RealGM Top 100 #36

[penbeast0]

Voting Candidates
The Gs: Kidd's scoring efficiency was terrible through most of his career but his open court playmaking and rebounding were great and his defense very good. Iverson's efficiency was almost as bad and he brings negatives on defense and intangibles as well although he scored like few if any players ever have.

Among the wings, Nique didn't score that much better than Pierce and Pierce was better in efficiency, passing, defense and was more versatile as well. Pierce clearly better despite the accolades for Nique.

Dwight Howard is a damn good candidate here, short career so far but with peak for multiple years as the best big man in NBA once Duncan slowed down. McHale is also strong but is no more efficient than Howard despite playing on a team with two other great scoring bigs and a weak rebounder (also affected by playing next to Parish and Bird) and although he is more versatile, he doesn't have Howard's defensive impact; Hayes has issues with efficiency and personality; Cowens is as inefficient as Hayes with less scoring and rebounding but much better intangibles.

VOTE: Dwight Howard

[penbeast0]

For the nomination:

PG -- It is between the great playmaking but inefficient even for his era (especially in playoffs) Bob Cousy, and the young gun with 2 great years but only 5 1/2 years total, Chris Paul. If someone can do a comp to show me Cousy was actually reasonably efficient either individually or in terms of team offense in the period from 58-62, I'll vote for him easily, otherwise . . . Other candidates include Kevin Johnson, the surprisingly efficient Chauncey Billups, and possibly Lenny Wilkens from the 60s or the purely offensive Nate Archibald or Pete Maravich from the 70s.

Wings -- On the wings, there are still great scorers left . . . I like Alex English's consistency and all around play over the more spectacular but less consistent Bernard King, Mark Aquirre, or David Thompson, or the statistically most efficient Adrian Dantley. Not sure where to rank Hal Greer or Sam Jones's early 60s play and Ray Allen or Reggie Miller's may be the best offensive weapons of them all --
Defensively, I love Moncrief (and Dumars and Bobby Jones have a shot too but Moncrief was the most dominant at his peak) though the shortness of his peak (5 years then a major falloff) is a big issue. Still, we voted Wade in based on the same, and not even consecutive, peak . . .

Big Men -- The bigs left all have some issue with their games. Zo had health issues and was always a step behind the best like Shaq/Robinson/Duncan/etc. Willis Reed and Wes Unseld weren't as individually dominant and broke down faster too, while Neil Johnston and Mel Daniels played against inferior competition during their primes and were more limited besides. Bob McAdoo while his 5 year peak is spectacular, didn't play big man defense and his teams didn't dominate; Bob Lanier and Walt Bellamy had nice numbers but their teams weren't that much either and Detroit with Lanier sucked defensively for 9 of Lanier's 10 prime years which I consider pretty bad. Finally there is Dikembe Mutombo who was a great shot blocker and consistent player for years. Finally, Bill Walton had one great year (not that much better than Wes Unseld's MVP year) but every other year he broke down and left the Portland and San Diego teams which had built around him destroyed until he made another 1 year comeback as a top reserve. I wouldn't choose a one in eight shot at catching lightning in a bottle at the expense of a virtually guaranteed team crash the other seven over most of the above named players. Of them I lean to Reed (peak) or Unseld (homer pick).

At PF, Bobby Jones and Dennis Rodman may be the greatest pair of defensive forwards but Jones, while extremely efficient, didn't score or rebound that much while Rodman had no offense and for 1/2 his career, left his man at times to pad his rebounding stats at the team's expense. On the offensive end, Amare Stoudamire and Chris Webber just have too many issues to rank above Jones or Rodman.

VOTE: Sidney Moncrief

[penbeast0]

Let me explain why I am voting for Sidney Moncrief here. His peak is short, only 5 full years from 82-86 and those years coincided with the peak years of both the Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ Celtics and of the Moses/Erving/Toney/Cheeks Sixers (as well as the Showtime Lakers) so he never made it past the ECF but in those peak years he led Milwaukee, a Don Nelson coached team with no consistent center, to be one of the best defensive and an above average offensive team. Individually he was a consistent 20ppg scorer with excellent passing and rebounding skills who is widely considered the greatest man-up perimeter defender to ever play winning the first two ever awarded DPOY awards in this 5 year stretch.

