Post#52 » by drza » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:16 pm
Haven't been able to be around much the last two threads. Which is kind of unfortunate, because I did have things I wanted to contribute. For example, Twolves guy asked me to do a Durant/Curry comp similar to the Nash/Kidd one I posted a few threads back. I planned to, and actually started, just ran out of time. Would have liked to finish it for posterity sake. But, it is what it is.
I don't have a lot of time today, either, but I'd like to weigh in at least a bit on Curry, and the perceived difference between players like Durant/Curry and guys like Pippen/Kidd (or even Draymond, since he's been brought up).
As someone pointed out in the last thread or two, we're reaching a point where there are around 30 perceived "#1" types such that consensus "#2 types" like Pippen may slide out of the top 30. But...I just tend to look askance at the whole #1 vs #2 narrative. There may be some elements of truth in these designations, I'm not weighing in on that...but I feel like there is definitely an artificial boost or decrement that some players get based on style of play (especially scoring, in different ways) that does not in any way fit what I perceive based on analysis of impact approaches through history (to whatever level is available).
Bring it to Durant and Curry. For both, the prevailing argument for their inclusion so high is that they are "true #1" types that have the accolades (MVPs) and team success, which makes them just inherently more valuable than some of the other players considered here. SO much more valuable, in fact, that them having shorter (or even dramatically shorter) resumes is counteracted by how dominant they are.
Only...when I look at impact, I don't see that level of dominance for them. And while there is push-back (as always) about how good of a job the impact stats actually do, I would point out that the other players of the databall era that are considered to have GOAT-level peaks (LeBron, Shaq, Duncan) ALSO have RAPM footprints much more impressive than anything we've seen from Curry or Durant. Dirk and KG have much more impressive impact footprints than anything we've seen from Curry or Durant. Kobe's impact has tended to measure out as slightly higher/comparable to the absolute best that we've seen from Durant, but Kobe did it a heck of a lot longer. Their impacts have measured out more similarly to guys like Paul, Nash, or Kidd...only again, they did it for way shorter.
So. I'm forced to ask myself...is there some kind of fluke reason for why Durant and/or Curry measure out as clearly great (peaking at top-5 in NBA for given season) but not all-time the way that the other GOATs of the databall era have? Remember, the argument for their inclusion here is (my paraphrase) that they are all-time great, but for shorter periods...what I'm seeing is that their impacts are one-to-two steps under all-time-great, also for shorter periods. That's a key distinction.
Bringing it to players like Kidd or Pippen, broad terms. All of Curry, Durant, Kidd and Pippen peaked as top-5 (but not #1) in RAPM (or on/off +/- for 1994 - 97) from 1994 to 2016. I went through and tabulated all their finishes, but seem to have not saved/lost that. But for each, they peaked in the #3 - #5 range in the NBA for a given year. Each had a couple of finishes in that range, then others that ranged down into the lower top-10 on out to the 30s range. The difference is, though, guys like Kidd (and presumably Pippen, who in theory should have strong unmeasured seasons pre 1994) had a lot more seasons with impact in that strong range than Durant or Curry do.
So again, for me to put Curry and Durant higher, I have to convince myself that their style of play, their mechanisms of impact, are SO much more valuable that a) it trumps a lot of longevity and b) it's also evident enough that I should ignore that it doesn't show up in the available impact stats.
So, let me go next level a bit, starting with Durant. Is Durant's style of play, the mechanisms of impact for a guy like him, so much beyond what I would expect from some of these other guys? Is he, as a "true #1", just the type that tends to be more impact? Answer...no. Historically, guys like him (wings that are excellent scorers but without another discernible mega skill) have NOT tended to break the impact scale. On offense, Durant's specialty, the biggest impact players have unquestionably been both mega scorers AND mega distributors. ElGee has an article out right now on Nylon Calculus on how offense created tends to be a function of a combination of scoring volume, assists and 3-point range. Durant is very strong at the first and last, but not so much for the middle...AND THE CREATION ASPECT MATTERS! So no, I don't see Durant as the type of offensive GOAT that would necessarily be putting up the top overall impact in the league...which, to me, makes it believable that in fact he never HAS exhibited that kind of impact. Again, when the focus of the pro-Durant argument over some of the other players available is tied directly to him having much higher impact than them but for a shorter time window, then yeah, this type of information will make me question where he was voted in.
But what about Curry? I gave him a secondary vote a few threads back, because my impression is that he DOES have a game approach that might lend itself to higher impact than a guy like Durant. But even so...he's never shown it in the measurements either. And Draymond is the key factor, with Curry. Because, as was laid out a few threads back, according to RAPM it's been Curry AND Draymond that are all-history as a combo, not Curry alone. And it's NOT the case that a great player can't have a great sidekick or great teammates...but in almost every other situation, the GOAT-level player still put up massive numbers and/or separated himself in the impact studies. Shaq had Kobe, but Shaq's RAPM was dominant. MJ had Pippen, but (at least for the mid-late 90s we have data for), MJ was dominating the on/off +/- data. Manu was mentioned as having great RAPMs, and he did, but a) it was more part-time as noted and b) Duncan was still dominant and reaching the top of the RAPM scale anyway. That's not what we see with Curry and Draymond...they measure out almost dead even, with more tie-breakers probably in Draymond's favor, in the numbers.
So, for Curry to have the GOAT impact, the argument has to go the way DocMJ laid out...that he's the one with the outlier skillset, and that the team's success is built around him and thus that Draymond is the side effect. But again...just like with Durant...I'm not sure I see it. Because while yes, Curry does have the type of scoring volume/passing/OMG shooting that should realistically be an offensive juggernaut...Draymond ALSO exhibits the playing style hallmarks of a mega impact player. He's a big man that's a dominant defensive anchor, he's a point- big man, and (relative to his position) he's a spacing threat. That playing style lends itself, through history, to players with outlier and higher-than-expected impacts. And, with the tools we have, Draymond MEASURES OUT with that type of impact. So...I should just ignore that, because Curry is a "true #1" type? I don't see it at all.
I can consider the notion that maybe, in a vacuum, Curry might tend to be more outstanding than Draymond in more situations. It's discussion worthy, and I'm not sure enough of the counter to be arguing Draymond anytime soon. And really, like Durant, I don't have a huge problem with Curry getting attention in this neighborhood. But I also can't just ignore that on their ACTUAL teams, Draymond tends to measure out as just as important as Curry, and there are legitimate reasons to expect this to be a reasonable outcome. Thus, I can't just give Curry bonus points from Draymond's category and assume that his impact was more in the Shaq/Duncan range than the Kobe/Paul range. And this is compounded by the fact that we DO have such a short body of work for Curry...it could be that, when we look back at him in 10 years, it'll be clear that this era really WAS his impact because it stayed robust and Draymond's fell off as time went on. But right NOW, I'm not convinced of that at all. Especially not enough to make him a slam-dunk entry over guys with similar impact footprints that did it for longer.
And note, this post (which I can't believe got this long with just essentially a rant) only compares with guys like Pippen and Kidd that have more clear impact profiles being in/near the databall era. I haven't even mentioned some of the historical figures like Baylor or Isiah (or Hondo or whoever) that are also in play, that would require more in depth look than the thumbnail descriptions I've done in this post.
So. Anyway. Wanted that on the record. I don't feel a huge need to vote in this thread because, again, I haven't had the time to do my homework like I'd like, and also it seems clear from the vote numbers so far that this thread is essentially decided. If either of those things change in the next several hours, and I get the time, I'll come back and weigh back in. But if not, I'm at least glad to get some of my thoughts out for posterity sake.
