RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

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

Dr Spaceman
General Manager
Posts: 8,575
And1: 11,211
Joined: Jan 16, 2013
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#581 » by Dr Spaceman » Thu Feb 4, 2016 4:25 pm

Dug up a short story I wrote right before the 2014 season. Usually I cringe when I go back and re-read old stuff I did, but this one actually holds up pretty well, I'm proud of it.

Spoiler:
Tim Duncan woke up on June 20, 2013. He was in a hotel room in Miami, Florida. Although he knew what day it was, and what he had to do that day, he checked his calendar. He had checked his calendar every day since October 31st, 1997, his NBA debut. It was what he always did. It worked.

That night, he would play in his 1391st NBA game. Game 7 of the NBA Finals would be exactly the same as his 1390th game, and every game before that. He would shower, eat breakfast, meet with his trainer, and begin shooting. He would eat lunch, meet with his coach, greet his teammates, and watch film of the previous game. He would eat dinner, put on his uniform, tie his shoes, walk out of the locker room, and join shootaround. Then he would play basketball.

It was what he always did. It worked.

Two days ago, the Spurs had lost game 6 to the Miami Heat. Ray Allen had hit a shot to tie the game with only five seconds on the clock. It was heartbreaking, deflating, the kind of thing that only happens in movies. The Spurs hung their collective heads on the way back to the locker room following the subsequent overtime period. But Duncan had seen great shots before. On May 5th, 2004, Derek Fisher had hit a shot to win game 5 of the Western Conference Semifinals against the Spurs, moments after Duncan had given the Spurs the lead with a shot of his own. The Spurs lost the series. On December 9th, 2004, Tracy McGrady hit a game winning shot against the Spurs after Duncan had missed a free throw. The Spurs lost the game.

Duncan had seen players like Tracy McGrady and Derek Fisher fall out of relevance. He had seen Ray Allen at his best, and watched his abilities decline until he was no longer able to make his team's starting lineup. He had played against a young Lebron James in the 2007 Finals, and had watched him grow into perhaps the league's best player, until James was finally ready to face Duncan once again. He had seen his peers, players like Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Garnett, all of them accomplished players in their own right, slowly fade out of the spotlight. But here Duncan was, playing in his fifth NBA Finals, because he kept doing what he always did.

The Miami Heat were a great team, there was no doubting that. Duncan thought about the intensity they played with, the springs they seemed to have in their shoes, and felt a tinge of longing for his youth. He used to keep up with players like James and his teammate, Dwyane Wade. But he was older now, and wiser; he could beat them with his brain, his footwork, his years of experience. He would beat them, just like he always did.

Gregg Popovich had been Tim Duncan's coach for 1389 games. They had won four championships together. They knew the highs and lows of NBA life all too well. They were consistent, they worked hard, and they were smart. But most importantly, they trusted each other. They had a bond as strong as steel, forged through years of hard work. There was an almost tangible mutual respect and admiration; Popovich treated 'Timmy' as his own son.

With 28 seconds left in Game 6 of the 2013 Finals, Gregg decided to take Duncan out of the game. Timmy trusted his decision. They had been making that substitution all season, as Timmy was not as quick as he was all those years ago, and the Spurs couldn't risk giving up an open 3 point shot. Duncan listened to Popovich. He always did.

Timmy watched from the bench as Ray Allen hit the shot that would prolong the series, the shot that snatched the Spurs championship dreams away just as they came within reach.

It was time for Game 7. The Spurs needed to win one game, and they would be Champions of the NBA for the fifth time. [28 seconds to tip-off] They had won 58 games during the regular season. In the playoffs, they had added 12 more. [13 seconds to tip-off] Since Duncan had joined the Spurs, they had won four games in the Finals four times. In fact, they had never lost a Finals series. [0.4 seconds to tip-off] The Spurs would follow their gameplan, execute their strategy, and win.

It was what they always did. It would work.

...

