RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #29 (Patrick Ewing)

[trex_8063]

Thru post #20:

Patrick Ewing - 4 (Clyde Frazier, Odinn21, penbeast0, trex_8063)
James Harden - 3 (DQuinn1575, Joao Saraiva, Magic Is Magic)
John Havlicek - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Elgin Baylor - 1 (Hal14)
Kawhi Leonard - 1 (Dutchball97)


Probably about 23 hours left for this thread. And another reminder: probably a good idea to state your preference between the front-runners--->looking like Ewing and Harden [just as I’d indicated in OP]. Please don’t leave us waiting.

EDIT: Dutchball97, Cavsfansince84, and Hal14, I'm looking at you^^^....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Cavsfansince84]

I can't say that I have a preference of one over the other right now.

[ccameron]

1. Patrick Ewing. I didn't have him in my previous vote but I was forgetting about him. The write ups have been helpful. At his peak, a 27 ppg scorer whose actual greatest strength was defense? He wasn't part of elite offensive teams, but it's not like he had teams constructed for that, and Riley;s coaching on the Knicks (as it was with the Heat) was very defense oriented.

2. James Harden. Maybe the greatest offensive player left. At his peak, not a lot below guys like Curry, Durant, Wade, and Kobe, and decent longevity at this point. The major concerns with him are 1) Defense, 2) Playoff performance, and 3) Personality and leadership issues. But at this point he is actually an underrated defender, especially post-defender because of his size and strength. Also, the numbers suggest the playoff drop-off is not as big as it is made out to be -- although numbers don't tell the whole story. His playoff numbers don't actually look bad compared to guys like Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Curry, etc., but I don't think it's as easy as a straight-up numbers comparison -- he seems to have a real issue replicating his regular season dominance in key playoff games. Still, one of the most skilled and intelligent players ever.

3. Scottie Pippen. Great two way player, not an elite scorer but a great passer and facilitator, and obviously one of the greatest wing defenders of all time. It's hard to tell how good he actually was when he was asked to play second fiddle to arguably the GOAT his whole prime, but instead we just know that he was the number 2 in two different 3-peats. If part of Jordan's legacy is just because of that historical fact, then it's also part of Pippen's legacy, he was key for those runs. The season without Jordan obviously shows what he could have been like at least to some degree, and while still not at the level of Harden or Ewing, it was near MVP level. I think it gets overlooked though that his longevity is not actually that great.

[trex_8063]

I can't say that I have a preference of one over the other right now.

So if it should come to a Condorcet ruling between these two, do I have your permission to just omit your vote [you being undecided]?

[Cavsfansince84]

I can't say that I have a preference of one over the other right now.

So if it should come to a Condorcet ruling between these two, do I have your permission to just omit your vote [you being undecided]?

yes

[Dutchball97]

If it came down to a Ewing vs Harden run-off I'd go with Harden. It's a close one though but I find Harden to be more consistently elite during his prime and probably peaking higher as well.

[Dr Positivity]

1. James Harden
2. Patrick Ewing
3. John Havlicek

Harden feels like slightly more of an MVP caliber superstar. Ewing's intangibles are better, but flawed offensively.

[Magic Is Magic]

As for Ewing, I am attempting to create a Points-Per formula that can rank players based on a number of factors such as FMVP, MVP, All NBA 1st team, All Defensive 1st, Regular Season PER over 25, Playoff PER over 25.0, WS/48 over .250 in RS and PO, and many other categories, Ewing is dead last among the top 40 players I've been evaluating, this is why I brought it up in the other thread rank. Not to beat up on Ewing but he is not a top 30 player, that's all. For example, he has:

0x FMVP
1x All NBA 1st team
0x 1st team All Defense
0x FMVP
0x RS WS/48 > .250
0x PO WS/48 > .250
0x RS BPM > 7.0
0x PO BPM > 7.0

It was very eye opening to me when I ran him through the formula system, which has been pretty accurate and actually very close to what we've ranked guys at RealGM during the 2020 Project. For example, the top ten using my formula, IN ORDER, was:

LBJ, MJ, Kareem, Duncan, Russell, Magic, Wilt, Kobe, Bird, Shaq.

I don't love Kobe over Bird and Shaq but the rest is damn near accurate. Again, I'm not hating on Ewing, I just don't think he has a spot in the top 30 when we have many players more deserving. I'm surprised to see him mentioned when (as mentioned above) he has a lot of zeros in key components of a successful career.

Edit: I'll be running an amended version that includes Reg Season and Playoff PER runs over 25.0, this will further increase the accuracy of the system I'm sure of it.

