RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #6

[trex_8063]

Putting Wilt in this spot is insane. There is little separation between him and David Robinson.

PER:
Wilt: 26.1
Robinson: 26.2

WS/48:
Wilt: .248
Robinson: .250

Playoff PER:
Wilt: 22.7
Robinson: 23.0

Playoff WS/48:
Wilt: .200
Robinson: .199

Tell me exactly why Wilt should be ahead of Robinson when they are similar players.

Staying along these same relatively narrow lines of argumentation, I'd note that the nearly identical rate metrics PER and WS/48, in Robinson's case, came while playing 34.7 mpg in the rs, 34.3 mpg in the playoffs; Wilt's came while playing 45.8 mpg in the rs and 47.2 mpg in the playoffs.
That's like one guy playing 24 mpg and the other player 36; not quite the same, even if the metrics look the same.

[THKNKG]

I would be intersted in hearing arguments/evidence for Dirk over Magic/Bird, because I don't quite see any. As for KG, what's his case over Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, or even DRob?

There aren't any/there isn't one

Exactly. Not even a modicum. I skip over the posts discussing it because I wouldn't even entertain the thought, and there's no point in refuting them because the people making them are so set on it already.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

Oh hey, I want a turn. Hey, there's no evidence for Wilt over Duncan or Kobe or KG! I'll make sure to skip your posts. Am I doing that right? Come on, please have some intellectual integrity. If we both cover our ears in a conversation, no one hears anything at all.

[wojoaderge]

There are, already were posted, and people chose to ignore them because they couldn't refute them.

Where are they? I probably couldn't be bothered reading them because I feel the idea that they are top 10 players is absurd.

But that's literally the worst way to go into an open minded discussion.

I want to be as open minded to the inevitable Kobe in top 10 discussion as I can be. I am human, and can be wrong, and am often. I hope that those who do things like that will also be open minded for my KG at 6 thinking, or my Dirk in top 10 discussion.

What you just said is problematic, but at least you vocalized it. You, in effect, said "my presuppositions cannot be wrong, so any discussion contrary to my presuppositions is useless."

I'm not saying you're wrong and i'm right. I'm just saying that in my view, no player(talking about KG) that couldn't lead a team to a championship as it's unequivocal best player deserves a Top 10 ranking. There are just too many players clearly ahead of them. I can reasonably put Dirk in the mid-teens and KG in the late teens. I mean, we're talking Top 10 in all of pro basketball history, not just the 21st century.

[70sFan]

For those who have Admiral over Wilt: How do you value Wilt's clear edge in longevity? Also, I've heard that Robinson and Spurs underperformed defensively in playoffs. Wilt's teams overachieved defensively in playoffs more times than not.

So what makes Robinson clearly better?

[Colbinii]

Where are they? I probably couldn't be bothered reading them because I feel the idea that they are top 10 players is absurd.

But that's literally the worst way to go into an open minded discussion.

I want to be as open minded to the inevitable Kobe in top 10 discussion as I can be. I am human, and can be wrong, and am often. I hope that those who do things like that will also be open minded for my KG at 6 thinking, or my Dirk in top 10 discussion.

What you just said is problematic, but at least you vocalized it. You, in effect, said "my presuppositions cannot be wrong, so any discussion contrary to my presuppositions is useless."

I'm not saying you're wrong and i'm right. I'm just saying that in my view, no player(talking about KG) that couldn't lead a team to a championship as it's unequivocal best player deserves a Top 10 ranking. There are just too many players clearly ahead of them. I can reasonably put Dirk in the mid-teens and KG in the late teens. I mean, we're talking Top 10 in all of pro basketball history, not just the 21st century.

What many people believe is that every single player in NBA history has had different circumstances. This, is not arguable or reputable.

What KG supports claim is his circumstances in Minnesota were simply impossible for ANY player in history to win. Can you make a case that a player could have won in any of those years?

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app

[An Unbiased Fan]

I would be intersted in hearing arguments/evidence for Dirk over Magic/Bird, because I don't quite see any. As for KG, what's his case over Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, or even DRob?

There aren't any/there isn't one

There are, already were posted, and people chose to ignore them because they couldn't refute them.

Can you point me to where this is posted? I haven't even seen much talk talk of Magic or Bird, much less a case for Dirk over them. Nor specific reasoning of KG's case vs the players mentioned. In previous Top 100 projects the case amongst potential nominees was made in each thread.

[THKNKG]

Where are they? I probably couldn't be bothered reading them because I feel the idea that they are top 10 players is absurd.

