RealGM Top 100 List #4

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,738
And1: 5,709
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#441 » by An Unbiased Fan » Mon Jul 7, 2014 8:48 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:I think Hakeem's peak offense surpasses KGs but it's not clear to me that such was the
Case consistently in his prime.

I consider KGs most noteworthy defensive attribute to be a GOAT level defensive floor general and I've yet to see anything to indicate I should see Hakeem on that level. I might yet but I would never assume such a thing.

to the statements about Garnett not always being able I lead teams to contention, well, I suppose that I consider it a
Central thesis that that is a limitation of players in general.

Hmmm, but if KG was a GOAT level defensive floor general, why were Minny's defenses so weak in his prime? Defensively, Duncan/Hakeem/DRob/Ewing/Deke/Mourning all led better defenses. I know with Nash's offensive impact, you cite his team ORtgs often. So I'm just trying to see how KG is up there with the others when his team DRtgs are so weak before he went to Boston.

I've always seen KG as more of a Rodman styled defender who's great at versatility, but not a dominant defensive anchor on the level of Russ/TD/Hakeem and others in team impact. Hakeem seems to have better offensive & defensive impact...does he not?
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
User avatar
MacGill
Veteran
Posts: 2,769
And1: 568
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: From Parts Unknown...
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#442 » by MacGill » Mon Jul 7, 2014 8:49 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
MacGill wrote:Wilt….as great as the numbers were, didn't have the same fundamentals and while others will say the coulda woulda shoulda's with him, it is all speculation to what the limited footage all shows us if we're being honest in compared to Shaq.


If I judged by fundamentals then these 2 lousy free throw shooters would not be in my Top 100.

I'm not judging by style points, or how they would fit in today's game. Nor am I trying to judge how LeBron would have done in the 60s.



There are a lot og guys in my Top 100 who wouldn't pass the fundamentals test- besides Wilt and Shaq I would add
Walt Frazier and Artis Gilmore right off the top of my head.

Shaq was pretty raw when he started, but improved his footwork and fundamentals while in the league.

Wilt's fundamentals were never great, but he was a decent ball-handler and passer.


Well I applaud you for this. Note I am not deliberately making the case about you, it's generic and I will add more, but that is alot of what I am reading here. These things are statements of a general nature but here is what I must think some are assuming.

Wilt played on Harlem Globetrotters so he must be wicket on the ball like the And ! crew or current Globetrotters. Not that he had huge hands and was the largest basketball player during that time who was a great athlete.

What we have to remember, as was pointed out in some of the Russell thread was that offenses/defenses weren't as complicated then. So having Wilt and Shaq, both ahead of their time who logically is going to look like the lesser liability here? And who is going to look much more of the superman against their peers? The fact that Shaq dominated the league at it's higher state of play to me speaks more volume about just how much better he was offensively.

Shaq was like Wilt earlier on using his size and power but to me in watching tape was always ahead of Wilt here. For a 7 footer, Shaq was just more fluid in the post and knew how to use his body much better, and he only got better. Again, these are centers, not guards, so what I am saying is the way 3's4's, hell even 1's come to strip the ball, Wilt seemed more basic when it came to dribbling, head down looking at the ball. He had those huge hands where he could bring the ball up above him, where no one could really get it which allowed him the time to survey the court. When you watch 00 Shaq against Portland, you just see how good he is at getting the ball to a teammate. A willing passer and unlike Wilt, often didn't get the re-entry pass back.

To put more perspective here, I don't think the rebounding edge outs Shaq's offensive edge to me. Shaq's passing was great for a big and outside of situational differences of roles, Wilt shouldn't be given additional credit for higher assist numbers here. He was also given a lionshare portion for the offense but was less efficient than Shaq even though he had some seasons with fantastic FG%'s. Context needs to be used here. Put Shaq on the Heat and make him the 5th option for offensive scoring but have him dish out the rock. Who doesn't think that his skill set couldn't do this? It's not a era difference/bias point, we know he can pass, rebound and play defense. Just when your scoring the ball in the manner he does with the contact and players he's up against, something has to give.
Image
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#443 » by E-Balla » Mon Jul 7, 2014 8:52 pm

PaulieWal wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:snip....


I already said he had a horrible Finals, no one is arguing that. I was specifically talking about his 3 point shot deserting him against Dallas when he was shooting 44% against Boston and 39% against the Bulls from 3. Against the Dallas as they zoned him up he did not have outside shooting to bail him out. Wade already had a great Finals and he shared the floor with Dallas paying a lot of attention to LeBron. If there is no LeBron, Wade gets a lot more defensive attention and that may or may not translate into Wade playing even better. Replacing LeBron with Battier doesn't bring Miami close to a title. That's quite laughable.

The most important thing for me is that he improved his game (post game and specifically shooting) and used those to win rings in 12/13. His 3 point shooting has improved gradually and has been consistently 36%+ over the last 3 years.

Lebron improving his game in 2012 is the only reason I put him in the next bunch of guys.

And I'm not trying to convince you Lebron had a horrible Finals but I'm trying to explain how horrible he was. Yes he was horrible enough to where any above average (or even average - like Trevor Ariza) SF would've changed the series enough for Miami to win. You're saying Wade would've gotten more attention if Lebron wasn't there but he was standing out to the side out of the play for half of the series. You just said they ran a zone - did they run a special Lebron zone where everything rotated around Lebron? No they ran a regular zone that even affected D. Wade because he doesn't have a jumpshot. Lebron being on the floor in that series outside of game 1 and half of game 2 hurt Miami.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,738
And1: 5,709
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#444 » by An Unbiased Fan » Mon Jul 7, 2014 8:53 pm

colts18 wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:1) But the context is different from the mins a guy like Kobe spends on court vs off court. We're talking about maybe a 5-6 min 2nd & 4th quarter strecth where its bench vs bench, in comparison to 36 mins of Kobe on court vs starters. Nevermind the lineup fluctuations whcih only deepens the endless noise. RAPM's problem has always been its very premise.

What good offensive players was prime Kobe shutting/slowing down in the playoffs?

Kidd/Rondo/Westbrook off the top of my head. But what does your question even have to do with the discussion about merits of RAPM? I have no interest in drifting into another tangent.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
MisterWestside
Starter
Posts: 2,449
And1: 596
Joined: May 25, 2012

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#445 » by MisterWestside » Mon Jul 7, 2014 8:53 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:When RAPM first came about, its backers openly said it shouldn't be used in comparisons. But over the years thats exactly what's happened.


This isn't completely correct, but for once on this board, you're not off-base with your comments.
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,861
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#446 » by drza » Mon Jul 7, 2014 8:54 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
drza wrote:Let's start with that latter. As I've pointed out, RAPM isn't a standalone measure of "goodness". On the other hand, it is the best measure we currently have to tie a team's performance to a certain player that doesn't involve using the box score. The box score has its uses as well, but I'm one that likes to keep them as separate measures. But I digress. This is also the best measure that we have for gauging a player's defensive impact, since so much of defense isn't covered in the box scores.

