RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9

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

mailmp
Sophomore
Posts: 173
And1: 124
Joined: Oct 16, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#61 » by mailmp » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:33 pm

It is always funny when I come across people who make Elgee look like a portability casual. Yes, Garnett is probably better if I get to lab design my team in some fantasy draft. Although not even necessarily, because there is a perpetual basketball throughline that, with a few exceptions, when the postseason runs around you need a guy who can get a basket. And maybe your ideal is Spurs motion offence, everyone is efficient, everyone gets a good look, but the reality is more often than not what ends up happening is that when the playoffs come along you look more like the 2018 Raptors or a Budenholzer team. So is Hakeem mathematically the best offensive piece? No, but systems break apart in the postseason, and what Hakeem gives is a guy you can trust to score where everyone else goes wrong. Garnett does not. I think Garnett detractors push Pierce too much, but it is a fair point how that was indeed Pierce’s specific role (and most of the time you do not end up with a Pierce-level sidekick).

You do not get to say, “Okay, I got Garnett and now I can go grab a solid centre pairing and then some offensive focal points and also some elite roleplayers...” No, the history of the NBA has basically been to get a star who can hard carry you in the playoffs... then just try to build a complementary roster (or hope one basically falls together if — shocker — other teams are better markets or your front office is not perfect or uniquely prescient) that allows him to do that. You talk about how the Rudy T Rockets are just a super obvious build in hindsight, but what exactly is the obvious Garnett build? What is the championship Garnett roster that is easier to put together than “role-players plus Hakeem go brr”? Ah, wait, I forgot, now we should dismiss those Houston titles because all their opposition was imperfect and also because their roleplayers performed well. :roll: Yes, basically Rasheed Wallace, what objective analysis! (But hey, I guess by RAPM 1997-2004 Rasheed was basically the same level player as an average Duncan/Garnett season, so maybe you meant that as a compliment...) And certainly none of those teams compare to the conceptual brilliance of the 2008 Eastern Conference opposition, or to the 2004 Nuggets/Kings...

It is thinking basketball in a simulation, a MyLeague situation where just having flexibility is the key to building outward. But even now Garnett’s closest defensive analogue, in a hyper-successful regular season build, keeps running into postseason trouble because, like most superstars, he does not get to dump offensive responsibilities onto a superior offensive teammate, and unlike Hakeem but like Garnett, his scoring is not inelastic enough to help his teammates survive when they go cold.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,220
And1: 25,489
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#62 » by 70sFan » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:37 pm

Owly wrote:
70sFan wrote:He could face up and post up only against weaker and less athletic defenders, because against good defenders he became easy to contain.

Are you sure on this? Do you have a big sample?

How big of a sample would you like to see? I can make a compilation of his boxscore stats against teams that all have all-defensive bigs on their rosters for example. Or you can just bring me a list of players you'd like to see him against. I can also make even rougher estimate and calculate his averages against top 5 defenses in the league in RS and playoffs, although this one is very rough estimation.

I know that playoffs might be a bit small sample, but I did things like that for Robinson before and he didn't come out well by these criteria. Combine that with eye test and it's clear that it wasn't just some noise, but true limitations of his game. As I said before - Malone was amazing man defender but Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq were never shut down to the same degree by someone like him.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,220
And1: 25,489
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#63 » by 70sFan » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:42 pm

mailmp wrote:It is always funny when I come across people who make Elgee look like a portability casual. Yes, Garnett is probably better if I get to lab design my team in some fantasy draft. Although not even necessarily, because there is a perpetual basketball throughline that, with a few exceptions, when the postseason runs around you need a guy who can get a basket. And maybe your ideal is Spurs motion offence, everyone is efficient, everyone gets a good look, but the reality is more often than not what ends up happening is that when the playoffs come along you look more like the 2018 Raptors or a Budenholzer team. So is Hakeem mathematically the best offensive piece? No, but systems break apart in the postseason, and what Hakeem gives is a guy you can trust to score where everyone else goes wrong. Garnett does not. I think Garnett detractors push Pierce too much, but it is a fair point how that was indeed Pierce’s specific role (and most of the time you do not end up with a Pierce-level sidekick).

You do not get to say, “Okay, I got Garnett and now I can go grab a solid centre pairing and then some offensive focal points and also some elite roleplayers...” No, the history of the NBA has basically been to get a star who can hard carry you in the playoffs... then just try to build a complementary roster (or hope one basically falls together if — shocker — other teams are better markets or your front office is not perfect or uniquely prescient) that allows him to do that. You talk about how the Rudy T Rockets are just a super obvious build in hindsight, but what exactly is the obvious Garnett build? What is the championship Garnett roster that is easier to put together than “role-players plus Hakeem go brr”? Ah, wait, I forgot, now we should dismiss those Houston titles because all their opposition was imperfect and also because their roleplayers performed well. :roll: Yes, basically Rasheed Wallace, what objective analysis! (But hey, I guess by RAPM 1997-2004 Rasheed was basically the same level player as an average Duncan/Garnett season, so maybe you meant that as a compliment...) And certainly none of those teams compare to the conceptual brilliance of the 2008 Eastern Conference opposition, or to the 2004 Nuggets/Kings...

It is thinking basketball in a simulation, a MyLeague situation where just having flexibility is the key to building outward. But even now Garnett’s closest defensive analogue, in a hyper-successful regular season build, keeps running into postseason trouble because, like most superstars, he does not get to dump offensive responsibilities onto a superior offensive teammate, and unlike Hakeem but like Garnett, his scoring is not inelastic enough to help his teammates survive when they go cold.