Milwaukee's leaguewide ratings, even in those years of great dynastic teams, were

82 Moncrief 6.7reb/4.8ast/19.8pts on .601ts% incredible for a guard before wide use of the 3pt shot
9th in offense, 1st! in defense -- Marques Johnson was the second star only scoring 16ppg, center was good offense, mediocre defensive aging Bob Lanier, the other biggest minutes were PG Quinn Buckner (excellent defender) and Brian Winters (offense only pure jump shooter)

93 Moncrief 5.8reb/3.9ast/22.5pts on .602ts% 1st DPOY award (82 was actually better defense)
10th in offense, 6th in defense -- Marques Johnson had a great year, Alton Lister replaced Bob Lanier

94 Moncrief 6.7reb/4.5ast/20.9pts on .591ts% 2nd DPOY award
12th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Lanier came back to split time with Lister and Marques's last year

95 Moncrief 5.4reb/5.2ast/21.7pts on .594ts%
6th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Terry Cummings took over for Marques as the other star, Lister split time with Randy Breuer at center, 3pt specialist Craig Hodges split time with Paul Pressey and Junion Bridgeman

96 Moncrief 4.6reb/4.9ast/20.2pts on .604ts%
4th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Breuer became the starter still splitting time, Pressey as point forward

Moncrief was an incredible two way player. In a slightly weaker era, he might have led his team to one or two championships like a Chauncey Billups or Isiah Thomas but the one year they beat the Celtics (with great performance by Sid), they then ran into the "fo fo fo" Sixer team. But he was the clearly acknowledged leader of Milwaukee teams and led them to terrific defensive performances despite average defensive big men (Cummings doesn't have a good rep but is underrated but before him the starter was journeyman Mickey Johnson though Don Nelson liked to use Marques Johnson as PF and play 3 guards more than using Johnson).

Comparing Sidney to Chris Paul

Volume – Paul averaged 19.2ppg, Moncrief averaged 21.0ppg
Efficiency – Paul averaged .575, Moncrief .598ts%

And Moncrief did it on a much more balanced team which means he didn’t have as many opportunities as Paul (on the other hand he didn’t face as many defenses stacked against him).

Playoffs –
Volume – Paul 21.9, Moncrief 18.8 so they did switch volumes in the postseason
Efficiency – Paul .577, Moncrief .573ts% -- Moncreif slipped but only to a Chris Paul level

Moncrief does fall off in the playoffs (from facing Dennis Johnson and Maurice Cheeks every year?) but only down to Paul’s level of efficiency and not much behind him in scoring . . . and his team had more success over the 5 year peak than Paul’s, even beating the Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ Celtics once.

Paul does have much better assist numbers since he is a ball dominant PG rather than an off the ball SG, but are his offenses really better? Over the last 5 years, the NO offense has a averaged 15th ORTG in the league with only 1 top 10 year; Milwaukee was the 8th ranked offense in Moncrief’s period (and improved after Terry Cummings and Randy Breuer replaced Marques Johnson and Bob Lanier so it probably isn’t star power) with 2 top 10 years. Paul doesn’t seem to have a Steve Nash type effect here.

And defensively, Moncrief, the 2 time DPOY is considerably better than pretty much any other guard although I really like Paul’s defense. I love Chris Paul, but Moncrief was the better player.

[drza]

Just to be clear, the issue with Kidd is his overall offensive impact. And the closest argument we've seen in all these threads is drza pointing to a few good years in the middle of the decade of on/off numbers...which I suggest has to do with (a) Kidd being a good offensive player and (b) it being easier to elevate really bad offenses, especially given Kidd's skills/circumstance. (Note, for instance, in Kidd's only good run of in/out in 2005, the Nets ALSO didn't have Vince Carter for the first 16 games.)

But when you're "replacing" Kidd with Randy Livingston and Lucious Harris and you see little change in the offense, it suggests something, does it not?

A few things here.

1) Actually, I haven't been pointing out on/off numbers, I've been using RAPM...which is a key difference, especially with your follow-up rebuttals.

2) You've still never, to date, shown any evidence whatsoever that it is easier to post better APM numbers for teams that would otherwise be bad than it is to do so on teams that are good. You keep stating it, but so far have not supported it.

3) As mentioned in (1), your Livingston/Harris rebuttal might make sense for pure on/off numbers. But since APM is designed to account for that, your point doesn't address Kidd having great offensive RAPM numbers.

4) You mention Kidd measuring out great during "a few good years in the middle of the decade" as though those years were anomolous from the rest...like Kidd was measuring poorly, then had this inexplicable 4-year long run out of nowhere. That's not the case. The less misleading way to say it is that "in the first 4 years that we have access to full +/- data, which correspond with the end of Kidd's prime, he measures out among the best in the league in RAPM both on offense and in overall impact".

I think the main issue that I have with your handling of Kidd, and we've discussed this ad nauseum now so I don't expect to change your mind, but my main issue is that by every standard of impact measurements that we have, Kidd clearly has a big impact on his team's success. This can be shown, robustly, with progressively more player-specific methods of evaluating individual impact on team results. About the only level of controversy that I've seen is over whether that impact should be classified as more offensive or defensive, but whatever the breakdown, the overall impact is there and easily (and repeatably) measured.