Thus, if someone says Kobe Bryant was an "elite" defender early in his career, I would expect there to be some sign of it in the RAPM studies. I'm not saying that he needed to measure out as well as the ATG bigs in order to impress me, but there have been LOTS of good defensive wings whose impact shows up clearly in the RAPM data. Shane Battier, Ron Artest, Luol Deng, Eddie Jones, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Andre Iguodala and Manu Ginobili are all wings that show up among the top-52 players in Doc MJ's normalized data set. Each of them had very clear defensive impact from the wing, on the order of + 3.2 - +4.3 on that scale in their 5-year defensive peaks.

No offence, but RAPM is based on rotation trends, and doesn't show impact. The defensive wings you named are all specialist who don't play heavy minutes
and are part of defensive-mind lineups. I don't get the reasoning of taking 7-8 mins that a star is on the bench, and comparing it to the 36-37 he's on court as if the situations are equal. Guys like Kobe/Wade are listed as equal to Derek Fisher for godsake. :lol:

Ask yourself, was Rashard a more impactful defender than Dwight in 2009? Because Lewis was 2.6, and Dwight (DPOY, weak defensive cast, #1 DRtg for Orl) was only 2. Someone is gonna have to explain why RAPM is legit, because time and time again we see bizarre yearly results. BTW, Odom was 3.9 on defense.....so um, how would Orlando have done with him anchoring the defense?


Be careful not to overstate your case to the point that you ignore facts. None of the players that I named were part-time specialists...I specifically didn't include Tony Allen, for example, because he's primarily a bench player. And these guys don't play heavy minutes? Deng and Iguodala have LED THE NBA IN MINUTES/game in 3 of the last 6 years. These were not wings that were making their marks in "7-8 minutes that a star is on the bench". Come on, now.

That said, to your criticism, I say to flesh out your counter-examples. As I pointed out in the very quote you used, RAPM isn't a measure of goodness. It very specifically attempts to answer the question of how a team's performance can be tied to a certain player. Some of that, as you point out, is based on how a player is used. Some of it also may tie to collinearity and/or a player's back-up, though that isn't as prevalent in RAPM as in previous approaches. And (key), many of these issues come out in the wash when examining over a large period of time.

So in the case of the 2009 Magic, it does seem strange to see Lewis ranked higher than Howard. But again: RAPM traces team scoring trends, NOT the players goodness at something. And as you look closer, you see that the Van Gundy defense in Orlando relied a lot on having a long, mobile PF that could press out to the 3-point line. Plus, with Howard and Gortat as the two centers, the PF didn't have to be that good at defensive rebounding...his mobility, length and effort would be more important. This role played right to Lewis' strengths, so it's not shocking that Lewis might have been a person of interest in that particular defense. However, Lewis clearly never replicated that level of impact in any other system, so it is obvious that his positive results were tied very specifically to that team situation.

Howard, on the other hand, had never measured out as a big impact defender before 2009 anyway (which makes sense for a young big that relied on his athleticism and may not have understood defense yet). Howard's defensive RAPM in 2009 was a high-water mark at the time, but his defensive RAPM got progressively larger from 2009 to 2010 to 2011 to 2012. In those last two years he measured out as among the best marks in the league. Not coincidentally, Lewis was gone in those two years to be replaced minutes-wise by Brandon Bass (2011) and Ryan Anderson (2012), neither of whom had the same length/mobility that Lewis had. Perhaps this required Howard to have to do more on defense to make up for slower-footed 4s, and this reflected in the defense tracking more closely with Howard? Or, maybe Howard was just getting better as a defender each year as he approached his peak, which also makes sense.

Anyway, Howard clearly measures out on the whole as an excellent defender using RAPM (though never really to the level of a multiple DPoY...this could be worth further discussion when Howard really enters the conversation) and Lewis clearly doesn't, outside of this one specific case that played right to his strengths. Plus, finding one year counterintuitive results doesn't in any way address Kobe's ultra-consistent lack of measured defensive impact over a 15 year sample. I mean, was he NEVER in a position to make a measurable defensive mark? While the vast majority of the actually elite defensive wings (that he was consistently beating out for defensive honors) did, repeatedly? This doesn't strike you as an odd occurrence that goes well beyond coincidence? Lightening happened to strike the same place 15 times in a row?
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#447 » by ceiling raiser » Mon Jul 7, 2014 8:57 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:1) But the context is different from the mins a guy like Kobe spends on court vs off court. We're talking about maybe a 5-6 min 2nd & 4th quarter strecth where its bench vs bench, in comparison to 36 mins of Kobe on court vs starters. Nevermind the lineup fluctuations whcih only deepens the endless noise. RAPM's problem has always been its very premise.

2) OK, What about Vlade Divac being rated a better defender than Dwight? Was 09 Odom a better defender than 09 Lebron like RAPM suggests? Was 2009 Billups a big negative on defense, and 09 Fisher a big plus?

1) That's exactly why I said that you should compare players in similar roles. I don't understand what you're trying to say with the bolded. The lineup fluctuations ARE the input data for RAPM. It's not noise, that's what RAPM is evaluating. It's looking at all the actual lineup combinations, and finding the best fit based on them. If you're suggesting that you're not as confident in what small bunches of possessions bunched together tell us, that's fine, but it would be very difficult to prove that.

2) RAPM isn't meant to be compared from year-to-year (Dwight and Divac). Doc provided normalized RAPM here:

viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1313139

if you want to compare from year-to-year. In general though, note that there are separate regressions for calculating RAPM and determining splits. I said this earlier in the thread:

I've only been playing around with RAPM for a few months, but the method I've been using to calculate RAPM (which is similar to calculating APM, though it uses the glmnet package instead) has two phases (after the data is prepared):

1) Run one regression to produce coefficients (total RAPM values).
2) After modifying the data (changing all values of players to 1, whether they're home or away in a lineup...in calculating total RAPM, 1 indicates a player on the home team, -1 indicates a player on the away team, 0 means the player isn't on the floor; the dependent variable is changed from "margin" to "diffOD", which is =100*(HomePts/HomePoss) + 100*(AwayPts/AwayPoss) as well), run a second regression to calculate the difference between offense and defense. The coefficients here are used to calculate offense (ORAPM = (RAPM + result from second regression) / 2) and defense (DRAPM = (RAPM - result from second regression) / 2) for each player.


I'm not sure why you're comparing LeBron/Odom and Fisher/Billups. In the post you quoted, I noted that we shouldn't be comparing players in different roles to one another.

When RAPM first came about, its backers openly said it shouldn't be used in comparisons. But over the years thats exactly what's happened. Even more, the use of RAPM seems inconsistent & haphazard, which only makes it more questionable. Duncan for instance has better RAPM numbers than KG, yet....I see RAPM as a the major reasoning for KG at #4. For me there's a disconnect, especially when most of the list don't have RAPM numbers to compare. What if we had RAPM stats on MJ and his trend was the same as Kobe/Wade? Would that make him less of a player?

Every other stat has direct correlations we can quantify. RAPM has never show correlation to actual impact.


1) It's not meant to be used for direct comparisons of random players, but if we have two guys in similar roles, it can tell us a lot.

2) This is false. Make sure you're looking at prior-informed RAPM.

3) This is a good point, and it's a big reason why it's difficult to compare players prior to the RAPM-era (96-97, the first season for which play-by-play data is available) to those before. It was mentioned earlier in this thread by a few posters that Robinson might do far better in comparisons, like a KG, if the data was available. For the record though, we have two late career seasons worth of data for MJ (96-97 and 97-98), and he rates very favorably in both.

