RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,871
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#21 » by euroleague » Tue Sep 5, 2017 7:26 am

dhsilv2 wrote:
Also seems odd that LBJ being ranked best on a statistical metric would upset anyone. By the stats it would seem almost suprising if he weren't top 3 and I'd expect him to rank over MJ. Kareem is the only guy who I could see finishing ahead of him.


MJ's peak: 32.5/8/8 on 60% TS with 3spg and 1bpg. 3.5 TO
LBJ: 28/7.5/7 on 59% TS with 2spg and 1bpg . 3 TO

better maximum PER over a season: MJ.
better WS over a season: MJ.
better WS/48 over a season: MJ

And these aren't really close when considering best 4-5 years. I'm just confused how LBJ is coming out on top. What metric is LBJ ahead in?
KAJ also crushes LBJ in most metrics (not in PER, which exploded only post-expansion and in the 40s/50s).

Topic for another thread.
User avatar
Joao Saraiva
RealGM
Posts: 13,442
And1: 6,216
Joined: Feb 09, 2011
   

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#22 » by Joao Saraiva » Tue Sep 5, 2017 9:01 am

Back from vacation. Billups ain't in yet? I'll come today to cast my vote for him.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#23 » by pandrade83 » Tue Sep 5, 2017 10:15 am

twolves97 wrote:
pandrade83 wrote:Let's discuss my 1st two picks right off the bat:
1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: George Gervin
Tracy McGrady - if he had managed to win 1 playoff series he'd get my vote here but I just struggle to put a guy who never got out of the 1st round in the Top 40.

He should get your vote. How the **** was he supposed to jack **** with that joke of a roster in Orlando. Literally no help. Worst cast a superstar has had probably ever. Houston he had Yao and he took two series to game 7 but they were the worse team both times. T-Mac never was favored in a playoff series and he still went pretty close to winning a few of them. I consider him a good playoff performer.


I hear ya. And if he had played in the West during his peak, I could give him a pass for it. But those teams he was losing to in Orlando weren't exactly world beaters. You don't need to be losing 3-1 to the Ray Allen Bucks or '02 Hornets. Then he takes on 60+ losses in '04.

When his talent upgrades in '05, Dallas becomes mostly a fair fight - it's Dirk & role players. Then in '07, he & Yao lose to Boozer/D-will - & a team that started a decomposing D-Fish.

I'll acknowledge that he was the underdog in all the series - but there's a few winnable series in there - just get one.

While I'll be an early supporter of his and let's be real here - he's going to be our first guy to take on 60+ playoff losses and not make it out of the first round.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#24 » by pandrade83 » Tue Sep 5, 2017 12:02 pm

euroleague wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
euroleague wrote:Wilt Chamberlain - +17 games

HM:
Elgin Baylor - 14 games
Oscar Robertson - 14 games
Paul Arizin - 14 games
Jerry Lucas - 13 games


Famous GOAT Impacts:

Larry Bird - 32 games
Kareem - 29 games (expansion team, also added Bob Dandridge)
Carmelo Anthony - 26 games (also added andre miller)
Shaq - 20 games (young team)
Hakeem - 19 games
Isiah Thomas - 18 games
Lebron James - 18 games


David Robinson* - 35 games (expansion team, had an expansion draft this year which also helped them immensely which might overrate his impact. added Terry Cummings, Sean Elliot, Maurice Cheeks, and Rod Strickland - their whole starting lineup was replaced. his impact was big, but not 35 games obviously)


You're saying Robinson shouldn't get credit because a near-complete overhaul of the starting line-up took place upon his arrival. But the same thing very nearly happened upon Cousy's arrival in Boston----Sonny Hertzberg was the only guy who started for them in both '50 and '51----and Cousy still gets full credit (despite presence of a not only All-Star, but All-NBA 1st Team teammate, plus the GOAT [at that time] coach)?
Why the double standard?


David Robinson's team added many elite players that weren't there the year before, not just Macauley. It wasn't just drafts and asset changes that every team had available - the only team that had increases in quality of this size were the expansion teams. The Celtics didn't have any special ability to gain assets that no other team had, although several role-players were changed (quite obvious they were relatively low-impact). However, the Spurs got many far better players than they lost through a method not available to other teams in the league...

I discussed Ed Macauley pre-Cousy already. His impact was very low, based on his previous team. Yes, players improve slightly from year 1 to year 2, but not by the margin that Macauley did without an elite PG. His impact wouldn't be significantly larger than the +3 games he had, and he was voted all-NBA because of his stats with Cousy playmaking. He never made all-nba again after that season, after players got to see Cousy more.

In terms of coaching, Red Auerbach didn't like Cousy initially. He didn't see that Cousy could fit in this system. Cousy made an impact on Auerbach's game plan, and not vice-versa. Auerbach's previous team had a losing record, and after he left they didn't lose substantially more games. Nothing like the increase that happened in wins with the Celtics.

Do you know the explanation for why the Celtics weren't winning playoff games in the 50s, as explained by Cousy? "Everyone is getting tired. We can't get the ball." Nobody could rebound, because the fast-pace wore everybody down. They needed an elite rebounder to keep getting them the ball, and they could win games. Russell was that player.

The obvious double standard the Spurs had vs other teams should lead to a different standard being used to measure their impact. I also didn't include Nate Thurmond in 64 (17 games) and other rookies who joined in years where they weren't the star players of their team, because of obvious lack of clear relation between team improvement.


You're really treating Ed Macauley as having no impact - without even taking into consideration that guys improve upon their rookie
year performance and being very dismissive. That really bothers me in context of this:

Win Shares - Cousy vs. Macauley

'51 - 3.9 vs. 15.9
'52 - 7.7 vs. 13.8
'53 - 7.2 vs. 14.5
'54 - 8.1 vs. 14.6
'55 - 7.8 vs. 8.9
'56 - 6.8 vs. 7.8

If you look at other elite big/small combinations, I don't see that kind of disparity in the metric towards the big.

Stockton beats Malone 3 times during his ten year prime.
Magic overtakes Kareem by '82.
'62 is the last time Baylor is ahead of West.

I'm not saying I believe this narrative, but if you just looked at data - and set aside the mythos of the rings and the passing - it's more plausible than the narrative I feel like you're painting where Cousy is responsible for everything

Ed M's arrival + Auerbach in '51 triggers a significant uptick in performance in '51 as Ed powers the Celtics to 39-30 behind a strong 20-9-4 campaign that sees him make 1st Team ALL NBA & finish 2nd in TS%. In '52 he starts to get help from Cousy as the Celtics accelerate to 39-27 but still can't advance in the playoffs. In '53, Sharman steps up as the Celtics improve to 46-25 - but still can't get to the Finals as they're stopped by the Knicks. In '54, Boston advances to the Conference Finals again, but are foiled by Dolph Schayes & Syracuse. Boston again makes the ECF in '55 but Schayes & Syracuse prove to be too much.