You explained it far better than I could (f*ck being not a native speaker!) and this is what I basically meant. Judging players by building around hypothetically the best team ever is strange criteria to me...
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#64 » by Odinn21 » Sat Oct 31, 2020 4:06 pm

mailmp wrote:It is always funny when I come across people who make Elgee look like a portability casual. Yes, Garnett is probably better if I get to lab design my team in some fantasy draft. Although not even necessarily, because there is a perpetual basketball throughline that, with a few exceptions, when the postseason runs around you need a guy who can get a basket. And maybe your ideal is Spurs motion offence, everyone is efficient, everyone gets a good look, but the reality is more often than not what ends up happening is that when the playoffs come along you look more like the 2018 Raptors or a Budenholzer team. So is Hakeem mathematically the best offensive piece? No, but systems break apart in the postseason, and what Hakeem gives is a guy you can trust to score where everyone else goes wrong. Garnett does not.

Props to this.

Ability to score at will scoring is still the biggest aspect of the game. All these talks about disregarding volume scoring aspect to pump up Garnett is flawed.
For scoring less to be useful in the sense they are talking about, a player must have the next gear in him.

Another thing is, that kind of efficiency doesn't show up in true shooting numbers. The ability to keep going at it aggressively still creates opportunities for a team.
Olajuwon scored 25 points on 10 for 25 fga (.445 ts overall) in game 7 of '94 Finals.
Duncan scored 25 points on 10 for 27 fga (.422 ts overall) in game 7 of '05 Finals.

Asking those 2 shoot less was not the better option since they are missing many shots because the moment they are not that aggressive against those great defensive teams, there way more pressure on the complementary pieces.

When the comparison is between Duncan, Olajuwon, (O'Neal) and Garnett, it's not just about replicating those shooting numbers in terms of offensive performances. With Garnett, those won scenarios are much more likely to become losing scenarios.
As great as Garnett was at passing and being a facilitator, removing the scoring threats those were that aggressive is still further away.

Olajuwon could win in a situation like Garnett had in 2008. But Garnett would not be able to win in a situation like Olajuwon had in 1994.
The difference is on their level gap. It's simple as that.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
DQuinn1575
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,952
And1: 712
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#65 » by DQuinn1575 » Sat Oct 31, 2020 4:28 pm

70sFan wrote:
DQuinn1575 wrote:It was basically Bird, Archibald, and Maxwell taking a team picked 3rd or 4th in their division to the best record in the league. Obviously they lost in the playoffs, but definitely the 3rd best team in the league after being second worst, and starting 4 of the same 5 players - with a big comeback from Tiny.

Were they definitely 3rd best team in the league? I know they had the highest SRS, but they played in far worse conference (something isn't talked about often).

I wouldn't bet on Celtics beating Seattle, who were defending champions, 3rd best team in RS and beat very talented Bucks team. I know RS series don't mean much, but Sonics beat Celtics 2-0 as well.

Seattle were legit then, they just run on clearly the best team in the league.


You are correct, when I scanned B-Reference I looked at Division standings and missed the West below the other division. Definitely isn't correct - in contention with Seattle and Phoenix for 3rd best team in the league would be the correct comment. Phoenix might have beaten both of them.
Point is they went from lousy to top level team.
DQuinn1575
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,952
And1: 712
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#66 » by DQuinn1575 » Sat Oct 31, 2020 5:09 pm

My math has Bird being a plus 3 defender in 1980, when +1 is considered good. It says Bird had a big impact defensively on the 80 Celtics, which is a big part of their improvement.

What am I thinking??
The Celtics went from -2.6 vs league average DefEff to +3.4, the range of teams is usually +5/-5, so a good player would be +1, a poor one -1, and replacement
level -1. So I tried to construct the 79 Celtics, and (luckily maybe) my first attempt came real close. I called Maxwell and Ford average defenders, that seems
fair, they both played in the league, dont remember any real plus or minus said about them. I gave Chaney a zero, as he was in his last years and on bench, going
back in time he would get a plus. I gave Cowens a plus 1, as a good defensive guy. Tiny had a bad defensive reputation, and his best year KC was last in defense.
Plus he was hurt, so I made him a -2 this year. Everybody else I gave replacement level too, I didn't see anyone else (other than Chaney who I did already) that
stuck out to change. So I take their minutes times their rating, add them up, get a rate per minute, multiply by 5 players, and come up within .15 of the team
rating. Probably some beginner's luck, but it gives me a reasonable rating of the 1979 defense. Cowens good, Chaney/Maxwell/Ford okay, Tiny bad, no one else very
good.



Rate mp Wt Pts

Tiny -2 1662 -3324 poor rep, hurt
Chaney 0 1074 0 last year, former plus
Maxwell 0 2969 0 average
Ford 0 2629 0 average
Cowens 1 2517 2517 good rep, all-def


Bench -1 8829 -8829 Default rating for benches

Total 19680 -9636
Per minute (0.49)
5 Players (2.45)



so the year changes, they bring in Bird and M.L. Carr. To reduce arguments, let's say Maxwell is a year better and improves to a -1. Cowens,despite
missing 20 games makes 2nd team all-defense, so let's give him +2. Let's give Carr a +2. Tiny is no longer hurt, I would give him a -1 based on his past, but
let's say he becomes a league average defender, after being a poor one, and after being hurt. So I have Tiny, Maxwell, Cowens improving, Ford who is past his peak
staying the same, and kept Chaney the same. So I have Carr and Chaney above replacement on the bench, but no one else.
Looks something like this. Note Ford and Carr were playing for bad defensive teams in Detroit before joining Celtics, so I have a hard time making Ford a plus defender.