But that's literally the worst way to go into an open minded discussion.

I want to be as open minded to the inevitable Kobe in top 10 discussion as I can be. I am human, and can be wrong, and am often. I hope that those who do things like that will also be open minded for my KG at 6 thinking, or my Dirk in top 10 discussion.

What you just said is problematic, but at least you vocalized it. You, in effect, said "my presuppositions cannot be wrong, so any discussion contrary to my presuppositions is useless."

I'm not saying you're wrong and i'm right. I'm just saying that in my view, no player(talking about KG) that couldn't lead a team to a championship as it's unequivocal best player deserves a Top 10 ranking. There are just too many players clearly ahead of them. I can reasonably put Dirk in the mid-teens and KG in the late teens. I mean, we're talking Top 10 in all of pro basketball history, not just the 21st century.

In thread one, I wrote that context always matters and that I don't count rings at all. I listed every bias or assumption I have that I could think of and welcomed others to challenge that. You and I view things very differently, so our top 10s are necessarily different. My question is, why not challenge my (in your opinion, faulty) assumptions? Why not explain why I am at fault supporting KG instead of just dismissing as absurd? If it's not a "I'm right, you're wrong" discussion, can we not discuss our disagreement, no matter how absurd we may view them?

[Hornet Mania]

I'll have more time to elaborate tomorrow afternoon, but my vote is:

1st vote: Shaquille O'Neal
2nd vote: Magic Johnson

Shaq had one of the most dominant peaks ever and seemingly couldn't be stopped for a number of years. Magic may very well be the offensive GOAT.

[Blackmill]

I would be intersted in hearing arguments/evidence for Dirk over Magic/Bird, because I don't quite see any. As for KG, what's his case over Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, or even DRob?

There aren't any/there isn't one

There are, already were posted, and people chose to ignore them because they couldn't refute them.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but reading it now, it sums up the backwards logic that has turned me away from this project.

A lot of arguments have rested heavily on impact analysis, and yet, the most important question to answer has been entirely ignored. That is, how accurate are our estimates of player impact? I've been the only person to tackle this.

I posted the results of several simulations I ran regarding on/off numbers and still people try to draw meaning from incredibly small samples. It's absurd how even when presented with reason to cautiously use statistics no restraint is had. My guess is people think if they ignore the "bad" results in on/off or RAPM, then otherwise, these metrics are close to perfect. After all, so few arguments have gone beyond stats and actually discussed what the player did, that the prevailing thought must be these stats can accurately capture most everything about a player. If not, then I would expect less focus on statistics.

I wouldn't mind if you thought Dirk or KG was the GOAT. But when you say the arguments for Dirk or KG haven't been refuted, these arguments having been so focused on impact stats, it frustrates me because the burden is not to refute the stats but to prove they are significant. There's been a complete disregard for conducting proper analysis and it shows here.

That's not to say there hasn't been good posts and discussion, but too often, these threads read like excerpts on pseudoscience.

[2klegend]

So far so good.

This is a tough one. It's between Wilt, Magic, Shaq. To get you an idea of how close they are, my GOAT projection point toward Wilt at 120.05, Magic at 119.38, and Shaq at 117.69. I'm eliminating Shaq because while he matched Wilt peak, his prime was disappointing with his injury and taking company time off which explains why he only had 1 MVP vs Wilt 4 MVPs.

So I'm going off comparing with Wilt vs Magic straight up based on their Peak, Prime, Longevity, and what each accomplished during their time.

Peak
Wilt 1967
REG = 26.5 PER+0.637 TS%+0.285 WS48
POS = 25.3 PER+0.546 TS%+0.253 WS48

Magic 1987
REG = 27.0 PER+0.602 TS%+0.263 WS48
POS = 26.2 PER+0.607 TS%+0.265 WS48

Looking at these measure, it's a wash between them from a basis standpoint. A slight edge to Wilt in the REG and Magic in the POS. '67 Wilt is uniquely very efficient, posing a career high in TS. He does more from a team perspective than doing so individually like in his early years. This explains why this year is Wilt complete peak year. Magic also demonstrated tremendous leadership and offensive genius in this '87. Magic has the upper hand offensively but Wilt mantle the Defense. The separation between Wilt defense > Magic Offense really sway me to believe Wilt '67 peak is superior.

Prime
Wilt Prime is on a different level to Magic.