Tim Duncan woke up on October 30th, 2013. He pictured Ray Allen's game-tying three point shot, as he had done every day since June 20th, 2013. Then, like always, he checked his calendar. This time, however, he did something he had never done before. In the center of the circle he had drawn around October 30th, he wrote "REVENGE".
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,544
And1: 16,106
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#582 » by therealbig3 » Fri Feb 5, 2016 1:32 am

Lost my last list, here's how my top 10 looks off the top of my head:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Kevin Garnett
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. LeBron James
9. Wilt Chamberlain
10. Dirk Nowitzki

But that's honestly off the top of my head, without really revisiting any of the arguments. For example, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Julius Erving are the ones that stand out to me. Does Dirk really warrant being ranked over them? Bird and Magic...I know they were outstanding and peaked higher, but their prime was really short, while Dirk is still going strong, after he had a long prime already (01-11). Less sold on Oscar and West, but I've heard convincing arguments before, so I could be swayed on them. Julius Erving has always been an enigma to me. We know he peaked ridiculously high, and had a fantastic ABA career, and then after a short period of recovering from an injury, he was an excellent NBA player, albeit older. An in-depth analysis of Erving's career value would be interesting.

I'm reasonably sure of ranking Dirk ahead of Kobe and Barkley and K. Malone, he simply peaked higher than they did imo. He was every bit as good offensively as far as I'm concerned as Kobe and Barkley (if not better, and clearly better than Malone), and he was a solid defensive big, a little under Karl, better than Barkley/Kobe.
Goodfellaz
Junior
Posts: 260
And1: 172
Joined: Aug 06, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#583 » by Goodfellaz » Sat Feb 6, 2016 10:32 pm

therealbig3 wrote:Lost my last list, here's how my top 10 looks off the top of my head:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Kevin Garnett
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. LeBron James
9. Wilt Chamberlain
10. Dirk Nowitzki

But that's honestly off the top of my head, without really revisiting any of the arguments. For example, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Julius Erving are the ones that stand out to me. Does Dirk really warrant being ranked over them? Bird and Magic...I know they were outstanding and peaked higher, but their prime was really short, while Dirk is still going strong, after he had a long prime already (01-11). Less sold on Oscar and West, but I've heard convincing arguments before, so I could be swayed on them. Julius Erving has always been an enigma to me. We know he peaked ridiculously high, and had a fantastic ABA career, and then after a short period of recovering from an injury, he was an excellent NBA player, albeit older. An in-depth analysis of Erving's career value would be interesting.

I'm reasonably sure of ranking Dirk ahead of Kobe and Barkley and K. Malone, he simply peaked higher than they did imo. He was every bit as good offensively as far as I'm concerned as Kobe and Barkley (if not better, and clearly better than Malone), and he was a solid defensive big, a little under Karl, better than Barkley/Kobe.


yet you have shaq over duncan and lebron.... care to explain? Both have similar primes, if slightly lower, and much better longevity.

Dirk was not a better defender than kobe (maybe the last 2-3 years when kobe was pretty much done and gave no effort there). Its a misconception because kobe's offence and defensive prime didn't coincide. 2000-03 kobe was a better defender than dirk ever was... same with 08-10.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,544
And1: 16,106
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#584 » by therealbig3 » Sun Feb 7, 2016 12:38 am

Was he though? I feel like Kobe's defense was always overrated, while Dirk's was underrated. Even if Kobe was flat out excellent in those years (which I don't think he was), it's hard for me to say it's better than a big man that's decent on defense, because they're just naturally able to have more impact.