Rate mp Wt Pts

Tiny 0 1662 0 best case
Chaney 0 0 0
Maxwell 1 2744 2744 best case
Ford 0 2115 0
Cowens 2 2159 4318
Carr 2 1994 3988
Chaney 0 523 0


And keeping Bench a replacement level, I solve for Bird:

Rate mp Wt Pts

Tiny 0 1662 0 best case
Chaney 0 0 0
Maxwell 1 2744 2744 best case
Ford 0 2115 0
Cowens 2 2159 4318
Carr 2 1994 3988
Chaney 0 523 0
Bird 3 2955 8865 Solved for x
Bench -1 5528 -5528

Total 19680 14387
Per minute 0.73
5 Players 3.66


Of course it is math, but the defense improved by 6.0 - so I attributed it to who was there and what seems (to me at least to make sense). I improved most of the key players,
some of that you can attribute to Fitch if you want. I rated Carr a +2, even though the following year he becomes a bench warmer. I rated Tiny higher than his reputation, but
the math supports that.

My Vote:

1. Larry Bird
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Oscar Robertson


That Oscar vote may change by the time I get to 11.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,757
And1: 22,682
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#67 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Oct 31, 2020 5:19 pm

SHAQ32 wrote:
LA Bird wrote:
SHAQ32 wrote:
Generally speaking, hasn't the western conference historically been the more offense-friendly conference? If so, shouldn't that be considered when comparing numbers? The last east team to lead league in offense was the 2000 Pacers (http://paceandspacehoops.com/the-greatest-offensive-teams-in-nba-history/).

1. The West may be the more offense-friendly conference but showing a list of the #1 offenses doesn't prove that.

Well, looking here at the yearly top10 offenses, circa 2000-13 (essentially KG's prime):

- 2001-2004, the west had eight of the top10 offenses
- Not one single year did the east have more teams in the top10; only one season with 5 teams in top10


I'm confused by this whole line of reasoning.

The East was the minor league conference, so of course we would expect to see stuff indicating that the West was better. This isn't the NBA vs ABA or the NL vs AL. These teams played each other, by and large, the East got embarrassed again and again. That's why the data is going to favor the West.

I also think it's really telling that when Garnett joined the Celtics, they went from a below average defense to the best in the league. If the East were the stronger defensive conference in some fundamentally significant way, then why would it make sense for a guy from a below average defense in the West to come in and make them good?

Not trying to knock those Detroit, NJ, Indiana defenses here. While I'm sure it helped that they didn't have to play the best offensive teams in the league as much a little, there's no denying they had great defense. But they didn't have great defense because the East took defense seriously, they were great defensive teams because that's how you win a conference without outlier offensive talent. Had they not had that defense, someone else wins the East.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Jordan Syndrome
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,814
And1: 1,425
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#68 » by Jordan Syndrome » Sat Oct 31, 2020 5:51 pm

All 3 of my guys are still here. I've yet to see convincing arguments for Bird ahead of Garnett, Hakeem or Dirk. I'm starting to look at Oscar and West. I was higher on Moses before the start of the Project but have since floundered on him.

1. Garnett

Best all-around player and highest CORP left and a top-10 peak.

2. Nowitzki

His force as an offensive anchor is unique for a big man. Impacted the game more than Bird did in his 11-year prime compared to Birds 10. I am higher on Dirks defense than many and liked his rebounding in his younger days.

3. Hakeem

Another great big man. Two-way player but not close to being an offensive anchor of all-time great offenses. His defense is a notch behind Garnett's, portability quite a bit lower and his inconsistencies were apparent over his long career in comparison to the top 10 (8 already selected plus Dirk/Garnett).
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,732
And1: 3,199
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#69 » by Owly » Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:00 pm

70sFan wrote:
Owly wrote:
70sFan wrote:He could face up and post up only against weaker and less athletic defenders, because against good defenders he became easy to contain.

Are you sure on this? Do you have a big sample?

How big of a sample would you like to see? I can make a compilation of his boxscore stats against teams that all have all-defensive bigs on their rosters for example. Or you can just bring me a list of players you'd like to see him against. I can also make even rougher estimate and calculate his averages against top 5 defenses in the league in RS and playoffs, although this one is very rough estimation.

I know that playoffs might be a bit small sample, but I did things like that for Robinson before and he didn't come out well by these criteria. Combine that with eye test and it's clear that it wasn't just some noise, but true limitations of his game. As I said before - Malone was amazing man defender but Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq were never shut down to the same degree by someone like him.

I was curious on what sample you used to draw the conclusion moreso than wanting to see something specific. I think some tend to draw it off playoffs on a limited number of series (and with his casts' limitations leaving him more exposed).

If I were to ask for something I'd be looking at vs Olajuwon, Ewing, probably O'Neal (because an elite big overall and you cite less athletic and O'Neal wasn't that), Mourning, Mutombo and I think maybe Bradley too (def an elite defender overall, maybe it was all help?)? If he is a factor for you, Malone should be included. Maybe compare how they did versus him (to give an idea of what is a normal reduction at the same pace - a vague indication whether he's losing the "net" battle - maybe exclude Bradley, perhaps Mutombo for this stuff, or do separately)? Don't care how they all shot free throws versus one another (neutralize this to something like season average ft%, adjust points, TS% accordingly). Maybe through '98, both players playing at least ... 24 minutes (is this high enough? Then again they should gain if they put the rival in foul trouble). Then I'd want to see how many games we'd got.

