2022 RS better?

2021 Giannis: 40.3 Points/100 on 166.7 TS+, 5.3 ORB%, 17.5 TRB%, 28.7 AST%, 4.9 STL%+BLK%, 13.2 TOV%, 32.5 USG%, 10.2 WS, 9.0 BPM, 409 +/-
2022 Giannis: 43.6 Points/100 on 211.1 TS+, 6.6 ORB%, 18.7 TRB%, 31.7 AST%, 5.6 STL%+BLK%, 12.2 TOV%, 34.9 USG%, 12.9 WS, 11.2 BPM, 397 +/-

Indeed we do see some box improvement across the board! I meant more from a skill or film based perspective though. Do people who prefer 22 RS > 21 RS think Giannis improved at specific skills that led to this better box performance? Generally people think Giannis' offense is getting better over his prime (e.g. improved passing, scoring counters) while his defense is slowly worsening (e.g. lessening athleticism/burst to speed across the floor in help defense or vertical contests, less motor/stamina to go all-out continuously like he did in 19/20 RS). Do people not see greater offensive improvement than defensive decline, or is there some reason to think he was actually a better RS defender in 22 than 21?

[ReggiesKnicks]

All that aside, I also have a separate question -- what makes you higher on the 2022 RS than the 2021 RS? I've also been deciding between 2021 and 2022 for his best year and would love some insight from others on the comparison.

Isn't it sort of obvious what made the 2022 RS better?

2021 Giannis: 40.3 Points/100 on 166.7 TS+, 5.3 ORB%, 17.5 TRB%, 28.7 AST%, 4.9 STL%+BLK%, 13.2 TOV%, 32.5 USG%, 10.2 WS, 9.0 BPM, 409 +/-
2022 Giannis: 43.6 Points/100 on 211.1 TS+, 6.6 ORB%, 18.7 TRB%, 31.7 AST%, 5.6 STL%+BLK%, 12.2 TOV%, 34.9 USG%, 12.9 WS, 11.2 BPM, 397 +/-

Indeed we do see some box improvement across the board! I meant more from a skill or film based perspective though. Do people who prefer 22 RS > 21 RS think Giannis improved at specific skills that led to this better box performance? Generally people think Giannis' offense is getting better over his prime (e.g. improved passing, scoring counters) while his defense is slowly worsening (e.g. lessening athleticism/burst to speed across the floor in help defense or vertical contests, less motor/stamina to go all-out continuously like he did in 19/20 RS). Do people not see greater offensive improvement than defensive decline, or is there some reason to think he was actually a better RS defender in 22 than 21?

I think Giannis was at his best defensively given his motor in 2018-2021. He definitely took a noticeable step back defensively in 2023, but his best regular season +/- where he had his motor was 2019/2020, unquestionably.

I tend to really crave his higher-end defensive outcomes in order to place him this high (Top 10) which means me personally I need to have his 2021 and earlier seasons in this, though I truthfully don't see a big reason why 2022 couldn't be considered.

This is the same problem with a lot of players who have these "5 year peaks" where it's motor in the earlier years and skill/experience in the later years. Typically the blend in the middle gets chosen.

[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.

After closer inspection, it appears 3 players all in the Top 20 of a 25-year range on the same team is going to be unique

Well no, Wilt/West/Baylor will definitely be in the top 20 in their 25-year range. And DocMJ mentioned a few other teams that stand a good chance (for instance, Magic/Kareem/Worthy).

I don't think 1969 Baylor is going to be considered, given the gulf of difference between his early and late years. Time will tell on that front. Even if he is, from 2017 to 1969 is a still incredibly unique in terms of Top End talent for an era

I will not be considering James Worthy. He was never a Top 5 player or even close. Maybe he squeaks into the Top 10 for 1 or 2 seasons, but that's not enough for the 1976-2000 era.

It’s also worth noting that the question of talent vs. fit is not really answered by how someone will place in these rankings. If Draymond Green was on a team that he didn’t fit well in (for instance, one where he couldn’t be a major ball-handler/offensive decision-maker), then he’d almost certainly be nowhere near this list. In a real sense, the fact that the Warriors fit so well is a huge factor in where his ranking will end up, so using that ranking as a proxy for talent is not exactly valid. Which is to say that Draymond’s ranking is in part a consequence of how easy it is to fit with the superstars that were on his team with him.

This is true for many players. Draymond not being on the Warriors also could have resulted in a different and lesser Steph Curry, or god-forbid the Warriors never hire Steve Kerr and all of Curry's coaches spam P&R with him like Mark Jackson did

At the end of the day, we saw what we saw, and that was Draymond Green having an incredible impact in terms of winning basketball games. He may have been lesser in a different situation, but the fact is, he was a Top 25 player of this era and showed why he was a Top 25 player.

