RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #28

[dhsilv2]

delete

[trex_8063]

Well, I think the two best peaks left on the table are Kevin Durant and Stephen Curry (between the two, I think Curry is the slightly higher player peak), though Durant's been around longer and has a longer prime.

Reed won the MVP, finals MVP, allstar MVP, first team all nba and first team defense in 70. I know the stats don't seem to line up with that next to these guys, but were people just drunk? Virtually nobody has a season like that on the awards and results side. That is easily the most acclaimed year remaining.

"Best peak" and "most acclaimed year" are not the same things, though. Agree or disagree?

[Lou Fan]

62 Jeff Hornacek 195.51
76 Robert Horry 175.73

LOL. I love Big shot Bob. GOAT role player . How are they this high tho?

[dhsilv2]

Well, I think the two best peaks left on the table are Kevin Durant and Stephen Curry (between the two, I think Curry is the slightly higher player peak), though Durant's been around longer and has a longer prime.

Reed won the MVP, finals MVP, allstar MVP, first team all nba and first team defense in 70. I know the stats don't seem to line up with that next to these guys, but were people just drunk? Virtually nobody has a season like that on the awards and results side. That is easily the most acclaimed year remaining.

"Best peak" and "most acclaimed year" are not the same things, though. Agree or disagree?

I think they *should* be. If they aren't I'd think you'd need a case for it. Clearly Reed's stats don't wow me, but why did the experts think THAT highly of him that year if it wasn't an all all all time great season?

Or and I think this is a discussion for all voters. What value do you place on greatness relative to peers in a given year vs the perception of how good they were overall? The example I would use is how bird lead the league in PER 3 straight years in the 80's but did so with PER's that might not make the top 5 in some recent years. I never know what to do with that, but I tend to value the best PER in a season (the stat isn't important here if you're not a PER guy) over a higher PER but say being 3rd in the league. I would still take era into account, but only after I look for who was best in a given year.

This of course is why this task is both hard and fun.

[dhsilv2]

62 Jeff Hornacek 195.51
76 Robert Horry 175.73

LOL. I love Big shot Bob. GOAT role player . How are they this high tho?

Hornacek had multiple 10+ WS seasons. He honestly was greatly under valued. He was a legit allstar level guy for many years that he didn't make the team.

Horry's playoff winshare is what you'd expect from a guy who THAT many games. WS rewards average players for just playing more games/minutes. He's 26th all time on that one.

[Doctor MJ]

Reed won the MVP, finals MVP, allstar MVP, first team all nba and first team defense in 70. I know the stats don't seem to line up with that next to these guys, but were people just drunk? Virtually nobody has a season like that on the awards and results side. That is easily the most acclaimed year remaining.

"Best peak" and "most acclaimed year" are not the same things, though. Agree or disagree?

I think they *should* be. If they aren't I'd think you'd need a case for it. Clearly Reed's stats don't wow me, but why did the experts think THAT highly of him that year if it wasn't an all all all time great season?

Or and I think this is a discussion for all voters. What value do you place on greatness relative to peers in a given year vs the perception of how good they were overall? The example I would use is how bird lead the league in PER 3 straight years in the 80's but did so with PER's that might not make the top 5 in some recent years. I never know what to do with that, but I tend to value the best PER in a season (the stat isn't important here if you're not a PER guy) over a higher PER but say being 3rd in the league. I would still take era into account, but only after I look for who was best in a given year.

This of course is why this task is both hard and fun.

It's a mistake to add all these awards up as if they have a linear worth that is consistent across all years.

I would also strongly encourage you to read the Retro POY project for a year you're wanting to understand better.

A few things for right here though:

1) up through '68, the league was dominated by big men like no other time since. As a result there seems to have been a tendency to latch on to the big man of the best team as something of a default MVP candidate. Note that Wes Unseld won the MVP the prior year.

2) Reed had already established himself as the Knicks' star, and once that happens there can be some inertia in recognizing things have changed with the arrival of someone knew whose strengths are somewhat novel, like Walt Frazier.

3) the '70 Knicks are one pinnacle of basketball history not simply because of how good they were, but because of how differently they played and how beautiful it was. Coach Holzmann was a visionary and his approach would largely shape his disciple Phil Jacksons approach.

4) Holzmanns offense worked with an almost Glbetrotter level of passing, and the defensive signature came with swarming perimeter players. On neither side was Reed really at the forefront of these innovations. If there was a face it sure seems like it was Frazier, however the reality is that it wasn't a system that was star focused. It was team play in every sense of the word.