As such, it seems strange to see such strenuous arguments against Kidd from people that I KNOW value team impact, with the only justification being that since we can't pin down exactly where the impact is coming from it must not be real. I'm not saying you or anyone else have to vote Kidd here...there's lots of room for interpretation in this and none of our methods are set-in-stone as the one correct way to do things. But to keep harping on Kidd not having an offensive impact, when a) our most specific impact measures say he does and b) if his impact isn't on offense, then Kidd is certainly having a huge impact SOMEWHERE because his overall impact shows up in every measure...it just seems strange. This is literally the only example I can remember where it seems like you and I are just arguing past each other to this extent. Even in cases when we've debated in the past, it normally feels like we're still on the same discussion plane but we just don't quite agree. With Kidd, it just seems like we're not even speaking the same language, and that's the part I don't get.

[ElGee]

^^^Did you miss my post about the on/off numbers??

[drza]

^^^Did you miss my post about the on/off numbers??

Your post about the on/off numbers? I thought you were saying that *I* was referencing the on/off numbers. Now I'm confused.

[ElGee]

I'm referencing this post that you never addressed: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1130780&start=90#p28830065

[drza]

I'm referencing this post that you never addressed: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1130780&start=90#p28830065

Just to be clear, the issue with Kidd is his overall offensive impact. And the closest argument we've seen in all these threads is drza pointing to a few good years in the middle of the decade of on/off numbers...(snip)

A few things here.

1) Actually, I haven't been pointing out on/off numbers, I've been using RAPM...which is a key difference, especially with your follow-up rebuttals.

There is some interesting data in that post, but again, we're arguing different things. That post again references raw on/off values, while I very specifically have been using Kidd's Adjusted +/- scores. For both of the specific examples that you give in the link you provide above, RAPM agrees with you:

Kobe - as you point out, there was very little to separate '06 and '07 Kobe, but you point out that '06 Kobe was +19 on/off while in '07 he was +6...a huge difference that otherwise seems unsupported. RAPM agrees with you, as Kobe finished in a similar position (13th in '06, 19th in '07) in both years.

Nash - again, as you point out, Nash's raw difference looked a lot higher in 2005 than in 2007 whereas you believe he was better in 2007. Again, RAPM agrees with you, as Nash finished 6th in '07 as opposed to finishing in the 30s in '05.

Again, APM isn't the same as looking at the raw numbers. Raw numbers are more easily fooled by team situation than the adjusted numbers are. Now, the adjusted +/- numbers (especially for single-year, even RAPM) aren't perfect by any means, but they have been designed to at least attempt to handle the issue that you point out. Which is, again, why I continue to say that I haven't seen any real evidence that playing on a better or worse team makes it any easier or harder to get good APM values.

[ElGee]

Just to be clear, the issue with Kidd is his overall offensive impact. And the closest argument we've seen in all these threads is drza pointing to a few good years in the middle of the decade of on/off numbers...which I suggest has to do with (a) Kidd being a good offensive player and (b) it being easier to elevate really bad offenses, especially given Kidd's skills/circumstance. (Note, for instance, in Kidd's only good run of in/out in 2005, the Nets ALSO didn't have Vince Carter for the first 16 games.)

But when you're "replacing" Kidd with Randy Livingston and Lucious Harris and you see little change in the offense, it suggests something, does it not?

A few things here.

1) Actually, I haven't been pointing out on/off numbers, I've been using RAPM...which is a key difference, especially with your follow-up rebuttals.

2) You've still never, to date, shown any evidence whatsoever that it is easier to post better APM numbers for teams that would otherwise be bad than it is to do so on teams that are good. You keep stating it, but so far have not supported it.

3) As mentioned in (1), your Livingston/Harris rebuttal might make sense for pure on/off numbers. But since APM is designed to account for that, your point doesn't address Kidd having great offensive RAPM numbers.

4) You mention Kidd measuring out great during "a few good years in the middle of the decade" as though those years were anomolous from the rest...like Kidd was measuring poorly, then had this inexplicable 4-year long run out of nowhere. That's not the case. The less misleading way to say it is that "in the first 4 years that we have access to full +/- data, which correspond with the end of Kidd's prime, he measures out among the best in the league in RAPM both on offense and in overall impact".

I think the main issue that I have with your handling of Kidd, and we've discussed this ad nauseum now so I don't expect to change your mind, but my main issue is that by every standard of impact measurements that we have, Kidd clearly has a big impact on his team's success. This can be shown, robustly, with progressively more player-specific methods of evaluating individual impact on team results. About the only level of controversy that I've seen is over whether that impact should be classified as more offensive or defensive, but whatever the breakdown, the overall impact is there and easily (and repeatably) measured.