4) The bolded statement frustrates me, as I've seen it thrown around a lot on here recently. How can something show a correlation with "impact" when the people suggesting that there is no correlation have not defined impact? From Merriam-Webster:

im·pact verb \im-ˈpakt\
: to have a strong and often bad effect on (something or someone)

: to hit (something) with great force


Isn't that exactly what RAPM is doing? It's looking to isolate each player's contributions by finding the best fit (using ridge regression, which is a modified version of OLS used because there are so many more lineups than there are players), on the basis of:

1) Lineups the player is in and finds himself facing.
2) How well the lineups perform while the player is on the floor.

As long as we're comparing players in similar roles, I fail to see how a better metric exists to discern a fuzzy concept like "impact".

Obviously it's not perfect since we don't have infinitely many possessions for players, but as J.E. noted on APBRmetrics, the results tend to flatten out after 5000 possessions. I don't use RAPM as the sole basis of evaluation when comparing any two players, but if we're looking to isolate impact, and I can only look at one number, it's going to be some flavor of normalized, prior-informed RAPM.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
User avatar
PaulieWal
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 13,909
And1: 16,218
Joined: Aug 28, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#448 » by PaulieWal » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:00 pm

GC Pantalones wrote:Lebron improving his game in 2012 is the only reason I put him in the next bunch of guys.

And I'm not trying to convince you Lebron had a horrible Finals but I'm trying to explain how horrible he was. Yes he was horrible enough to where any above average (or even average - like Trevor Ariza) SF would've changed the series enough for Miami to win. You're saying Wade would've gotten more attention if Lebron wasn't there but he was standing out to the side out of the play for half of the series. You just said they ran a zone - did they run a special Lebron zone where everything rotated around Lebron? No they ran a regular zone that even affected D. Wade because he doesn't have a jumpshot. Lebron being on the floor in that series outside of game 1 and half of game 2 hurt Miami.


This is completely false. Firstly, Wade was seeing more single coverage than LeBron was in that series. Game 3 onwards, Miami made a conscious decision to run everything Wade and LeBron deferred willingly almost to a fault (maybe that was his fault, pun intended). If you replace LeBron with Ariza or Battier type of player, the Mavs would adjust their defensive scheme and pay more attention to Wade. LeBron was playing horribly but the Mavs were still focused on him, saying otherwise is simply disingenuous. You take out LeBron, Ariza and Battier aren't going to score more than LeBron did and Wade is going to be stuck becoming the center of Mavs' defensive attention.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,738
And1: 5,709
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#449 » by An Unbiased Fan » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:20 pm

drza wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:
drza wrote:Let's start with that latter. As I've pointed out, RAPM isn't a standalone measure of "goodness". On the other hand, it is the best measure we currently have to tie a team's performance to a certain player that doesn't involve using the box score. The box score has its uses as well, but I'm one that likes to keep them as separate measures. But I digress. This is also the best measure that we have for gauging a player's defensive impact, since so much of defense isn't covered in the box scores.

Thus, if someone says Kobe Bryant was an "elite" defender early in his career, I would expect there to be some sign of it in the RAPM studies. I'm not saying that he needed to measure out as well as the ATG bigs in order to impress me, but there have been LOTS of good defensive wings whose impact shows up clearly in the RAPM data. Shane Battier, Ron Artest, Luol Deng, Eddie Jones, Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Andre Iguodala and Manu Ginobili are all wings that show up among the top-52 players in Doc MJ's normalized data set. Each of them had very clear defensive impact from the wing, on the order of + 3.2 - +4.3 on that scale in their 5-year defensive peaks.

No offence, but RAPM is based on rotation trends, and doesn't show impact. The defensive wings you named are all specialist who don't play heavy minutes
and are part of defensive-mind lineups. I don't get the reasoning of taking 7-8 mins that a star is on the bench, and comparing it to the 36-37 he's on court as if the situations are equal. Guys like Kobe/Wade are listed as equal to Derek Fisher for godsake. :lol:

Ask yourself, was Rashard a more impactful defender than Dwight in 2009? Because Lewis was 2.6, and Dwight (DPOY, weak defensive cast, #1 DRtg for Orl) was only 2. Someone is gonna have to explain why RAPM is legit, because time and time again we see bizarre yearly results. BTW, Odom was 3.9 on defense.....so um, how would Orlando have done with him anchoring the defense?


Be careful not to overstate your case to the point that you ignore facts. None of the players that I named were part-time specialists...I specifically didn't include Tony Allen, for example, because he's primarily a bench player. And these guys don't play heavy minutes? Deng and Iguodala have LED THE NBA IN MINUTES/game in 3 of the last 6 years. These were not wings that were making their marks in "7-8 minutes that a star is on the bench". Come on, now.

That said, to your criticism, I say to flesh out your counter-examples. As I pointed out in the very quote you used, RAPM isn't a measure of goodness. It very specifically attempts to answer the question of how a team's performance can be tied to a certain player. Some of that, as you point out, is based on how a player is used. Some of it also may tie to collinearity and/or a player's back-up, though that isn't as prevalent in RAPM as in previous approaches. And (key), many of these issues come out in the wash when examining over a large period of time.

So in the case of the 2009 Magic, it does seem strange to see Lewis ranked higher than Howard. But again: RAPM traces team scoring trends, NOT the players goodness at something. And as you look closer, you see that the Van Gundy defense in Orlando relied a lot on having a long, mobile PF that could press out to the 3-point line. Plus, with Howard and Gortat as the two centers, the PF didn't have to be that good at defensive rebounding...his mobility, length and effort would be more important. This role played right to Lewis' strengths, so it's not shocking that Lewis might have been a person of interest in that particular defense. However, Lewis clearly never replicated that level of impact in any other system, so it is obvious that his positive results were tied very specifically to that team situation.

Howard, on the other hand, had never measured out as a big impact defender before 2009 anyway (which makes sense for a young big that relied on his athleticism and may not have understood defense yet). Howard's defensive RAPM in 2009 was a high-water mark at the time, but his defensive RAPM got progressively larger from 2009 to 2010 to 2011 to 2012. In those last two years he measured out as among the best marks in the league. Not coincidentally, Lewis was gone in those two years to be replaced minutes-wise by Brandon Bass (2011) and Ryan Anderson (2012), neither of whom had the same length/mobility that Lewis had. Perhaps this required Howard to have to do more on defense to make up for slower-footed 4s, and this reflected in the defense tracking more closely with Howard? Or, maybe Howard was just getting better as a defender each year as he approached his peak, which also makes sense.

Anyway, Howard clearly measures out on the whole as an excellent defender using RAPM (though never really to the level of a multiple DPoY...this could be worth further discussion when Howard really enters the conversation) and Lewis clearly doesn't, outside of this one specific case that played right to his strengths. Plus, finding one year counterintuitive results doesn't in any way address Kobe's ultra-consistent lack of measured defensive impact over a 15 year sample. I mean, was he NEVER in a position to make a measurable defensive mark? While the vast majority of the actually elite defensive wings (that he was consistently beating out for defensive honors) did, repeatedly? This doesn't strike you as an odd occurrence that goes well beyond coincidence? Lightening happened to strike the same place 15 times in a row?

I'm not a believer in RAPM, but I can respect this post.