In '56, Macauley starts to slow down as Sharman assumes control of the team. Boston gets stuck on the Schayes hump again, falling to Syracuse in the 1st round. In '57 Boston upgrades to Russell - while the team takes a step back offensively as Russell is inferior to Macauley on that end, the defensive edge Russell brings is so massive that it more than off-sets it. Boston becomes a defensive oriented team and led by Russell, finally gets over the Syracuse/Schayes hump en route to their 1st of 11 titles.

Again - I'm not saying I totally buy into it - but when you strip it down to JUST data - I can buy this easier than the story that Cousy drove everything.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,632
And1: 3,409
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#25 » by LA Bird » Tue Sep 5, 2017 1:06 pm

euroleague wrote:I suggest you weigh Cousy's pre-Russell years for an accurate measure of his scoring as a first-option scorer in his prime. Russell demanded the ball in his early years, and Cousy was arguably no longer the first option (certainly no longer clear-cut). So it isn't fair to measure his scoring as his primary contribution in the Russell era. His focus changed to playmaking, and we should consider his assists more post-Russell.

This change in focus would only be a valid point if Cousy upped his assists and reduced his FGA attempts like Wilt did after 1967. After Russell arrived, Cousy was still throwing up close to 20 shots a game and his assist numbers were no different from before.

The reason Schayes and Arizin had greater success was largely because of their much more talented teams, that they got to lead as first options. The Celtics depth pre Sam Jones/Russell/Tom Heinsohn/KC Jones isn't comparable to more talented teams in the league.

Arizin had Johnston but Schayes with a much more talented team than Cousy? Who did he play with that compares to Macauley or Sharman? Schayes was the only starter with a PER above 15 during the championship run when Syracuse won the title in 1955.

Cousy elevated his team and made everyone look good, but before he joined they were terrible.

Bob Cousy had GOAT level impact as a rookie joining the league.

The list of players who joined the league ever and caused an immediate 15 win increase their rookie year is very short, although there were some who came close that I'll mention from the 50s/60s.

Spoiler:
50s/60s:

Rick Barry - 18 games
Bob Cousy - 17 games (some people say this was Macauley. Macauley as a rookie impacted his team to lose 3 more games despite no other major roster changes...)
Wilt Chamberlain - +17 games

HM:
Elgin Baylor - 14 games
Oscar Robertson - 14 games
Paul Arizin - 14 games


Famous GOAT Impacts:

Larry Bird - 32 games
Kareem - 29 games (expansion team, also added Bob Dandridge)
Carmelo Anthony - 26 games (also added andre miller)
Shaq - 20 games (young team)
Hakeem - 19 games
Isiah Thomas - 18 games
Lebron James - 18 games


David Robinson* - 35 games (expansion team, had an expansion draft this year which also helped them immensely which might overrate his impact. added Terry Cummings, Sean Elliot, Maurice Cheeks, and Rod Strickland - their whole starting lineup was replaced. his impact was big, but not 35 games obviously)

Rather ridiculous to give Cousy all the credit for "causing" the 17 win improvement when the Celtics had a massive roster turnover and a new coach in Auerbach. Macauley was already 4th in the league in win shares as a rookie before joining the Celtics so it's not like he was an average player who only got elevated into stardom because he played with Cousy. The 4 players who remained on the Celtics from 1950 to 1951 didn't see any improvements in their shooting efficiency despite playing with Cousy.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,632
And1: 3,409
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#26 » by LA Bird » Tue Sep 5, 2017 1:16 pm

1. Reggie Miller
Reggie is not all rounded if you are looking at the rebounds and assists but he is so good in the one area he excels in (efficient scoring) that the all in one advanced stats still rate him very highly despite his one dimensionality. WS may be a bit too generous in terms of rewarding solid players with great longevity but even in something more accurate like career VORP, Reggie is top 25 all time. For comparison, Rip Hamilton, who often get compared to Miller due to their similar playing style, is at #393 all time in careeer VORP. Miller is the highest remaining player in both WS and VORP, which is pretty impressive since off-ball players usually don't look that great in box score type stats. Reggie looks good in late 90s RAPM and the Pacers were around a +3 offense for more than a decade under his leadership. Consistently stepped up his game in the playoffs which corresponded with an improvement in the Pacers offense in the postseason as well.

Alternate: Paul Pierce
scrabbarista
RealGM
Posts: 20,257
And1: 17,961
Joined: May 31, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#27 » by scrabbarista » Tue Sep 5, 2017 1:29 pm

39. Isiah Thomas

40. [Yes, 18 spots higher than he finished in 2014] Elvin Hayes

I. Isiah Thomas is the only player left who was the best player on two championship teams. It could be argued he was also a rolled ankle away from holding that distinction for three championship teams.

[Same as in the last few threads,] here are some excerpts of mine from an old thread on Isiah Thomas:

Isiah is not overrated, unless someone is rating him in the top 20. The simple version - which obviously the media and public at large prefer - is that he was the best player on two championship teams, as well as the best or second best on a team that probably lost a third Finals because he twisted his ankle. He was also the best player on an NCAA champ. Only Jordan, Bird, and Magic made more All-NBA teams in the 80's. All of this is hard to dispute.

The more complex version hinges first and foremost on his elevating his play in the postseason. The post containing his all-time rankings in postseason improvement over the regular season should not be casually glossed over. The vast majority of players decrease their productivity in the playoffs, while the elite of the elite consistently increase it. Thomas' increases are historically high.

Secondly, the complex version states that he led and orchestrated top offenses for nearly his entire career, rather than relied on great defenses. There were four or five seasons when his team's OR even exceeded its DR.

A third point in the complex version is that Thomas was the galvanizing/uniting/driving leader behind the Pistons for all of the 80's. To illustrate, a player from the '88 team team has stated on record that when he and his teammates saw Isiah's heroic fourth quarter performance in game 6 of the 1988 Finals, they finally understood the depth of his determination, and they knew that even if he couldn't contribute in game 7 (he couldn't), they would come back the following year and win it all. Anyone who was paying close attention in 2014 should understand that the Spurs didn't win that year simply because of their system or their talent. The system was perfected and the talent was maximized over the course of nearly one hundred games because of the collective determination and focus that sprang from the agony of Ray Allen's miraculous shot in game 6 of the '13 Finals. Isiah's ankle injury in '88 played the same role as Allen's corner three in '13. If Isiah hadn't had the character, will, and desire that enabled him to excel on virtually one leg, his teammates might have lost a measure of confidence in their leader, and we might be looking at extra championships for Magic, Michael, or Clyde Drexler.

The people who say, "Show me where it says "character," "will," or "desire" on the stat sheet!" and accuse others of being simple-minded or narrative-dominated in their thinking are in fact the ones who fail to see the subtleties in the difference between winning and losing. No one person sees all the subtleties, but we must acknowledge their existence. As an example, when Dwight Howard, in a particularly tense moment in the playoffs, calls out his teammates even when they're doing their best, simply because he thinks he's looked bad on a particular possession, team cohesiveness is damaged as those players realize Dwight cares more about his own image than building up his teammates for the sake of collective success. Then Dwight leaves the court in the next timeout, and those players, still on the court, are trying to regain the focus and flow that Dwight's outburst cost them. Their play diminishes slightly, and Dwight's on/off numbers go up - or the quality of his "supporting cast" appears weaker. The stat sheet is lying - every part of it except the win/loss column. A hundred related scenarios occur in every game, and more occur on the practice court and in the locker room. More can occur in comments made to the media. Heck, this type of stuff has probably even happened in strip clubs.