As such, it seems strange to see such strenuous arguments against Kidd from people that I KNOW value team impact, with the only justification being that since we can't pin down exactly where the impact is coming from it must not be real. I'm not saying you or anyone else have to vote Kidd here...there's lots of room for interpretation in this and none of our methods are set-in-stone as the one correct way to do things. But to keep harping on Kidd not having an offensive impact, when a) our most specific impact measures say he does and b) if his impact isn't on offense, then Kidd is certainly having a huge impact SOMEWHERE because his overall impact shows up in every measure...it just seems strange. This is literally the only example I can remember where it seems like you and I are just arguing past each other to this extent. Even in cases when we've debated in the past, it normally feels like we're still on the same discussion plane but we just don't quite agree. With Kidd, it just seems like we're not even speaking the same language, and that's the part I don't get.

As for the rest of the points, I just don't find single-year RAPM numbers to be that convincing of much of anything, especially when I watched these guys so closely and we have so much data on them already. It's a large grain of salt, or as you said, you're using them as a sanity check. That said, Kidd's RAPM:

03 3.8 (5th) +2.4 Offense
04 4.5 (5th) +2.4 Off
05 5.4 (4th) +3.1 Off
06 5.2 (9th) +4.1 Off
07 2.4 (26th) +2.4 Off
08 2.8 (25th) +1.3 Off

10-yr ranking 4.7 (4.0 Off) 12th
His 6-year Ilardi APM (03-09, better for him) he's 20th in Offense at +4.3. He's slightly above average on defense, for 28th overall.

So...sanity checked. He was good. (Which of those numbers do you give deference to and why?) I told you where I ranked him throughout his peak, and these individual RAPM runs simply have him slightly better...how does that deviate from my categorizations of Kidd? Unless you're actually thinking he was the 5th-best player in the league for a number of years...and you really haven't presented anything to substantiate what RAPM claims.

So when I talk about non-adjusted concepts like Randy Livingston or Lucius Harris, and you cite RAPM numbers, I can only think you are giving those single-year RAPMs a ridiculous amount of weight (not a mere sanity check). We both know what RAPM tries to do. We just saw Kobe Bryant post a huge negative adjusted number. Samples are problematic. Stuff happens. Knowing the RAPM information, I'm asking how you account for what happened on those two teams if you hold Jason Kidd in such high regard (noting that I basically have him as a top-10 player in both seasons). Maybe you didn't watch those Suns or Nets teams, but it should come as a concern I think...

Now, you say " by every standard of impact measurements that we have, Kidd clearly has a big impact on his team's success."

I'm always open to new information. In this case, I don't see what you're referring to? Do you mean that all indications point to Kidd being like a top-8 or top-12 player in the league for a number of years? Well, that's exactly how I categorize him...and he ends up in the 50s for me. I just don't see how that kind of player is better than the next 15 or so available candidates.

The offense/defense thing is the crux of the issue. You keep referring to Kidd's impact as "huge." How is it huge? The team shifts when he changes clubs aren't huge. The in/out data from 3 seasons isn't huge. The APM and RAPM numbers are all very good. His raw stats aren't great (big deal). Overall, I see the metrics reporting on a very good player. Why is he very good? IMO, he's a positive on offense and one of the GOAT defensive PG's (maybe even guards). The overall result is a top-10 player. You keep making it sound like Kidd's Kevin Garnett or something and we'll just sort out the noise later. Illardi's APM has the following big-minute players over him:

KG (+14.1) -- in
LeBron (+9.5) -- in
Manu (+8.2) -- not nominated
Duncan (+8.0) -- in
Wade (+8.0) -- in
Paul (+7.5) -- can't get nominated to save his life
Artest (+7.3) -- Is he in the top 100?
Kobe (+7.1) -- in
B. Davis (+6.8) -- top 100?
Pierce (+6.5) -- nominated
Nash (+6.5) -- in
Kirilenko (+6.4) -- not nominated
Dirk (+6.1) -- in
Yao (+6.0) -- not nominated
Aldridge (+5.8)
Jamison (+5.7)
Gasol (+5.5) -- not nominated
B. Miller (+5.2)
McGrady (+5.1) -- nominated
Kidd (+4.8)

By z-score, Kidd is 1.4. Call me a nerd, but I tend not to think of 1.4 z-scores as having "huge" impact in their distributions...

What about longevity? When do you think his first top-10 season was? I have it as 1999, although as I said I'm open to re-examining 97 or 98 (but I watched those years closely with league pass and the dude just wasn't as good...) and ending in 04. Then I've got him holding onto to borderline AS-level play through 2007.

