Backpicks GOAT: The 40 Best Careers in NBA History | 4/13 - The Value of Longevity & Defense

[SideshowBob]

At his best, he was an elite offensive anchor and a strong defender with a number of monstrous value-signals, enough for me to give him a top-eight peak of all time.

Kareem's top years have been upgraded. Previously he had his peak outside his top 10 list, but 1977 now sits at 0.26, 73/74 as two more "all-time" level seasons (cutoff seems to be 0.23 title odds) and 71/72/76 right on the cusp.





Lebron can potentially top Kareem's raw career value with his 2018 season included, as he is at 2.79 through 2017 and 16/17 average out to 0.26. However, ElGee has already clarified that most likely Lebron moves into the #2 spot after this current year is included, which means that Kareem's "era-adjustment" is enough to make up the raw value difference.

[ThaRegul8r]

"Jabbar is now a seasoned veteran and probably has just finished his best season of basketball ever, anywhere" (New York Recorder, May 18, 1974).

This is what was said at the time, and I see ElGee has it as his top Milwaukee season.

[SideshowBob]

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

Spreadsheet comparing 2014 list vs. 2017 list

Updated with the full new Top 40. Jordan/Russell/Bird had the largest drops in career value from 2014.

Note that the 2014 list ordering was purely by career value, whereas the 2017 list includes an era adjustment for longevity.

I labeled them the 2014 list and 2017 list because those are the most recently included seasons in each.

[ThaRegul8r]

Lebron can potentially top Kareem's raw career value with his 2018 season included, as he is at 2.79 through 2017 and 16/17 average out to 0.26. However, ElGee has already clarified that most likely Lebron moves into the #2 spot after this current year is included, which means that Kareem's "era-adjustment" is enough to make up the raw value difference.

When Kareem retired after 20 years in the league, John Havlicek and Elvin Hayes played 16. Two years ago we had three guys retire who played 19, 20, and 21 seasons, last year we had a guy retire who played 19, Dirk's going to play his 21st season next year, and Vince Carter's going to play his 21st. Kareem playing 20 when no one else had ever played more than 16, and doing so before the modern medicine and knowledge of today which enables players to play longer now is more impressive and warrants some kind of era adjustment.

[pandrade83]

It could be a good list, but Wilt on #9 ruining everything.
Why author ignoring total WS - biggest historic data, he thinks it's a trashstat? Have any his article about it?

Wilt - 247 WS, 1045 games, 26.1 PER, 47 859 minutes.
Jordan - 214 WS, 1072 games, 27.9 PER, 41 011 minutes
Russell - 164 WS, 963 games, 18.9 PER, 40 726 minutes
Shaq - 182 WS, 1207 games, 26.4 PER, 41 918 minutes
Hakeem - 163 WS, 1238 games, 23.6 PER, 44 222 minutes
Duncan - 206 WS, 1392 games, 24.2 PER, 47 368 minutes
Garnett - 191 WS, 1462 games, 22.7 PER, 50 418 minutes

How you beat this gap in 30+ WS? Where your criticism on this stat?

There are no time machines either — it’s not about how players would do today if transported into the past or future. It’s about the impact each had in his own time over the course of a career.

And Wilt's impact is not enought for Top 3?)

#2 in peak WS/48 and #114 in prime WOWY score? What?
So, I think WOWYR is trash and deadstat and ElGee is Wilt's hater. :3
How you should do:
1. Destroy old stat - WS
2. Enter your new stat. You can't just ignoring such big stat as WS.

About his little videoclips - I could cuts games on my preferences that any player will be bad defender and bad in offensive) Like example see NobodyTouchesJordan and his amazing cuts on Chris Paul's defense)

Why you wasted your time and makes this career top list, if Top 3 Careers is evident:

1. Kareem - 273 WS, 1560 games, 24.6 PER, 57 446 minutes
2. Wilt - 247 WS, 1045 games, 26.1 PER, 47 859 minutes
3. Lebron - 219 WS, 1142 games, 27.7 PER, 44 287 minutes.

Anyone who argues with it just biased. That's all.