A person who tries to sell you on a player based solely on stats without a narrative context is like someone who'll tell you he has a great marriage because he lasts a long time in bed with his wife - and then tells you exactly how long, down to the second.

I'm not one to echo Vince Lombardi's "winning is the only thing" quote. (That, too, would ignore context.) Karl Malone, in my opinion, had twice as good of a career as Isiah Thomas. But Thomas is a top 25 player [Top 28 now] because winning is the one "stat" that tells us what all the other stats never could. Winning is a coordinate on an imaginary graph: where a player's talent meets his daily determination to maximize it.

--------------


"I don't know man, I can't really get behind motivation and leadership being this huge of a factor into deciding who is greater. But we'll get to that."

I just can't help but what wonder what kind of life experiences a person has had so say something like "motivation and leadership are not huge factors in deciding who is greater." Like, have you ever had a job? Ever worked with other people? Maybe on a project with a bad leader? Or a great one? Ever notice the difference between the two - the difference in the results produced? Ever tried hard? Ever slacked off? Ever noticed the difference in the results between the two?

I can't force you to see things how I see them, but I watched last night's Game 2 and I saw a Cavs team that was more motivated than the Warriors team. It was obvious that Lebron and Dellavadova were working harder than anyone on the court - and this lead to multiple key offensive rebounds, not to mention loose balls that were saved or tipped - even one of which could have been the difference in the game. I'm not implying that actually making shots is irrelevant or that some of the things I've mentioned don't show up in the box score - that's a straw man - I'm just saying some things exist outside of the box score. The game is much more subtle and complex than the numbers alone can account for.

"Elevating play in the postseason is a great thing, but it's relevant only so far as to what level that increase actually leads to. If you're starting from a much smaller base than someone who doesn't improve as much, does it really matter if your increase is bigger if you still end up below them? The fact that the vast majority of players don't improve is irrelevant, because we aren't comparing Isiah to the vast majority of players here."

I agree with you. Only the end results matter in evaluating someone's greatness. I've just seen others on these boards highlight improvements and drops in playoff performance so many times that I guess it thought it might be relevant to this discussion.

Lest you be confused by my saying only the end results matter, then going on about process and narrative, my point in writing about process and narrative has never been that either is grounds for my rankings. They emphatically are not - my list is at least 99% results-driven. It depends almost exclusively on results that any objective observer could agree actually happened. The point I've been trying to make is that team success is one such result. Process and narrative only come into the discussion when they become useful in explaining why team success can be attributed to great players' actions that don't appear in the box score.

"Well, I wouldn't exactly call them great. Outside of the 1st place finish in 84, the Pistons while Isiah was an all-star level player were never a top 5 offense. And the defense being below average might have something to do with Isiah himself no? And the Pistons didn't make the conference finals until 87, the year their defense first replaced the offense as the better unit. So until the Pistons began "relying" on great defenses, they had basically no postseason success."

Perhaps they weren't great offenses. At least not plural. At least not when he was an "All-Star level player." As to below average defenses having something to do with Isiah, would you say the same about the Clippers defense and Chris Paul? It's generally acknowledged that point guard is the position that can have the least impact on a team's defense. Still, I happen to think all five players are important on both sides of the ball, so yes, he had something to do with it, and he also had something to do with the "great defenses" that came after. My original intent was just to dispel the myth that he never led a great offense.


"I can't get behind this. There's really no way to tell how much, if any at all, the drive of a player impacts the players around him. It's impossible, and always will be."

There's only one way: did the team do enough to get the job done? This is the same way leaders are evaluated in every walk of life.

"Saying Ray Allen's shot was the basis of the Spur's title run the next year is just so out there. It'd be like me saying the reason Duncan became a hall of fame player was because of the hurricane that destroyed the olympic swimming pool in his hometown that forced him to focus on basketball."

No, it's more like Duncan himself saying, "Me and my community were so devastated by that hurricane that I decided to do everything in my power to rise above it and make millions of dollars playing basketball to show that neither me nor my community could be bowed by the whims of fate." What you say has nothing to do with it. That's why I pointed out that a Pistons player actually said Isiah's determination drove them the entire following year. The Spurs players have said they were hoping to face the Heat. You can bet that desire was there from the moment game 7 of the '13 Finals ended, and you can bet the Spurs would not have been quite as focused against another team in the Finals. (They still would have won, obviously. They were too good by that time.) I never meant to imply that without Allen's shot, the Spurs don't win the championship. I did mean to imply, though, that it was a factor. Probably a very big factor.

"Every event is connected in the journey, as you say. But the way you tell it, it was Isiah's game 6 performance that was the most important moment of their 89 title run. That's ridiculous. It'd be way down on the list, waaaaaaaaaaay behind the level of play of the individual Pistons players during the actual season, which is what everyone else is using as the primary evaluator to make their all time list. Changes in confidence play a part, but not anywhere near THAT much. Having confidence in your leader isn't suddenly going to change you from a run of the mill playoff team into a champion. If I were to evaluate the 89 Pistons, I'd say their title was due to the emergence of Rodman and Dumars and the trade of Dantley making their team better and more cohesive, the way the rest of the Pistons played, the Celtics getting worse, the Lakers being injured, any amount of refereeing and injury randomness, how their other playoff opponents played, general randomness that's associated with all competitive sports (shots not falling etc.) and a whole bunch of other stuff. I can't see how looking at Isiah's leadership is going to come even close to having the impact those things do."

Again, it wasn't the way I told it. If it was just me making up a story, it would lose a lot of credence. It's there in the Bad Boys documentary. The players felt that way. Everything you mention was undoubtedly a factor. Just as in life, when a team has to work together on any common goal or project, everything that happens is a factor, and dozens of individual occurrences might each be the difference between success and failure. Many of these might be random. But what is the unifying concept throughout? The way the group responds to these occurrences. And what drives these responses? Leadership.

Again, I'm not saying that that previous paragraph explains why I rate Isiah where I do. What explains why I rate him where I do is the simple fact that he lead his teams to ultimate victory and near-ultimate victory four times in his career, three in the NBA and one in college. That previous paragraph was just to say that leadership is a real thing and it exists and it makes a difference in outcomes.

"First off, I don't really see anyone having an attitude like that. And I don't get the comparison to Dwight, because I don't think anyone here is calling Dwight a top 25 player either. And if Dwight's teammates are really that affected by a random "you guys suck" comment (and making an assumption that this has any impact on their play at all is a BIG assumption), they probably shouldn't be in the NBA in the first place. NBA players are getting heckled by fans, the media, and their teams ALL the time."