In 7-years prime comparison
Wilt Chamberlain '62, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68
Avg PER = 29.03
Avg TS% = .554
Avg WS48 = .273

Magic Johnson '83, '85, '86, '87, '89, '90, '91
Avg PER = 25.11
Avg TS% = .614
Avg WS48 = .243

Wilt prime normalized to league leader average to about 135.42 vs Magic 116.50. Wilt's prime is 3rd all-time on my list and Magic at around 11th. Prime for Prime, Wilt is too statistically dominant and Magic really isn't comparable. So Prime wise, Wilt edge hugely.

Longevity
Neither guys really known for longevity but 12 years above lg avg vs 13 years for Magic are respectable. Magic edge slightly a bit but not enough to warrant much discussion beyond 1 year of productive impact.

Accolades
This is where Magic caught up on Wilt GOAT accumulation points. Magic was a 5x champ with 3 titles as best player and 2 as complementary star. Wilt had 2x title as best player but beyond that he was only a 1x Final MVP vs Magic 3x Final MVP. Regular season MVP, Magic had 3x MVP and Wilt had 4x MVP. Magic won this accomplishment battle by purely of being a better winner and providing more intangibles to team success.

Conclusion:

In the end, it comes down to Wilt having a superior peak and prime that despite Magic being a superior winner, Magic just couldn't overcome Wilt in the rank. Though it was very close and I have no problem with Magic being 6th here. Unfortunately due to my consistency in evaluation, I have to choose Wilt. Wilt provides close to Magic offensive impact but much more superior defensive impact. This fact in addition to Wilt having some success in accolades shows he is a force to be reckon with at the 6th spot. He deserves and warrant it from his prime statistical dominant, 3rd best imo only behind Jordan/Lebron in this 7-years showdown.

My 6th pick: Wilt Chamberlain

ALT pick: Magic Johnson

[Dr Positivity]

Where are they? I probably couldn't be bothered reading them because I feel the idea that they are top 10 players is absurd.

But that's literally the worst way to go into an open minded discussion.

I want to be as open minded to the inevitable Kobe in top 10 discussion as I can be. I am human, and can be wrong, and am often. I hope that those who do things like that will also be open minded for my KG at 6 thinking, or my Dirk in top 10 discussion.

What you just said is problematic, but at least you vocalized it. You, in effect, said "my presuppositions cannot be wrong, so any discussion contrary to my presuppositions is useless."

I'm not saying you're wrong and i'm right. I'm just saying that in my view, no player(talking about KG) that couldn't lead a team to a championship as it's unequivocal best player deserves a Top 10 ranking. There are just too many players clearly ahead of them. I can reasonably put Dirk in the mid-teens and KG in the late teens. I mean, we're talking Top 10 in all of pro basketball history, not just the 21st century.

It's pretty unequivocal 2008 KG is the best player on the Celtics. KG rated 2nd in the league in WS/48, 4th in BPM, 4th in PER, 1st in RAPM, 3rd in MVP voting (He might have finished 1st if not for missed games). He is not the best offensive player on the team but the defensive gap between KG and Pierce is bigger

[wojoaderge]

What KG supports claim is his circumstances in Minnesota were simply impossible for ANY player in history to win. Can you make a case that a player could have won in any of those years?

Not really, but what does this prove? What makes him so great that he's deserving of a All-Time Top 10 placement despite a lack of wins? That he had a higher fg % and more apg than Elvin Hayes? That he had a longer prime than Bob McAdoo?

[Senior]

kind of wanted to get the ball rolling on Hakeem vs Shaq, especially peak vs peak

So Shaq's peak is almost universally seen as top 5, and even top 2 right after MJ - checks off everything you'd want in a superstar year - overwhelming dominance, great RS W-L, title, played good competition...it's all there. we all remember Shaq dunking on people's heads and scoring like there's no one's there.

however, I don't believe Hakeem is *that* far behind either. 93-95 Hakeem and 00-02 Shaq are taking essentially the same offensive load at ~30 PPG (Hakeem's TS% is actually a tiny bit better because of FTs), similar passers, similarly resilient offenses in the playoffs. Hakeem also has superior range, ballhandling which means that he can shoulder a higher volume than Shaq as defenses have a little more control on denying Shaq the ball, which is really something they had to do anyway because if Shaq gets the ball too deep it's over. some teams such as the 00 Blazers were able to significantly limit Shaq's volume (for example in Game 7 Shaq like 9 FGA/12 FTA) overall, I would say that Shaq is more successful on his offensive opportunities whereas Hakeem can take more offensive opportunities. Shaq's track record of offenses kinda kills Hakeem's, but I'm not sure how much of that is due to superior offensive support such as Penny/Eddie Jones/Kobe. Rockets offense with Clyde in the 95 playoffs was already excellent.