As DocMJ has noted in this thread, Draymond almost certainly would’ve had to take a major step back if he’d played with someone like Giannis, and in that scenario there’s very little chance Draymond would be a candidate for this list, even though Draymond’s talent would be the same. Being able to give Draymond optimal room to shine while maintaining their own impact is a big part of the feather in the cap of Steph and Durant! That’s actually part of the point here! So I would say Draymond being able to rank so highly is not something that downplays Steph/Durant, but rather highlights how easy it is to fit with them and how they and the rest of the Warriors were able to produce the GOAT team.

It is also a feather in the cap for Draymond, who had a skill set that scaled up to being the GOAT level team.

I don't think anyone is downplaying anyone here

I don't analyze players through the lens of "How good would they be when added to a 73-win team", because that isn't a scenario I value nearly as highly as:

"How can I build around this player?"
"What does this player provide to a team versus other similarly impactful players?"
"How good is this player in a vacuum?"

Now, once I get to players who can't be the #1 option on a title team, then I can start to look at different attributes, ask questions like how the skill-set leads to impact.

[Doctor MJ]

Now I think you're saying "Yes but Durant was lucky to go to a team like that", to which I'd agree, because certainly whenever Durant makes a good decision about changing teams, he's basically just a broken clock. Clueless and fragile as he might be though, being a super long & tall guy who can shoot near GOAT level and doesn't dominate the ball makes you easy to slot in - which I'll say, relates to mentioned concepts like portability, scalability & ceiling-raising, but I'm frankly reluctant to even use those terms now because of how they're getting used by people. Giannis' real issue here isn't that a heliocentric role is definitionally not-very-portable, but in the fact that he's just not good enough in that helio role to scale the offense like the savants who normally play the position do. When you put guys with real decision making limitations at helio - Giannis, Westbrook, Paolo, etc - that's where you commit to a lower offensive ceiling.

None of this means that Giannis couldn't possibly make up for this, but there's a real issue here with at the heart of how Giannis became a legit offensive superstar that - at least to this point - has kept him from being in the top tier, and this matters more because his helio style dictates so much what his team can't do regardless of the talent around him. In contrast to guys of the "beta O, alpha D" big man archetype (Russell, late Wilt, Mutombo, late Robinson, late Garnett, etc) which generally allows the team to build around someone else offensively without much constraint, Giannis doesn't let you do that.

I agree with the general overarching points here.

1) Giannis has limitations as a helio, which prohibit certain ceilings his teams can realistically match offensively

However, this statement of yours is something which, while true, isn't a problem for me.

...which generally allows the team to build around someone else offensively without much constraint, Giannis doesn't let you do that.

How often is a team going to have the opportunity to acquire a player better offensively than Giannis? The realistic chance of this happening is next to none. Furthermore, to the point regarding Celtics KG being beta O, alpha D, Pierce, and Middleton sustained similar Usage % next to KG/Giannis, respectively.

I also think there is room for better offensive players than Khris Middleton and Jrue Holiday to flourish next to Giannis, and looking at an older Lillard as proof in the pudding doesn't sit right with me. Paul Pierce, in a lot of ways, is a better version of Khris Middleton, and I believe Pierce could still be the 2008 Pierce next to Giannis, while Ray Allen is truly a unique chess piece in which Giannis has optimized a similar, albeit much worse, 3P gunner in Malik Beasley.

In conclusion, Giannis is going to limit those superteam offensive thresholds but can still anchor a championship-caliber offense with relatively pedestrian 2nd/3rd scoring options.

I will use this to segue to a more interesting but related topic and thoughts.

Dwyane Wade is a lot like the guard version of Giannis. Incredible defensive impact for their position (SG and PF, respectively), inability to consistently stretch the floor with their primary location of gravity at or near the rim. This immense rim pressure that both of them exude has been shown to be good enough to win a championship, but I would question Wade's ability to maintain his same impact if paired with a better offensive player (See LeBron James).

On one hand, we see a trend where Wade joins up with LeBron James, and his volume dips by ~10% but his efficiency increases by ~3%. Wade had his 2nd most efficient season by TS+ in 2011 (1st in 2006) and a career high in OREB% and At Rim FG% (In fact, his 3 highest At Rim FG% seasons were when playing with LeBron James). This reduced scoring volume also saw an uptick in his defensive ability and pressure, and a career high in +/-.

What does all this mean? In my eyes, there is some real truth in the pudding here regarding Wade's skill set and ability to scale on super teams. Remember, LeBron/Wade/Bosh in 2011 were at +14.9 in over 1900 minutes together (pedestrian +2.2 in the post-season in 640 minutes). Of course, in 2012, in the postseason, the Big 3 were at +14.9, which matched their 2011 regular season number, perhaps another data point leading us to believe these Heat could have sustained dominance if not for Wade's deteriorating health in 2013 and 2014.