Don't know how best to aggregate it - by player? By all rivals together in one season (so can compare versus his season norms)? Both? And how to present (don't know that I [or whether others] interpret slashlines well/whether box composites of some sort could also be included as well?

Or, big picture,just splits versus above average and below average defensive teams and comparisons with rivals (not just if he's falling more but how good he is versus a given group in absolute terms - here with bigger samples hopefully FT% would be less of a factor but as ever I'd be inclined to try to neutralize).

As already stated I'm not asking for this because it's a PITA but that would be the sort of thing I'd want to know before saying if he was vulnerable to good defenders (though other definitions are of course possible).
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,220
And1: 25,489
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#70 » by 70sFan » Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:11 pm

Owly wrote:
70sFan wrote:
Owly wrote:Are you sure on this? Do you have a big sample?

How big of a sample would you like to see? I can make a compilation of his boxscore stats against teams that all have all-defensive bigs on their rosters for example. Or you can just bring me a list of players you'd like to see him against. I can also make even rougher estimate and calculate his averages against top 5 defenses in the league in RS and playoffs, although this one is very rough estimation.

I know that playoffs might be a bit small sample, but I did things like that for Robinson before and he didn't come out well by these criteria. Combine that with eye test and it's clear that it wasn't just some noise, but true limitations of his game. As I said before - Malone was amazing man defender but Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq were never shut down to the same degree by someone like him.

I was curious on what sample you used to draw the conclusion moreso than wanting to see something specific. I think some tend to draw it off playoffs on a limited number of series (and with his casts' limitations leaving him more exposed).

If I were to ask for something I'd be looking at vs Olajuwon, Ewing, probably O'Neal (because an elite big overall and you cite less athletic and O'Neal wasn't that), Mourning, Mutombo and I think maybe Bradley too (def an elite defender overall, maybe it was all help?)? If he is a factor for you, Malone should be included. Maybe compare how they did versus him (to give an idea of what is a normal reduction at the same pace - a vague indication whether he's losing the "net" battle - maybe exclude Bradley, perhaps Mutombo for this stuff, or do separately)? Don't care how they all shot free throws versus one another (neutralize this to something like season average ft%, adjust points, TS% accordingly). Maybe through '98, both players playing at least ... 24 minutes (is this high enough? Then again they should gain if they put the rival in foul trouble). Then I'd want to see how many games we'd got.

Don't know how best to aggregate it - by player? By all rivals together in one season (so can compare versus his season norms)? Both? And how to present (don't know that I [or whether others] interpret slashlines well/whether box composites of some sort could also be included as well?

Or, big picture,just splits versus above average and below average defensive teams and comparisons with rivals (not just if he's falling more but how good he is versus a given group in absolute terms - here with bigger samples hopefully FT% would be less of a factor but as ever I'd be inclined to try to neutralize).

As already stated I'm not asking for this because it's a PITA but that would be the sort of thing I'd want to know before saying if he was vulnerable to good defenders (though other definitions are of course possible).

I'll try to compile these stats against Hakeem, Shaq, Mutombo, Mourning, Malone, Ewing. I'll probably include his games against Bad Boy Pistons as well (although only few first years). Maybe against Bulls with Rodman? I don't know, I'm open for suggestions.

Maybe I'll do the same thing for other bigs as well to see how he stacks up relative to others.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,757
And1: 22,682
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#71 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:16 pm

Vote:

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Larry Bird

I'm going to stick with the same trio as last time despite the fact I'm really up in the air on the 3rd spot.

On the first two, I've seen some well-put arguments putting Hakeem over KG and I have to say it's not like it's really going to bother me if Hakeem gets in first. He was amazing and had a glorious peak.

But I just think it's really important for everybody to consider how they'd see Hakeem if his team had lost in close series in his 2 title years, because this could have easily happened with Hakeem playing just as good. Would you really be so confident that Hakeem deserved a spot over Garnett? Heck, back before '93-94, Hakeem was generally given less attention than Ewing & Robinson. Tweak the results of those two playoff runs just slightly and we may be in a world where Hakeem isn't a lock for the Top 30 on most lists like these.

To be clear, I'm not trying to say that the alternate reality where Hakeem gets no rings is "the right way to look at things". What I am trying to say is that we naturally put players into tiers based on results like championships, and then tend to be reluctant to make comparisons cross-tier.

If you can recognize that a slight change of events would put two guys on the same tier, then you need to do a more thorough job evaluating the details of the comparison.

As I've said, the notion in general that Hakeem was having more team offense success than KG is false. In their primes, at any given age, there was a good chance that KG was leading his team's offense on a more successful run than Hakeem was, and often times doing so without any clear-cut superior offensive supporting cast.

Of course that leads to discussions about the playoffs, and I absolutely get an argument based on the playoffs. But you do have to remember that your memory of Hakeem in the playoffs was based on a team that spread the floor by taking 3's - which in and of itself we know is a massive offensive advantage.

Again, I understand there's other things you can point to in Hakeem's favor - his interior arsenal was unique and fantastic, he put up some big numbers in earlier playoff runs - but I am asking folks to try to think about the importance of context here. KG was playing on a team with backward strategy that was hampering his ability to make an even better team and score more easily.

And if that sounds like excuse making, do understand that I'm coming from a proof-of-impact-first mentality. I'm not saying "Man, if they had just allowed Craig Hodges to shoot 3's at volume, he'd have been GOAT!", I'm saying we have a guy here in KG who was clearly demonstrated a consistent ability for profound impact but didn't lead teams to titles when he was at his peak, so we need to ask ourselves how much winning bias has played into how we've approached our analysis of him.