where I start to tilt to Hakeem is defense; 00 was really Shaq's only season where he was giving 100% (or close) effort on defense, and it resulted in the #1 RS defense. his defensive effort was always up and down and he usually did fine in the playoffs, but he was still susceptible to PNR plays, not closing out, or not getting back in transition. he simply wasn't capable of defending the way Hakeem was no matter the level of effort. Teams such as 00 Portland and 02 Sacramento could take advantage - Portland's offense was rolling for Games 5/6 and even most of Game 7 and they nearly made the comeback. 97-98 Jazz annihilated LA on the defensive end too. the only Shaq-led defense that was playing above expected was like 01. even in 00 their DRTG went to 107.5 up from 98.2 in the RS. not really sure what that is in relative DRTG but his effort didn't make him an absolutely elite defender. he still has useful defensive traits - still a fine rim protector as long as he can stay near the rim and have his perimeter guys funnel the ball to him, and he only got dunked on like twice in 10 years because of the intimidation factor. but his mobility doesn't measure up to the all-timers.

I mentioned the team offenses as a point to Shaq earlier, however, Shaq's track record of team defenses isn't great. lot of average/mediocre defenses. 95-96 Orlando were 13th/12th, 97-98 LA were around 10th, 99/01 LA were dismal due to weak effort (like 23rd/21st), 02 was 7th. on the flip side you have Hakeem's Rockets top 4 every year from 87-94 except 1992 when they were 10th (point against Hakeem for slight sandbagging). they were 1st in 1990 and he probably should've gotten the DPOY over Rodman. Hakeem's defense is on the shortlist of all-timers - fantastic motor, balance, footwork, rim protection, can stay on most perimeter players on switches, fantastic BBIQ, great in transition (Game 7 1993 vs SEA is an unbelievable display), shutdown man defender (destroyed Ewing in 94) he's got the whole package. IIRC someone (ElGee, maybe) had data showing Hakeem's Rockets were playing at above expected levels on D from 93-95. 00 Shaq doesn't touch 93 Hakeem defensively.

so that's where I stand on Hakeem vs Shaq. I don't think anyone in history was better than Hakeem on offense to make up for the margin he's better than Shaq on defense, but maybe I'm wrong. I also really value Hakeem's lack of weaknesses - you could maybe argue that Shaq's ceiling is higher, but he can be taken advantage of more easily as well. considering playoff format I've always been a big believer in matchups - and I believe Hakeem matches up with teams more easily than Shaq does, even if Shaq is a bigger mismatch on offense.

[Dr Positivity]

There aren't any/there isn't one

There are, already were posted, and people chose to ignore them because they couldn't refute them.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but reading it now, it sums up the backwards logic that has turned me away from this project.

A lot of arguments have rested heavily on impact analysis, and yet, the most important question to answer has been entirely ignored. That is, how accurate are our estimates of player impact? I've been the only person to tackle this.

I posted the results of several simulations I ran regarding on/off numbers and still people try to draw meaning from incredibly small samples. It's absurd how even when presented with reason to cautiously use statistics no restraint is had. My guess is people think if they ignore the "bad" results in on/off or RAPM, then otherwise, these metrics are close to perfect. After all, so few arguments have gone beyond stats and actually discussed what the player did, that the prevailing thought must be these stats can accurately capture most everything about a player. If not, then I would expect less focus on statistics.

I wouldn't mind if you thought Dirk or KG was the GOAT. But when you say the arguments for Dirk or KG haven't been refuted, these arguments having been so focused on impact stats, it frustrates me because the burden is not to refute the stats but to prove they are significant. There's been a complete disregard for conducting proper analysis and it shows here.

That's not to say there hasn't been good posts and discussion, but too often, these threads read like excerpts on pseudoscience.

My argument for KG is the same as Duncan and Hakeem, he is an all time defender + great offense, not Magic level, but great enough. Unless someone makes a convincing argument that Garnett is noticeably worse as a defender or offensive player than them, I don't see a reason to create this big gap between them.

[wojoaderge]

He is not the best offensive player on the team but the defensive gap between KG and Pierce is bigger

Kiki Vandeweghe>E.C. Coleman maxim

[wojoaderge]

In thread one, I wrote that context always matters and that I don't count rings at all. I listed every bias or assumption I have that I could think of and welcomed others to challenge that. You and I view things very differently, so our top 10s are necessarily different. My question is, why not challenge my (in your opinion, faulty) assumptions? Why not explain why I am at fault supporting KG instead of just dismissing as absurd? If it's not a "I'm right, you're wrong" discussion, can we not discuss our disagreement, no matter how absurd we may view them?