As for Shaq...I'm debating moving him down. But I always felt that he had some really good longevity, no? He entered the league as an MVP-caliber player, and that lasted until 05, and he was still an All-Star level player until 09 I think.
User avatar
John Murdoch
RealGM
Posts: 10,250
And1: 7,720
Joined: Sep 16, 2013
         

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#585 » by John Murdoch » Tue Feb 9, 2016 6:48 pm

Bill Russell and Oscar Robinson are way too high
Magic#1 wrote:We have won two playoff games in two years. If we decide to keep this team for the next two years, maybe it will feel like we won a series.
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,145
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#586 » by Quotatious » Tue Feb 9, 2016 6:56 pm

John Murdoch wrote:Oscar Robinson

Who?
Dr Spaceman
General Manager
Posts: 8,575
And1: 11,211
Joined: Jan 16, 2013
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#587 » by Dr Spaceman » Tue Feb 9, 2016 7:26 pm

therealbig3 wrote:Was he though? I feel like Kobe's defense was always overrated, while Dirk's was underrated. Even if Kobe was flat out excellent in those years (which I don't think he was), it's hard for me to say it's better than a big man that's decent on defense, because they're just naturally able to have more impact.

As for Shaq...I'm debating moving him down. But I always felt that he had some really good longevity, no? He entered the league as an MVP-caliber player, and that lasted until 05, and he was still an All-Star level player until 09 I think.


His longevity pretty much depends on how you feel about his antics, feuds with Kobe, and missing a ton of time every year as well as the general malaise of the 03 & 04 Lakers. He also missed basically a full season's worth of games from 96 thru 99.
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#588 » by ThaRegul8r » Tue Feb 9, 2016 9:29 pm

Quotatious wrote:
John Murdoch wrote:Oscar Robinson

Who?


I keep seeing this guy's name, but I'm ashamed to say I know absolutely nothing about him.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
User avatar
Laimbeer
RealGM
Posts: 43,072
And1: 15,154
Joined: Aug 12, 2009
Location: Cabin Creek
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#589 » by Laimbeer » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:27 pm

Regarding participants who drop out - require a deposit and withhold part or all of it if folks don't stay around to the end. I'd trust penbeast to administer that and make all judgments.
Comments to rationalize bad contracts -
1) It's less than the MLE
2) He can be traded later
3) It's only __% of the cap
4) The cap is going up
5) It's only __ years
6) He's a good mentor/locker room guy
RingsDontLie
Veteran
Posts: 2,670
And1: 1,359
Joined: May 11, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#590 » by RingsDontLie » Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:40 am

Quotatious wrote:
bwgood77 wrote:The one that jumps out to be as being quite overrated on this list is Shaq. He was awesome in his prime, but he also only played like half the season (in shape) even in much of his prime. I can't for the life of me understand how he could be ahead of guys like Magic and Bird who were all about winning all the time, no matter what, did all the little things to help their team win, would never come into the season not ready to play basketball and have to work themselves into shape half the year. Those guys seem like they should be in a completely different tier than Shaq. It was a huge upset any year either one of those guys didn't make the finals...it was just expected until they were well past their primes.

It's actually pretty simple - Shaq was clearly more dominant when he actually played, and he usually came up big in the playoffs. Unlike Magic and Bird, Shaq was also a big defensive presence at his peak (strong DPOY candidate in 2000) in addition to his unstoppable offense. Also, Larry and Magic played on very stacked teams (and Magic had a very easy path to the finals almost every year, because of how loaded the Lakers were compared to other Western conference teams in the eighties). Obviously Shaq also had some good help (Penny, Kobe, Wade), but his teams were basically never as talented as Magic's and Bird's.

I don't know why we should penalize Shaq for supposedly not squeezing 100% of his potential. I think it's always better to focus on what a player actually did, than what more he could've done, because the latter is often just a pure speculation. Shaq's teams were making the playoffs almost every year (other than his rookie year, but even then, they just barely missed it), so him playing just 50-60 regular season games wasn't a big deal. I think we should also take the fact that Shaq had some natural limitations, into account - I mean, for a man as huge as O'Neal, he was remarkably durable, and his longevity was pretty great (he was more or less in his prime between 1993 and 2006, so 14 seasons, and even in 2009, he had a very good season in Phoenix).


