RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #2

[eminence]

Will get mine in tomorrow, no worries, busy celebrating the Mitchell pick, love it

[wojoaderge]

1st - KAJ
2nd - LeBron

[Texas Chuck]

Thanks for the reminder. My 2nd choice is Tim Duncan.

[Cyrusman122000]

1st choice Kareem: All time leading scorer in NBA history, one of the best if not the best scorer of all time. 6 time champion, 6 time MVP, 2 finals MVPs with two different teams. He has arguably the best longevity of any star in NBA history. Kareem's peak/prime is just below MJs level. Had a shot that was literally unguardable, great leader, and teammate.

2nd choice; Tim Duncan

will try to add more info later

[trex_8063]

Will get mine in tomorrow, no worries, busy celebrating the Mitchell pick, love it

Tomorrow early, I hope. Expect this thread to shut down somewhere around 11am-noon EST.

[trex_8063]

1st - KAJ
2nd - LeBron

Need some arguments here (for KAJ at least).

[eminence]

Will get mine in tomorrow, no worries, busy celebrating the Mitchell pick, love it

Tomorrow early, I hope. Expect this thread to shut down somewhere around 11am-noon EST.

No doubt, my baby watching shift is 4am to 8am before work

[trex_8063]

1st choice Kareem: All time leading scorer in NBA history, one of the best if not the best scorer of all time. 6 time champion, 6 time MVP, 2 finals MVPs with two different teams. He has arguably the best longevity of any star in NBA history. Kareem's peak/prime is just below MJs level. Had a shot that was literally unguardable, great leader, and teammate.

2nd choice; Tim Duncan

will try to add more info later

The "great leader" statement is interesting and perhaps questionable (and I say that as someone who's voting for him). Have you an anecdote, quote, peer review or something wrt that part?

[trex_8063]

Will get mine in tomorrow, no worries, busy celebrating the Mitchell pick, love it

Tomorrow early, I hope. Expect this thread to shut down somewhere around 11am-noon EST.

No doubt, my baby watching shift is 4am to 8am before work

I remember the days (if we are indeed talking about a baby) .

[wojoaderge]

1st - KAJ
2nd - LeBron

Need some arguments here (for KAJ at least).

Don't they carry over?

[andrewww]

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2nd: Hakeem Olajuwon

KAJ when you combine peak, prime and impact on both an individual team level is really the only other player I can think of that you can make a decent enough case over MJ as the GOAT. Russell being a relative question mark on the offensive end just doesn't do it for me. Duncan is honestly a poor man's Hakeem to me (less dominant defender, less potent offensively whose efficiency often dropped when called upon to volume score). Wilt in terms of statistical dominance and ability as a floor raiser looks more and more to me like Lebron at center. Magic and Bird probably deserve more discussion than theyre getting, but I think a part of the short careers/defense for them two kind of edge them a little behind those already mentioned. Shaq and Kobe are on the outside looking in for serious consideration at the #2 spot imo.

[Blackmill]

I guess I'll get my votes in before I forget.

1st pick: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Still going with the big man. I know that dominant scoring big man doesn't have the same offensive potential (impact-wise) as an elite perimeter offensive player, but it's not enough to shake me off of this pick. Someone like Shaq has certainly proven that a dominant scoring big can have a monstrous effect on a team's offense, and really he's about the only guy who MAY have been as unstoppable as Kareem (except Kareem was like that for longer).

I'm glad you mentioned Shaq since he seems relevant to the current discussion but hasn't been talked about. I'd say he's the most comparable modern center to Kareem, as one of the best scoring centers ever and a capable passer, even if how he scored happens to be very different. When we look at Colts 97-14 RAPM, we see Shaq places third overall. He's just 0.01 points behind Duncan.

Compared to Shaq, I do think Kareem was a better playmaker and scorer. While there's something to be said of Shaq's gravity, Kareem is a scoring threat in a larger domain, where even at twelve feet he can't be allowed the space to roll middle. That's where Kareem seemed best with the sky hook, and is why his defender often overplayed his roll to the middle, which allowed Kareem to get many of his layups and open jumpers. Thus, in a more spaced environment, I think it's possible that Kareem could have had similar gravity. And I certainly think Kareem was better defensively.

With all that said, the idea that Kareem wasn't having huge impact, comparable to the likes of Duncan or Garnett, seems incongruent with what impact data we have for Shaq.