Correct, Dwight is not a top 25 player, but he may have more talent than Isiah. Most would probably say he does. Which is exactly my point. Talented players are often separated by "intangibles." Stating that human beings are affected by random "you suck" comments is not an assumption. It's common knowledge. And these random "you suck" comments tend to be more affecting when they come from people close to us or people on a higher level than us, and when they happen in public - all of which would describe Dwight in relation to someone like Ariza or Brewer, calling guys out on TV in the playoffs

I don't know how to save this and I need to go to work soon, but when you're talking about players getting heckled: a straw man. Dwight didn't heckle anybody in my example. Also, the fans and media are not in positions of leadership or in intimate relationships with the players. Also, there is a difference between making fun of someone and calling them out - and as I said, there is a difference in whether it is done to save Dwight's own face or to build up the cohesion of the team. Human relationships.

"The people you'd be comparing Isiah to if you think he's top 25 are guys like the usual suspects (MJ, Magic, Bird, Russell, Duncan, Kareem etc.) or more guys like Dirk, KG, Havlicek, Baylor, Barkley, Wade etc. Are we somehow going to argue that Isiah is a better leader than them? Or had more determination than them? How would we even go about that? We already have too much to look at with their respective basketball abilities and the circumstances in which they displayed those abilities."

We'd go about it by looking at wins. Determination, etc., do not appear on my ATG list. Winning does. If we're talking about how I evaluate players, then we're talking about stats, wins, and consensus - nothing else.

"Determination, like I said with the playoff thing earlier, is only relevant in how it affects your ability to play basketball. It's the starting from the lower base thing again. When compared with a guy who never meets his potential (like, say, Shaq) does it matter that Isiah had more determination if even with that determination Shaq was still in another stratosphere as a player?"

No, it doesn't matter. Shaq is higher than Isiah because he produced better results.

"Winning is a coordinate on a graph where a player's talent meets his daily determination to maximize it... AND where said player's teammates' talent meets their daily drive, AND where said player's opponents' talent meets their daily drive, AND where said player's coaches abilities to manage said talent, AND how lucky your team gets with injuries, AND how lucky your opponents get with injuries, AND how lucky your team gets with refereeing, AND a whole bunch of other things."

True, all of that factors in, but all of that also factors in to every other stat besides winning. So why would we decide other stats are more relevant than winning in evaluating players? Winning is the goal of the game. To ignore it or even minimize it is something I have a hard time understanding.

"The common thing here is talent. The talent and ability is the most important thing. And Isiah just didn't have enough talent and ability to be ranked where the consensus has him. The winning was just as much or more due to those other factors as it was to Isiah himself."

Talent Is Overrated. It's a good book. Check it out. As for Isiah's responsibility or lack thereof in his team's successes, I take the position that people often create their own opportunities and luck: when we consistently find a person in successful positions, in spite of all the other factors that might have been at play, the common thread is the person himself. I therefore give credit to that person.
All human life on the earth is like grass, and all human glory is like a flower in a field. The grass dries up and its flower falls off, but the Lord’s word endures forever.
Lou Fan
Pro Prospect
Posts: 790
And1: 711
Joined: Jul 21, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#28 » by Lou Fan » Tue Sep 5, 2017 2:00 pm

pandrade83 wrote:
twolves97 wrote:
pandrade83 wrote:Let's discuss my 1st two picks right off the bat:
1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: George Gervin
Tracy McGrady - if he had managed to win 1 playoff series he'd get my vote here but I just struggle to put a guy who never got out of the 1st round in the Top 40.

He should get your vote. How the **** was he supposed to jack **** with that joke of a roster in Orlando. Literally no help. Worst cast a superstar has had probably ever. Houston he had Yao and he took two series to game 7 but they were the worse team both times. T-Mac never was favored in a playoff series and he still went pretty close to winning a few of them. I consider him a good playoff performer.


I hear ya. And if he had played in the West during his peak, I could give him a pass for it. But those teams he was losing to in Orlando weren't exactly world beaters. You don't need to be losing 3-1 to the Ray Allen Bucks or '02 Hornets. Then he takes on 60+ losses in '04.

When his talent upgrades in '05, Dallas becomes mostly a fair fight - it's Dirk & role players. Then in '07, he & Yao lose to Boozer/D-will - & a team that started a decomposing D-Fish.

I'll acknowledge that he was the underdog in all the series - but there's a few winnable series in there - just get one.

While I'll be an early supporter of his and let's be real here - he's going to be our first guy to take on 60+ playoff losses and not make it out of the first round.

At least give him credit for carrying the Spurs to the Finals in 2013 :D :lol:.
smartyz456 wrote:Duncan would be a better defending jahlil okafor in todays nba
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,648
And1: 8,294
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#29 » by trex_8063 » Tue Sep 5, 2017 4:01 pm

euroleague wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
euroleague wrote:Other ranking confusions: John Stockton in the top 25 ever for peaks.. Robert Parish near the top 40 in a 'top peaks' version. Just can't escape the feeling that longevity is heavily valued.


I think you may have misread something (or I mis-wrote something): I didn't present any "peaks" list, or a "top peaks" version. I do not think John Stockton is a top 25 peak (perhaps not even top 45). I don't think Robert Parish is a top 40 peak either (probably not even a top 50-60).
ALL versions presented place heavy (or at least "moderate to heavy") value on longevity, because meaningful longevity is something I emphasize in my criteria; I believe it's very important when evaluating total career value. So I tend to rank guys like Stockton and Parish (also Kidd, Karl Malone, among others) higher than most people do.


euroleague wrote:About 2/5 of the players come from after 2000....


This was discussed in a prior thread. Note that ~35% of all professional players we've seen have come after 2000 (35.2% of all the NBA rosters that have existed since 1949 have come in the 00's and 10's). And while the 80's and 90's are debatable (as being just as competitive), earlier eras really probably aren't (very tenuous argument, anyway).

So from that standpoint, is it really so outrageous if 40% of the players on any list DID come from the last 17-20 years?


That is because of league expansion, which increased the number of players who are 'professional'. It didn't increase the number of 'great' players, it just made better players easier to spot because the average was lowered.


This is only true if a) the league had expanded [since Cousy’s day] to a greater proportion than the player pool had expanded. But this is demonstrably untrue (by a long shot, at that).
Or b) if the expanded player pool was made almost entirely of worse players than the player pool that was in place in the early-mid 50’s. This is almost assuredly not the case either, frankly based on the integration alone; but also just on how basic population dynamics and expanding game popularity interact with one and other. The game didn’t just expand to suddenly include short, fat, uncoordinated kids with no basketball aptitude. It expanded across new populations (multiple times over the “original” population that was playing circa-1950); new populations which covered the whole spectrum (great athletes, mediocre athletes, etc…..same as that “original” player pool population).