This is really weird, so Bird and Magic didn't usually come up big in the playoffs? You realize Magic went to the finals 9 times? I think you are overlooking that. The western conference was actually very good in the 80s. I'm not sure where you get your information from. When were you born by the way?

And how can you penalize Magic for being on a stacked team...you would then have to do that for Jordan...who played in the most watered down era with the expansion teams.
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,145
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#591 » by Quotatious » Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:40 pm

RingsDontLie wrote:This is really weird, so Bird and Magic didn't usually come up big in the playoffs? You realize Magic went to the finals 9 times? I think you are overlooking that.

I know. Magic was an excellent playoff performer, I just think that Shaq was even better (offensively they were on a similar level, but O'Neal was more impactful defensively and he's even more dominant numbers-wise).

Bird had quite a few playoff failures. Good playoff performer, but not as consistent as Magic, and not as consistent and/or dominant as Shaq. '83 vs Milwaukee, '85 finals, '88 vs Detroit - just a few of Bird's disappointing playoff series.

To be fair, he played in a tougher conference, so that might have something to do with Magic's superiority over him, in the playoffs (but Bird's lack of respect for his own body also has a lot to do with that, as he usually wasn't 100% healthy for the playoffs, usually had some lingering injuries, even before his back really became a problem after '86 - also, he did something as irresponsible as being involved in a bar fight during conference finals, injuring his index finger in his shooting hand).

RingsDontLie wrote:The western conference was actually very good in the 80s.

No, it wasn't. Most of the good/great teams were in the East. Just like the West was the dominant conference in the 2000s, East was the dominant conference in the 1980s. Other than the Lakers, there were only a few really good teams in the West - '80 Sonics, '86 Rockets (who beat the Lakers in 5 games, obviously), '88 Mavericks, and maybe '88 Jazz (at least when they faced the Lakers in the postseason, they were very good, not so much in the regular season).

Let's take a look at the opponents the Lakers faced in the '87 playoffs, in the Western conference (Magic's best season, and quite possibly the best Laker team of that decade) - 37-win Nuggets, 42-win Warriors and 39-win Sonics. Two teams with a losing record, and even the one that won 42 games, had a strongly negative (-2.54) SRS, so they were a below average team that just took advantage of playing in the weaker conference. That's absolutely laughable competition, especially considering that the Lakers were really stacked themselves (that team, just like Bird's Celtics, was built before the introduction of the salary cap in the '84-'85 season, which allowed them to accumulate a huge amount of talent, very difficult to do the same in Shaq's era).

RingsDontLie wrote:I'm not sure where you get your information from.

I could say the same about you - I have no idea where are you getting the notion that 80s West was a strong conference, from. It was about as weak as the 00s East (well, the 80s Lakers were much better than the 00s Pistons who also dominated their conference, but other than those two strong teams, there was a similar amount of talent in both conferences).

RingsDontLie wrote:When were you born by the way?

Why does it matter? Age has very little to do with being or not being smart/having knowledge.

RingsDontLie wrote:And how can you penalize Magic for being on a stacked team...

I don't penalize him for that, at all. I'm just trying to provide proper context - Magic made the finals so many times not because he was a better player than Shaq, but because he faced weaker competition. He just had perfect circumstances to be successful. Drafted by an organization that had the best player in the league still in his prime (Kareem), in a very big market, by a historically successful franchise, played in a weak conference.

This is exactly why I hate when people compare team success as supposedly being reflective of their star's ability. This is a team game for Christ's sake, you have 12 players on an active roster, and the star gets all the credit/blame for his team's success/failure? Ridiculous.

RingsDontLie wrote:you would then have to do that for Jordan...who played in the most watered down era with the expansion teams.

That "watered down" era argument is really blown out of proportion. Jordan beat a lot of very good teams on his way to those 6 championships. Many championship-caliber teams, even in his own conference ('92 Cavs, '93 Knicks, '96 Magic, '98 Pacers, maybe even '97 Heat - those were all great, championship-caliber teams). Besides, international players started entering the NBA in the 90s, and there were virtually none of them in the 80s, when it was basically a US-only league.