As to guy's like Kobe/Wade, I think RAPM has no mechanism to extract their defensive impact from the 36 on/10 off samples. Perhaps if positional data could be shown, so we could see what positions are performing better than others, or some kind of context to isolate the player. Right now there is nothing but a baseline team metric used, hence the volatile yearly results. Players who tend to be in defensive rotations will of course perform better in the stat, as will players who tend to be in offensive rotation for ORAPM. Wasn't Rashard typically always on the floor with Dwight? That effect alone bumped his numbers, and RAPM has no mechanism to dole out true impact. only the generic impact blob of all 5 players on the floor. Guys like Kobe/Wade are in every type of rotation because they're 2-way players, and thus are absorbed by the impact blob. Meanwhile someone like Odom is 3.9 on defense, because he plays in more specialized rotations.

i would love the trend of RAPM to drift towards more postional based analysis, perhaps that would yield a better way of portioning out the impact blob to the right players.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
90sAllDecade
Starter
Posts: 2,264
And1: 818
Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Location: Clutch City, Texas
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#450 » by 90sAllDecade » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:24 pm

ThaRegul8r wrote::clap:

You get extra points for actually addressing each of my criteria point by point rather than just making another generic post.

However, Hakeem did fall short on criteria #4 before he found Islam.

In Game 5 of the 1986 Western Conference Finals between the Houston Rockets and Los Angeles Lakers in which Ralph Sampson hit a 12-footer at the buzzer for a 114-112 win to eliminate the Lakers, Olajuwon was ejected with 5:14 remaining, with the Rockets trailing by four. “Sampson, who finished with 29 points and 5 rebounds, was named the game’s most valuable player. He was forced to pick up the slack in the last five minutes of the game after the other half of Houston’s Twin Tower tandem, Akeem Olajuwon, tangled with L.A.’s Mitch Kupchak. Olajuwon threw three or four quick punches, knocking Kupchak down before he was restrained by referee Jess Kersey and the Lakers’ Maurice Lucas” (The Montreal Gazette, May 22, 1986). “Akeem Olajuwon, an immensely talented center in only his second pro season, had become the leader as the Rockets defeated the Los Angeles Lakers in three of their first four games. Yet, Olajuwon was in the dressing room, ejected after a fracas with Mitch Kupchak, when the fifth game of the Western Conference finals was decided” (The Palm Beach Post, May 24, 1986). He wasn't even on the floor when his team beat the champs because he couldn't keep his temper. They had to win without him—and did—but he didn't have anything to do with that.

Spoiler:
BEFORE HE WAS THE most gracious icon, before he came to embody the purest competitive spirit, Hakeem Olajuwon was a Net. Not in name, but in manner. Olajuwon nearly ruined the Houston Rockets with insurgent conduct, then did something rebel Nets never do: he grew up.

The Rockets arrived at the Meadowlands last night a two-time defending champion because Olajuwon finally put team ahead of self in 1993, when he initiated a drive to become the world's best player. The transformation took shape after a foul dispute with management over cold cash and phony injuries. Olajuwon was suspended by the Rockets for insubordination in '92, was nearly dealt to the Clippers that summer, then planted the seeds of a two-peat during a trip to Japan, when he convinced owner Charlie Thomas to keep him with a lavish new contract.

Though owners and coaches would change, Olajuwon completed his rise from obscure Nigerian goalie to acclaimed NBA center. He found religion, passed to teammates, won titles and forged a marketable image with talk of peace. Now road crowds appreciate him the way they did last night, when he scored 36 points in a 98-89 victory.

While the Nets remain married to their turbulent experience Willis Reed, God bless him, is expected to meet with Darryl Dawkins today Olajuwon has removed himself from a past straight out of the Jersey marshes.

Early in his career, Olajuwon was held as a remarkable talent who didn't get it. He punched Billy Paultz as a rookie to lose a playoff series to Utah, then was ejected from games in two of his three succeeding rounds. Hours before the deciding game of yet another series, he demanded management grant him 12 first-class tickets so two family members could travel between Los Angeles and Houston over the summer. He regularly ripped Sleepy Floyd and Rodney McCray in the papers.

Olajuwon forever pressed the Rockets to acquire new blood, from Norm Nixon to Kenny Smith. A year after the Smith deal was made, the Dream was unhappy with him.

The business community was unhappy with Olajuwon. He burned sponsors by showing at events late, or not at all. He changed agents with the seasons, sometimes stiffing them on commissions. When endorsements dried up, Olajuwon wanted the Rockets to make up the difference. After one of those requests was rejected, Olajuwon went down with a hamstring injury the team said he feigned. Olajuwon denied it and called Thomas a "coward." The Rockets suspended their star and explored a trade.

"I definitely thought I was going to be leaving," said Olajuwon, who was negotiating his third day of fasting for the Muslim holy period of Ramadan. "Every day I was rumored to be going somewhere new. I just left for the summer and told our owner to do what he had to do."

Having failed to find an equal-value package, the Rockets kept Olajuwon. When they gave him more money, they feared he would grow more disruptive, the way Derrick Coleman would after receiving his $30 million guarantee. But people who know Olajuwon say the public dispute with the Rockets changed him for the better. They said he realized his name was sullied, that he needed to alter his game and attitude.

"At the time, he was completely irresponsible and maybe one of the more selfish human beings you could meet," said one of those people. "But going through what he did with the Rockets made him mature. And then his commitment to his faith was the best thing that happened to him."


He matured for his peak, but you'll still have to get through that period to get to his peak.


All great players had a maturation process or were mentored. I've been doing research and this is for the room's consideration for character issues. The only difference imo is these guys had great supporting casts to help them win and HOF coaches to mentor them and shielded that process, while Hakeem was still playing like an all time great and had to evolve himself with religion.

These posts will be for discussion purposes for the room and not meant to be directed as anything specifically directed at towards you. It's only for consideration when judging these players by character, none of us are perfect including these guys.

This will be the first post in a series. First Wilt:

Wilt Chamberlain's Character Issues

However, it also became evident that he was an atrocious free-throw shooter, making hardly half of his foul shots. As time progressed, Chamberlain grew even worse, and acknowledged he was simply a "psycho case" on that matter.[41]

The Warriors entered the 1960 NBA Playoffs and beat the Syracuse Nationals, setting up a meeting versus the Eastern Division champions, the Boston Celtics. Cherry described how Celtics coach Red Auerbach ordered his forward Tom Heinsohn to commit personal fouls on Chamberlain: whenever the Warriors shot foul shots, Heinsohn grabbed and shoved Chamberlain to prevent him from running back quickly; his intention was that the Celtics would throw the ball in so fast that the prolific shotblocker Chamberlain was not yet back under his own basket, and Boston could score an easy fastbreak basket.[40] The teams split the first two games, but in Game 3, Chamberlain got fed up with Heinsohn and punched him. In the scuffle, Wilt injured his hand, and Philadelphia lost the next two games.[40] In Game 5, with his hand back to normal, Chamberlain scored 50 points on Bill Russell. But in Game 6, Heinsohn got the last laugh, scoring the decisive basket with a last-second tip-in.[40] The Warriors lost the series 4–2.[2]