5) it should be noted that Reeds Finals MVP is indefensible by any method that values how the player actually played. Reed was hurt. Frazier was by far the best Knick. However the game 7 narrative was driven by Reed hobbling on to the court, and how He still managed to stop Wilt fairly well - which says more about Wilts limitations to me than anything else. It should be noted that the rest of the Knicks and Frazier in particular were just in fire offensively in that game. Those narrative focused will attribute this as well to Reeds heroic presence rather than the guys actually playing well, but regardless sometimes a team just gets on a role and then the other side of the court doesn't really matter. No team can reliably shoot like the Knicks did in that game, and when that happens, that team wins.

6) If I didn't make it clear before, MVP completion in 1970 was just plain weak. Both compared to Curry or Durant at their best, and compared to basically any year in the '60s.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[pandrade83]

62 Jeff Hornacek 195.51
76 Robert Horry 175.73

LOL. I love Big shot Bob. GOAT role player . How are they this high tho?

While I think the list I posted is useful, I wouldn't recommend it as a be-all end-all by any means - I just think it's a useful way to compare guys - mostly across the same era.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Steph Curry
Alt: Kevin Durant

I've spoke before about Currys edge over Durant. To me it's a virtually unique case where Durants actions in leaving the team built around him to join the one built around Curry make it basically impossible to proclaim he's achieve more than Curry to this point. That can change in the future, but since at this point Curry has the peak impact edge too, it's a strangely easy choice.

So easy in fact it would be logical to think I should have others ahead of Durant too...but I find myself siding with KD.

Pippen is a reasonable guy to bring up, but the knock on Durant amounts to criticizing him for not being better able to handle the alpha role, so lifting betas ahead of him seems mildly absurd to me.

I was tempted to give Rick Barry the nod, but again it seems a bit absurd to talk about doing more for a franchise when Barry too left his team in a lurch.


All this makes me think I need to reflect on whether I've been too critical of Durant to this point, but I still feel settled about where Curry and Durant stand next to each other right now.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[scrabbarista]

28. Kevin Durant

29. Elgin Baylor

I have these two at 21st and 26th.

I. Durant has a very balanced resume. What stands out most is that he is first among remaining players in my MVP voting metric and ranks above seven or eight players who are already on the list. Consider that in light of the fact that he's 28 years old! Anyone who projects into the future at all (which I don't, and I have him 21st!) should have been voting Durant for some time already.

[penbeast0]

28. Kevin Durant

29. Elgin Baylor

I have these two at 21st and 26th.

I. Durant has a very balanced resume. What stands out most is that he is first among remaining players in my MVP voting metric and ranks above seven or eight players who are already on the list. Consider that in light of the fact that he's 28 years old! Anyone who projects into the future at all (which I don't, and I have him 21st!) should have been voting Durant for some time already.

I don't think you need to project Durant at all to have him in the 20s somewhere. He's got 10 years in the league (9 healthy) with at least 7 at All-Star level and probably 5 better than that. I too struggle with Curry's short stretch in the league.

Where do you start extending it to Connie Hawkins, or even Bill Walton. I think Curry is arguably top 25 but Walton probably isn't top 100 . . . . partially because Curry hasn't had the constant injured years where he drags his team's chances down . . . for me it's all about how much you help your team towards a title and those years have serious negative weight for Walton. Less so for Hawkins because his teams weren't counting on him to be the man anymore after 73 so he only brings about 2 years of negative injury value; Walton has almost a decade where Portland then San Diego would build around him then fall apart (plus San Diego had to give up Kermit Washington who looked like a potential All-Star after his improvement the year before plus Walton was very clear about requiring to be paid and treated like a franchise player; never heard about that from Hawkins after the second knee surgery though it's certainly possible it happened.

[B_Creamy]

Vote: Steph Curry
Alt: Kevin Durant

I've spoke before about Currys edge over Durant. To me it's a virtually unique case where Durants actions in leaving the team built around him to join the one built around Curry make it basically impossible to proclaim he's achieve more than Curry to this point. That can change in the future, but since at this point Curry has the peak impact edge too, it's a strangely easy choice.

So easy in fact it would be logical to think I should have others ahead of Durant too...but I find myself siding with KD.

Pippen is a reasonable guy to bring up, but the knock on Durant amounts to criticizing him for not being better able to handle the alpha role, so lifting betas ahead of him seems mildly absurd to me.