When contrasting Wade and Giannis, it seems Wade had more ability and willingness to work off-ball as a cutter and, as a result, the ability to crash the offensive glass as a physical force without invading spacing on the court. Wade's ability to attack off-ball and coordinate with LeBron James as a relentless two-man duo does seem better and more synergistic than anything we can see with Giannis. Of course, does this matter when comparing Wade and Giannis in this project? To me, it doesn't, though it is fascinating to discuss and could hold merit in a different comparison.

Does Giannis's offensive skill set limit team building? Yes. The better or follow-up question is "To what Degree?"

Good stuff generally.

I'll say specifically that I definitely see the connection between Wade & Giannis, and I want to be open about the fact that my view of Wade had kinda gone up and down over the years because of some of the concerns you lay out, but at this moment, I'm not confident in my criticisms of him.

Mind you, it's not a question to me about whether Giannis is more limited in this way than Wade - he is - but a matter of whether it really makes sense to give him the nod overall over Giannis given Giannis' defense.

Re: "Furthermore, to the point regarding Celtics KG being beta O, alpha D, Pierce, and Middleton sustained similar Usage % next to KG/Giannis, respectively. "

Okay so this is definitely worth discussing. A few key things for me:

1. Correlation is not causation. Maybe KG in Boston was having the same types of offensive effects as Giannis in Milwaukee, but they weren't playing the same way, and so there's not necessarily a reason to think that their presence was forcing a lower usage on their teammates in the same way.

2. The nature of basketball is that there really is "plenty of usage to go around" in the sense that even if one guy has a Usage of 30, that still leaves 70 for the rest of the team, and if the coach decides to give a second star enough primacy, they'll rack up a big Usage too.

3. But none of this tells us qualitatively how a player's Usage on any given possession in influenced.

When Middleton is playing with Giannis, Giannis is the first option. In '20-21, Middleton had less touches than Giannis, but made more passes, and he assisted Giannis considerably more than Giannis assisted him (on a team that made few passes compared with the league, while playing at a fast pace). Whatever quantity we get with the Usage for Middleton, this is what Middleton is trying to do when they are both out there, and the possessions that actually add up to his Usage with Giannis on the floor are times when the defense forced the Bucks into a Plan B.

Is that what was happening when Pierce took a shot when Garnett was on the floor? You can make the argument, but aside from the fact that I think it's pretty accepted that Garnett wasn't a clear cut 1st option in Boston like Giannis is in Milwaukee, Garnett is certainly scoring a lot less with or without Pierce than Giannis was scoring.

This then to say, I don't think Pierce was dealing with being a Plan B like Middleton was. His play was shaped by the collection of talent around him to be sure, and that did mean his Usage went down from previous, but it wasn't because he was having it drilled in his head "Get the ball to Garnett! Get the ball to Garnett!".

[Doctor MJ]

I don't have a list, but given that Bobby Jones has been a regular Top 75-ish player in the top 100, and didn't have extraordinary longevity, he seems like a likely candidate here.

DJ is tougher given that the board has seemed to conclude he was only the 3rd best Sonic behind Gus & Sikma.

I don't want to count him completely out, but RPOY would seem to be a better proxy - where his peak was 5th in '77 in the more recent version of the project (9th in the old one). No other seasons with a finish above 9th.

The '01-'25 '77 5th equivalent is '01 Iverson. A player I'd be shocked to receive serious consideration here.

18 off the top players I'd be shocked to see Bobby over in roughly chronological order:
KAJ
Walton
DrJ
Moses
Bird
Magic
Drexler
Hakeem
Jordan
Barkley
Ewing
Robinson
K. Malone
Pippen
Shaq
Duncan
Mourning
KG

Does he beat out all the other 4th/5th best in the league guys for one of the last ~7 spots? Some big names not in the above: Gervin, Moncrief, King, Nique, Thomas, KJ, Stockton, Mutombo, Miller, Payton, Penny, Hill, Kidd, etc.

Yeah, if I *really* think about it, I think I was probably overestimating Bobby Jones’s chances when I first posted about this. I looked at the RealGM Top 100 placements and basically said “He’s around 70-75, and there’s three eras and he’s not known for longevity, so there seems like a pretty good chance he’d be top 20 or 25 peaks in his era.” I think a big thing that that back-of-the-napkin thinking wasn’t accounting for is that players can (and will) appear in multiple eras in this project. So like, if guys like Shaq, Duncan, and maybe Garnett and others will be in that era after already making this era (and also some will inevitably be in that 1976-2000 era and then make the prior era too), then the basic intuition of dividing someone’s RealGM top 100 placement by three as a rough baseline of where they might end up would tend to systematically overrate where they’ll roughly end up. Basically, three sets of 25 peaks will actually end up having significantly fewer than 75 total players voted in.