And specifically where the last 20-ish years are concerned, it’s odd that you label this as an expansion-diluted era, as this is the era of the least expansion in the history of professional basketball in North America. The size of the league has been the same for the last 13 years; previously it had never gone more than 8 seasons without expanding. It has only grown by just 3.4% (from 29 teams to 30) in the last 22 years, despite the fact that those 22 years coincide with most significant incorporation of European and other global talent in the history of the league. 3.4% doesn’t even keep pace with global population expansion, much less the broadened player pool which has occurred by increased incorporation of foreign talents.


euroleague wrote:My main gripe is that LBJ is #1 in every ranking system. I don't think this reflects players actual impact or peak level. LBJ has better longevity than MJ, but he doesn't compare to KAJ - so I'm not sure why KAJ is so low. It's always interesting to see ranks that are (for the most part) this accurate in terms of scoring, but the inability of other people to explain certain flaws in the scoring system deflates the value of this, imo.


It is what it is, you don’t have to like it. I’m not 100% satisfied either (doubt I ever will be with any version), and I don’t base my ATL on it exactly.
However, the component pieces of these formulas are the stuff that nearly all of us use to some degree when evaluating players: PER, WS/48 and WS, basic volume stats, MVP shares, awards/honors, titles and final appearances as well as rs and playoff win%, with/without records, and DRtg (to a tiny degree)......that’s essentially all that goes into it.

It’s an amalgamation of these things that produced the result. I didn’t use one equation for Lebron, and different ones for MJ or KAJ (or Stockton, Parish, etc); everyone is being held to the same standards in these. And I didn’t construct it with Lebron in mind; I made the V1.0 like 5 years ago (I don’t think Lebron was even in the top 10 at that time). This is just where things have ended up. I don’t think one should ignore all those component pieces because he doesn’t like the ultimate results.

It all just has to be viewed with context and grains of salt.
I'm going to leave this portion of the discussion here, as it's perhaps a slight derail for this thread.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
Winsome Gerbil
RealGM
Posts: 15,021
And1: 13,095
Joined: Feb 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#30 » by Winsome Gerbil » Tue Sep 5, 2017 4:18 pm

Nothing has changed, except perhaps a determination to get Westbrook in here at some point:

39- Iverson
40- Cousy
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,850
And1: 16,408
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#31 » by Dr Positivity » Tue Sep 5, 2017 7:49 pm

Thoughts on Cousy, Thomas, Billups, Miller, Gervin, Tmac, Mourning, Dwight, Schayes, Iverson from last thread:

Spoiler:
Bob Cousy - Case for: Superb longevity. He is still a 2nd team All-NBA level, all-star in his 13th season. Highly regarded by his peers with all his All-NBA, wins MVP, and in 1980 which is about the halfway point for this project is one of 11 players selected for the 35th anniversary team ahead of some contenders here like Barry and Frazier. Being one of the best slashers of his era and the best passer are both high value offensive roles. Helped Boston to 1st ORTGs when he was the best player. Case against: Played against mostly segregated players in his prime. Being the best guard passer in a poor passing league doesn't necessarily mean he was better at it than future players. Weak TS leads to disappointing OWS and WS production, never finishes higher than 8th/9th in WS. The Celtics dynasty was predicted to collapse without him but they did just fine. Likely overcredited in his time for Boston's offensive success, noting that this was a time where they didn't know any better than to think whoever scored the most points had the best offense, eg. in Cousy's MVP year they had the 5th highest ORTG but scored the most points easily so they may have credited the offensive player as the driving force.

Isiah Thomas - Case for: Very solid longevity being great for about a 11 year prime. Great intangibles and praised by many teammates. Strong playoff career leading his team to the top of the mountain. One of the best passers in the league which is a highly valuable offensive skill, along with creation ability. Case against: Average TS leading to only one top 10 finish in WS at 7th, and a 4th/7th in VORP. A good not great scoring career when you consider the volume and efficiency. Finishes 5th in MVP once and never above 8th and surprisingly underrecognized in Pistons title years in either MVP or All-NBA. Despite being a great leader and passer he struggles to fit in his most talented teammate ever in Dantley and keeps shooting as much as ever.

Chauncey Billups - Case for: Combination of passing, getting to the line and free throw line all of which is highly valuable on offense. Somewhat ahead of his time in appreciation for his skillset and value of 3pt spacing. Very good boxscore player with a few top 5s in WS (3rd/5th) and other top 10s and solid but would do better in VORP if his defense was rated better as it probably should've been. Leads Pistons to some strong seasons even without Ben Wallace. Iverson for Billups trade looks terrific for his case with his impact on the Nuggets both as a player and leader and Pistons decline without him. Case against: Ok longevity with about 8 strong years. Good but not great RAPM career, mainly peaking later in his prime. Felt less talented than other players in contention here. Not rated a superstar in his time, not even a star on the level of players like Pierce, Allen and Kidd. His reasonable MVP/All-NBA career somewhat misrepresents the lack of real star labelling there was for Billups. Seen somewhat like the game manager QB on an elite football defense, great at it, but still a game manager. Doesn't necessarily "put pressure on the defense" athletically.

Reggie Miller - Case for: Increases his stock in the playoffs where he is on several occasions a killer. Game translates to playoffs well since he can create open shots by movement. Outstanding longevity and durability and still has value late in his career as floor spacer. 17th in career WS. High floor spacing effect that he know better now than they did in the 90s the value of. Solid passing stats and ability to get to the FT Line, not just a spot up shooter. Good RAPM support. Case against: Shockingly little accolades in his time, not just missing MVP and All-NBA but all-star games half the time. Difficult to make the case he was ever a top 5 player, even in the stat that loves him WS he never finishes top 5. Limited RAPM sample also has him as very good but more of a fringe top 10 guy.

George Gervin - Case for: One of the best offensive careers left, leads the league in scoring 4x and a highly efficient scorer and leads good offenses and contenders. Considered a superstar on his time, 2x 2nd and 1x 3rd MVP finishes and 5 straight 1st team All-NBA. Case against: The Harden of his era on defense, probably worst top 50 defender if Harden doesn’t get in. Only finishes top 5 once in WS and peaks at 6th in VORP in NBA. Mediocre passing for his scoring volume, playmaking is typically critical for high offensive impact for a guard.

Tracy McGrady - Case for: Amazing statistical peak in 2003 right up there (9.7 BPM!) that’s up there with any Kobe season. Great playmaking wing increasing his value throughout his career along with high volume scoring. Good playoff performer. Case against: Weak longevity and health. Poor intangibles and often seemed half asleep. TS average outside of 03. Never makes it past 1st round as a real player. Him and Yao never seemed to reach their potential together and the Rockets suspiciously overperformed whenever one got injured.

Alonzo Mourning - Case for: One of the best defensive centers remaining, as elite shotblocker and 2x DPOY. Plays the right position to be defense first. Peaks at 2nd in MVP voting in 00 and 1st in 99 RAPM (ascreamingacrossthecourt). Solid 8 years before kidney problems, decent play in 02 and valuable few years as mega shotblocking backup C in 06 and 07. 20 point scorer with above average TS and has midrange floor spacing. Outstanding intangibles, he is both the anti-Dwight and anti-Gilmore in a way. Case against: Not a great offensive threat. Terrible passing numbers and assist to turnover rate. Visually a Meh scoring skillset. May have got the job done in the regular season but to win a title there needs to be a more dynamic offensive player on the team.