I've done a formula mysef that includes that and much more. Formulas are a good way go guide your vote, but in the end they just provide a number.

Also, formulas or numbers can't really weight defense properly (and mine includes some stuff I think is at least some defensive notion).

Ewing's major contribution comes from defense. He also has 11 seasons above 20 PER. 25 is just arbitrary, remember that.

Just some food for thought. I'm not going to vote for him here anyway, but you shouldn't take a formula as a completely deciding factor.

25 has been my theme for most of my calculations because we want to include top level play and not just mediocre or slightly above average play. For example, some of the categories were:

PO WS/48 > .250
RS WS/48 > .250
RS PER > 25.0
PO PER > 25.0

Using a number like 20.0 PER would be 'rewarding' too many slightly above average seasons for a player. 25.0 has been close to a perfect fit because it rewards great efficiency but it's not too high and out of reach to where only 2 or 3 players have done it (PER over 30, for example). I could see 24.0 being the 'best' perhaps but that sounds more abitrary at that point to me than 25.

[Magic Is Magic]

And just for the record with my formula it does not only consider 1st team, it does also consider 2nd team All NBA and 2nd team All Defense. It did not include 3rd team since that is a newer addition and unfair to older players. It also considers WS, PER, and BPM. It also considers Top 3 in MVP voting and Top 5 in MVP voting. They are all slightly weighted of course. All together it has 15 different categories to rank a player. I think it's a fair assessment and a good start. Especially when it produced a top ten list like below:

1 LeBron James
2 Michael Jordan
3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4 Tim Duncan
5 Wilt Chamberlain
6 Magic Johnson
7 Shaquille O'Neal
8 Bill Russell
9 Larry Bird
10 Kobe Bryant

No formula is perfect but that list looks pretty solid and actually very close to what we produced in this Top 100 Project:

1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird

The only major difference I see is Hakeem was 9 in RealGM Project and he is 11th based on my formula. And as mentioned by some, a formula is only there to guide an opinion and I agree with that. I would still rank Hakeem over Kobe even though my formula says otherwise, but to see Ewing getting top 30 talk when he's not even showing up in the top 40 ranks when using the formula is a bigger stretch when compared to Hakeem being 9th or 11th.

And I agree, Ewing played during a top tier center-ladened era so that does hurt his chances for 1st team vs 2nd team but this is why I created 15 categories and not 3. I also think there needs to be some type of reward for being the best of your era at your position (1st team), which Ewing was not. Either way I just love basketball and I'm happy to be a part of this so thanks to everyone for the replies and thoughts and various talking points. I appreciate them all!

[Owly]

It did not include 3rd team since that is a newer addition and unfair to older players.

It depends what you want to measure of course, but one could certainly argue it's more valuable to have, say, the fifth and sixth best guards in 30 team league (for full scope, 3rd team has had 1 year at 23 ['88], one at 25 ['89], 6 at 27 ['90-'95], 9 at 29 [96-'04] and 16 at 30 ['05-'20]) than having 3rd and 4th in an 8 or 9 team league.

25 has been my theme for most of my calculations because we want to include top level play and not just mediocre or slightly above average play. For example, some of the categories were:

PO WS/48 > .250
RS WS/48 > .250
RS PER > 25.0
PO PER > 25.0

Using a number like 20.0 PER would be 'rewarding' too many slightly above average seasons for a player. 25.0 has been close to a perfect fit because it rewards great efficiency but it's not too high and out of reach to where only 2 or 3 players have done it (PER over 30, for example). I could see 24.0 being the 'best' perhaps but that sounds more abitrary at that point to me than 25.

I would argue that "25" as the basis seems quite arbitrary given different scales. According to basketball-reference's leaderboards, the 25 PER includes 243 NBA and ABA seasons, but .250 WS/48 only 108 seasons. Any threshold will be somewhat arbitrary but at a glance this seems to suggest quite different levels of cutoff without clear indication that it is intended or why it should the case (if it is intended).

Respect for attempting to put together an aggregate picture, but I think there may be more work required.

[Magic Is Magic]

It did not include 3rd team since that is a newer addition and unfair to older players.

It depends what you want to measure of course, but one could certainly argue it's more valuable to have, say, the fifth and sixth best guards in 30 team league (for full scope, 3rd team has had 1 year at 23 ['88], one at 25 ['89], 6 at 27 ['90-'95], 9 at 29 [96-'04] and 16 at 30 ['05-'20]) than having 3rd and 4th in an 8 or 9 team league.