Besides, what I really care about is not how many rings a player has, but how well he plays basketball (rings really DO lie, alluding to your username) - in 1988, Jordan was already a better player than Magic or Bird ever were, deservedly won the MVP and he just didn't have a team good enough to compete for a championship (hell, even 1987 Jordan was roughly equal to peak Magic and Bird that year). Instead of admitting that, people created that stupid narrative about Jordan being selfish and kept saying that "scoring champions don't win championships" - the narrative that was exposed as extremely silly just 3 years later, in '91, when Jordan's supporting cast grew and developed (I mean Pippen and Grant), and Jordan won 6 championships as a scoring champion every year.
layson27
Ballboy
Posts: 13
And1: 2
Joined: Sep 04, 2015
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#592 » by layson27 » Fri Apr 15, 2016 2:01 am

I can't imagine a top ten list without Magic and/or Bird. They are 4 & 5 in my top ten.

In comparing them- Yes, Magic had better playoff stats, and yes, he played in the weaker conference. Bird (and the Celtics) played against some truly outstanding defensive teams when they went to the playoffs in the 80's. (76er's, Bucks, Pistons) Bird & the Celtics almost certainly faced clearly stronger defenses in the Eastern Conference playoffs than they did in the finals against the Lakers and Rockets.
Btw, I noticed that in that '83 loss against the Bucks, Bird only played in 3 games. So his sub par performance in that series might have been due to yet another injury. (Maybe someone here knows the reason why he missed a game?)

In terms of RS advanced stats Bird & Magic are (predictably) quite similar. Magic has the edge, but again he played in the weaker conference. IMO, ranking one above the other by more than two spots in a top player list really doesn't make sense.
Lucky707
Sophomore
Posts: 100
And1: 59
Joined: Jun 09, 2012

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#593 » by Lucky707 » Mon May 9, 2016 2:40 pm

Just curious: how close was Gilbert Arenas to making this list? His peak seemed pretty good to me.
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,145
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#594 » by Quotatious » Mon May 9, 2016 3:02 pm

Lucky707 wrote:Just curious: how close was Gilbert Arenas to making this list? His peak seemed pretty good to me.

His peak is EASILY top 100, but his longevity is very poor. He only had three great seasons (2005-07). He's similar to Penny Hardaway in the sense that he was outstanding for a brief period of time, both had a pretty electifying style of play (Penny also had about three really great seasons, 1995-97), before injuries destroyed their careers (Penny's post-97 career was clearly superior to Gil's post-07 career, though). Penny also didn't make the top 100.

I don't recall Arenas receiving serious consideration at the end of this project, and I was actively involved in it, at that time, so I would know if he did.
User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,145
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#595 » by Quotatious » Sun Jun 5, 2016 2:56 pm

If we were doing this project again this year, I would argue for Kareem as the GOAT. I think MJ and LBJ have a bit better primes, but I don't think it should override KAJ's edge in terms of longevity.

Kareem has 17 seasons of superstar/high level All-Star play (the way I see it, he was a superstar from 1970 to 1981, and a high level all-star from 1982 to 1986, then a mid/low level all-star in 1987 - I think he didn't deserve his last two all-star nods, those were based on reputation, although still very good for a 41 and 42-year old player).

Jordan had 11 superstar seasons (1985, 1987-93, 1996-98), and two more mid/low level all-star (2002 and 2003), plus 1986 and 1995 that add up to create about a half of a mid/low level all-star season.

LeBron has 12 superstar seasons (2005-16) and one low lever all-star season (2004).

So, Michael's career ends after 13.5 seasons, which would be equivalent of the middle of Kareem's 1982-83 season. Personally, I don't think Michael's advantage in terms of prime play is big enough to override Kareem's three extra high level all-star seasons, like Kareem's 1984-86 seasons, and one more lower level all-star season - 1987.