Dwight Howard - Case for: Excellent accolades in his time, finishing 2nd in MVP (and possibly deserving to win) and 2x 4th place and 1x 5th place. 3rd a few times in WS and peaks at 5th/6th in VORP. The consensus best defender in the league in his prime and offensively is a 20 point, highly efficient scorer who creates gravity on the pick and roll. The defense alone is highly valuable at center. Peaks at 5th/8th in RAPM. Case against: Poor intangibles, annoying manchild. Very poor passing center who turns it over, and a complete non floor spacer at C. Played in a perfect offensive fit for his style, with ahead of its time floor spacing giving him room inside to score and he has never been the same without it. His offensive skillset never fully passed the eye test. Defensive impact seemed to evaporate after Orlando. When looking at how much better a player like late career Mourning was on defense than post prime Dwight, is it a clue about their ability on that end in their prime?

Dolph Schayes - Case for: Terrific all around offense for his time. High volume scoring, highly efficient, good passing and one of the original floor spacing bigs. Quality longevity as still a relevant player (2nd team All-NBA) in his 12th season and production as late as 61 shows he wasn't just a product of pre shot clock. Defense is hard to gauge but he did well in DWS and finished 1st in the league once. A clearcut top 5 player for his time which many of the alternatives above were not. Won a title as best player. Case against: Played in mostly segregated era and has an antiquated shooting style. Doesn't appear to have had a good defensive skillset even if he was good for his time - he just played in weaker era.

Allen Iverson - Case for: Rated well in his time, MVP winner with two other top 5 finishes. Tremendous volume scorer, on ball playmaker which is high value offensive role. For an advanced stats lightning rod, is a respectable 42nd in VORP. Solid longevity compared to other options here, a solid decade. Made Finals with role players. Efficiency problems somewhat connected to context. Played on defense first team with terrible spacing, in pre handcheck rules era. TS improved in Denver when this was rectified. Imagine if he played with the spacing Harden has right now. Case against: Not a great advanced stats player. Rated as overrated by RAPM and WS on the whole. TS when it dips low enough in PHI makes it harder to say he's worth it. Weak defense. Poor intangibles. Very weak portability both for his style of game and his attitude.


+ Wes Unseld - Case for: Impact not captured by his boxscore. His outlet passes don't always end in assists, GOAT level screen setter and defends well without it showing up in blocks. More than his MVP, his Finals MVP averaging 9/12/4 looks even crazier in terms of impact he must have shown without stats. Even with that in mind, his boxscore is still decent, he finished top 10 in WS and VORP 5 times each. Fantastic intangibles. Relevant for over a decade. Leads his team to 4 Finals and a title. Case against: Very mediocre volume scoring threat when you take into account pace as well. Combined with playing center it's hard to believe he has a great offensive impact despite the passing. Never makes an all-defensive team. Never makes All-NBA after his MVP season or finishes higher than 8th in MVP again. As soon as he gets there Hayes is voted on as the best player on the team by MVP votes.

Paul Pierce - Case for: All time great longevity, he comes in relatively polished and is still a great player by his 15th year in the league, and even BKN/WAS version after that is starting caliber. 25th all in in WS, 23rd in VORP. Perimeter players who handles and passes well tend to rate strongly in ORPM. Good floor spacer. Strong playoff credentials. Good playoff career including in 08 going toe to to with Lebron and winning Finals MVP. Defense in Garnett era was solid. Case against: Arguable low peak for players here. Only finishes in top 10 in MVP voting once (7th in 09), his 2nd that season was also the only time he finished better than 3rd All-NBA. Only finishes top 10 in RAPM once (08). In his 26-27ppg season she played a lot of minutes to inflate his numbers. Difficult to build champion around him as #1.

Russell Westbrook - Case for: High peak dropping a crazy 32/11/10 MVP season. His last 2 seasons would've ranked high for peaks at this range too. Broke BPM/VORP. A monster talent who puts a ton of physical pressure on the opponent. Plays hard every minute. Has excelled as both 2nd option and 1st. Very good in the playoffs and has come out on the better end of several high profile PG battles. Case against: Rates as top 10 not top 5 peak in RPM. Average longevity, has been a star level player for 7 years, one of them he played 46 games in, and it's only the last 3 where he went to MVP level peak. Low portability both emotionally and style of play, is not taking a backseat to anyone and wants to shoot as much as possible. Mediocre 3pt shooting and floor spacing. Average TS throughout his career and turnover prone.

Vote Paul Pierce

When I looked at it closer I realized his longevity is tremendous. Yes he wasn't rated an MVP caliber player in his time, but the combination of scoring creation, spacing and passing is a high value offensive role for a wing and he showed he can defend in the right situation.

2nd: George Gervin
Liberate The Zoomers
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,648
And1: 8,294
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#32 » by trex_8063 » Tue Sep 5, 2017 7:59 pm

This is unfamiliar territory for me, as I’m typically the guy defending Cousy. But there’s too much here that can’t be left unchecked…..

euroleague wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
euroleague wrote:

David Robinson* - 35 games (expansion team, had an expansion draft this year which also helped them immensely which might overrate his impact. added Terry Cummings, Sean Elliot, Maurice Cheeks, and Rod Strickland - their whole starting lineup was replaced. his impact was big, but not 35 games obviously)


You're saying Robinson shouldn't get credit because a near-complete overhaul of the starting line-up took place upon his arrival. But the same thing very nearly happened upon Cousy's arrival in Boston----Sonny Hertzberg was the only guy who started for them in both '50 and '51----and Cousy still gets full credit (despite presence of a not only All-Star, but All-NBA 1st Team teammate, plus the GOAT [at that time] coach)?
Why the double standard?


David Robinson's team added many elite players that weren't there the year before, not just Macauley.


No, they really didn’t. You’re name-dropping guys like Mo Cheeks and Sean Elliott (EXTREME stretch to say Elliot was ever elite, btw) as though we should take them at face [that is: prime] value. But Elliott was a rookie that year, and barely even a league-avg player that season.
And they didn’t exactly get BOTH Mo Cheeks and Rod Strickland: they had Cheeks for the first half of the season, and then traded him to obtain Strickland. Fwiw, Strickland is a guy whose impact never appeared to quite stack up to his statistical production; perhaps why he never really found a home (was on his fourth team by his 9th season, still in his prime). And Cheeks was 33 and a bit past his prime.
Terry Cummings was a legit All-Star (though not really All-NBA material).

Anyway, I'm not saying Robinson deserves credit for all 35 wins added; I don't think he does......just as I don't think Cousy deserves credit for all 17 wins added.


euroleague wrote:I discussed Ed Macauley pre-Cousy already. His impact was very low, based on his previous team. Yes, players improve slightly from year 1 to year 2, but not by the margin that Macauley did without an elite PG. His impact wouldn't be significantly larger than the +3 games he had, and he was voted all-NBA because of his stats with Cousy playmaking. He never made all-nba again after that season, after players got to see Cousy more.