I'm REALLY looking forward to whatever regressions Blackmill is working on, fwiw. But for now, although I've been given a lot to think about and will be looking more into some of this, I'm sticking with this pick.

I'm having to do some web scraping, which I haven't tried before, and it's a bit finicky. So no guarantees I get this to work.

The plan, though, is not too different from your typical regression based plus/minus stats. Like WOWYR, it will be making use of game data, rather than intra-game data that's used in RAPM. In contrast to WOWYR, though, the data won't be a vector of binary variables. Instead, the values of the data vector will be the proportion of the game that each player played. For instance, a player who played 36 minutes in a game will be indicated by a 0.75.

What's most important is that WOWYR gives Kareem's impact from 1970-84, so it's not entirely representative of his prime, but if I get this web scraper to work I can do I regression for 1970-77 or any other set of seasons.

[drza]

Spoiler:

I guess I'll get my votes in before I forget.

1st pick: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Still going with the big man. I know that dominant scoring big man doesn't have the same offensive potential (impact-wise) as an elite perimeter offensive player, but it's not enough to shake me off of this pick. Someone like Shaq has certainly proven that a dominant scoring big can have a monstrous effect on a team's offense, and really he's about the only guy who MAY have been as unstoppable as Kareem (except Kareem was like that for longer).

I'm glad you mentioned Shaq since he seems relevant to the current discussion but hasn't been talked about. I'd say he's the most comparable modern center to Kareem, as one of the best scoring centers ever and a capable passer, even if how he scored happens to be very different. When we look at Colts 97-14 RAPM, we see Shaq places third overall. He's just 0.01 points behind Duncan.

Compared to Shaq, I do think Kareem was a better playmaker and scorer. While there's something to be said of Shaq's gravity, Kareem is a scoring threat in a larger domain, where even at twelve feet he can't be allowed the space to roll middle. That's where Kareem seemed best with the sky hook, and is why his defender often overplayed his roll to the middle, which allowed Kareem to get many of his layups and open jumpers. Thus, in a more spaced environment, I think it's possible that Kareem could have had similar gravity. And I certainly think Kareem was better defensively.

With all that said, the idea that Kareem wasn't having huge impact, comparable to the likes of Duncan or Garnett, seems incongruent with what impact data we have for Shaq.

Briefly, I think in large part the underlined could answer the bolded. I've talked several times about trends that have been/are being identified and quantified within the databall impact data: big man defense (read big man HELP defense) is key; point guard impact on offense is key (read HELP offense); spacing impact (especially from bigs) spaces the floor for teammates (read, another form of HELP offense); big men operating as offense initiators for their team (seemingly combining the benefit of point guard help offense with the spacing-type impact of bringing an opposing big out of the paint and letting the team work); and gravity (pulling multiple defenders towards you and thus making life easier for teammates...HELP offense, yet again).

All of these trends lead to impact stats WELL beyond what many would have expected based upon the eye test and boxscore stats. And I think there's a fundamental reason for that: boxscore stats, by definition, measure what a player accomplishes AS AN INDIVIDUAL. Impact stats measure how much a player CONTRIBUTES TO THE TEAM. They aren't the same calculation. And the given assumption of the boxscores, that the vast majority of people still operate under, is that if a player contributes enough individually in those boxscores then they're bound to be making a big team impact.

But the lesson that I take home, from the types of trends pointed out above, is that a LOT of aspects of the game, on both offense and defense, that are vital to improving the team, just aren't accounted for in the boxscores. Like, at all. It's even more-so true on defense, where there is literally no boxscore stat of any type for "stopped opponent from scoring", which seems like it'd be important, but even on offense there are major holes. It's why Dirk Nowitzki, for example, though he looks great in the boxscore stats, often falls short in those boxscore scoring categories compared to a guy like Kevin Durant...but Nowitzki routinely torches Durant in the offensive impact stats. Because there's no boxscore stat for "I pulled your opposing big man and likely best defender away from the rim and disrupted the whole defense", but Dirk made a career on that while Durant was being guarded by wings and thus not putting the same pressure on defenses despite the better boxscore numbers.

Now, bring it to that underlined line of yours. Shaq didn't have the type of monster offense impact that the databall era data indicates just because he was a great, high efficiency scorer. That certainly helped, obviously, but it wasn't why he's the only low-post scoring big to truly max out the offensive impact measures. No, Shaq maxed out those measures BECAUSE he sucked the entire opposing defense into him. When Shaq was in the paint and demanding the ball, even when he didn't have the ball, he was getting doubled and sometimes shadow tripled...just completely breaking down the defense.