Chamberlain again failed to convert his play into team success, however, this time bowing out against the Syracuse Nationals in a three-game sweep.[44] Cherry noted that Chamberlain was "difficult" and did not respect coach Neil Johnston, who was unable to handle the star center. In retrospect, Eddie Gottlieb remarked: "My mistake was not getting a stronghanded coach.... [Johnston] wasn't ready for big time."[45]

Chamberlain did not care for the Sixers' coach, Dolph Schayes, because Schayes, according to him, had made several disrespectful remarks when they were rival players in the NBA.[58]

Additionally, in an April 1965 issue of Sports Illustrated Chamberlain conducted an interview entitled "My Life in a Bush League" where he criticized his fellow players, coaches, and NBA administrators.[61] Chamberlain later commented that he could see in hindsight how the interview was instrumental in damaging his public image.[61]

Off the court, however, Chamberlain's commitment to the cause was doubted, as Chamberlain was a late sleeper, lived in New York and preferred to commute to Philadelphia rather than live there, and he was only available during the afternoon for training. Because Schayes did not want to risk angering his best player, he scheduled the daily workout at 4 pm; this angered the team, who preferred an early schedule to have the afternoon off, but Schayes just said: "There is no other way."[63] Irv Kosloff, who now owned the Sixers alone after Richman's death, pleaded to him to move to Philadelphia during the season, but he was turned down.[64]

In Game 3, Chamberlain scored 31 points and 27 rebounds for an important road win, and the next day, coach Schayes planned to hold a joint team practice. However, Chamberlain said he was "too tired" to attend, and even refused Schayes' plea to at least show up and shoot a few foul shots with the team. In Game 4, Boston won 114–108.[64] Prior to Game 5, Chamberlain was nowhere to be found, skipping practice and being non-accessible. Outwardly, Schayes defended his star center as "excused from practice", but his teammates knew the truth and were much less forgiving.[64] In Game 5 itself, Chamberlain was superb, scoring 46 points and 34 rebounds, but the Celtics won the game 120–112 and the series.[65] Cherry is highly critical of Chamberlain: while conceding he was the only Sixers player who performed in the series, he pointed out his unprofessional, egotistical behavior as being a bad example for his teammates.[64]

Prior to the 1966–67 NBA season, the friendly but unassertive Schayes was replaced by a familiar face, the crafty but firm Alex Hannum. In what Cherry calls a tumultuous locker room meeting, Hannum addressed several key issues he observed during the last season, several of them putting Chamberlain in an unfavorable light. Sixers forward Chet Walker testified that on several occasions, players had to pull Chamberlain and Hannum apart to prevent a fistfight.[66] Fellow forward Billy Cunningham observed that Hannum "never backed down" and "showed who was the boss". By doing this, he won Chamberlain's respect.[66] When emotions cooled off, Hannum pointed out to Chamberlain that he was on the same page in trying to win a title; but to pull this off, he – like his teammates – had to "act like a man" both on and off the court.[66] Concerning basketball, he persuaded him to change his style of play. Loaded with several other players who could score, such as future Hall-of-Famers Hal Greer and newcomer Billy Cunningham, Hannum wanted Chamberlain to concentrate more on defense.[4][67]

After that season, coach Alex Hannum wanted to be closer to his family on the West Coast; he left the Sixers to coach the Oakland Oaks in the newly founded American Basketball Association.[75] Chamberlain then asked for a trade, and Sixers general manager Jack Ramsay traded him to the Los Angeles Lakers for Darrall Imhoff, Archie Clark and Jerry Chambers.[67] The motivation for this move remains in dispute. According to sportswriter Roland Lazenby, a journalist close to the Lakers, Chamberlain was angry at Kosloff for breaking the alleged Richman-Chamberlain deal,[33] but according to Dr. Jack Ramsay, who was the Sixers general manager then, Chamberlain also threatened to jump to the ABA after Hannum left, and forced the trade himself.[67] Cherry finally adds several personal reasons: the center felt he had grown too big for Philadelphia, sought the presence of fellow celebrities (which were plenty in L.A.) and finally also desired the opportunity to date white women, which was possible for a black man in L.A. but hard to imagine elsewhere back then.[76]

The greatest problem was his tense relationship with Lakers coach Butch Van Breda Kolff: pejoratively calling the new recruit "The Load", he later complained that Chamberlain was egotistical, never respected him, too often slacked off in practice and focused too much on his own statistics.[78] In return, the center blasted Van Breda Kolff as "the dumbest and worst coach ever".[33][78] Laker Keith Erickson observed that "Butch catered to Elgin and Jerry...and that is not a good way to get on Wilt's side...that relationship was doomed from the start."[78]

Going into the series as 3-to-1 favorites, the Lakers won the first two games, but dropped the next two. Chamberlain was criticized as a non-factor in the series, getting neutralized by Bill Russell with little effort.[79] But in Game 5, the Lakers center started to come to life, scoring 13 points and grabbing 31 rebounds, leading Los Angeles to a 117–104 win. In Game 6, the Celtics won 99–90, and Chamberlain only scored 8 points; Cherry accuses him of choking, because if "Chamberlain had come up big and put up a normal 30 point scoring night", L.A. would have probably won its first championship.[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamb ... 105_106-42


Love life and “20,000 women” claim

Although shy and insecure as a teenager, adult Chamberlain became well-known for his womanizing. As his lawyer Seymour "Sy" Goldberg put it: "Some people collect stamps, Wilt collected women."[5] Swedish Olympic high jumper Annette Tånnander, who met him when he was 40 and she 19, remembers him as a pick-up artist who was extremely confident yet respectful: "I think Wilt hit on everything that moved...[but] he never was bad or rude."[5] Many of Chamberlain's personal friends testified[citation needed] that he once had 23 women in 10 days, had no problems organizing a threesome (or more), and particularly enjoyed a TV skit on the show In Living Color in which a mother and her daughter approach a Vietnam Wall-like list of women who slept with him, both of them pointing out that their names are on it, as well as a 1991 Saturday Night Live sketch where MC Hammer played Chamberlain in "Remembrances of Love", where Chamberlain spoofs a soap opera with romances with women that are usually over in five minutes.[5] However, Los Angeles Times columnist David Shaw claimed that during a dinner with Shaw and his wife, Chamberlain was “rude and sexist toward his own date, as he usually was,” adding that at one point Chamberlain left the table to get the phone number of an attractive woman at a nearby table.[18]

According to Rod Roddewig, a contemporary of Wilt's, the 20,000 number was created when he and Chamberlain were staying in Chamberlain's penthouse in Honolulu during the mid-1980s. He and Chamberlain stayed at the penthouse for 10 days, over the course of which he recorded everything on his Daytimer.[clarification needed] For every time Chamberlain went to bed with a different girl he put a check in his daytimer. After those 10 days there were 23 checks in the book, which would be rate of 2.3 women per day. He divided that number in half, to be conservative and to correct for degrees of variation. He then multiplied that number by the number of days he had been alive at the time minus 15 years. That was how the 20,000 number came into existence.[19]

In a 1999 interview shortly before his death, Chamberlain regretted not having explained the sexual climate at the time of his escapades, and warned other men who admired him for it, closing with the words: "With all of you men out there who think that having a thousand different ladies is pretty cool, I have learned in my life I've found out that having one woman a thousand different times is much more satisfying."[20] Chamberlain also acknowledged that he never came close to marrying and had no intention of raising any children.[21]

Cherry believes that Chamberlain's extreme sex drive was fueled by the female rejection he had experienced as a teenager, causing him to overcompensate.[5] His lifelong friend and on-and-off girlfriend, Lynda Huey, eleven years his junior, said: "He had an inability of combining friendship and sexuality."[22] Shaw added: "Wilt never liked to admit a weakness ... [but] you cannot be married and be Superman ... you cannot appear invulnerable to your mate."[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_l ... hamberlain
NBA TV Clutch City Documentary Trailer:
https://vimeo.com/134215151
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,612
And1: 98,988
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#451 » by Texas Chuck » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:32 pm

Stopping Lebron was clearly Dallas #1 priority. A very clear example of this was moving JJB into the starting lineup as the series went on so that DeShawn could come in and be a fresh body on Lebron spelling Marion. Yes, the Mavs played zone all year, but that zone had man principles and it was clearly shading to Lebron.