Conversely, Paul Pierce, a player I'm about to vote in, is someone Kidd can't claim to have a peak edge over, only Pierce has been pretty close to holding the same level of play from about 02-09, with higher quality peripheral seasons than Kidd's in 01, 10 and 11. 8 years to 6. Better prime and better peripheral seasons. Easier/better to build around and fits on more teams IMO...that's why it's Pierce by a good amount (player's are obviously more jammed together here such that the difference betweeen 35 and 50 might be the difference between 20 and 25).

And I realize that the people who need to read this probably aren't, and the drive-by-voters at times are dominating this project's results without feeding it at all (or providing any explanations) and that the project is on the verge of becoming a free for all. C'est la vie. At least we're bonding.

[drza]

Now, you say " by every standard of impact measurements that we have, Kidd clearly has a big impact on his team's success."

I'm always open to new information. In this case, I don't see what you're referring to? Do you mean that all indications point to Kidd being like a top-8 or top-12 player in the league for a number of years? Well, that's exactly how I categorize him...and he ends up in the 50s for me. I just don't see how that kind of player is better than the next 15 or so available candidates.

I snipped here from what was probably the best post exchange we've had in our many conversations, because this is a specific question that I have the means to answer fairly quickly (I have to leave soon). But to your last quoted point (and also your reference to Pierce's peak being higher later), that is where I disagree and have been using the RAPM data to help me quantify. But I digress, first let me answer your question:

What are the ways that we have to estimate how much impact a player might have on the team's outcome? Well, to me there are iterations of methods that we can use, each getting less-and-less influenced by team/circumstance and more specific to the player himself. Each answers questions that were left open by the previous method. APM is the top of the heap, but we only have APM for the most recent generation. But we've been estimating player impact as best we can on back to the 50s. Using those methods for Kidd, from most general to most specific we'd see:

*General team success, how does this player's team do? Over the decade from the 1998 season thru the 2007 season, Kidd’s teams (Pho 98 - 01: 56, 27/50, 53, 51; Jersey 02 – 07: 52,49,47,42,49,41) had 4 50+ win seasons and 2 more 49s and never finished below .500. So, on the whole, Kidd's teams tend to be pretty successful but not dominant. OK, but that tells us about his teams, not his individual impact. So, let's start looking at some transition points.

*So, what happens to teams when Kidd arrives/leaves? Well, both times that Kidd changed teams within that decade window, his new team improved dramatically the next year (+16 wins in Pho ’98, +26 wins in NJ ‘02) and his old teams declined (-4 wins in Dallas ’98, -15 in Phoe ’02). Of course, this could be circumstantial, as Kidd wasn’t the only new addition/key loss in either trade

*So, what happens to Kidd's teams within the season, when Kidd has to miss time?
Well, according to your SIO method, Kidd missed 46 games in 2000, 2004, and 2005 and his measured SIO of 3.9 is both positive and higher than...Kobe (3.7 in 79 games), Barkley (3.5 in 100 games), Cowens (3.0 in 47 games), Pierce (2.7 in 46 games), Ewing (2.6 in 31 games), Baylor (2.4 in 66 games), and Drexler (1.7 in 90 games) ( viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1128625 ).

A similar but alternative in-season method was used by the Rodman website, where he used both a win% and a margin of victory measure to judge players (player must have both missed and played in at least 15 games for a team within a season with over 3000 minutes total of game action missed, 164 players total since 1986). Kidd (data from 1997, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008) measures 4th overall, among the 164 eligible players, and the rest of the top-5 are Rodman, Shaq, Barkley and Kobe (http://skepticalsports.com/wp-content/u ... humb27.png ). There are many other great players among the 164, guys that we have already voted onto this list. (The author's methods and results for the win% and MoV calculations listed separately here (http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1181 ) and here (http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1143 ) ). But not every player misses enough games to be directly compared in this manner, and the sample sizes of missed games even for those on the list are still relatively small

* With the advent of +/- stats through 82games.com starting for the 2002-03 season, what does Kidd look like in net on-court/off-court impact? This is similar to the above method, but more rigorous and kept for all players in the NBA at that time. Here are Kidd's results from the start of the data (2003) through 2007 (all numbers from 82games.com):
o 2003: +10.0 (10th in NBA)
o 2004: +12.6 (4th in NBA)
o 2005: +16.0 (2nd in NBA)
o 2006: +12.1 (unsure of ranking)
o 2007: +8.3 (unsure of ranking)

But as you've pointed out in our discussion many times, these numbers can be skewed by factors such as starter strength vs bench strength, rotations, team caliber, or any of the other factors that have led to the advent of adjusted plus minus.