I'm not gonna talk about Russell here, because I'm simply not sure what to make of him anymore. I don't think he's as good as KAJ, MJ and LBJ, to be honest, and he's roughly equal to Duncan, but Tim has better longevity, so it comes down to Russell vs Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, for me, and to a lesser extent, Magic and Bird. This way, I figured that KAJ, MJ, LBJ and TD would be my top 4.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,674
And1: 3,173
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#596 » by Owly » Mon Jun 6, 2016 9:10 pm

Quotatious wrote:If we were doing this project again this year, I would argue for Kareem as the GOAT. I think MJ and LBJ have a bit better primes, but I don't think it should override KAJ's edge in terms of longevity.

Kareem has 17 seasons of superstar/high level All-Star play (the way I see it, he was a superstar from 1970 to 1981, and a high level all-star from 1982 to 1986, then a mid/low level all-star in 1987 - I think he didn't deserve his last two all-star nods, those were based on reputation, although still very good for a 41 and 42-year old player).

Jordan had 11 superstar seasons (1985, 1987-93, 1996-98), and two more mid/low level all-star (2002 and 2003), plus 1986 and 1995 that add up to create about a half of a mid/low level all-star season.

LeBron has 12 superstar seasons (2005-16) and one low lever all-star season (2004).

So, Michael's career ends after 13.5 seasons, which would be equivalent of the middle of Kareem's 1982-83 season. Personally, I don't think Michael's advantage in terms of prime play is big enough to override Kareem's three extra high level all-star seasons, like Kareem's 1984-86 seasons, and one more lower level all-star season - 1987.

I'm not gonna talk about Russell here, because I'm simply not sure what to make of him anymore. I don't think he's as good as KAJ, MJ and LBJ, to be honest, and he's roughly equal to Duncan, but Tim has better longevity, so it comes down to Russell vs Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, for me, and to a lesser extent, Magic and Bird. This way, I figured that KAJ, MJ, LBJ and TD would be my top 4.

Interesting stuff here, and things (regarding Kareem at 1) I have wondered about in terms of internal consistency and that I tend to think of career in terms of value/championship probability added (i.e. a manner in which longevity matters, though with some acknowledgement of the value of a high peak).
Footnote added in spoilers because it was written after and belongs here but sort of ruins the flow
Spoiler:
Obviously you're just writing one post on it (rather than going to the full depth of your thinking) but the bucketing relates to a possible issue which might hold Jabbar back.


But then I also wonder whether Kareem, whilst the best player of the 70s, was a dominant or typically just above peak Lanier, peak McAdoo. Was he a (better defending) Karl Malone-level player? It might depend on what you make of the competition in the 70s (NBA and then post-merger, league wide and also at the center position). His PER for instance for his best 10 year span (70/71-79/80) is 27.3 versus LeBron's 28.9 (and LeBron is punished here for non-consecutiveness in his best years, thus including down RS years in 07 and 15, but missing this year) or Jordan's 29.4 (including but not counting as a year his 17 game '95 campaign). So unless you think the 70s were an era when it was harder to create separation by the metrics (or specifically PER, obviously this is very rough approximation of performance) it depends on the marginal added value on a high peak (and also where your baseline is for adding value - e.g. Jabbar might be considered the player contributing the most above a 0 win player and the most above replacement level and perhaps even most above average, but if a player has to be a step above average to start significantly shifting championship odds and then every amount above that the added value is exponential then he might not be considered the GOAT/most championship value added).