I was tempted to give Rick Barry the nod, but again it seems a bit absurd to talk about doing more for a franchise when Barry too left his team in a lurch.


All this makes me think I need to reflect on whether I've been too critical of Durant to this point, but I still feel settled about where Curry and Durant stand next to each other right now.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Idk, this seems like an emotional take to me. I haven't been following the project really so I dont know if you've spoken on this, but you think Durant joining Curry's team makes up for 3-4 more elite years? If Durant was the one with two amazing portable pieces and Curry had to contend with some other fellow for the ball and the shots you don't think we could see a role reversal here?

[scrabbarista]

28. Kevin Durant

29. Elgin Baylor

I have these two at 21st and 26th.

I. Durant has a very balanced resume. What stands out most is that he is first among remaining players in my MVP voting metric and ranks above seven or eight players who are already on the list. Consider that in light of the fact that he's 28 years old! Anyone who projects into the future at all (which I don't, and I have him 21st!) should have been voting Durant for some time already.

I don't think you need to project Durant at all to have him in the 20s somewhere. He's got 10 years in the league (9 healthy) with at least 7 at All-Star level and probably 5 better than that. I too struggle with Curry's short stretch in the league.

Where do you start extending it to Connie Hawkins, or even Bill Walton. I think Curry is arguably top 25 but Walton probably isn't top 100 . . . . partially because Curry hasn't had the constant injured years where he drags his team's chances down . . . for me it's all about how much you help your team towards a title and those years have serious negative weight for Walton. Less so for Hawkins because his teams weren't counting on him to be the man anymore after 73 so he only brings about 2 years of negative injury value; Walton has almost a decade where Portland then San Diego would build around him then fall apart (plus San Diego had to give up Kermit Washington who looked like a potential All-Star after his improvement the year before plus Walton was very clear about requiring to be paid and treated like a franchise player; never heard about that from Hawkins after the second knee surgery though it's certainly possible it happened.

Agree on Curry/Durant. I'm a much bigger fan of Curry and want to see him climb the all-time lists, but his actual career contributions so far don't put him in the 20's yet, imo.

Walton... I used to have him around 50 and have moved him to somewhere in the 70's now, I think, due to a change in my formula. I don't give negative weight, though, so I guess I can understand taking him out of the top 100 if you take that approach.

[mischievous]

Not sure yet who I'm going with here, but i am sticking by Durant over Curry. KD simply has more seasons at that superstar/fringe superstar level, and i don't think Curry's edge in peaks is very big in fact i tend to think their top 3-5 seasons are pretty comparable.

[dhsilv2]

28. Kevin Durant

29. Elgin Baylor

I have these two at 21st and 26th.

I. Durant has a very balanced resume. What stands out most is that he is first among remaining players in my MVP voting metric and ranks above seven or eight players who are already on the list. Consider that in light of the fact that he's 28 years old! Anyone who projects into the future at all (which I don't, and I have him 21st!) should have been voting Durant for some time already.

I don't think you need to project Durant at all to have him in the 20s somewhere. He's got 10 years in the league (9 healthy) with at least 7 at All-Star level and probably 5 better than that. I too struggle with Curry's short stretch in the league.

Where do you start extending it to Connie Hawkins, or even Bill Walton. I think Curry is arguably top 25 but Walton probably isn't top 100 . . . . partially because Curry hasn't had the constant injured years where he drags his team's chances down . . . for me it's all about how much you help your team towards a title and those years have serious negative weight for Walton. Less so for Hawkins because his teams weren't counting on him to be the man anymore after 73 so he only brings about 2 years of negative injury value; Walton has almost a decade where Portland then San Diego would build around him then fall apart (plus San Diego had to give up Kermit Washington who looked like a potential All-Star after his improvement the year before plus Walton was very clear about requiring to be paid and treated like a franchise player; never heard about that from Hawkins after the second knee surgery though it's certainly possible it happened.

It's worth pointing out Walton has universally been considered a top 100 (if not top 50) player for decades. It would seem the general consensus is that even a really short peak is enough to make these types of lists. I'm not sure if that's right, but it does make me lean towards valuing peaks rather highly.

[trex_8063]

It's worth pointing out Walton has universally been considered a top 100 (if not top 50) player for decades. It would seem the general consensus is that even a really short peak is enough to make these types of lists. I'm not sure if that's right, but it does make me lean towards valuing peaks rather highly.