I'm made some replies, and i'd be very willing to engage you further

[2klegend]

There are, already were posted, and people chose to ignore them because they couldn't refute them.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but reading it now, it sums up the backwards logic that has turned me away from this project.

A lot of arguments have rested heavily on impact analysis, and yet, the most important question to answer has been entirely ignored. That is, how accurate are our estimates of player impact? I've been the only person to tackle this.

I posted the results of several simulations I ran regarding on/off numbers and still people try to draw meaning from incredibly small samples. It's absurd how even when presented with reason to cautiously use statistics no restraint is had. My guess is people think if they ignore the "bad" results in on/off or RAPM, then otherwise, these metrics are close to perfect. After all, so few arguments have gone beyond stats and actually discussed what the player did, that the prevailing thought must be these stats can accurately capture most everything about a player. If not, then I would expect less focus on statistics.

I wouldn't mind if you thought Dirk or KG was the GOAT. But when you say the arguments for Dirk or KG haven't been refuted, these arguments having been so focused on impact stats, it frustrates me because the burden is not to refute the stats but to prove they are significant. There's been a complete disregard for conducting proper analysis and it shows here.

That's not to say there hasn't been good posts and discussion, but too often, these threads read like excerpts on pseudoscience.

My argument for KG is the same as Duncan and Hakeem, he is an all time defender + great offense, not Magic level, but great enough. Unless someone makes a convincing argument that Garnett is noticeably worse as a defender or offensive player than them, I don't see a reason to create this big gap between them.

What is KG T-Wolves defense ranks in the league? I don't think KG is a good anchor. He is a great complentary defensive player, in the tune of a Pip or Lebron rather than a Hakeem/D-Rob.

[Dr Positivity]

I'll get to Robinson later but to me it's not just about regular season stats but how you did them. It's like how Harden is more flawed as a scorer than just his regular season stats show, cause he's so reliant on driving to the rim and getting fouls and some of his holes catch up to him in the postseason. When I see Robinson play it looks more like Anthony Davis or Toronto Bosh style scoring to me. Overpowering athleticism, get to line, hits open midrange but not lockdown. Which is good but I value the skillset of players like Wilt, Hakeem and Shaq more when it comes to building an offense than that face-up type of game.

[THKNKG]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but reading it now, it sums up the backwards logic that has turned me away from this project.

A lot of arguments have rested heavily on impact analysis, and yet, the most important question to answer has been entirely ignored. That is, how accurate are our estimates of player impact? I've been the only person to tackle this.

I posted the results of several simulations I ran regarding on/off numbers and still people try to draw meaning from incredibly small samples. It's absurd how even when presented with reason to cautiously use statistics no restraint is had. My guess is people think if they ignore the "bad" results in on/off or RAPM, then otherwise, these metrics are close to perfect. After all, so few arguments have gone beyond stats and actually discussed what the player did, that the prevailing thought must be these stats can accurately capture most everything about a player. If not, then I would expect less focus on statistics.

I wouldn't mind if you thought Dirk or KG was the GOAT. But when you say the arguments for Dirk or KG haven't been refuted, these arguments having been so focused on impact stats, it frustrates me because the burden is not to refute the stats but to prove they are significant. There's been a complete disregard for conducting proper analysis and it shows here.

That's not to say there hasn't been good posts and discussion, but too often, these threads read like excerpts on pseudoscience.

My argument for KG is the same as Duncan and Hakeem, he is an all time defender + great offense, not Magic level, but great enough. Unless someone makes a convincing argument that Garnett is noticeably worse as a defender or offensive player than them, I don't see a reason to create this big gap between them.

What is KG T-Wolves defense ranks in the league? I don't think KG is a good anchor. He is a great complentary defensive player, in the tune of a Pip or Lebron rather than a Hakeem/D-Rob.

Look at 08. He had quality teammates instead of garbage, and had a historic defense.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Colbinii]

What KG supports claim is his circumstances in Minnesota were simply impossible for ANY player in history to win. Can you make a case that a player could have won in any of those years?

Not really, but what does this prove? What makes him so great that he's deserving of a All-Time Top 10 placement despite a lack of wins? That he had a higher fg % and more apg than Elvin Hayes? That he had a longer prime than Bob McAdoo?

These are strawmans that have nothing to do with our conversation and you know it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app