We ask "What held him back?" instead of asking "How much did his weaker aspects hurt him compared to other players, and how that compares with other aspects of the game where this player actually had the edge?"

And we'd do the same to Hakeem had his Rudy T era Rockets been 27th in 3-point rate instead of 1st.

Just check yourself on this. Know that you've been biased in a certain direction by the rippling waves of narrative you've been exposed to by tuning in to the basketball world. How you end up filtering out the bias is up to you, but you have to know that your sense of what a player was came into your rational brain with a certain slant to it, and you gotta try to level things.

On Bird:

I do want to respond to the notion that "Rookie Bird couldn't have had THAT big of an impact because box score".

So first, let's drop the notion of "How many wins did Bird add?" I want to talk about this in terms of the actual playing of the game.

I can't find the quote, but there was one from Bird's rookie year from someone saying that Bird was better at basketball than anyone else had ever been.

Now listen, there's no authority so great that I think that should be taken as some kind of objective truth about Bird, let alone one I can't find the source of. Moreover, I'll tell you flat out that I don't think anyone talking like this really had any ability to properly weight what it was he was seeing. I think we're really seeing that our ability to infer holistic impact by merely watching the game and noting good and bad plays isn't that great.

But can you see what that person was seeing?

If you can't, go watch some Larry Bird highlights right now. When you watch Bird and really think about the brain required to react the way he does and make instant decisions the way he does, you know what he's talking about. It's his instincts. His feel for the game. It was more immediate than any player in basketball history I've ever seen. And it was there when he was a rookie. Heck, pretty sure that's how Indiana State became the 2nd best NCAA team in the country.

Now what's interesting here to me about Bird is the shape of impact for him across team contexts compared to, say, Magic's.

As I've said, I think for all Bird's brilliance, there was a ceiling on his offensive impact because he played more off-ball than Magic did. But that's not a pure weakness. Bird's slightly weaker offensive ceiling came with an incredible ability to have smaller impact simply by reading the floor without having the ball in his hands. It was something that was helping his team, and helping his team on both ends when Bird still had motor, all the damn time and he'd have been able to do it on any basketball team. He wouldn't have to say "I AM the offense" because he didn't need things to be his way. He could help a bad team, he could help a good team. You could say he was optimally portable so long as the defense kept up, and he was absolutely massively scalable.

So do I believe that Bird was having massive impact as a rookie on a team having one of the largest year-to-year improvements in league history while leading the team in points, rebounds, and steals and being second in assists and blocks and wowing writers of the time to say he had the best feel for the game they'd ever seen?

Yes I do.

And that's why it's so hard for me to elevate, say, Dirk over Bird. I'm actively thinking about Dirk's eventual decision making mastery and longevity edge and thinking Dirk has a great case over Bird. But there was something qualitatively beyond about Bird's game, and I find myself thinking that I'd still rather have Bird for my franchise than Dirk to max out my chances at actually winning titles.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#72 » by Odinn21 » Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:22 pm

Jordan Syndrome wrote:2. Nowitzki

Way too high.
Again, this feels like a pick one would do in an all-time draft. You might like a player's quality to build around, but the real life didn't happen that way.

What makes Nowitzki better / greater than Bird, Olajuwon, Robertson, West, Bryant?
His # of all-time great seasons doesn't stack up against those players.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:His force as an offensive anchor is unique for a big man.

There's two different interpretations for this;
1. Nowitzki himself being unique and that's certainly accurate.
2. A big man being an offensive anchor unique and that's certainly inaccurate.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:Impacted the game more than Bird did in his 11-year prime compared to Birds 10.

I'm going to assume you're talking about how the game is played because overall, Bird's impact on the game is probably top 5 ever considering him one of the two individuals drove the league's popularity.
I sure don't think this matters.

If impacting the game in the sense changing the play styles, this would be like taking Ronaldinho (flair) over C. Ronaldo (constant efficient output).
Why not go for Curry then?
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
User avatar
homecourtloss
RealGM
Posts: 11,519
And1: 18,914
Joined: Dec 29, 2012

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#73 » by homecourtloss » Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:44 pm

mailmp wrote:It is always funny when I come across people who make Elgee look like a portability casual..


:lol: :lol: This was a good line.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.

lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
Jordan Syndrome
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,814
And1: 1,425
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#74 » by Jordan Syndrome » Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:58 pm

Odinn21 wrote:
Jordan Syndrome wrote:2. Nowitzki

Way too high.
Again, this feels like a pick one would do in an all-time draft. You might like a player's quality to build around, but the real life didn't happen that way.

What makes Nowitzki better / greater than Bird, Olajuwon, Robertson, West, Bryant?
His # of all-time great seasons doesn't stack up against those players.




I have Dirk ahead of Olajuwon because Dirk was an Offensive GOAT AND anchor for 11+ seasons while I never put Hakeem in that category. Hakeem has some real....sorry years compared to the likes of other all-time great centers (Russell, KAJ, Wilt) and the second tier of Centers just don't have the pedigree for me to separate them from offensive GOATs like Dirk. I could be wrong here and if I overvalued Dirks presence it wouldn't shock me.

I've already said Dirk has more "all-time great" seasons than Bird. I've posted them in comparison to each other as offensive anchors and Dirk comes out comfortably ahead from an objective, team offensive stand point. Maybe I will dive in during thread 11 or 12 when Dirk and Bird both become serious contenders and compare their post-seasons.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:His force as an offensive anchor is unique for a big man.