Of course, there’s also the fact that the RealGM Top 100 is not *really* a perfect proxy—since some players have amazing peaks but much lesser careers, while others are very consistent with no particular year that stands out. With Jones, I’m not sure how that plays out. You point out RPOY voting that would suggest he hasn’t been regarded here as having any particular year that stands out. I do feel like being an MVP-vote-winning guy in his very early years suggests he does have particular years that stand out, but it’s the ABA so that muddies the waters there a lot.

On balance, though, I think I was probably overestimating where Jones will likely end up. That said, I’m not convinced he’s actually a lesser player than Draymond, and I think he’s the type of player that we’d regard more highly if we had impact data from that era (which is very similar to Draymond, who is definitely seen more highly here than he would be if we didn’t have his impact numbers). The point about his minutes load being lower than Draymond is a good one though, and does seem to be a serious differentiating factor.

Yeah, when eminence lays it out like this, odds seem against Bobby.

As you say, part of what’s going on here is that guys can make the list in multiple eras.

Another part though is the guys with brief primes. The Penny Hardaways of the world who I would rank ahead of Bobby by peak even if their career didn’t amount to as much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[iggymcfrack]

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.

I appreciate you pushing back here Iggy.

Given that Barnes was a starter on the 73-9 team, should I really be quick to jettison him for a greater talent who fits worse like Giannis? Maybe not.

Here's where Barnes' playoff performances (plural) leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Generally I think you'll find that I'm a champion of quality 4th/5th starters as being considerably more worth celebrating than most. To my mind, merely being on a champion isn't that impressive, but in a 5-man on-court sport, if you're one of the core 5 guys the coach depends on as you win a chip, that is generally a big deal.

It's why I'll take Danny Green over far-richer draftmate DeMar DeRozan, as he has a place on a champion's 5-man core, and DeRozan doesn't.

So it would be reasonable to think I'd celebrate Barnes, as he was absolutely in that role when the Warriors won the 2015 title, and also in that role in 2016 when they had great success and almost won the title. But he really struggled in the playoffs.

The theory of Barnes, who folks might remember was a hyped prospect who was expected to be One & Done in college and then the #1 pick, was that at the very least he would feast on open shots playing on a team where the defensive attention went elsewhere, but come playoff time, it was basically always a brickfest. Some of it was surely about better and more intense defense, but some of it just seemed to be yips.

This then to say that while if I felt really good about Barnes being a Danny Green-level player, I'd be quite reluctant to swap him out for a worse fit even if the talent was much greater, but instead, in the '15-16 post-season we're talking about the guy who was really the worst player in the Warriors' main 8 man rotation after Iggy, Bogut, Livingston & Barbosa.

The Warriors had other struggles that post-season with health, new opponent tactics, etc, and I don't want to make it out like it was all about Barnes, but Barnes just wasn't giving the team what he gave them in the regular season.

I have to end it here unfortunately and I know I didn't address your whole post. I'll try to get back to it, or if you want to reply and set focus on the conversation further, go right ahead.

I guess my point isn't that Barnes is undervalued and is a really good 4th/5th starter. It's kinda the opposite. It's that as one of the worst starters on any super all-time great team, it's a really low bar to replace him and improve the team. Any top 20 player in the league in a given year should be able to do it in their sleep unless they're an absurdly bad fit. The fact that KD managed to improve the Warriors in the postseason while making them worse in the regular season when replacing Barnes should not be seen as a feather in his cap.

And how many times have we heard "well, sure KD didn't improve the Warriors in the regular season, but in the postseason when defenses tighten up, they need his iso scoring. That's why he's a super crucial piece to the team in the postseason and actually makes the team meaningfully better there." Your post gave me an idea about another possible explanation though.

What if the reason KD improved the Warriors in the postseason and not the regular season is just that Harrison Barnes happened to play so bad in the playoffs. Like if you compare KD to the Barnes that averages 11 PPG, but at least effectively spaces the floor shooting 39.4% from three, they're essentially identical and it doesn't make any difference which one is the last starter. But, compare KD to playoff Barnes who averages 10 PPG shooting 34.8% on the easiest looks in the world and all of a sudden, he's a difference maker.

That's how low the bar is to be "the guy who puts Golden State over the top as the best team of all-time". You just have to be able to make a meaningful improvement on the version of Barnes that shoots below average on 3 easy shots a game in a +8.1 offense next to peak Steph Curry. To me, the level of impact KD showed in that role isn't a credit. It's an indictment.

In fact, Kevin Durant looked so vestigial in Golden State that it actually made me go back and re-evaluate his Oklahoma City tenure more closely. I came to realize that Westbrook's playmaking was a lot more important to the Thunder than I thought. Between KD's lack of motion and his relatively weak passing, it seemed like Westbrook was actually more impactful in the playoffs, at least in the later years.