Thus, Shaq wasn't only making an impact on the 20 possessions or so when he was scoring...he was also making a huge impact on the other 60 possessions where he was just on the court, sucking the defense in whether he had the ball or not.

Kareem, as you pointed out in your underlined, potentially COULD have had similar gravity to Shaq in a spaced environment where defenses were allowed to collapse onto him even before he got the ball. And I'm sure that Kareem drew quite a bit of defensive pressure, and it did contribute in some way to his very positive impact. But he wasn't getting drowned like Shaq...the game in that era didn't allow for a defense to provide that level of attention.

Thus, while Kareem may have been matching Shaq's volume and efficiency as an individual scorer, he was not ABLE to make the same magnitude of impact on opposing defenses that Shaq was. During the possessions that Kareem wasn't scoring, he couldn't pull the defense toward him to the extent that Shaq could, and thus couldn't make life easier for his teammates to the same extent that Shaq could.

And (I believe), that's why his impact ended up looking more like Karl Malone's than Shaq's. Still a great, great player...but not breaking the scale, the way that Walton or Russell were able to do in either the same era or the one just before. Because what Russell (help defense) and Walton (help defense, help offense) were doing was having a tangible impact on essentially every possession, while Kareem's impact was more limited to what he could accomplish on the possessions that he had the ball.

Could you argue that maybe, in a different era, Kareem may have been able to have that kind of impact? It's fair. And it could be a fun discussion. And of course, I'd love to see what your regressions come up with, and have a discussions about the pros and cons of your approach as well. But in this thread, as I vote on the 2nd best player in NBA history, I am more influenced by what was than what may have been. And, as I've detailed..I'm less and less convinced that Kareem was impacting the game as much as perhaps the next 5 - 10 guys that are likely to be voted in. His individual contributions were superb, as the boxscores can attend to, for a VERY long time. He was an iron man, and he stayed at a high level forever. All super worthy things. But for #2 all time, I need to have seen him make an impact as big as Walton, or Russell, or LeBron, or Shaq or (yes, Kayess) Garnett at their bests...and at the moment, I'm just not seeing it.

[Jaivl]

Well, no point in wasting my second vote in somebody like Garnett or Duncan who isn't getting choosed yet. So, between Kareem and Bill...

Vote: LeBron James
Second pick: Bill Russell

[Winsome Gerbil]

Man, I lost my writeup twice on this. I'm not typing the full thing a third time.

[eminence]

Ballot the same as last round.

1st: Tim Duncan
2nd: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Not any major changes since last round. Reasons for Duncan: think his peak was up there with anyone ('02 and '03), his prime was also right there (though I'd put it a hair below guys like Russell/Jordan/LeBron), but he beats them fairly soundly on extra seasons added that wouldn't necessarily count as prime, where he functioned as an elite defensive anchor but more of a tertiary option on offense. Over Kareem largely due to feeling those post-prime years provided more value than Kareem's post-prime (defense aged a lot better, whereas Kareem seemed to lose several steps on that end).

Kareem gets the second spot for a great prime/longevity, even if I do feel his peak is a half step below some of the other contenders.

Russell/LeBron were the main other contenders for the ballot (take up spots 1-4 on my personal list as of now). Loved The Outsider's Wilt post on the board. Still working my way through it, but lots of great info in there, I'm sure he'll be a contender soon.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Okay, So THIRD try:

Okay, well just in case by some off chance my vote for ElDee/Hawes does not pass muster with our super snooty mods, I figure I had better advance some alternatives:

2) LeBron
3) Kareem

My three candidates for these 2 spots are Lebron, Kareem, and Wilt. I have gone back and forth on the Wilt/Kareem front over the years (I consider Russell to be more of a not terribly portable legacy from an earlier era), but Lebron moving into the #2 spot is a new development for me, powered by his refusal to fade off while continuing to pump out massive seasons, and his epic battles with the Warriors the last three years. If he's not #2 today, it's inevitable I think, and waiting for him to finish dotting his i's is formalism.

In any case, while some of the discussions are quite interesting, in a lot of ways I think how you rank the megas at the top of the rankings is almost independent of the kind of analysis you might employ to distinguish between several lesser options. The megas all have such unique portfolios, things that they basically have done as well or better than anyone in history, that its really more a question of what types of trait you value than an evaluation of those traits on some sort of universal scale.