Lebron could not be replaced by generic SF man and Miami win that series. Just no chance. Dallas had plenty of defenders to throw at Wade and without Lebron to worry about its hard to see Wade having that strong of a series, Maybe, but seems less likely.

Lebron did play poorly. How much of that the Mavs should get credit for and how much Lebron should be blamed for is up for dispute. As a fan of the Mavs I'd love to think it was all about hte plan Rick drew up and the tough individual defense and great team defense we played on him. But saying it was all Dallas requires me to believe that only Rick Carlisle was smart enough to find a scheme to stop him and that only Marion/DeShawn, Kidd with Dirk, Tyson, Ian, Haywood providing support were good enough on the court to execute it. Mad respect for Rick and that team, but nah it wasnt all them.

Im not sure why some are arguing this as an either-or. Dallas played great against him, he struggled in his own right. The end.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,738
And1: 5,709
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#452 » by An Unbiased Fan » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:33 pm

fpliii wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:1) But the context is different from the mins a guy like Kobe spends on court vs off court. We're talking about maybe a 5-6 min 2nd & 4th quarter strecth where its bench vs bench, in comparison to 36 mins of Kobe on court vs starters. Nevermind the lineup fluctuations whcih only deepens the endless noise. RAPM's problem has always been its very premise.

2) OK, What about Vlade Divac being rated a better defender than Dwight? Was 09 Odom a better defender than 09 Lebron like RAPM suggests? Was 2009 Billups a big negative on defense, and 09 Fisher a big plus?

1) That's exactly why I said that you should compare players in similar roles. I don't understand what you're trying to say with the bolded. The lineup fluctuations ARE the input data for RAPM. It's not noise, that's what RAPM is evaluating. It's looking at all the actual lineup combinations, and finding the best fit based on them. If you're suggesting that you're not as confident in what small bunches of possessions bunched together tell us, that's fine, but it would be very difficult to prove that.

Lineup fluctuations as in offensive/defensive purposed rotations, crunchtime rotations, garbage time rotations, etc.

RAPM has no mechanism to extract impact to individuals due to the very samples they use. If a player is next to Duncan for all his minutes, they will have the exact same RAPM. the attempt to differentiate impact form the RAPM blob will drift to rotation bias by the very nature of its construction. Someone like Odom will have the #3 RAPM in 2009 due to the rotations Phil ran him in. This speaks to team system, roster makeup, rotations, and so on.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,238
And1: 26,114
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#453 » by Clyde Frazier » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:37 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
MacGill wrote:Wilt….as great as the numbers were, didn't have the same fundamentals and while others will say the coulda woulda shoulda's with him, it is all speculation to what the limited footage all shows us if we're being honest in compared to Shaq.


If I judged by fundamentals then these 2 lousy free throw shooters would not be in my Top 100.

I'm not judging by style points, or how they would fit in today's game. Nor am I trying to judge how LeBron would have done in the 60s.



There are a lot og guys in my Top 100 who wouldn't pass the fundamentals test- besides Wilt and Shaq I would add
Walt Frazier and Artis Gilmore right off the top of my head.


Shaq was pretty raw when he started, but improved his footwork and fundamentals while in the league.

Wilt's fundamentals were never great, but he was a decent ball-handler and passer.


What was wrong with Clyde's fundamentals? He was pretty much a jack of all trades at the guard spot back then.
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#454 » by ceiling raiser » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:39 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
fpliii wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:1) But the context is different from the mins a guy like Kobe spends on court vs off court. We're talking about maybe a 5-6 min 2nd & 4th quarter strecth where its bench vs bench, in comparison to 36 mins of Kobe on court vs starters. Nevermind the lineup fluctuations whcih only deepens the endless noise. RAPM's problem has always been its very premise.

2) OK, What about Vlade Divac being rated a better defender than Dwight? Was 09 Odom a better defender than 09 Lebron like RAPM suggests? Was 2009 Billups a big negative on defense, and 09 Fisher a big plus?

1) That's exactly why I said that you should compare players in similar roles. I don't understand what you're trying to say with the bolded. The lineup fluctuations ARE the input data for RAPM. It's not noise, that's what RAPM is evaluating. It's looking at all the actual lineup combinations, and finding the best fit based on them. If you're suggesting that you're not as confident in what small bunches of possessions bunched together tell us, that's fine, but it would be very difficult to prove that.

Lineup fluctuations as in offensive/defensive purposed rotations, crunchtime rotations, garbage time rotations, etc.

RAPM has no mechanism to extract impact to individuals due to the very samples they use. If a player is next to Duncan for all his minutes, they will have the exact same RAPM. the attempt to differentiate impact form the RAPM blob will drift to rotation bias by the very nature of its construction. Someone like Odom will have the #3 RAPM in 2009 due to the rotations Phil ran him in. This speaks to team system, roster makeup, rotations, and so on.

Prior informed RAPM handles the collinearity problem by adding possessions from previous seasons to the sample to give us more possessions with players in different lineups, and I've said several times that you shouldn't compare players in different roles to one another.

I don't want to derail this thread any further, just wanted to address your concerns. It's your call how you want to feel about the metric, but I don't view either as an issue if prior-informed RAPM is used to compare players in similar roles. :)
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,612
And1: 98,988
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#455 » by Texas Chuck » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:47 pm

yeah just to echo--its impossible to completely isolate out individual performance statistically despite what some might lead you to believe. It's one of the reasons the actual teams spend a lot of time studying 5-man units and how they perform together as opposed to only using stats like RAPM. And mostly you will note that the best players tend to be in the best-performing 5 man units over and over again. It also helps to isolate out role players and how much more effective they can be used correctly. For one example Im aware of without have to go back and lool, going back to his days in Dallas, JJ Barea was in a number of Dallas' top 5 man units, but always with Dirk. When he was in 5-man units with Dirk on the bench he graded out terribly which has played itself out in Minnesota.