Now, I have KD in my top 25 all-time so I certainly don't want to imply that he was completely non-impactful. On the whole, he was still a very important part of the Warriors. I can't imagine putting him lower than 3rd on the team in any given year and he at least has a case for being #2 each season. It's just that given the caliber of player I thought he was leaving Oklahoma City, I think it was probably a bottom 10% result. Especially the way he struggled to maintain the offense when Curry was on the bench or missing games made me think he just wasn't the caliber of player I thought he was.

Looking at KD's career RAPM numbers, they come out pretty good in both the regular season and postseason which would definitely imply that maybe there's something missing with my analysis. In fact, when the career playoff RAPM numbers came out, I moved KD up from #25 to #23. Thinking about it more though, I wonder if maybe I've discovered a flaw in the metric. Looking at all years of a career, even adjusting for age isn't going to be perfect if some stars have much sharper aging curves than others. From age 20-27 while playing alongside KD, Westbrook had an incredible start to his career. His playmaking and motor were a weapon and he was actually a much better shooter than people remember (82% from the line).

Then, after KD left, Russ had an amazing peak season that was much better than any he'd enjoyed with KD as he matched the best TS% of his career while taking on a truly insane offensive load, setting a league record for USG% while averaging 45/15/15 per 100. Obvioiusly, Westbrook wasn't reliant on KD as his game reached higher heights during his MVP season of 2017 than even the most ardent Westbrook supporter could have imagined. However, as a player who relied heavily on athleticism, he hit a sharp decline fairly quickly, and from about the 2019 playoffs on, he was an absolute shell of his former self.

Well, if career RAPM is trying to judge how much Westbrook helped Durant in Oklahoma City, is it just going to see him as the average of KD's bench minutes when he was on the Thunder and the player he's been in his age 28-36 seasons adjusted for age? If so, it's going to VASTLY underestimate how important Westbrook was to those teams' success. It does seem like the impact signal for KD in the career RAPM numbers is greatly inflated from what you'd see on a year-by-year basis.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Good stuff generally.

I'll say specifically that I definitely see the connection between Wade & Giannis, and I want to be open about the fact that my view of Wade had kinda gone up and down over the years because of some of the concerns you lay out, but at this moment, I'm not confident in my criticisms of him.

Mind you, it's not a question to me about whether Giannis is more limited in this way than Wade - he is - but a matter of whether it really makes sense to give him the nod overall over Giannis given Giannis' defense.

If it makes you feel better, I have had some concerns over Giannis rating during his "coming up" period, but I have since "bought in" to his defensive pedigree to the fullest extent. Offensively, the closest analog for Giannis is Westbrook, who I likely won't be considering, though I keep doing this exercise in tiers, and it is possible with proper discourse Westbrook ends up on my radar, though I wouldn't hold out hope.

Re: "Furthermore, to the point regarding Celtics KG being beta O, alpha D, Pierce, and Middleton sustained similar Usage % next to KG/Giannis, respectively. "

Okay so this is definitely worth discussing. A few key things for me:

1. Correlation is not causation. Maybe KG in Boston was having the same types of offensive effects as Giannis in Milwaukee, but they weren't playing the same way, and so there's not necessarily a reason to think that their presence was forcing a lower usage on their teammates in the same way.

2. The nature of basketball is that there really is "plenty of usage to go around" in the sense that even if one guy has a Usage of 30, that still leaves 70 for the rest of the team, and if the coach decides to give a second star enough primacy, they'll rack up a big Usage too.

3. But none of this tells us qualitatively how a player's Usage on any given possession in influenced.

When Middleton is playing with Giannis, Giannis is the first option. In '20-21, Middleton had less touches than Giannis, but made more passes, and he assisted Giannis considerably more than Giannis assisted him (on a team that made few passes compared with the league, while playing at a fast pace). Whatever quantity we get with the Usage for Middleton, this is what Middleton is trying to do when they are both out there, and the possessions that actually add up to his Usage with Giannis on the floor are times when the defense forced the Bucks into a Plan B.

Is that what was happening when Pierce took a shot when Garnett was on the floor? You can make the argument, but aside from the fact that I think it's pretty accepted that Garnett wasn't a clear cut 1st option in Boston like Giannis is in Milwaukee, Garnett is certainly scoring a lot less with or without Pierce than Giannis was scoring.

This then to say, I don't think Pierce was dealing with being a Plan B like Middleton was. His play was shaped by the collection of talent around him to be sure, and that did mean his Usage went down from previous, but it wasn't because he was having it drilled in his head "Get the ball to Garnett! Get the ball to Garnett!".

I don't necessarily disagree with this overall statement. At the end of the day, I had Kevin Garnett as 3rd and likely would have put 2008 Garnett as no different than 2004/2003 if the voting had mattered. I'm incredibly high on both ends of the court for Garnett, though it is his offense that appears to be criminally underrated by the masses and the deep fans.

Garnett and Giannis are completely different animals. Giannis is like Shaq at a surface level--all the impact is at the rim. Notably, Giannis is more of a driver and likes to soak up more space on the court from start to finish for his possessions, which isn't exactly a boon for him.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

I appreciate you pushing back here Iggy.