There's legit beefs to be had with what Elgee's done - I'll even throw out a few:

-Confirmation Bias sometimes runs rampant - if he has a guy ranked lower/higher than the consensus, the writing will feel skewed that way - it definitely showed up on MJ for me - I went back & read it a 2nd time because I wanted to see if I was the one who was off. The fact it's a scouting based rankings exacerbates this because there's so much reliance on video.

-In some rankings/writings, I felt that actual results - what happened - got disconnected from his writing (specific example: Steve Nash)

-Inconsistent description - he had Lebron's D only marginally better than MJ's but when you read it - you can't tell that at all; somewhat connected to confirmation bias.

With that said, overall - this is really good stuff. And to simply say - oh, career WS is the be all/end all - ok - let's take that at face value.

Do you believe John Stockton is #6 GOAT? Certainly no lower than say #11 or #12, right?
Artis Gilmore #10 GOAT?

By your own argument of a 30 WS gap being nearly insurmountable, surely you must feel Gilmore > Russell & Olajuwon, right? And Karl Malone > Duncan, correct? There's no way Larry Bird can crack your Top 16.

To do a list like this and do it well is not easy and even in your fairly short post a # of things that would appear problematic to the typical knowledgeable basketball fan surface right away. Elgee's stuff isn't perfect - no one's is - but it's still very good.

[SideshowBob]

Spoiler:

Lebron can potentially top Kareem's raw career value with his 2018 season included, as he is at 2.79 through 2017 and 16/17 average out to 0.26. However, ElGee has already clarified that most likely Lebron moves into the #2 spot after this current year is included, which means that Kareem's "era-adjustment" is enough to make up the raw value difference.

When Kareem retired after 20 years in the league, John Havlicek and Elvin Hayes played 16. Two years ago we had three guys retire who played 19, 20, and 21 seasons, last year we had a guy retire who played 19, Dirk's going to play his 21st season next year, and Vince Carter's going to play his 21st. Kareem playing 20 when no one else had ever played more than 16, and doing so before the modern medicine and knowledge of today which enables players to play longer now is more impressive.

I was just hit by this yesterday. In my mind still had Kareem/Parish/Malone/Stockton as the token "longest NBA careers". Then my younger brother asked who had the longest current active career and I pulled up the BBR list and lo-and-behold, KG sits atop (G comes before P) and Vince is just a few spots under Kareem (also having just announced his intentions to play at least another year). Remarkable the difference, and remarkable the outlier Kareem was back in the day.

Makes you wonder how long some of these more health/body disciplined (and lucky) 00 drafted guys will play (25?), and the guys getting drafted now have probably been prepping their body for long careers before even entering the league.

[Senior]

Spoiler:

Lebron can potentially top Kareem's raw career value with his 2018 season included, as he is at 2.79 through 2017 and 16/17 average out to 0.26. However, ElGee has already clarified that most likely Lebron moves into the #2 spot after this current year is included, which means that Kareem's "era-adjustment" is enough to make up the raw value difference.

When Kareem retired after 20 years in the league, John Havlicek and Elvin Hayes played 16. Two years ago we had three guys retire who played 19, 20, and 21 seasons, last year we had a guy retire who played 19, Dirk's going to play his 21st season next year, and Vince Carter's going to play his 21st. Kareem playing 20 when no one else had ever played more than 16, and doing so before the modern medicine and knowledge of today which enables players to play longer now is more impressive.

I was just hit by this yesterday. In my mind still had Kareem/Parish/Malone/Stockton as the token "longest NBA careers". Then my younger brother asked who had the longest current active career and I pulled up the BBR list and lo-and-behold, KG sits atop (G comes before P) and Vince is just a few spots under Kareem (also having just announced his intentions to play at least another year). Remarkable the difference, and remarkable the outlier Kareem was back in the day.

Makes you wonder how long some of these more health/body disciplined (and lucky) 00 drafted guys will play (25?), and the guys getting drafted now have probably been prepping their body for long careers before even entering the league.

I wonder if there's a way to quantify the tougher conditions of the 60s-70s (even early 80s?) to compare the length of those careers vs the more modern era. Back then you had stuff like b2b2bs, 4 games in 5 or 5 in 6, guys easily clearing 40+ mins at breakneck pace, worse travel conditions, guys holding other jobs or barnstorming in the summers...that's a lot of attrition combined with the long haul of the RS.