It's fine if you value peaks rather highly (personally, I place more preference length/breadth of impact/productivity/usefulness [particularly usefulness above replacement level player] over one's whole career; but that's just my preference).

However, there was a word Doctor MJ used in response to another topic which I think applies here: inertia.

I often think there's a tendency for certain players to get repeated in a certain range over and over, not necessarily based on their merits, but more just because a few early high-profile lists put them there. So newcomers aren't comfortable "disagreeing" too strongly with these well-known lists......so they sort of copy to some degree. Lather, rinse, repeat dozens of times, and we end up with a handful poorly defensible placements as part of the "general consensus" you refer to.

Not necessarily saying I'm talking about Walton here (not necessarily saying I'm not talking about him either ). There are at least a couple guys who come to mind before Walton, though.

[trex_8063]

Reed won the MVP, finals MVP, allstar MVP, first team all nba and first team defense in 70. I know the stats don't seem to line up with that next to these guys, but were people just drunk? Virtually nobody has a season like that on the awards and results side. That is easily the most acclaimed year remaining.

"Best peak" and "most acclaimed year" are not the same things, though. Agree or disagree?

I think they *should* be. If they aren't I'd think you'd need a case for it. Clearly Reed's stats don't wow me, but why did the experts think THAT highly of him that year if it wasn't an all all all time great season?

Or and I think this is a discussion for all voters. What value do you place on greatness relative to peers in a given year vs the perception of how good they were overall? The example I would use is how bird lead the league in PER 3 straight years in the 80's but did so with PER's that might not make the top 5 in some recent years. I never know what to do with that, but I tend to value the best PER in a season (the stat isn't important here if you're not a PER guy) over a higher PER but say being 3rd in the league. I would still take era into account, but only after I look for who was best in a given year.

This of course is why this task is both hard and fun.

I addressed this difference in parity/disparity of different years/eras here (for rs) and here (for playoffs). Have not updated these to include '17, fwiw.

Where Reed is concerned, his 21.4 PER and .227 WS/48 in '69 translated to a scaled PER of 23.4 and scaled WS/48 of .255 (his scaled values for the playoffs that year were 24.2 and .274).
His 20.3 PER and .2275 WS/48 in '70 translated to a scaled PER of 21.9 and a scaled WS/48 of .265.

[dhsilv2]

"Best peak" and "most acclaimed year" are not the same things, though. Agree or disagree?

I think they *should* be. If they aren't I'd think you'd need a case for it. Clearly Reed's stats don't wow me, but why did the experts think THAT highly of him that year if it wasn't an all all all time great season?

Or and I think this is a discussion for all voters. What value do you place on greatness relative to peers in a given year vs the perception of how good they were overall? The example I would use is how bird lead the league in PER 3 straight years in the 80's but did so with PER's that might not make the top 5 in some recent years. I never know what to do with that, but I tend to value the best PER in a season (the stat isn't important here if you're not a PER guy) over a higher PER but say being 3rd in the league. I would still take era into account, but only after I look for who was best in a given year.

This of course is why this task is both hard and fun.

I addressed this difference in parity/disparity of different years/eras here (for rs) and here (for playoffs). Have not updated these to include '17, fwiw.

Where Reed is concerned, his 21.4 PER and .227 WS/48 in '69 translated to a scaled PER of 23.4 and scaled WS/48 of .255 (his scaled values for the playoffs that year were 24.2 and .274).
His 20.3 PER and .2275 WS/48 in '70 translated to a scaled PER of 21.9 and a scaled WS/48 of .265.

Interesting stuff here.

[JoeMalburg]

28. Kevin Durant

29. Elgin Baylor

I have these two at 21st and 26th.

I. Durant has a very balanced resume. What stands out most is that he is first among remaining players in my MVP voting metric and ranks above seven or eight players who are already on the list. Consider that in light of the fact that he's 28 years old! Anyone who projects into the future at all (which I don't, and I have him 21st!) should have been voting Durant for some time already.

I don't think you need to project Durant at all to have him in the 20s somewhere. He's got 10 years in the league (9 healthy) with at least 7 at All-Star level and probably 5 better than that. I too struggle with Curry's short stretch in the league.