MASSIVE PRODUCTIVITY
I highly value massive productivity, especially as the "man". Despite all the fiddling around looking for magic statistical bullets, pure all time level productivity remains almost unparallelled as an identifier of true greatness. Unlike many statistical measures, there are almost no examples of anybody who was NOT an all time great putting up all time great raw statlines. It just doesn't happen. You can get false positives for mere star level statlines. On a top year maybe a Monta Ellis can sneak in with a 25ppg season. But there are no fake Jordans. In any case, my top 4 guys (MJ, LeBron, Kareem and Wilt) all fit the bill in spades.

I do not think PER has any particular insight as a statistical formula, but it is a very handy and relatively pure statistical shorthand for productivity (offensive in particular of course). My top 4 guys dominated entire eras as the most overwhelmingly productive players of their generations

Years Leading NBA in PER
MJ- 7
Lebron 6
Kareem-9
Wilt-8

Meaning that my Top 4 guys have led the NBA in PER in 30 of its 71 seasons, winning 19 MVPs along the way.


WHY LEBRON?
Now this section originally went into some detail on each candidate, but I lost it twice in frustrating fashion, so I'm just going to summarize:

The case for Wilt is that he simply was epic. The most epic player in NBA history. He once scored 100pts in a game. He once averaged 50pts 20rebs in a game, led the league in assists one season because people said he didn't pass enough, played in every minute of every game for years (thus btw freeing a roster spot because you didn't need a backup center), won 7 scoring titles, 11 rebounding titles, 4 MVPs, and even got into a swordfight with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I also don't think he gets enough credit for doing something surprising and almost unique for a player of his caliber, in his late career proving considerable portability as he reinvented himself as a defensive/rebounding anchor for the Lakers.

The case for Kareem is that he simply had the most productive career in NBA history. He's the NBA's all time leading scorer, its 3rd all time leading rebounder, he lead the league in PER 9 times, won 6 MVPs and 6 titles. And he did it all behind the greatest shot in NBA history, which kept him potent offensively deep into his old agehood.

So why LeBron over these guys? Well first of all its easy to forget just how high up LeBron's own career totals have already gotten. he's going to start declining soon, but he's already the NBA's 7th leading scorer of all time, will pass the 30,000 pt barrier sometime next season, and with any longevity should pass Kobe to become the 3rd leading scorer before its done, and maybe more. But all of those kind of stats just prove that he very much belongs up amongst the very greatest of all time. What actually has finally nudged him up ahead of the guys not named MJ for me is that his continued massive production is not coming like it did for Wilt or Kareem as a piece on great teams, but rather like Jordan (before the Wizards misadventure), 14 years and 1061 games into his career LeBron is still the unquestioned power driving his teams to Finals appearance after Finals appearance. The term "longevity" sometimes gets thrown around to refer to old declining guys, but what Lebron has displayed is some of the greatest great player alpha longevity in NBA history. He hasn't just lasted for 14 years, he's been an MVP candidate for 14 years (well, not his rookie season). That's longevity that matters. Wilt dominated the 60s, Kareem the 70s, Magic/Bird the 80s, Jordan the 90s, and now we have been living in the Lebron epoch. And he's not doing it in a 10 team league, or during a decade where the best players were split between two leagues, and he's not doing it as a beta on his own team (the 2011 sadness aside). He's the greatest and most relentless alpha the league has seen other than MJ himself.

[penbeast0]

Okay, So THIRD try:

Okay, well just in case by some off chance my vote for ElDee/Hawes does not pass muster with our super snooty mods, ....

For this compliment to be effective, you need a comma . . . . super, snooty mods

[drza]

@ drza and Texas Chuck - I need you to specify your 2nd pick.

Will my vote count if I don't specify a 2nd pick? It's clear that my vote (Russell) will be one of the top 2 finishers, so my 2nd wouldn't be put into play. And I'm not settled on who I'm voting next. But if my vote won't count unless I specify a 2nd, I'll put someone in just as a placeholder

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Vote 2 - Bill Russell

As I said in the last thread, Kareem is the only player who I think really has a case against Jordan for GOAT. They're basically 1A and 1B to me. Kareem came into the league and basically dominated the competition, which rarely happens even as a rookie with 4 years of college experience. He basically had an argument for best player in the league for the majority of the first 13 years of his career. He also had excellent longevity, playing in at least 76 games in 18 of his 20 seasons. And how about that absurd longevity? It really wasn't until his last season that his production really fell off a cliff.