Given that Barnes was a starter on the 73-9 team, should I really be quick to jettison him for a greater talent who fits worse like Giannis? Maybe not.

Here's where Barnes' playoff performances (plural) leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Generally I think you'll find that I'm a champion of quality 4th/5th starters as being considerably more worth celebrating than most. To my mind, merely being on a champion isn't that impressive, but in a 5-man on-court sport, if you're one of the core 5 guys the coach depends on as you win a chip, that is generally a big deal.

It's why I'll take Danny Green over far-richer draftmate DeMar DeRozan, as he has a place on a champion's 5-man core, and DeRozan doesn't.

So it would be reasonable to think I'd celebrate Barnes, as he was absolutely in that role when the Warriors won the 2015 title, and also in that role in 2016 when they had great success and almost won the title. But he really struggled in the playoffs.

The theory of Barnes, who folks might remember was a hyped prospect who was expected to be One & Done in college and then the #1 pick, was that at the very least he would feast on open shots playing on a team where the defensive attention went elsewhere, but come playoff time, it was basically always a brickfest. Some of it was surely about better and more intense defense, but some of it just seemed to be yips.

This then to say that while if I felt really good about Barnes being a Danny Green-level player, I'd be quite reluctant to swap him out for a worse fit even if the talent was much greater, but instead, in the '15-16 post-season we're talking about the guy who was really the worst player in the Warriors' main 8 man rotation after Iggy, Bogut, Livingston & Barbosa.

The Warriors had other struggles that post-season with health, new opponent tactics, etc, and I don't want to make it out like it was all about Barnes, but Barnes just wasn't giving the team what he gave them in the regular season.

I have to end it here unfortunately and I know I didn't address your whole post. I'll try to get back to it, or if you want to reply and set focus on the conversation further, go right ahead.

I guess my point isn't that Barnes is undervalued and is a really good 4th/5th starter. It's kinda the opposite. It's that as one of the worst starters on any super all-time great team, it's a really low bar to replace him and improve the team. Any top 20 player in the league in a given year should be able to do it in their sleep unless they're an absurdly bad fit. The fact that KD managed to improve the Warriors in the postseason while making them worse in the regular season when replacing Barnes should not be seen as a feather in his cap.

And how many times have we heard "well, sure KD didn't improve the Warriors in the regular season, but in the postseason when defenses tighten up, they need his iso scoring. That's why he's a super crucial piece to the team in the postseason and actually makes the team meaningfully better there." Your post gave me an idea about another possible explanation though.

What if the reason KD improved the Warriors in the postseason and not the regular season is just that Harrison Barnes happened to play so bad in the playoffs. Like if you compare KD to the Barnes that averages 11 PPG, but at least effectively spaces the floor shooting 39.4% from three, they're essentially identical and it doesn't make any difference which one is the last starter. But, compare KD to playoff Barnes who averages 10 PPG shooting 34.8% on the easiest looks in the world and all of a sudden, he's a difference maker.

That's how low the bar is to be "the guy who puts Golden State over the top as the best team of all-time". You just have to be able to make a meaningful improvement on the version of Barnes that shoots below average on 3 easy shots a game in a +8.1 offense next to peak Steph Curry. To me, the level of impact KD showed in that role isn't a credit. It's an indictment.

In fact, Kevin Durant looked so vestigial in Golden State that it actually made me go back and re-evaluate his Oklahoma City tenure more closely. I came to realize that Westbrook's playmaking was a lot more important to the Thunder than I thought. Between KD's lack of motion and his relatively weak passing, it seemed like Westbrook was actually more impactful in the playoffs, at least in the later years.

Now, I have KD in my top 25 all-time so I certainly don't want to imply that he was completely non-impactful. On the whole, he was still a very important part of the Warriors. I can't imagine putting him lower than 3rd on the team in any given year and he at least has a case for being #2 each season. It's just that given the caliber of player I thought he was leaving Oklahoma City, I think it was probably a bottom 10% result. Especially the way he struggled to maintain the offense when Curry was on the bench or missing games made me think he just wasn't the caliber of player I thought he was.

Looking at KD's career RAPM numbers, they come out pretty good in both the regular season and postseason which would definitely imply that maybe there's something missing with my analysis. In fact, when the career playoff RAPM numbers came out, I moved KD up from #25 to #23. Thinking about it more though, I wonder if maybe I've discovered a flaw in the metric. Looking at all years of a career, even adjusting for age isn't going to be perfect if some stars have much sharper aging curves than others. From age 20-27 while playing alongside KD, Westbrook had an incredible start to his career. His playmaking and motor were a weapon and he was actually a much better shooter than people remember (82% from the line).