Who knows? Maybe endurance monsters like Russell or Wilt could've churned out 17 seasons if they came into the league now instead of 13-14. Hell, Wilt played about 500 more RS minutes than Tim Duncan and Duncan played 5 more seasons and almost 400 more games.

[Reservoirdawgs]

Well, "clutch" does exist in certain players more so than others. As in, mentally, not all athletes are created equal and not all have the kind of mental focus to block out everything else in those high stakes moments. It's just highly subjective and people get frustrated by the word because it can't be quantified by a number or statistic. If a player performs "clutch" basketball plays (notice how I don't say just "shots") with a relative amount of frequency, it's just being obtuse to not call them inherently "clutch".

Explain to me how "clutch" exists in certain players more than others. What are examples? Would you also mind specifying exactly what this inherent "clutch" gene is, as well as your definition of "clutch"?

[KTM_2813]

Thanks to all for the responses on my "clutch" question. I think it's a fascinating topic so I was interested to hear people's thoughts. Personally, I lean more towards the ElGee line of thinking there.

Shifting focus over to Kareem and his longevity: One of the things I've taken away from ElGee's project is the idea of era adjustments for longevity. It sounds so obvious now, but I never considered that playing 20 seasons in 1990 was more challenging than playing 20 seasons now. It's a total "duh", but it's also easy to lose sight of.

[SideshowBob]

Bit of an idea of the era adjustment.

Read on Twitter

[Ron Swanson]

Well, "clutch" does exist in certain players more so than others. As in, mentally, not all athletes are created equal and not all have the kind of mental focus to block out everything else in those high stakes moments. It's just highly subjective and people get frustrated by the word because it can't be quantified by a number or statistic. If a player performs "clutch" basketball plays (notice how I don't say just "shots") with a relative amount of frequency, it's just being obtuse to not call them inherently "clutch".

Explain to me how "clutch" exists in certain players more than others. What are examples? Would you also mind specifying exactly what this inherent "clutch" gene is, as well as your definition of "clutch"?

If statistics are only credible in relation to sample size, then the same should be held for "clutch" moments. If a certain player consistently raises their game and performs at an outstanding level in certain situations (playoffs in general, 4th quarters, final minutes), then I feel you're just willfully ignoring relevant data to push a narrative. I maintain that people are too hung up on the word "clutch" itself and the way it's used amongst casual sports fans, rather than looking at it objectively.

[MisterHibachi]

I do buy the idea of last few minutes meaning more than the first part of the game. Having a 5 point lead with 5 minutes left in a game is better for your win probability than having that same lead 2 minutes into the game.

[Bush4Ever]

Regarding the "clutch gene", I've always conceptualized clutchness as how much the player improves his performance over his baseline in "clutch" situations (I think reasonable people can come up with a formal conceptualization for what constitutes a clutch situation).

The only issue is that for players who are already playing at an extremely high level, there is a bit of a ceiling effect where it becomes nigh impossible to improve on your baseline, especially since defenses are generally more focused/tighter, etc...so instead of viewing it in terms of absolute improvement (i.e.- +5 vs. +6 = +1), perhaps it should be viewed in terms of relative improvement (i.e.- +5 vs. +6 = 20% relative improvement).

Or relative drop, obviously. I would wager most players probably see a drop in terms of performance in clutch situations simply as a function of defenses being ultra-focused and tight.

[dhsilv2]

Spoiler:

Lebron can potentially top Kareem's raw career value with his 2018 season included, as he is at 2.79 through 2017 and 16/17 average out to 0.26. However, ElGee has already clarified that most likely Lebron moves into the #2 spot after this current year is included, which means that Kareem's "era-adjustment" is enough to make up the raw value difference.

When Kareem retired after 20 years in the league, John Havlicek and Elvin Hayes played 16. Two years ago we had three guys retire who played 19, 20, and 21 seasons, last year we had a guy retire who played 19, Dirk's going to play his 21st season next year, and Vince Carter's going to play his 21st. Kareem playing 20 when no one else had ever played more than 16, and doing so before the modern medicine and knowledge of today which enables players to play longer now is more impressive.