There's two different interpretations for this;
1. Nowitzki himself being unique and that's certainly accurate.
2. A big man being an offensive anchor unique and that's certainly inaccurate.


A big man anchoring all-time great offenses is unique. Hakeem certainly never came close to it, a player in this comparison. Who else has anchored them? Shaq, Kareem and maybe Wilt?


I'm going to assume you're talking about how the game is played because overall, Bird's impact on the game is probably top 5 ever considering him one of the two individuals drove the league's popularity.
I sure don't think this matters.

If impacting the game in the sense changing the play styles, this would be like taking Ronaldinho (flair) over C. Ronaldo (constant efficient output).
Why not go for Curry then?


Impact on winning basketball games. I've never made a post pertaining to flair and I don't see that as a discussion point in GOAT conversation. If it is Pistol Pete will be coming in soon!
User avatar
Jaivl
Head Coach
Posts: 7,139
And1: 6,790
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#75 » by Jaivl » Sat Oct 31, 2020 7:16 pm

mailmp wrote:No, the history of the NBA has basically been to get a star who can hard carry you in the playoffs... then just try to build a complementary roster (or hope one basically falls together if — shocker — other teams are better markets or your front office is not perfect or uniquely prescient) that allows him to do that.

And Garnett can't do that because...? Because "carrying" a team equals "iso score"?

mailmp wrote:(and most of the time you do not end up with a Pierce-level sidekick)

Except 2020, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2013, 2012, 2010, 2009, 2008 (duh), 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2002, 2001...

mailmp wrote:Ah, wait, I forgot, now we should dismiss those Houston titles because all their opposition was imperfect and also because their roleplayers performed well. :roll: Yes, basically Rasheed Wallace, what objective analysis! (But hey, I guess by RAPM 1997-2004 Rasheed was basically the same level player as an average Duncan/Garnett season, so maybe you meant that as a compliment...) And certainly none of those teams compare to the conceptual brilliance of the 2008 Eastern Conference opposition, or to the 2004 Nuggets/Kings...

Can't really comprehend why this strawman is so upvoted, even by good posters.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#76 » by Odinn21 » Sat Oct 31, 2020 7:32 pm

Jordan Syndrome wrote:A big man anchoring all-time great offenses is unique. Hakeem certainly never came close to it, a player in this comparison. Who else has anchored them? Shaq, Kareem and maybe Wilt?

I should keep short...

This is the post you mention it as leading an all-time great offense. O'Neal, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Nowitzki, Barkley, they all did that. That's 5. I don't think you could name enough primary ball handlers to say these would be unique. In minority? Yeah, sure. Unique is a whole different level though. Robertson, Magic, Jordan, James, Nash, Curry, Paul. Let's say I'm forgetting one or two other names. That's 5 to 7-9.
Do you think how many all-time great offenses were there?

Also, why not make a cross comparison?
Olajuwon's defense vs. Nowitzki's offense
Olajuwon's offense vs. Nowitzki's defense

We can all back and forth on the 1st one. I'm sure Nowitzki's major case will come from massive ORtg numbers. Ironically doing it for defense would make Ewing a better defender than Olajuwon. While Olajuwon was a legit top 5 defender ever, Nowitzki was not the top 5 offensive players ever. Let's not get sidetracked. The main point is; the 2nd one is not even on the same level.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
90sAllDecade
Starter
Posts: 2,264
And1: 818
Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Location: Clutch City, Texas
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#77 » by 90sAllDecade » Sat Oct 31, 2020 7:35 pm

Some more info on Hakeem for those new to him:

NBA Players on Hakeem vs GOAT Bigs

Mario Elie wrote:Friedman: "You mentioned that Olajuwon is the greatest player you played with. You also played with the Spurs and Tim Duncan and David Robinson, who was obviously up there in years at that point in time but still a good player. What are your memories of playing with them? Since you do feel that Olajuwon is the greatest player you played with, compare his game to Duncan’s. Some people see a little similarity between their games. What do you think of that?"

Elie: "I love Tim. I think he may be the second best player I played with but 'Dream,' just his performance in pressure situations—when David Robinson got the '95 MVP, 'Dream' told me, 'Mario, he’s borrowing my trophy.' When I heard that I said, 'Somebody’s in trouble tonight.' That guy put on a performance—under that pressure against the MVP and we have no home court advantage—and 'Dream' just dominated that position. It reminded me of when Jordan dominated Clyde when they were comparing the two guards. They were comparing two centers and 'Dream' just totally—I don’t want to say embarrassed—but he really embarrassed him, he dominated him—(series averages of) 35 (points), 13 (rebounds), 5 assists, 4 blocks. Those are amazing numbers for a center."

Friedman: "When you were teammates with David Robinson did you ever talk about that?"

Elie: "Never talked about it. Avery Johnson is one of my best friends to this day and he’s the one who helped get me to San Antonio. I felt that they just needed some toughness. I took a lot of heat early in that year—I went on national TV and really challenged Dave and Tim about being soft. I took a lot of heat in the San Antonio and national media about that, 'Who is this guy Mario Elie, just a basic player, telling these two superstars what to do?' At the end of the year (it became clear that) I was right. I was man enough to step up to those two guys and tell them that they had to play tougher. What it got was the Spurs' first championship and people coming up to me after the season saying, 'Mario, you did the right thing. You took the heat all year, but you were right to challenge those two guys.' I’m glad I did it. Every time I go to San Antonio people still remember me and still love me down there. It was a great two years there."