Kevin Pelton sort of alluded to some of this type of stuff on insider http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/14671128/explaining-championships-added-all-nba-rank-kevin-pelton (this will have been posted elsewhere, I probably shouldn't link it; those who want to will be able to find it) in his Win Share version of Championships Added. He places Jabbar at 4th overall, 3rd in RS (behind Chamberlain, Jordan); 5th in playoffs (behind Jordan, James, Chamberlain, Russell) and 2nd in awards (behind Jordan). I don't know about the playoff numbers (seems to be WS rather than WS/48 so largely dictated by opportunity) but some food for thought provided here (both by yourself and Pelton). I'm still trying to get to an internally consistent point myself (would help if I had a better metric that I trusted that also went right back - and loads of boxscore data wasn't missing - and ...).
Blackmill
Senior
Posts: 666
And1: 721
Joined: May 03, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#597 » by Blackmill » Tue Jun 7, 2016 5:34 pm

Owly wrote:the player contributing the most above a 0 win player and the most above replacement level and perhaps even most above average, but if [that] player has to be a step above average to start significantly shifting championship odds and then every amount above that the added value is exponential then he might not be considered the GOAT/most championship value added).


Could you explain how the part in bold makes sense?

Suppose we have two teams and

(1) Each team's level of play is determined by a normal distribution.

(2) The aforementioned normal distribution for each team has the same mean.

Then, if one team's mean level of performance were to increase by 1 point, the increased probability that team would have of winning would be greater than the increase exhibited by raising the team's mean by another 1 point after the first increase.

That is, we certainly wouldn't expect an exponential increase in championships won as player impact rises, and a decreasing (like an exponential distribution) trend could be more possible in many situations.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,674
And1: 3,173
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#598 » by Owly » Tue Jun 7, 2016 6:18 pm

Blackmill wrote:
Owly wrote:the player contributing the most above a 0 win player and the most above replacement level and perhaps even most above average, but if [that] player has to be a step above average to start significantly shifting championship odds and then every amount above that the added value is exponential then he might not be considered the GOAT/most championship value added).


Could you explain how the part in bold makes sense?

Well there's an "if", and there's two points in what you've bolded. But the gist is ...

Teams have a finite amount of available playing time.
Teams have a finite amount money money to spend (limited absolutely by the owner, and in ways by the salary cap and luxury tax).
And furthermore there is presently an effective cap on the amount individuals can make.
A team's absolute theoretical ceiling is determined by the best (well fitting) players available.

What's the chance of a .500 (calibre) team winning a title? Near enough zero, yes?
Thus typically in a vacuum a ".500 calibre player" adds zero to your title chances. On a crummy team he often pulls them nearer to .500 but it doesn't matter; on a good team he tends to pull them down (taking minutes from better players) or at best does nothing (not playing or happening to replace a relatively weak-ish position where the existing player is about ".500 calibre", and in both cases this may be generous as he is consuming money that could be spent elsewhere), on a few very specific already good teams, where they can use him as a reserve (and he's available at contract viable as a reserve) or he happens to fill a specific positional and/or skillset weakness (and his own weaknesses are obscured), he's useful and (given players already shifting the balance for that team) makes a difference. So mainly not very much. That would be the starting point for - to add titles you need to above average, and perhaps to significantly move chances at an individual level perhaps significantly so. This will be come back to at a team level.

Why exponential growth? Because resources are limited (time, money). Championship teams need (or should need, occasionally they could be lucky) to be elite. The more thinly you spread your goodness, the less likely you are to be elite (and indeed, given the cap, the less possible it is to have other good players). You might be more likely to be safely good/adequate, more resistant to injuries. But that won't change championship odds much.

From whatever the baseline is to start altering championship odds you'd rather have that goodness concentrated into one player (unless the two players were so obscenely good that they themselves individually made a championship highly probable; and thus the super-elite player's greatness was excessive - not useful - and his greater injury risk was the greater liability).

Were we to take the baseline for moving championship odds as 0 SRS impact (for the sake of simplicity) - a +6 is better than two +3s because the one player only consumes so many minutes (and salary), thus enabling a higher upside to the team. A lower downside too (in terms of minutes, though salary should mitigate against this - if this is factored in), but a bad-mediocre team won't win a title anyway.

You (typically - and should) need to be elite to win a title, and being historically elite makes a title that much more likely (teams with an SRS of better than ten, have only ever not won the title when another team with an SRS above 10 happened to be around and won it - 9 such teams - 6 champs plus an expected seventh from Golden State - 10 or more SRS gives a very good chance of a title, 5 SRS does not give half this, not even remotely close to). Concentrated goodness makes this (an elite team) more possible.