I was just hit by this yesterday. In my mind still had Kareem/Parish/Malone/Stockton as the token "longest NBA careers". Then my younger brother asked who had the longest current active career and I pulled up the BBR list and lo-and-behold, KG sits atop (G comes before P) and Vince is just a few spots under Kareem (also having just announced his intentions to play at least another year). Remarkable the difference, and remarkable the outlier Kareem was back in the day.

Makes you wonder how long some of these more health/body disciplined (and lucky) 00 drafted guys will play (25?), and the guys getting drafted now have probably been prepping their body for long careers before even entering the league.

I'd still wonder how much of this is just more players and more opportunities for freaky long careers? I'm sure it is both but how do you quantify that?

[Reservoirdawgs]

If statistics are only credible in relation to sample size, then the same should be held for "clutch" moments. If a certain player consistently raises their game and performs at an outstanding level in certain situations (playoffs in general, 4th quarters, final minutes), then I feel you're just willfully ignoring relevant data to push a narrative. I maintain that people are too hung up on the word "clutch" itself and the way it's used amongst casual sports fans, rather than looking at it objectively.

So what is it? Playoffs in general? Only the fourth quarter? Only the final minute? Who are these players that, based on an arbitrary point in time, somehow "find the will" to play better, and why don't they do that all of the time (and what does it say when they don't succeed in these 'clutch') moments. Are they suddenly unclutch?

[Reservoirdawgs]

I do buy the idea of last few minutes meaning more than the first part of the game. Having a 5 point lead with 5 minutes left in a game is better for your win probability than having that same lead 2 minutes into the game.

The last few minutes do mean more for your win probability. That, of course, has nothing to do with "clutch" or people finding some inner will based on an arbitrary moment in time.

[Reservoirdawgs]

Another reminder for people who have enjoyed ElGee's work and would like to support him: you can buy his book on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Basketball-Ben-Taylor-ebook/dp/B072KM9BJN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523548875&sr=8-1&keywords=thinking+basketball

[Ron Swanson]

If statistics are only credible in relation to sample size, then the same should be held for "clutch" moments. If a certain player consistently raises their game and performs at an outstanding level in certain situations (playoffs in general, 4th quarters, final minutes), then I feel you're just willfully ignoring relevant data to push a narrative. I maintain that people are too hung up on the word "clutch" itself and the way it's used amongst casual sports fans, rather than looking at it objectively.

So what is it? Playoffs in general? Only the fourth quarter? Only the final minute? Who are these players that, based on an arbitrary point in time, somehow "find the will" to play better, and why don't they do that all of the time (and what does it say when they don't succeed in these 'clutch') moments. Are they suddenly unclutch?

It's all of the above. I don't know what you're not understanding here. Would you say that a player who shoots efficiently over a decent sample size is by definition an efficient shooter? Does one or a couple inefficient shooting nights all of a sudden make him an inefficient shooter? So why on earth would a player who frequently produces at a higher level in the most important games, and the most important times during the most important games, not be considered a clutch player based on historical trends and the very definition of the word?

[Laimbeer]

A player can hit a clutch shot. A player can't be inherently "clutch" or possess a "clutch gene". The whole notion of someone being "clutch" can be explained through:

You don't think some players have stronger mental makeups that allow them to play better in critical situations? It is probably overdone, but I wouuldn't say it doesn't exist.

[Gregoire]

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

Spreadsheet comparing 2014 list vs. 2017 list

Updated with the full new Top 40. Jordan/Russell/Bird had the largest drops in career value from 2014.

Note that the 2014 list ordering was purely by career value, whereas the 2017 list includes an era adjustment for longevity.

I labeled them the 2014 list and 2017 list because those are the most recently included seasons in each.

Its interesting in which careers from top-10 offensive peak and defensive peak are in the same year...
It seems Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Russell have O and D peaks simultaneously, while Lebron, Wilt, Hakeem had peaked in different seasons.
Kareem and Jordan - its unclear...

Its also interesting, that it seems he have Shaq peak ahead of Kareem peak either offensively and defensively.