*So, what does APM say about Kidd in these years? RAPM:

o 2003: +3.8 (5th in NBA)
o 2004: +4.5 (5th in NBA)
o 2005: +5.4 (4th in NBA)
o 2006: +5.2 (9th in NBA)
o 2007: +2.4 (26th in NBA)

Conclusion: When I say that Kidd's impact was huge I'm not saying that he was Garnett or LeBron...both have been voted in a long time now. What I AM saying is that, compared to the players of his generation that are left, Kidd's impact is huge. He was solidly higher than Pierce in each of the 4 years between 2003 and 2006, and these were years that both of them could still be argued to be in their peak. In 2007, when Kidd was in his mid/late 30s and obviously slowing down, was the first time that Pierce caught him and Pierce never turned in a higher mark than Kidd until a year later in 2008.

So, outside of the fact that when I watched prime Kidd and prime Pierce I thought he was a better player (any man's opinion is subjective). Outside of the fact that Kidd's career accolades are much better than Pierce's, and he had much more team success without any obvious superstar teammate help (regardless, these things can be majorly influenced by team caliber and we aren't here to judge teammates). On top of that, by the sequence of quantitative means that we've been using to try to estimate a player's impact on overall team success, Kidd always measures out as a great player. Not just a good one. Or, to put it differently, he consistently measured out as higher than the other players of his generation that are currently in the discussion.

Would any of those 3 things, alone, be enough to make me so confident in my Kidd vote here? Probably not. But when we're talking about someone that I watched a lot of, very recently, and have a solid opinion on...and when both the accolades AND the individual impact stats agree that said guy was as good as I thought he was and better than his contemporaries, then yeah, I'm going to be pretty confident in voting him over them.

[Fencer reregistered]

Vote: Pierce, again
Nominate: Cousy, again

The Pierce case is pretty clear, and I've discussed him at length in numerous other threads, so I'll let that sit.

As for Cousy:

1. He has very favorable volume stats, both personal and team.
2. He has lousy team efficiency stats.
3. He has average personal efficiency stats, when compared with other guys who played similar roles in the same era.
4. He has great accolades.
5. He won a whole lot of championships. Thus, it is hard to say he should have changed his game so as to help his team win more.
6. His off-court intangibles were hugely important to his team. Yes, caring for the black guys seems just like human decency to us now, but it was a very big deal then.
7. Those same off-court intangibles were hugely important to the game of basketball overall. The mixed-race success of the Celtics was a Very Big Deal.
8. He is in the top 4 NBA players to change how the game is played, along with Mikan, Russell, and whoever invented the jump shot. (Other changes had less identifiable single authors. Baylor/Erving/Jordan taken together are clearly at that level of impact, but no one of them quite is.)

So unless I'm missing something, leaving Cousy off the list is all about efficiency. And as I've argued in recent threads, that's much overstated, because he was directed to run a high-speed, low-efficiency offense that turned out to work very well.

It really doesn't matter if you think it's CORRECT that fast break offense let's one clean the glass enough to make up for your misses, or pressures the opposing defense enough that they don't do well on offense, or whatever. It's only necessary for you to agree that it is a REASONABLE opinion. And given that the Celtics won the championship every year, it's hard to argue that "What we're doing works" was an UNreasonable opinion at the time.

Separately, it's an empirical fact that both sides ran a lot more in a Celtics game than they would in other NBA games, and that's an unusual circumstance -- notably in causing fatigue -- which naturally reduces efficiency for BOTH teams.

[therealbig3]

Vote: Pierce
Nominate: KJ

So Pierce has done nothing in the last 2 years but he's got a huge boost from no.76 to now 30 sth?
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=880916

It kind of annoys me how people continue to look at past rankings to decide where people should rank now, especially when I've already responded to people bringing up past rankings. Havlicek was ranked 14th last time...he dropped to 29. Cousy hasn't even been nominated yet, and he was 29th last time. Gilmore was actually ranked higher in 08, yet people act like he got this huge boost in rankings now that we are looking at individual ability. Dirk didn't make top 40 in 08. The point I'm making is that it's not like everything else has stayed consistent, so to act like that list serves as a reference point at all doesn't make sense to me.

1. That ranking you're referring to was about career accomplishments (IOW, not ranking how good of a player a guy was), so it's pretty much two entirely different criteria, which is why we're coming up with two entirely different lists.

2. Pierce has always been underrated, so him being low on a previous list means nothing to me.

3. It sounds to me you're just saying to yourself "Well, he can't possibly jump 40 spots from last time!", without actually evaluating him (and again, you're comparing him to a list that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant to this one).