That said, its one of the better tools we have and as long we use it correctly, like fpliii keeps mentioning it can be quite informative.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
User avatar
MacGill
Veteran
Posts: 2,769
And1: 568
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: From Parts Unknown...
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#456 » by MacGill » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:50 pm

Spoiler:
90sAllDecade wrote:This will be the first post in a series. First Wilt:

Wilt Chamberlain's Character Issues

However, it also became evident that he was an atrocious free-throw shooter, making hardly half of his foul shots. As time progressed, Chamberlain grew even worse, and acknowledged he was simply a "psycho case" on that matter.[41]

The Warriors entered the 1960 NBA Playoffs and beat the Syracuse Nationals, setting up a meeting versus the Eastern Division champions, the Boston Celtics. Cherry described how Celtics coach Red Auerbach ordered his forward Tom Heinsohn to commit personal fouls on Chamberlain: whenever the Warriors shot foul shots, Heinsohn grabbed and shoved Chamberlain to prevent him from running back quickly; his intention was that the Celtics would throw the ball in so fast that the prolific shotblocker Chamberlain was not yet back under his own basket, and Boston could score an easy fastbreak basket.[40] The teams split the first two games, but in Game 3, Chamberlain got fed up with Heinsohn and punched him. In the scuffle, Wilt injured his hand, and Philadelphia lost the next two games.[40] In Game 5, with his hand back to normal, Chamberlain scored 50 points on Bill Russell. But in Game 6, Heinsohn got the last laugh, scoring the decisive basket with a last-second tip-in.[40] The Warriors lost the series 4–2.[2]

Chamberlain again failed to convert his play into team success, however, this time bowing out against the Syracuse Nationals in a three-game sweep.[44] Cherry noted that Chamberlain was "difficult" and did not respect coach Neil Johnston, who was unable to handle the star center. In retrospect, Eddie Gottlieb remarked: "My mistake was not getting a stronghanded coach.... [Johnston] wasn't ready for big time."[45]

Chamberlain did not care for the Sixers' coach, Dolph Schayes, because Schayes, according to him, had made several disrespectful remarks when they were rival players in the NBA.[58]

Additionally, in an April 1965 issue of Sports Illustrated Chamberlain conducted an interview entitled "My Life in a Bush League" where he criticized his fellow players, coaches, and NBA administrators.[61] Chamberlain later commented that he could see in hindsight how the interview was instrumental in damaging his public image.[61]

Off the court, however, Chamberlain's commitment to the cause was doubted, as Chamberlain was a late sleeper, lived in New York and preferred to commute to Philadelphia rather than live there, and he was only available during the afternoon for training. Because Schayes did not want to risk angering his best player, he scheduled the daily workout at 4 pm; this angered the team, who preferred an early schedule to have the afternoon off, but Schayes just said: "There is no other way."[63] Irv Kosloff, who now owned the Sixers alone after Richman's death, pleaded to him to move to Philadelphia during the season, but he was turned down.[64]

In Game 3, Chamberlain scored 31 points and 27 rebounds for an important road win, and the next day, coach Schayes planned to hold a joint team practice. However, Chamberlain said he was "too tired" to attend, and even refused Schayes' plea to at least show up and shoot a few foul shots with the team. In Game 4, Boston won 114–108.[64] Prior to Game 5, Chamberlain was nowhere to be found, skipping practice and being non-accessible. Outwardly, Schayes defended his star center as "excused from practice", but his teammates knew the truth and were much less forgiving.[64] In Game 5 itself, Chamberlain was superb, scoring 46 points and 34 rebounds, but the Celtics won the game 120–112 and the series.[65] Cherry is highly critical of Chamberlain: while conceding he was the only Sixers player who performed in the series, he pointed out his unprofessional, egotistical behavior as being a bad example for his teammates.[64]

Prior to the 1966–67 NBA season, the friendly but unassertive Schayes was replaced by a familiar face, the crafty but firm Alex Hannum. In what Cherry calls a tumultuous locker room meeting, Hannum addressed several key issues he observed during the last season, several of them putting Chamberlain in an unfavorable light. Sixers forward Chet Walker testified that on several occasions, players had to pull Chamberlain and Hannum apart to prevent a fistfight.[66] Fellow forward Billy Cunningham observed that Hannum "never backed down" and "showed who was the boss". By doing this, he won Chamberlain's respect.[66] When emotions cooled off, Hannum pointed out to Chamberlain that he was on the same page in trying to win a title; but to pull this off, he – like his teammates – had to "act like a man" both on and off the court.[66] Concerning basketball, he persuaded him to change his style of play. Loaded with several other players who could score, such as future Hall-of-Famers Hal Greer and newcomer Billy Cunningham, Hannum wanted Chamberlain to concentrate more on defense.[4][67]

After that season, coach Alex Hannum wanted to be closer to his family on the West Coast; he left the Sixers to coach the Oakland Oaks in the newly founded American Basketball Association.[75] Chamberlain then asked for a trade, and Sixers general manager Jack Ramsay traded him to the Los Angeles Lakers for Darrall Imhoff, Archie Clark and Jerry Chambers.[67] The motivation for this move remains in dispute. According to sportswriter Roland Lazenby, a journalist close to the Lakers, Chamberlain was angry at Kosloff for breaking the alleged Richman-Chamberlain deal,[33] but according to Dr. Jack Ramsay, who was the Sixers general manager then, Chamberlain also threatened to jump to the ABA after Hannum left, and forced the trade himself.[67] Cherry finally adds several personal reasons: the center felt he had grown too big for Philadelphia, sought the presence of fellow celebrities (which were plenty in L.A.) and finally also desired the opportunity to date white women, which was possible for a black man in L.A. but hard to imagine elsewhere back then.[76]

The greatest problem was his tense relationship with Lakers coach Butch Van Breda Kolff: pejoratively calling the new recruit "The Load", he later complained that Chamberlain was egotistical, never respected him, too often slacked off in practice and focused too much on his own statistics.[78] In return, the center blasted Van Breda Kolff as "the dumbest and worst coach ever".[33][78] Laker Keith Erickson observed that "Butch catered to Elgin and Jerry...and that is not a good way to get on Wilt's side...that relationship was doomed from the start."[78]

Going into the series as 3-to-1 favorites, the Lakers won the first two games, but dropped the next two. Chamberlain was criticized as a non-factor in the series, getting neutralized by Bill Russell with little effort.[79] But in Game 5, the Lakers center started to come to life, scoring 13 points and grabbing 31 rebounds, leading Los Angeles to a 117–104 win. In Game 6, the Celtics won 99–90, and Chamberlain only scored 8 points; Cherry accuses him of choking, because if "Chamberlain had come up big and put up a normal 30 point scoring night", L.A. would have probably won its first championship.[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamb ... 105_106-42


Love life and “20,000 women” claim

Although shy and insecure as a teenager, adult Chamberlain became well-known for his womanizing. As his lawyer Seymour "Sy" Goldberg put it: "Some people collect stamps, Wilt collected women."[5] Swedish Olympic high jumper Annette Tånnander, who met him when he was 40 and she 19, remembers him as a pick-up artist who was extremely confident yet respectful: "I think Wilt hit on everything that moved...[but] he never was bad or rude."[5] Many of Chamberlain's personal friends testified[citation needed] that he once had 23 women in 10 days, had no problems organizing a threesome (or more), and particularly enjoyed a TV skit on the show In Living Color in which a mother and her daughter approach a Vietnam Wall-like list of women who slept with him, both of them pointing out that their names are on it, as well as a 1991 Saturday Night Live sketch where MC Hammer played Chamberlain in "Remembrances of Love", where Chamberlain spoofs a soap opera with romances with women that are usually over in five minutes.[5] However, Los Angeles Times columnist David Shaw claimed that during a dinner with Shaw and his wife, Chamberlain was “rude and sexist toward his own date, as he usually was,” adding that at one point Chamberlain left the table to get the phone number of an attractive woman at a nearby table.[18]