This line of thinking comes through in Pelton's article ...
Evaluating the consensus GOAT (greatest of all time) is a good example of why I prefer rating players in terms of championships rather than simply career win shares. Because of his two retirements, Jordan ranks fourth in career win shares behind players with more games. But Jordan's best seasons gave the Chicago Bulls an overwhelming chance of winning a championship (as, of course, they did six times).


[edit] - Post edited to tidy one incomplete thought, include some additional thoughts.
Blackmill
Senior
Posts: 666
And1: 721
Joined: May 03, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#599 » by Blackmill » Tue Jun 7, 2016 7:42 pm

Owly wrote:Why exponential growth? Because resources are limited (time, money).

...

Were we to take the baseline for moving championship odds as 0 SRS impact (for the sake of simplicity) - a +6 is better than two +3s because the one player only consumes so many minutes (and salary), thus enabling a higher upside to the team.


I appreciate you outlining that for me since I don't have insider access. But I have to say I don't think the argument indicates exponential growth.

The part I quoted seems to be at the heart of what Pelton wrote. The issue is he is comparing two players to one. If he wanted to conclude that linear increase in player impact affects championship odds exponentially then he would have to establish something like the difference in a +7 and +6 player is greater than the difference in a +6 and +5 player. That is, a +6 being better than two +3s isn't actually relevant to the claim.

I will also reiterate that if teams perform, from one game to the next, according to a roughly normal distribution, then individual player impact will absolutely not have an exponential influence on winning, and to that extent championship odds. Under various circumstances player impact could even have a diminishing influence on championship odds. I expect it to all depend on the team the player is on and the competition.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,674
And1: 3,173
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#600 » by Owly » Tue Jun 7, 2016 9:43 pm

Blackmill wrote:
Owly wrote:Why exponential growth? Because resources are limited (time, money).

...

Were we to take the baseline for moving championship odds as 0 SRS impact (for the sake of simplicity) - a +6 is better than two +3s because the one player only consumes so many minutes (and salary), thus enabling a higher upside to the team.


I appreciate you outlining that for me since I don't have insider access. But I have to say I don't think the argument indicates exponential growth.

The part I quoted seems to be at the heart of what Pelton wrote. The issue is he is comparing two players to one. If he wanted to conclude that linear increase in player impact affects championship odds exponentially then he would have to establish something like the difference in a +7 and +6 player is greater than the difference in a +6 and +5 player. That is, a +6 being better than two +3s isn't actually relevant to the claim.

I will also reiterate that if teams perform, from one game to the next, according to a roughly normal distribution, then individual player impact will absolutely not have an exponential influence on winning, and to that extent championship odds. Under various circumstances player impact could even have a diminishing influence on championship odds. I expect it to all depend on the team the player is on and the competition.

To be clear on this only the end is from Pelton (at least in this article), the line of thinking is my interpretation of the why and explained by me.

There was a longer version of this post but I'm tired and can't articulate well enough. The gist is exponential was used carelessly, for ease of use and I guess wrongly (brain definitely frazzled at this time, but even when clear the maths depth of understanding isn't where it would need to be). Sorry. The underlying point (from my original post and my understanding of others using this broad line of reasoning) is probably most clearly derived from the 10 SRS (without better 10 SRS) versus the 5 SRS probability and the clearly non-linear relationship. I think that would indicate how the difference between a (positive) 5 team's chances and (positive) 6's chances would be less than the gap between a 6 and a 7 (and so on). That said, as I am often at pains to point out in (in other threads) this isn't a game of individuals, so even had I been able to articulate that point correctly I don't know enough about the distribution of available (minute-) quality to properly understand how much the team level principle applies to individuals in reality, and competition - as has been alluded to, clearly matters.

Sorry again for any lack of clarity above or now.

Return to Player Comparisons