Where do you start extending it to Connie Hawkins, or even Bill Walton. I think Curry is arguably top 25 but Walton probably isn't top 100 . . . . partially because Curry hasn't had the constant injured years where he drags his team's chances down . . . for me it's all about how much you help your team towards a title and those years have serious negative weight for Walton. Less so for Hawkins because his teams weren't counting on him to be the man anymore after 73 so he only brings about 2 years of negative injury value; Walton has almost a decade where Portland then San Diego would build around him then fall apart (plus San Diego had to give up Kermit Washington who looked like a potential All-Star after his improvement the year before plus Walton was very clear about requiring to be paid and treated like a franchise player; never heard about that from Hawkins after the second knee surgery though it's certainly possible it happened.

It's worth pointing out Walton has universally been considered a top 100 (if not top 50) player for decades. It would seem the general consensus is that even a really short peak is enough to make these types of lists. I'm not sure if that's right, but it does make me lean towards valuing peaks rather highly.

I think that for a long time people held a lot more esteem for what actually happened. But now, with so much more data, film and idea sharing available, people are a lot more comfortable using hypotheticals. In the Walton example, reality is he led the Blazers to the only championship in franchise history. He was probably the second best player in the NBA and had the skill set to contend with Kareem.

However, he was basically only healthy and elite for one and a half seasons in his career. The odds that he gets the same results in a number of different hypothetical scenarios are small, this people can confidently take a guy like Ewing, who I think most would admit was never as great as peak Walton, but gives you 80-95% as much for a decade.

You certainly raise an interesting point and one I've thought about a lot myself.

[penbeast0]

28. Kevin Durant

29. Elgin Baylor

I have these two at 21st and 26th.

I. Durant has a very balanced resume. What stands out most is that he is first among remaining players in my MVP voting metric and ranks above seven or eight players who are already on the list. Consider that in light of the fact that he's 28 years old! Anyone who projects into the future at all (which I don't, and I have him 21st!) should have been voting Durant for some time already.

I don't think you need to project Durant at all to have him in the 20s somewhere. He's got 10 years in the league (9 healthy) with at least 7 at All-Star level and probably 5 better than that. I too struggle with Curry's short stretch in the league.

Where do you start extending it to Connie Hawkins, or even Bill Walton. I think Curry is arguably top 25 but Walton probably isn't top 100 . . . . partially because Curry hasn't had the constant injured years where he drags his team's chances down . . . for me it's all about how much you help your team towards a title and those years have serious negative weight for Walton. Less so for Hawkins because his teams weren't counting on him to be the man anymore after 73 so he only brings about 2 years of negative injury value; Walton has almost a decade where Portland then San Diego would build around him then fall apart (plus San Diego had to give up Kermit Washington who looked like a potential All-Star after his improvement the year before plus Walton was very clear about requiring to be paid and treated like a franchise player; never heard about that from Hawkins after the second knee surgery though it's certainly possible it happened.

It's worth pointing out Walton has universally been considered a top 100 (if not top 50) player for decades. It would seem the general consensus is that even a really short peak is enough to make these types of lists. I'm not sure if that's right, but it does make me lean towards valuing peaks rather highly.

Not universally; his inclusion was reasonably controversial in the last few of these projects we did here . . . at least at where it was on the list.

[dhsilv2]

I don't think you need to project Durant at all to have him in the 20s somewhere. He's got 10 years in the league (9 healthy) with at least 7 at All-Star level and probably 5 better than that. I too struggle with Curry's short stretch in the league.

Where do you start extending it to Connie Hawkins, or even Bill Walton. I think Curry is arguably top 25 but Walton probably isn't top 100 . . . . partially because Curry hasn't had the constant injured years where he drags his team's chances down . . . for me it's all about how much you help your team towards a title and those years have serious negative weight for Walton. Less so for Hawkins because his teams weren't counting on him to be the man anymore after 73 so he only brings about 2 years of negative injury value; Walton has almost a decade where Portland then San Diego would build around him then fall apart (plus San Diego had to give up Kermit Washington who looked like a potential All-Star after his improvement the year before plus Walton was very clear about requiring to be paid and treated like a franchise player; never heard about that from Hawkins after the second knee surgery though it's certainly possible it happened.

It's worth pointing out Walton has universally been considered a top 100 (if not top 50) player for decades. It would seem the general consensus is that even a really short peak is enough to make these types of lists. I'm not sure if that's right, but it does make me lean towards valuing peaks rather highly.

Not universally; his inclusion was reasonably controversial in the last few of these projects we did here . . . at least at where it was on the list.

I won't split hairs over the word choice, but I've not seen a list without him. I won't be voting him in, might be the only MVP I'm sure of that I doubt I'll consider, but when we get into the 70's who knows. Maybe I'll realize I want an MVP over a Mitch Richmond type.