Friedman: "Is the difference between Olajuwon and Duncan the athleticism? They both have great footwork but Olajuwon was a soccer goalie, so he had great athleticism and the way that he would get steals added another dimension that Duncan perhaps does not have."

Elie: "Exactly. I just think that 'Dream' was more athletic, had a better game on the box and was a better shot blocker. Tim is a great defender. He gets his arms up and he blocks a couple shots, but 'Dream' was an amazing shot blocker. Like you said, he had great hands. He was always hitting the ball away from guys."

Friedman: "He would steal the ball from guards."

Elie: "Exactly. He would pick guys’ pockets. He had a great feel for the game and is just an amazing individual."


Friedman: "Duncan blocks shots but it seems to me that when you compare him to other players that he is not a great leaper, not athletic compared to NBA players. How is he able to block so many shots?"

Elie: "Timing. Tim is a very intelligent player. He and Hakeem both have very high basketball IQs. Tim is a very smart individual and he understands how to play defense. Popovich, to me, is one of the best defensive coaches in the NBA right now and he puts his bigs in the right position to make blocks like that. If I got beat, you had two seven footers to get by. First you had David and if David didn’t get you, then Tim would or if Tim didn’t get you then David would. Pop did a good job of having us funnel penetration to those big guys and then they would get a lot of blocks."



https://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2006/08/mario-elie-compares-hakeem-olajuwon.html

Professional career

Houston Rockets
Rookie and sophomore years


Olajuwon averaged 23.5 points, 11.5 rebounds, and 3.4 blocks per game during his second pro season (1985–86).[20] The Rockets finished 51–31,[19] and advanced all the way to the Western Conference Finals where they faced the defending champion Los Angeles Lakers. The Rockets won the series fairly easily, four games to one, shocking the sports world and landing Olajuwon on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Olajuwon scored 75 points in victories in games three and four, and after the series Lakers coach Pat Riley remarked "We tried everything. We put four bodies on him. We helped from different angles. He's just a great player."

Dream Shake


The best footwork I've ever seen from a big man.

— Pete Newell


Olajuwon established himself as an unusually skilled offensive player for a big man, perfecting a set of fakes and spin moves that became known as his trademark Dream Shake. Executed with uncanny speed and power, they are still regarded as the pinnacle of "big man" footwork.[9] Shaquille O'Neal stated: "Hakeem has five moves, then four countermoves – that gives him 20 moves."[6] Olajuwon himself traced the move back to the soccer-playing days of his youth. "The Dream Shake was actually one of my soccer moves which I translated to basketball. It would accomplish one of three things: one, to misdirect the opponent and make him go the opposite way; two, to freeze the opponent and leave him devastated in his tracks; three, to shake off the opponent and giving him no chance to contest the shot."[9] The Dream Shake was very difficult to defend, much like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's sky-hook.[9]


...

Olajuwon has referred to basketball as a science, and described his signature move in vivid detail: "When the point guard throws me the ball, I jump to get the ball. But this jump is the set-up for the second move, the baseline move. I call it the 'touch landing.' The defender is waiting for me to come down because I jumped but I'm gone before I land. Defenders say 'Wow, he's quick,' but they don't know that where I'm going is predetermined. He's basing it on quickness, but the jump is to set him up. Before I come down, I make my move. When you jump, you turn as you land. Boom! The defender can't react because he's waiting for you to come down to defend you. Now, the first time when you showed that quickness, he has to react to that quickness, so you can fake baseline and go the other way with your jump hook. All this is part of the Dream Shake. The Dream Shake is you dribble and then you jump; now you don't have a pivot foot. When I dribble I move it so when I come here, I jump. By jumping, I don't have a pivot foot now. I dribble so now I can use either foot. I can go this way or this way. So he's frozen, he doesn't know which way I'm going to go. That is the shake. You put him in the mix and you jump stop and now you have choice of pivot foot. He doesn't know where you're gonna turn and when."[60]



Olajuwon was still recognized as one of the league's elite centers despite his strict observance of Ramadan (i.e., abstaining from food and drink during daylight hours for about a month), which occurred during the playing season throughout his career. Olajuwon was noted as sometimes playing better during the month of Ramadan, and in 1995 he was named NBA Player of the Month in February, even though Ramadan began on February 1 of that year.

HAKEEM OLAJUWON’S FIVE MOST IMPRESSIVE RAMADAN PERFORMANCES
"The Hall of Famer played Jordan, Barkley, Robinson and Ewing while fasting, but how did he fare?"

Even his former teammates marveled at Olajuwon’s ability to play during the month. “There are 48 minutes to a game and for you to play 42 minutes of that 48 and not even be able to take a sip of water, that is just phenomenal,” Robert Horry once said.

(click link to read)
https://theundefeated.com/features/hakeem-olajuwons-most-impressive-ramadan-performances/

"If I had to pick a center [for an all-time best team], I would take Olajuwon. That leaves out Shaq, Patrick Ewing. It leaves out Wilt Chamberlain. It leaves out a lot of people. And the reason I would take Olajuwon is very simple: he is so versatile because of what he can give you from that position. It's not just his scoring, not just his rebounding or not just his blocked shots. People don't realize he was in the top seven [in NBA history] in steals. He always made great decisions on the court. For all facets of the game, I have to give it to him."

—Michael Jordan


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Olajuwon
NBA TV Clutch City Documentary Trailer:
https://vimeo.com/134215151
Jordan Syndrome
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,814
And1: 1,425
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#78 » by Jordan Syndrome » Sat Oct 31, 2020 7:42 pm

Odinn21 wrote:
Jordan Syndrome wrote:A big man anchoring all-time great offenses is unique. Hakeem certainly never came close to it, a player in this comparison. Who else has anchored them? Shaq, Kareem and maybe Wilt?