Then, after KD left, Russ had an amazing peak season that was much better than any he'd enjoyed with KD as he matched the best TS% of his career while taking on a truly insane offensive load, setting a league record for USG% while averaging 45/15/15 per 100. Obvioiusly, Westbrook wasn't reliant on KD as his game reached higher heights during his MVP season of 2017 than even the most ardent Westbrook supporter could have imagined. However, as a player who relied heavily on athleticism, he hit a sharp decline fairly quickly, and from about the 2019 playoffs on, he was an absolute shell of his former self.

Well, if career RAPM is trying to judge how much Westbrook helped Durant in Oklahoma City, is it just going to see him as the average of KD's bench minutes when he was on the Thunder and the player he's been in his age 28-36 seasons adjusted for age? If so, it's going to VASTLY underestimate how important Westbrook was to those teams' success. It does seem like the impact signal for KD in the career RAPM numbers is greatly inflated from what you'd see on a year-by-year basis.

It's certainly true that if Barnes had been just a bit more competent the Warriors win that title, so we shouldn't be treating Durant like a savior simply because the team won the title with him.

But I do think we should be very careful about knocking guys who played a critical role on the greatest team in history, which is something you couldn't possibly achieve with Westbrook.

Re: Westbrook's playmaking. Here I'll say: "Westbrook dominating the ball and thus monopolizing playmaking".

Not that KD could do it better to be clear, as that just wasn't his thing - too tall, not good enough handle - just that I think Durant could thrive on all sorts of great teams as long as their was competent playmaking, while Westbrook developed a style of play that forced his team to play low BBIQ basically beginning in his rookie year and ending with his arrival in Denver. In college at UCLA, and in Denver, while he was still not very savvy out there, he wasn't dominating the ball the same way.

To be clear, not saying I think it's wrong to rank Westbrook over Durant in, say, '15-16, only that of those two teammates, only one had a place on a next-level team.

[Cavsfansince84]

Re: WB vs KD in terms of peak I think its fair to compare them and also sort of hits at whether we want to just churn every season into numbers or also use other forms of analysis. Because I think you can look at WB's 2017 and it was absolutely a great accomplishment by him to have that rs just as I'd say KD's 2014 regular seasons was also really good(being being strong mvp seasons). Then in terms of playoffs if you remove the GS years it's almost a wash between them I think but using 2016 leaves sort of a bad taste in your mouth due to how they both played during the 3-1 collapse to GS. So then the last thing worth mentioning is which guy as your best player gives you the best chance at a title and this is probably where most would say it's sort of easily KD. He's an atg scorer who does other things reasonably well and has a big advantage of length in 1v1 matchups. WB meanwhile, is seen more as a floor raiser who can put up lots of box score stats but lacks even a league avg jumpshot, is turnover prone and not a great bbiq for a pg which led to him playing a lot of hero ball.

[One_and_Done]

Westbrook wasn't even close to KD tbh. He was a very overrated player, even when he was actually good.

[Jaivl]

But I do think we should be very careful about knocking guys who played a critical role on the greatest team in history, which is something you couldn't possibly achieve with Westbrook.

Not like I'd consider Westbrook for now, but why? Prime Westbrook never played with a player straight up better than him, plus another arguably as good as him, plus a couple other all-stars for good measure.

Westbrook / 08 Allen / 08 Pierce / 08 Garnett / the Iggy equivalent of 08 Perkins. Okay, done.

Westbrook wasn't even close to KD tbh. He was a very overrated player, even when he was actually good.

He was about as close as it gets in 2016, at least on offense.

[70sFan]

Firstly, I want to apologize for the very late results post. I have little time right now with newborn baby in my home and my code for calculating the results crashed and I couldn't fix it earlier... Sorry guys

Voting results

Votes:

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

    "trelos6": ["Kawhi Leonard", "Giannis Antetokumpo", "Chris Paul", "Dwyane Wade"],
    "ReggiesKnicks": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Giannis Antetokumpo", "Chris Paul", "Steve Nash"],
    "Joao Saraiva": ["Giannis Antetokumpo", "Kobe Bryant", "Dirk Nowitzki", "Dwyane Wade"],
    "Djoker": ["Kobe Bryant", "Giannis Antetokumpo", "Dwyane Wade", "Kevin Durant"],
    "One_and_Done": ["Kawhi Leonard", "Giannis Antetokumpo", "Kevin Durant", "Dwyane Wade"],
    "iggymcfrack": ["Shai Gilgeous-Alexander", "Kawhi Leonard", "Giannis Antetokumpo", "Dirk Nowitzki"],
    "homecourtloss": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Kobe Bryant", "Giannis Antetokumpo", "Kawhi Leonard"],
    "TrueLAfan": ["Giannis Antetokumpo", "Shai Gilgeous-Alexander", "Dwyane Wade", "Dirk Nowitzki"],
    "lessthanjake": ["Dwyane Wade", "Dirk Nowitzki", "Shai Gilgeous-Alexander", "Kawhi Leonard"],
    "LA Bird": ["Giannis Antetokumpo", "Dwyane Wade", "Dirk Nowitzki", "Chris Paul"],
    "Cavsfansince84": ["Kawhi Leonard", "Shai Gilgeous-Alexander", "Dwyane Wade", "Giannis Antetokumpo"],
    "DraymondGold": ["Kawhi Leonard", "Chris Paul", "Kobe Bryant", "Kevin Durant"],
    "-Luke-": ["Dwyane Wade", "Shai Gilgeous-Alexander", "Giannis Antetokumpo", "Dirk Nowitzki"],
    "eminence": ["Kobe Bryant", "Dwyane Wade", "Dirk Nowitzki", "Shai Gilgeous-Alexander"],
    "Doctor MJ": ["Shai Gilgeous-Alexander", "Dwyane Wade", "Kobe Bryant", "Kevin Durant"],
    "Jaivl": ["Giannis Antetokumpo", "Dwyane Wade", "Kobe Bryant", "Kawhi Leonard"],
    "70sFan": ["Giannis Antetokumpo", "Dwyane Wade", "Kawhi Leonard", "Shai Gilgeous-Alexander"]