If the above is true, I just think you're doing a disservice to the project, as is anyone who continually refuses to follow the project criteria of "judge a player by how good he is"...it's fine to disagree, and to think another player should be ranked higher...but citing MVP awards, All-NBA honors, rings, and generally positive media perception doesn't cut it as "evidence" imo. All of that can easily go to an inferior player...look at Rose vs Wade in 2011...Rose is not as good as Wade, yet Rose made 1st team over him and won MVP. Again, I can see someone using that last sentence as "evidence" that Rose actually was better...but nothing objective backs that up, as far as I can tell.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm having a hard time justifying Cousy over Arizin and Schayes. Those 2 guys had overlapping careers with Cousy, were better statistically, were similarly top 5 MVP vote and 1st team All-NBA mainstays, and were good enough to be best team on a title team guys in the post shot clock era. Those guys were every bit the superstars Cousy was and size up better statistically because they shoot higher percentages than their peers. As far as I can tell a SF with Arizin's scoring ability and a stretch PF like Schayes would hold up better than a gunner PG without a jumpshot. On the RPOY Schayes ranked 23rd, Arizin 35th (Cousy - 31st). I think all 3 deserve consideration soon but I'd go Schayes and Arizin before Cousy, after looking at it their cases look all around more impressive to me

[Fencer reregistered]

I'm having a hard time justifying Cousy over Arizin and Schayes. Those 2 guys had overlapping careers with Cousy, were better statistically, were similarly top 5 MVP vote and 1st team All-NBA mainstays, and were good enough to be best team on a title team guys in the post shot clock era. Those guys were every bit the superstars Cousy was and size up better statistically because they shoot higher percentages than their peers. As far as I can tell a SF with Arizin's scoring ability and a stretch PF like Schayes would hold up better than a gunner PG without a jumpshot. On the RPOY Schayes ranked 23rd, Arizin 35th (Cousy - 31st). I think all 3 deserve consideration soon but I'd go Schayes and Arizin before Cousy, after looking at it their cases look all around more impressive to me

I give Cousy huge credit for innovation.

That he didn't ALSO innovate the jumpshot does not, for me, detract from what he did bring to the game.

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way, it's not accurate that Arizin and Schayes matched Cousy in accolades. Arizin didn't even come close, missing All-NBA teams for a number of years mid-career, and only once ever placing ahead of Cousy in MVP voting and then only by a single slot. Arizin even missed some all-star games mid-career.

Schayes fell a little short of Cousy in accolades too, although in his case I'll grant that the difference is so small as not to matter. (Cousy did have 4 top-4 MVP finishes to Schayes' 1, however.)

[Lever2Beaver]

By the way, it's not accurate that Arizin and Schayes matched Cousy in accolades. Arizin didn't even come close, missing All-NBA teams for a number of years mid-career, and only once ever placing ahead of Cousy in MVP voting and then only by a single slot. Arizin even missed some all-star games mid-career.

Schayes fell a little short of Cousy in accolades too, although in his case I'll grant that the difference is so small as not to matter. (Cousy did have 4 top-4 MVP finishes to Schayes' 1, however.)

This is an example of exactly what I find so absurd
The guy doesn't have any clue yet he has to be heard
I've read no less than hundred times of Arizin in the military
the opinions expressed here are nothing short of scary
This is the danger of starting with an opinion
Read up on the subject first, instead of talking, try listenin'
Arizin never missed the all-star game in his career
Yet obviously he shouldn't be ranked above Paul Pierce

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way, it's not accurate that Arizin and Schayes matched Cousy in accolades. Arizin didn't even come close, missing All-NBA teams for a number of years mid-career, and only once ever placing ahead of Cousy in MVP voting and then only by a single slot. Arizin even missed some all-star games mid-career.

Schayes fell a little short of Cousy in accolades too, although in his case I'll grant that the difference is so small as not to matter. (Cousy did have 4 top-4 MVP finishes to Schayes' 1, however.)

This is an example of exactly what I find so absurd
The guy doesn't have any clue yet he has to be heard
I've read no less than hundred times of Arizin in the military
the opinions expressed here are nothing short of scary
This is the danger of starting with an opinion
Read up on the subject first, instead of talking, try listenin'
Arizin never missed the all-star game in his career
Yet obviously he shouldn't be ranked above Paul Pierce

Oh, my error. Actually, it was military service that caused him to miss a couple of seasons and, hence, all-star games.

But the point regarding all-NBA teams still stands.

Did Arizin actually invent or reinvent the jumpshot? That would move him up the rankings in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_shot_%28basketball%29 shows that in he in no way truly invented it, but if he was the first guy to use it effectively, that would count in my book as well.

[Lever2Beaver]

Did Arizin actually invent or reinvent the jumpshot? That would move him up the rankings in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_shot_%28basketball%29 shows that in he in no way truly invented it, but if he was the first guy to use it effectively, that would count in my book as well.

In his own words, it was not, Pitchin' Paul's invention
Joe Fulks, Kenny Sailors are among those, predecessors that he mentions
As pioneering the art of leaving your feet before you shoot
But Paul with the ball was most accurate of all, and an NBA Champ to boot.

[pancakes3]

@ drza.

The impact of poor efficiency, with respect to these players, is easily negated by the other positives, both tangible in statistics and intangible in leadership and defensive ability.