I don't disagree that Cousy helped Macauley (among others). But there's otherwise a fair bit of speculation in here, and saying so doesn’t make it so.
And the last sentence isn’t true. He got three more All-NBA honors, and fwiw had one more All-Star selection after parting company with Cousy, too.


euroleague wrote:In terms of coaching, Red Auerbach didn't like Cousy initially. He didn't see that Cousy could fit in this system. Cousy made an impact on Auerbach's game plan, and not vice-versa. Auerbach's previous team had a losing record, and after he left they didn't lose substantially more games. Nothing like the increase that happened in wins with the Celtics.


Do you think Auerbach was a better coach than Alvin Julian, yes or no? If the answer is yes (which I’m guessing it is), then that’s sufficient for here. That’s all I’m saying [that Red may have had a part in that improvement].

You’re taking this defensive posture as though we’re all trying to say Cousy doesn’t deserve ANY credit for that 17-win improvement, which is not at all what we’re saying.

You’re going on in a manner that suggests: Cousy gets credit for all 17 wins added, NO ONE else gets any…......Cousy is the sole reason Macauley improved or was an All-NBA player…....Russell is the sole reason Cousy’s efficiency declined…….etc.

Basically EVERYTHING good about Cousy’s career can be credited 100% to Cousy himself (as well as a fair portion of what is good about some other players’ careers), whereas as everything not-so-good about his career is blamed on someone or something else.

There's almost an element of denial to that. It’s like you’re trying to force the rose-coloured glasses on to the rest of us until we adopt a similar view. But the more you force it, I suspect the more skeptical others will become.

Specious reasoning isn't necessary to support Cousy, he's a great player.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,648
And1: 8,294
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#33 » by trex_8063 » Tue Sep 5, 2017 8:56 pm

I think I'm still gonna go with The Truth here.
Never a true "superstar frontman" of the type that can be the utter stand-alone [by a mile] best player on a contender, but the caliber who could hypothetically be the best player an ensemble contender (a la the Bad Boy Pistons or the '04 Pistons), or an ideal Robin on a contender; or a floor-raiser who could elevate garbage casts up to respectable (like 35-40 wins and maybe a playoff berth).......and he was that caliber of a player for at least 10-12 years. Had 17 seasons in which he was legitimately a "good" or useful player in the NBA, and in one of the toughest eras.

I've already gone over in prior threads his rank in things like rs and ps WS, rs and ps VORP (looks competitive by these measures), I'll note his best 10 years of added PI RAPM have him in the company of guys like Ben Wallace, Dikembe Mutombo, Ray Allen, Scottie Pippen ('94 on, using colts18's data for '94-'96), and Jason Kidd........so he seems pretty competitive for this spot in those terms as well.

For my alternate, I'll be taking one of Pau Gasol, Dwight Howard, Robert Parish, and Reggie Miller. They're sort of all in a cluster, and I don't feel strongly for one over the other. Probably go with Miller because he has some traction.

1st vote: Paul Pierce
2nd vote: Reggie Miller
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 50,444
And1: 27,243
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#34 » by dhsilv2 » Tue Sep 5, 2017 10:12 pm

euroleague wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
Also seems odd that LBJ being ranked best on a statistical metric would upset anyone. By the stats it would seem almost suprising if he weren't top 3 and I'd expect him to rank over MJ. Kareem is the only guy who I could see finishing ahead of him.


MJ's peak: 32.5/8/8 on 60% TS with 3spg and 1bpg. 3.5 TO
LBJ: 28/7.5/7 on 59% TS with 2spg and 1bpg . 3 TO

better maximum PER over a season: MJ.
better WS over a season: MJ.
better WS/48 over a season: MJ

And these aren't really close when considering best 4-5 years. I'm just confused how LBJ is coming out on top. What metric is LBJ ahead in?
KAJ also crushes LBJ in most metrics (not in PER, which exploded only post-expansion and in the 40s/50s).

Topic for another thread.


As flawed as it is, VORP is imo the best scaled stat for showing great seasons, and lebron is the all time leaser there. No stat is perfect though per is not one i would use other than to identify allstars
JordansBulls
RealGM
Posts: 60,467
And1: 5,349
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#35 » by JordansBulls » Tue Sep 5, 2017 11:39 pm

1st Vote: Isiah Thomas (Led organization that never won to back to back titles and to 3 finals in a row. Also had to deal with 3 of the greatest prime players in NBA History and won series against them with HCA)

2nd Vote: Dominique Wilkins.
Image
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,871
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#36 » by euroleague » Wed Sep 6, 2017 12:13 am

trex_8063 wrote:
Do you think Auerbach was a better coach than Alvin Julian, yes or no? If the answer is yes (which I’m guessing it is), then that’s sufficient for here. That’s all I’m saying [that Red may have had a part in that improvement].

You’re taking this defensive posture as though we’re all trying to say Cousy doesn’t deserve ANY credit for that 17-win improvement, which is not at all what we’re saying.

There's almost an element of denial to that. It’s like you’re trying to force the rose-coloured glasses on to the rest of us until we adopt a similar view. But the more you force it, I suspect the more skeptical others will become.

Specious reasoning isn't necessary to support Cousy, he's a great player.


First point: I just made this argument like 12 hours ago and haven't really responded to anyone other than you in, with one post - so I think claiming I'm in denial and using specious reasoning is more ad-hominem and not really related to my argument.

Regarding the other points, I addressed many in previous ranking threads. However, for clarity, I'll reiterate:

Yes, Red Auerbach's coaching had an impact.
Yes, Macauley improved from his first year to his second year.

But on all past teams and prior instances, those didn't account for a significant win change. Red Auerbach's teams didn't improve much his first year with new players. Macauley didn't greatly impact his team's win total.

The other changes on this team involved fringe-NBA players and Bones McKinney.

Thus, I think it's pretty reasonable to say: Cousy had a GOAT level impact, and turned a lottery team into a ECF contender. Sure, Auerbach may have impacted 3-4 wins more... but not Macauley. Every team got players from the folding teams, not just the Celtics. Saying Macauley would impact more than players added to every team isn't accurate, as he was only slightly better than other players given to every team to improve.

The reason DRob/Cousy have different standards is they have different situations. In Cousy's year, every team got better with new acquisitions. In DRob's year, every team got worse because the expansion teams stole players from them.

Spoiler:
Yes, Macauley did make the All-NBA twice more, and 2nd team once.


About DROB:
DRob was a beast of a rookie. I included him on the GOAT list, and you seem to be taking that as a criticism because I put an asterisk. However, your argument in this regard seems to fall flat in accusations of name dropping.

Let's look at the PERs: Terry Cummings - 20 PER, Strickland - 18 PER as a rookie the year before (most players improve after their rookie year), DRob - 26 PER,

Best player on the Spurs the year before - 17.2 PER (Alvin Robertson).