I should keep short...

This is the post you mention it as leading an all-time great offense. O'Neal, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Nowitzki, Barkley, they all did that. That's 5. I don't think you could name enough primary ball handlers to say these would be unique. In minority? Yeah, sure. Unique is a whole different level though. Robertson, Magic, Jordan, James, Nash, Curry, Paul. Let's say I'm forgetting one or two other names. That's 5 to 7-9.
Do you think how many all-time great offenses were there?

Also, why not make a cross comparison?
Olajuwon's defense vs. Nowitzki's offense
Olajuwon's offense vs. Nowitzki's defense

We can all back and forth on the 1st one. I'm sure Nowitzki's major case will come from massive ORtg numbers. Ironically doing it for defense would make Ewing a better defender than Olajuwon. While Olajuwon was a legit top 5 defender ever, Nowitzki was not the top 5 offensive players ever. Let's not get sidetracked. The main point is; the 2nd one is not even on the same level.


Dirk is pretty clearly a better offensive player to me than Barkley, though they are close. Dirk's advantage comes from his longer prime and, in my eyes, a more resilient playoff skill-set.
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#79 » by Odinn21 » Sat Oct 31, 2020 7:48 pm

Jordan Syndrome wrote:
Odinn21 wrote:
Jordan Syndrome wrote:A big man anchoring all-time great offenses is unique. Hakeem certainly never came close to it, a player in this comparison. Who else has anchored them? Shaq, Kareem and maybe Wilt?

I should keep short...

This is the post you mention it as leading an all-time great offense. O'Neal, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Nowitzki, Barkley, they all did that. That's 5. I don't think you could name enough primary ball handlers to say these would be unique. In minority? Yeah, sure. Unique is a whole different level though. Robertson, Magic, Jordan, James, Nash, Curry, Paul. Let's say I'm forgetting one or two other names. That's 5 to 7-9.
Do you think how many all-time great offenses were there?

Also, why not make a cross comparison?
Olajuwon's defense vs. Nowitzki's offense
Olajuwon's offense vs. Nowitzki's defense

We can all back and forth on the 1st one. I'm sure Nowitzki's major case will come from massive ORtg numbers. Ironically doing it for defense would make Ewing a better defender than Olajuwon. While Olajuwon was a legit top 5 defender ever, Nowitzki was not the top 5 offensive players ever. Let's not get sidetracked. The main point is; the 2nd one is not even on the same level.


Dirk is pretty clearly a better offensive player to me than Barkley, though they are close. Dirk's advantage comes from his longer prime and, in my eyes, a more resilient playoff skill-set.

I was not saying Barkley was better than Nowitzki on offense. I pointed out you claimed a big man leading an all-time great offense was unique and I showed that there was not that many all-time great offenses to put big men in such minority to be unique.
This is sidestepping.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9 

Post#80 » by Odinn21 » Sat Oct 31, 2020 7:50 pm

I realized that I hadn't posted my ballot yet. Here.

9. Larry Bird
This might be debatable but I have Bird ahead of Magic because while Magic got his success, it was mostly against one good team, that was the NBA Finals. We saw how meaningful this is with the latest bubble playoffs. Bird, on the other hand, had to play at least 2 and more often 3 series like that to be successful. Bird being a worse playoffs performer than Magic usually ignores this. Also, after hitting his actual prime in 1983-84, Bird never had that kind of issue while playing against way tougher competition.

10. Hakeem Olajuwon
In terms of quality wise, Olajuwon was nothing short of Duncan or O'Neal or Bird or Magic. Depending on your preference, he could be the top choice among them for you. The thing about him is though, we have to consider what happened in actuality. Had Olajuwon was properly utilized on offense like Tomjanovich did for his entire career, then we probably would have a greater career to evaluate. But he didn't, so here we are.
The reason why he's up here also prevents him from getting higher. His legacy and career perception are mostly dependant on those 3 straight peak seasons. When you take away 1990-92 from Jordan or 2012-14 from James or 2002-04 from Duncan or similar for Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar and Russell, they still have more to talk about as their legacy.
When you take away that 1993-95 from Olajuwon, he looks like he's down to Ewing - Robinson level (not taking anything away from those legends surely).
This is also why I see a legit case for Bryant against Olajuwon. While Bryant never reached the heights Olajuwon did, I see a better quality consistency from him.
That's why even though he definitely had tier 1 peak, when I think of 10 or 12 seasons between him and any other player voted in before him and O'Neal, Bird, he's not coming ahead.

11. Kobe Bryant
When the top 10 is over, my tier 1 peak list will be done. And there are players peaked higher than Bryant. The thing about him is though, his overall prime was really impressive and stacks up. When I follow my process and think of 10/12 best seasons between two players. even though Bryant wouldn't take the top spot against a few names, he has 7 incredibly solid seasons going for him. Not saying all 7 would make that top 10 lists but so strong.
Another important thing to look is his rise in the playoffs from 2008 to 2010. He went from 4.9 obpm to 6.7 obpm. That 6+ obpm range while making a jump from the regular season is a pretty select company.
Surely Bryant also had his low moments. His longevity was blocked.

After Bryant, I'll be getting to the range with Garnett, M. Malone, Robertson, West, Erving. Garnett has already massive traction and West is getting some. But I think I'll favour Robertson and Moses over the other names.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.

Return to Player Comparisons