Let's take a dividing figure, Jason Kidd. Everyone looks at his FG% and question it, perhaps rightly so. His career average FG% is 40.1%; and he's taken an average of 11.7 FG per game. Career highs being 44.4% and 16 FGA, in separate seasons. Broadly, 41% and 14 FGA was the consistent average in his prime.

So let's analyse those 14 shots. At 41%, it means he's making 5.6 shots a game. With a fantastic efficiency of 50%, he'd be making 7 shots per game. So that's a difference of 1.4 Field Goals Made, or missed, depending on how you look at it. Ultimately, he'd be giving the opposition 1.4 extra possessions, or opportunities per game through defensive rebounds, than a super efficient guy. That probably equates to less than 2pts per game, on average.

It's really not a lot, not a legitimate argument to write off someone like Kidd; because I'm certain his defence, rebounding and passing more than makes up for 2ppg on any other point guard left in this comparison.

by that logic if Iverson had improved his chucking 25 shots a game at ~42% up to a more respectable 45% like Kobe, Tmac, Pierce, Vince, etc. he would only be making 1 extra bucket a game. Take away those 2 points and make him a 28-29ppg instead of a 30-31 ppg... doesn't he deserve to get more love hereabouts?

[ElGee]

@drza. Good post. Really enjoyed it, and will try and navigate through briefly.

I like hashing these things out, especially when I see it differently, because it really helps me telescope my opinion on a player (which, for the modern guys, is already rooted in a lot of information). I'm appreciating some of Kidd's other years more and think he's right with KJ in the 40s somewhere...but still can't justify him over a number of players on the board. Specifically:

Team Success --> we know in Kidd's sample size of 2 there are other factors:
-Dal was -5.3 before the trade and -6.8 after the trade.
-Pho was 0-11 to start with KJ out, Cotton fired, Horry's meltdown, etc. The Suns were +5.0 with Kidd (from -0.6 to +4.4) after those 11 games...I'd be inclined to say that there was something about his role (alongside KJ?) that worked well there.

-Pho also had a coaching change in 02 and a small shift in ORtg.
-NJN basically added Kittles, 1/2 season of Van Horn, 14g Martin and rookie Jefferson

In/Out and SIO --> Well, that's an excellent point. His 3-year run is solid.

But I didn't include his 97 numbers, because I'm not sure that's fair to him. If we did, his SIO drops to 0.6. Basically, having no change on a -6 team as was the case in Dallas is a really bad thing.

Conclusion --> Nothing wrong with saying peak Kidd is better than peak Pierce -- I have them on the same level.

I'm taking Pierce in more situations though, because I don't think Kidd is helping a great team that much on offense without his recently developed jumper. That's problematic for me, and as I've said, I don't think he's going to make good offensive players great necessarily. He's hard for me to fit into great teams (and I definitely have a biased for building championship-level teams, as I've mentioned).

My overall career value on these guys goes something like:
(1) Pierce
(2) McGrady
(3 Kidd
(4) Paul
(5) Howard
(6) Iverson

Although hard to call Paul and Howard contemporaries. That means Kidd's behind about 8 guys we've already voted in. Doesn't that seem right to you? From say, 99-07 did you really think of him as better a player than Duncan, KG, Shaq, Kobe, Wade (05-06), McGrady, Nash, Dirk?? Even Pierce and Manu were there, no? (I'm excluding single-year guys like 04 Peja or 06 Brand or whatever)

Now you seem to have him above Pierce. I'll say that he was better than Pierce in their playoff series...but a lot of that had very little to do with Paul Pierce or Kidd IMO. Kidd absolutely destroyed Kenny Anderson -- someone who drove me nuts as a basketball player -- and Walker was basically rendered useless by Kenyon Martin. Which made Kidd's job easy and Pierce's tricky. It's a testament to Kidd's best years (02 and 03) but I don't think it's fair to conclude he was clearly better than Pierce from those series. I mean, it was other Nets players who also gave Boston fits in those 2 series...it was clearly a better team.

Then consider that Pierce has a longevity/consistency edge that I've outlined, as well as fitting on more teams (you may disagree -- why? or you may not have this criterion on your radar.)

I've discussed Pierce and McGrady as a coin flip in detail for many threads. CP3 Miller too -- are you just low on Reggie? (I gather you don't take peak as important as I do.) Mourning (surprised you like Kidd over him), Howard (again, case seems solid), and guys like Hayes, McHale and Lanier. KJ is a decent argument too. Pierce and Paul do better in Ilardi and Engelmann and Howard better in the 10-year RAPM too, FWIW.

Btw, Hayes and Lanier are getting no love. I'm going to have to go on a simultaneous campaign for Marques, Lanier, Big E, Penny and Grant Hill. Who wants to help?