This obviously has an impact....
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#37 » by pandrade83 » Wed Sep 6, 2017 12:27 am

euroleague wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:This is unfamiliar territory for me, as I’m typically the guy defending Cousy. But there’s too much here that can’t be left unchecked…..

euroleague wrote:
David Robinson's team added many elite players that weren't there the year before, not just Macauley.


No, they really didn’t. You’re name-dropping guys like Mo Cheeks and Sean Elliott (EXTREME stretch to say Elliot was ever elite, btw) as though we should take them at face [that is: prime] value. But Elliott was a rookie that year, and barely even a league-avg player that season.
And they didn’t exactly get BOTH Mo Cheeks and Rod Strickland: they had Cheeks for the first half of the season, and then traded him to obtain Strickland. Fwiw, Strickland is a guy whose impact never appeared to quite stack up to his statistical production; perhaps why he never really found a home (was on his fourth team by his 9th season, still in his prime). And Cheeks was 33 and a bit past his prime.
Terry Cummings was a legit All-Star (though not really All-NBA material).

Anyway, I'm not saying Robinson deserves credit for all 35 wins added; I don't think he does......just as I don't think Cousy deserves credit for all 17 wins added.


euroleague wrote:I discussed Ed Macauley pre-Cousy already. His impact was very low, based on his previous team. Yes, players improve slightly from year 1 to year 2, but not by the margin that Macauley did without an elite PG. His impact wouldn't be significantly larger than the +3 games he had, and he was voted all-NBA because of his stats with Cousy playmaking. He never made all-nba again after that season, after players got to see Cousy more.


I don't disagree that Cousy helped Macauley (among others). But there's otherwise a fair bit of speculation in here, and saying so doesn’t make it so.
And the last sentence isn’t true. He got three more All-NBA honors, and fwiw had one more All-Star selection after parting company with Cousy, too.


euroleague wrote:In terms of coaching, Red Auerbach didn't like Cousy initially. He didn't see that Cousy could fit in this system. Cousy made an impact on Auerbach's game plan, and not vice-versa. Auerbach's previous team had a losing record, and after he left they didn't lose substantially more games. Nothing like the increase that happened in wins with the Celtics.


Do you think Auerbach was a better coach than Alvin Julian, yes or no? If the answer is yes (which I’m guessing it is), then that’s sufficient for here. That’s all I’m saying [that Red may have had a part in that improvement].

You’re taking this defensive posture as though we’re all trying to say Cousy doesn’t deserve ANY credit for that 17-win improvement, which is not at all what we’re saying.

You’re going on in a manner that suggests: Cousy gets credit for all 17 wins added, NO ONE else gets any…......Cousy is the sole reason Macauley improved or was an All-NBA player…....Russell is the sole reason Cousy’s efficiency declined…….etc.

Basically EVERYTHING good about Cousy’s career can be credited 100% to Cousy himself (as well as a fair portion of what is good about some other players’ careers), whereas as everything not-so-good about his career is blamed on someone or something else.

There's almost an element of denial to that. It’s like you’re trying to force the rose-coloured glasses on to the rest of us until we adopt a similar view. But the more you force it, I suspect the more skeptical others will become.

Specious reasoning isn't necessary to support Cousy, he's a great player.


I said many points regarding this in threads past. However, for clarity, I'll reiterate:

Yes, Red Auerbach's coaching had an impact.
Yes, Macauley improved from his first year to his second year.

But on past teams and prior instances, those didn't account for a significant win change. Red Auerbach's teams didn't improve much when he joined before. Macauley didn't greatly impact his team's win total just one year before (his team lost 3 more when he joined with no large changes).

Thus, I think it's pretty reasonable to say: Cousy had a GOAT level impact on this team.

PS:
I'd also like to elaborate - DRob was a beast of a rookie. I included him on the GOAT list, and you seem to be taking that as a criticism because I put an asterisk.

Yes, Macauley did make the All-NBA twice more, and 2nd team once. Good find.



I have a really hard time with that statement when someone else had over 3 X the win shares as Cousy. Win Shares is imperfect in that it tends to over-value shooting percentages. But you can't have a teammate generate that much of a disparity in Win Shares & have any kind of credible claim to a GOAT level impact.
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,871
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#38 » by euroleague » Wed Sep 6, 2017 1:02 am

pandrade83 wrote:

I have a really hard time with that statement when someone else had over 3 X the win shares as Cousy. Win Shares is imperfect in that it tends to over-value shooting percentages. But you can't have a teammate generate that much of a disparity in Win Shares & have any kind of credible claim to a GOAT level impact.


I was still editing the comment.

Macauley didn't do well with teammates better than the Celtics minus Cousy the year before. Ed Macauley joined a 29 win team... and it became a 26 win team the year before. While I think Macauley is obviously a good player, it doesn't seem he is the reason for a team to make a 17 win jump in a more stacked league than the year previous (because of 6 teams folding).

Red Auerbach must've made an impact, as he is an elite coach, and most likely helped Macauley a lot with his system. But, it doesn't seem Macauley is a huge impact player based off of his last team.

6 teams folded in 1950. The league decreased in size from 17 to 11 - a huge increase in team quality would normally be assured. I agree that statistically, it would seem strange to attribute this monster win change to Cousy - but I'm looking beyond the stats in his case. He was an electrifying player the league hadn't seen before (although he didn't invent trick moves), and undoubtedly produced huge crowds and cheers in stadiums compared to the normal NBA player. If you've ever competed, you know how this can impact players who aren't used to huge crowds.

It probably also excited his teammates, and allowed Cousy to general the floor in a very effective manner - putting up record level assists and changing his teams offense dramatically with his unique skillset. I believe Cousy, in a vacuum, isn't that amazing... but in the 50s he was the GOAT playmaker.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#39 » by pandrade83 » Wed Sep 6, 2017 1:22 am

His team improved in SRS, and he finished 4th in WS the prior year. I don't know much about the guys on the team, but looking at them, it looks like the best guys got old as they were old by basketball standards of the day (30 & 28)

Ultimately, I'm not convinced Cousy was better than Macauley in '51. When someone else gets 12 more WS than you do, your hold on it is tenuous to be generous. And there needs to be a little bit more substance as to what happened then his team wasn't very good his rookie year to convince me.
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,871
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #39 

Post#40 » by euroleague » Wed Sep 6, 2017 1:29 am

pandrade83 wrote:His team improved in SRS, and he finished 4th in WS the prior year. I don't know much about the guys on the team, but looking at them, it looks like the best guys got old as they were old by basketball standards of the day (30 & 28)

Ultimately, I'm not convinced Cousy was better than Macauley in '51. When someone else gets 12 more WS than you do, your hold on it is tenuous to be generous. And there needs to be a little bit more substance as to what happened then his team wasn't very good his rookie year to convince me.


Look at Steve Nash in 05/06. He wasn't exactly killing the WS. And Steve Nash had killer efficiency.

Floor generals get very underrated in advanced stats like PER/WS. RAPM would be a good stat, but we don't have it.

Return to Player Comparisons