Number of voters: 17

Best Kemeny score:

Spoiler:

1. Giannis Antetokumpo
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Dirk Nowitzki
4. Kawhi Leonard
5. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
6. Kobe Bryant
7. Chris Paul
8. Kevin Durant
9. Steve Nash
Kemeny score: 322

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

#7. 2020/21 Giannis Antetokumpo



#8. 2005/06 Dwyane Wade

[Cavsfansince84]

But I do think we should be very careful about knocking guys who played a critical role on the greatest team in history, which is something you couldn't possibly achieve with Westbrook.

Not like I'd consider Westbrook for now, but why? Prime Westbrook never played with a player straight up better than him, plus another arguably as good as him, plus a couple other all-stars for good measure.

Westbrook / 08 Allen / 08 Pierce / 08 Garnett / the Iggy equivalent of 08 Perkins. Okay, done.

Westbrook wasn't even close to KD tbh. He was a very overrated player, even when he was actually good.

He was about as close as it gets in 2016, at least on offense.

I think you could definitely argue that the 2010-16 Thunder were much better made for WB than they were for KD. Good finishers & defensive players around him, best scorer in the league playing next to him. I think if you'd replaced WB with roughly a top 12 pg or replaced KD with a top 12 sf the team with Durant would be significantly better. Pretty sure this is also backed up in the team record when one played without the other in that 2010-16 period as well. KD could more easily absorb some playmaking than WB could scale his scoring/turnovers. I also really think that KD's fgapg should have been much higher in the 13-16 years(outside of 14 when WB missed like 50 games). He should have been avging 20-22 fgapg throughout his prime and had a coach who understood that.

[iggymcfrack]

Interesting that Giannis caught up with Wade for the #7 spot. I calculated a little matrix by hand a couple days ago and it looked like it was going to be Wade #7 and Giannis #8, but I guess those last couple votes for Giannis put him over the top. I do think Giannis/Wade is a better ordering and I actually have Giannis 4 spots higher on my list, but also I feel like they’re in the same tier and close enough as to be very arguable.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Interesting that Giannis caught up with Wade for the #7 spot. I calculated a little matrix by hand a couple days ago and it looked like it was going to be Wade #7 and Giannis #8, but I guess those last couple votes for Giannis put him over the top. I do think Giannis/Wade is a better ordering and I actually have Giannis 4 spots higher on my list, but also I feel like they’re in the same tier and close enough as to be very arguable.

I think all the players receiving votes are of the same tier.

[Cavsfansince84]

Interesting that Giannis caught up with Wade for the #7 spot. I calculated a little matrix by hand a couple days ago and it looked like it was going to be Wade #7 and Giannis #8, but I guess those last couple votes for Giannis put him over the top. I do think Giannis/Wade is a better ordering and I actually have Giannis 4 spots higher on my list, but also I feel like they’re in the same tier and close enough as to be very arguable.

Part of that is Giannis missing playoff games and putting up similar scoring numbers in a much more offensive inclined league.

[iggymcfrack]

Interesting that Giannis caught up with Wade for the #7 spot. I calculated a little matrix by hand a couple days ago and it looked like it was going to be Wade #7 and Giannis #8, but I guess those last couple votes for Giannis put him over the top. I do think Giannis/Wade is a better ordering and I actually have Giannis 4 spots higher on my list, but also I feel like they’re in the same tier and close enough as to be very arguable.

I think all the players receiving votes are of the same tier.

These are my tiers RN:

Tier 1: LeBron
Tier 2: Jokic, KG, Duncan
Tier 3: Steph, SGA, Shaq, Kawhi, Giannis, Dirk, CP3, Wade
Tier 4: Kobe, KD, AD, Manu