According to Rod Roddewig, a contemporary of Wilt's, the 20,000 number was created when he and Chamberlain were staying in Chamberlain's penthouse in Honolulu during the mid-1980s. He and Chamberlain stayed at the penthouse for 10 days, over the course of which he recorded everything on his Daytimer.[clarification needed] For every time Chamberlain went to bed with a different girl he put a check in his daytimer. After those 10 days there were 23 checks in the book, which would be rate of 2.3 women per day. He divided that number in half, to be conservative and to correct for degrees of variation. He then multiplied that number by the number of days he had been alive at the time minus 15 years. That was how the 20,000 number came into existence.[19]

In a 1999 interview shortly before his death, Chamberlain regretted not having explained the sexual climate at the time of his escapades, and warned other men who admired him for it, closing with the words: "With all of you men out there who think that having a thousand different ladies is pretty cool, I have learned in my life I've found out that having one woman a thousand different times is much more satisfying."[20] Chamberlain also acknowledged that he never came close to marrying and had no intention of raising any children.[21]

Cherry believes that Chamberlain's extreme sex drive was fueled by the female rejection he had experienced as a teenager, causing him to overcompensate.[5] His lifelong friend and on-and-off girlfriend, Lynda Huey, eleven years his junior, said: "He had an inability of combining friendship and sexuality."[22] Shaw added: "Wilt never liked to admit a weakness ... [but] you cannot be married and be Superman ... you cannot appear invulnerable to your mate."[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_l ... hamberlain
So earlier in this thread, a poster said that Wilt was a man who had Shaq's body and Kobe's work ethic. Is this Kobe's work ethic? To me, it just continues to be an over exaggeration of what was the largest basketball personality of the time.

Again, my response is being human is being human. Player versus player, coach versus player etc, the result is the same when attitudes clash. Even the great Wilt faced this challenge with less than stellar results.

So again, I ask. We keep finding information around Wilt that is showing him to be more human than his era would like to admit. How does a specialty role and reduced offensive responsibility separate him from Shaq and what he accomplished?
Image
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,612
And1: 98,988
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#457 » by Texas Chuck » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:51 pm

Can guys remember please what Doc said about selective quoting or using spoilers? I don't want to miss anything because of weeding through long repetitive text blocks. Too much good stuff by too many smart guys.

Thanks

TC

edit: McGill is awesome and beat me to it.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
microfib4thewin
Head Coach
Posts: 6,275
And1: 454
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#458 » by microfib4thewin » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:52 pm

About KG:

1. I always assumed that RAPM data only covers the regular season. It doesn't seem to make sense to have playoff numbers mixed in given the vast difference in the playing environment, and IMO RAPM works best as a tool to judge how much impact a player provides normally(regular season) as playoff +/- can fluctuate wildly from the team matchup and the much smaller amount of lineups that get played.

2. How do we determine that KG was a great playoff performer when he has only played 29 playoff games from age 21-26 and ZERO playoff games from age 28-30? Following up on #1 I don't think +/- is reliable for the playoffs and the sample size here is way too small to extract much meaning from RAPM. Boxscore wise KG has been more underwhelming than amazing during the streak of 1st round exits. He did play very well for his 04 run but I am not going to simply assume that he can replicate that for his other years with the Wolves if he was given more opportunities for a deep playoff run.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,822
And1: 25,116
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#459 » by E-Balla » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:53 pm

PaulieWal wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:Lebron improving his game in 2012 is the only reason I put him in the next bunch of guys.

And I'm not trying to convince you Lebron had a horrible Finals but I'm trying to explain how horrible he was. Yes he was horrible enough to where any above average (or even average - like Trevor Ariza) SF would've changed the series enough for Miami to win. You're saying Wade would've gotten more attention if Lebron wasn't there but he was standing out to the side out of the play for half of the series. You just said they ran a zone - did they run a special Lebron zone where everything rotated around Lebron? No they ran a regular zone that even affected D. Wade because he doesn't have a jumpshot. Lebron being on the floor in that series outside of game 1 and half of game 2 hurt Miami.


This is completely false. Firstly, Wade was seeing more single coverage than LeBron was in that series. Game 3 onwards, Miami made a conscious decision to run everything Wade and LeBron deferred willingly almost to a fault (maybe that was his fault, pun intended). If you replace LeBron with Ariza or Battier type of player, the Mavs would adjust their defensive scheme and pay more attention to Wade. LeBron was playing horribly but the Mavs were still focused on him, saying otherwise is simply disingenuous. You take out LeBron, Ariza and Battier aren't going to score more than LeBron did and Wade is going to be stuck becoming the center of Mavs' defensive attention.

I suggest you rewatch the series. Lebron was single covered just like Wade. And the reason Ariza and Barrier would help is that they would play defense and offensively they'd make up for Bron's production. And they didn't make a decision to run through Wade Lebron kept giving the ball up so they had to.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,738
And1: 5,709
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #4 

Post#460 » by An Unbiased Fan » Mon Jul 7, 2014 9:55 pm

fpliii wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:
fpliii wrote:1) That's exactly why I said that you should compare players in similar roles. I don't understand what you're trying to say with the bolded. The lineup fluctuations ARE the input data for RAPM. It's not noise, that's what RAPM is evaluating. It's looking at all the actual lineup combinations, and finding the best fit based on them. If you're suggesting that you're not as confident in what small bunches of possessions bunched together tell us, that's fine, but it would be very difficult to prove that.

Lineup fluctuations as in offensive/defensive purposed rotations, crunchtime rotations, garbage time rotations, etc.

RAPM has no mechanism to extract impact to individuals due to the very samples they use. If a player is next to Duncan for all his minutes, they will have the exact same RAPM. the attempt to differentiate impact form the RAPM blob will drift to rotation bias by the very nature of its construction. Someone like Odom will have the #3 RAPM in 2009 due to the rotations Phil ran him in. This speaks to team system, roster makeup, rotations, and so on.

Prior informed RAPM handles the collinearity problem by adding possessions from previous seasons to the sample to give us more possessions with players in different lineups, and I've said several times that you shouldn't compare players in different roles to one another.

I don't want to derail this thread any further, just wanted to address your concerns. It's your call how you want to feel about the metric, but I don't view either as an issue if prior-informed RAPM is used to compare players in similar roles. :)

Prior informed is really nothing more than the multi-season rotation trends for the player. Even worse, it directly influences that trend on the presumption that players have consistent year to year transitions.

Also, no two players have the exact same role, which goes back to why using a rotation stat like RAPM is so problematic. And again, most the the Top 100 doesn't even have this stat, so it creates an unfair criteria to vault modern players who fair well with RAPM over older ones. Who's to say Magic, Bird, Hakeem, DRob, and so on wouldn't have better RAPMs? Who's to say how MJ & LAJ would ahve done. I still think MJ's RAPM would be very underwhelming as a GOAT due to Phil's rotations. I would expect Pippen to have Odom type surprise RAPMs.

And my RAPM rant isn't meant to offend you fpliii. I'm just getting some things off my chest about the stat. :lol:
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017

Return to Player Comparisons