Post#238 » by kayess » Sat Jul 1, 2017 2:49 am
Epic post by Colbinii, agree that these are what projects should be about. Surprised to see it didn't get the same... skepticism, as say, the one Blackmill did for Kareem, which is the only thing to watch-out for when posts with video like that gets used: For one player, it's indicative of how they can, and did play (without necessarily accounting for team context), while for others it's the (idealized) referendum on how they played.
Can't say I disagree with the notion that that IS how KG played his entire career though. Just an unbelievable defender.
On to the vote: the 4 guys in play are: Shaq, Hakeem, KG, and Wilt.
Shaq: The GOAT peak, and underrated longevity by pretty much all measures: informed eye-test, box score to measure volatility of results, xAPM to measure impact... The only weak spots on his resume are his work-ethic and his perimeter defense (relative to guys like KG, Hakeem, of course), but even when he was lazy, he was putting up massive impact (and his missed RS games didn't impact their odds much), and his PNR defense, despite being exploitable, was never fully exploitable that it dampened his impact. Aside from that, you'd have to show that his impact wasn't ATG at his peak/prime [or at least, his expected championships is still below KG/Hakeem/etc.], for me to take someone else over Shaq.
Hakeem: In the top tier of peaks as well - but this time, his superstar longevity is more of a question mark than others': fatal9 and ronnymac have some great posts on pre '93 Hakeem, indicating that he was close to that level for his early career, but the WOWY numbers aren't too convincing... Unless of course there is a significant difference once accounting for opponent strenght/on-court/off-court. I think at this point I'm leaning towards more that he had an amazing peak, some great superstar impact years pre'93, but not enough to surpass the other guys on this tier. If it were close enough, his skill-set might be the tiebreaker (maybe not against Shaq).
KG: If you value measuring what was done to drive team results on the floor, then the fact that KG's being discussed for these high top 10 spots is unsurprising. Zero weak spots on his resume - his team results WHEN HE IS ON THE COURT are always great, and while his overall team results (I.E., taking into account what happens when he's off the court. OFF THE COURT, meaning, he's not on the court. Meaning he can't influence the results. ETC.) aren't as great, I don't think players should be punished for how their teams perform without them (a standard we've applied unevenly so far).
(This is where I need help, because it's early and I might not be thinking straight - anyone please feel free to point out any flaws in the argumentation, or if I'm applying criteria differently)
I just think he's not as impactful as Shaq, whose effort has been shown to wax and wane because he was playing the system (i.e., taking advantage of the flawed playoff system, which is highly match-up oriented. Shaq, being the biggest match-up problem EVER, knew this, and therefore knew he didn't have to bust his ass getting the 1 seed to win - him being healthy and motivated and rested was a far bigger SRS swing than home court advantage). The difference in impact is therefore a function of the format, rather than their actual imprint on games... Now, I'm not saying Shaq would have NECESSARILY maximized his impact had the playing conditions been more fair (e.g., double round-robin). He was self-destructive enough that some measure of doubt is absolutely in play here. BUT, what we do know was that his effort increased as the games became more important - which means we can't rule this out either, and must consider this the more likely possibility.
At the same time, KG shouldn't be punished for being able to maximize his impact in the RS, so my conclusion is: Shaq's RS impact (most years) isn't fully indicative of his true impact (which is greater than Garnett's), but this is a function of the way the championship is decided (and because he's a headcase), and didn't affect his team's championship odds that much.
Close call, but I think Shaq wins out for now.
Wilt: The discussion on Wilt has produced some great content... But I honestly don't like the timbre of it. People are seeing the exact same things, but applying different contexts (mostly, not enough I feel), to the point where it feels like both sides are driving their narratives, and not really attempting to come to a middle ground. It feels like a political issue more than a basketball one, to be honest. It's fascinating that nearly 4 decades later he is still as polarizing as hew as back then.
I feel like TLAF has had the most balanced view so far - Wilt probably having the GOAT talent, being at different points the greatest scorer, big-man passer/facilitator, and rebounder/defender the league has seen.
But, he was a tremendous headcase who, in TLAF's words, "needed to be told things".
BUT, he had ATG bad luck.
BUT, as the Regul8r explains - focusing on those instances for the losing side means that we are ignoring some instances of luck going their way/against the winning side's)
BUT, as multiple people pointed out - he still had great impact in the years where his team environment was even average, and GOAT impact when his team environment was great.
BUT, he'd go on to even ruin some great teams because he'd go chasing for the assist title (well documented - would be great if someone can bring up the snippets), or something else.
BUT, he was also told to score so much early in his career, because it would draw in crowds, etc.
You could play this game with Wilt all day...
The temptation is to form a conclusion first about Wilt, that fits your philosophy of basketball, then use the facts to support the narrative. I think that's at the heart of what causes such a great divide on him. I think here it helps to take a step back and ask: what exactly DO we know about Wilt, 100%? Pure fact, with no value judgments?
1) He had massive impact in the right situations ('67, '68), and middling impact in others (his early high scoring seasons...)
2) ...which were partially driven by management, in an effort to increase attendance... Something that was driven by the times, and not anything basketball related, really
3) He was self-destructive at times ('68-'69 arguably), and incredibly selfless during others ('72, when he re-invented himself).
4) We can't really comment on luck one way or another - but what we do know is that he did have to contend with Bill Russell. RUSSELL! The guy who should be everyone's GOAT, by far, if we don't account for era. That should hopefully contextualize his team results somewhat, because it sometimes feels like everyone's punishing Wilt for what he could become given his talents, given how he played in other years, and for coming up short against Russell (often excruciatingly so).
Wilt career is so mind-numbingly volatile that he defies the brain's efforts to construct a consistent narrative around him. Which makes total sense - there is no "real" version to Wilt's story, all of it is real. The question then is, accounting for everything we can, would you take him over Shaq (which is he who could have become on offense consistently, if he blocked out the bull about having to be more finesse-driven), or KG (whose playstyle on O and defensive impact echoes what Wilt DID ACTUALLY DO, in his best years)?
At the moment, here's what I think: What happened during his career was driven enough by era that if it were an all-time draft, he would be by far, the strongest contender among these 4, because the average coach is smarter, and would know how to use him, because he would get the adulation he craved from being great at basketball, he wouldn't get criticism about needing finesse, his GOAT stamina would be further enhanced by modern conditioning to the point where he would be the second-greatest defender and the best big man on O.
But this isn't an all-time draft - it's a greatest ever list. Because of that, I can't take him over either Shaq or KG. So because of that:
Vote 1: Shaq
Vote 2: KG
you know, I had ideas floating around my head but I found a better post that said everything I wanted to say, this time by ronnymac2. I almost feel kinda guilty using other people's content but these guys have said everything I was going to say but in a better way. I'll add a few comments within his post in red.