25 has been my theme for most of my calculations because we want to include top level play and not just mediocre or slightly above average play. For example, some of the categories were:

PO WS/48 > .250
RS WS/48 > .250
RS PER > 25.0
PO PER > 25.0

Using a number like 20.0 PER would be 'rewarding' too many slightly above average seasons for a player. 25.0 has been close to a perfect fit because it rewards great efficiency but it's not too high and out of reach to where only 2 or 3 players have done it (PER over 30, for example). I could see 24.0 being the 'best' perhaps but that sounds more abitrary at that point to me than 25.

I would argue that "25" as the basis seems quite arbitrary given different scales. According to basketball-reference's leaderboards, the 25 PER includes 243 NBA and ABA seasons, but .250 WS/48 only 108 seasons. Any threshold will be somewhat arbitrary but at a glance this seems to suggest quite different levels of cutoff without clear indication that it is intended or why it should the case (if it is intended).

Respect for attempting to put together an aggregate picture, but I think there may be more work required.

Agreed! There always could be more work required. Based on what the 2020 Real GM project voted on and what my formula produced how far off are they? What really sticks out to you?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1. Reggie Miller
2. Patrick Ewing
3. John Havlicek

Alright so we're in a territory now where my vote order is very much in flux, whereas for quite a while I was stuck. It feels nice, even if it's bound to be only temporary.

I'll first say that last time I had Havlicek then Ewing rounding out my list. I flipped them this time frankly not feeling that strongly about it. There's a pull toward Ewing and I feel it too.

The big shift is Reggie Miller moving from outside of my Top 3 to #1. First time that's happened, and it demands some explanation.

I'll say up front though that I'm not sure if I'm going to have Miller 1st on my list from here until he gets in. I just found myself thinking a lot about Miller vs Ewing (as well as others), and siding with Miller.

Alright so, I've been on the pro-Miller side of things for a long time, as many know. The key things for me here are this:

1. Miller's scoring efficiency is now legendary. Dean Oliver once said he thought he'd made a mistake after seeing what his analytics said about Miller and he's not the only one. bkref recently add their TS Add stat and there we find that Reggie Miller ranks in the Top 5 all-time by the career stat. Among guards he's 2nd just behind Oscar Robertson. Among off-guards, he's WAY out in front more than 50% ahead of Ray Allen. This is no small thing to me.

2. Miller was a revolutionary player. His form of off-ball play didn't really exist before the 3 got embraced, and to my mind it's still in the process of taking over the NBA now. As in, the next generation will see more players like Miller than the current one. What people back then tended to miscategorize as "one-dimensional" was actually a mode of operation which saw Miller having effect on the defense all throughout the shot clock at a position of his choosing.

3. Are you aware of how much winning Miller did? His team's got to the Conference Finals 6 times over a span of 4 coaches, with one of those years making it to the finals. In that time they were known for hard outs with Miller stepping up for his team. The acquitted themselves quite well. Another perspective: Miller won 76 playoff games as a starter, while Ewing won 71 and Harden has won 42. (Granted Harden won more as a 6th Man on OKC, which I quite respect, but just comparing what Miller did for Indiana compared to Harden I think is telling when we think about longevity here. I'm fine if that level of longevity doesn't matter to you, believe me I get it, but I do think it's important to know the data too.)

4. The way Miller re-emerged as a scoring force at the end of his career after Ron Artest went psycho and destroyed the Pacers really amazes me. This was a team with a losing record in early March, then Miller ups his primacy and the team ends up going 15-8 to close the season and then upset Paul Pierce's Celtics. While it's wrong to talk as if he was a lone-superstar at age 39 on that roster (Stephen Jackson in particular deserves a mention for stepping up), the way Miller continued to be able to be fluid in his role and find ways to be valuable to whatever his team needed through that advanced age is eye-opening, and again points back to the niche he carved out for himself and the fact that it works so well in team basketball.

On a few other players not on my list:

I have Pippen below Havlicek at the moment and that's weighing him down. I'll acknowledge it feels weird placing Pippen this low. I worry I'm underrating him.

It should be noted that Artis Gilmore has an even higher career TS Add than Reggie Miller and in the past I've typically had Gilmore ahead of Miller. I do think Gilmore was better at his peak in the ABA, but I think Miller was more able to sustain his impact as he aged in part because he had a game based on outsmarting his opponents whereas I think opponents learned how to outsmart Gilmore.

I've also traditionally had Rick Barry ahead of Miller and feel a need to be cautious about this. There's a part of me that feels like Barry would be an MVP-type player today, which I don't see Miller as. But if I'm going to think of Barry as the kind of savvy player who can play helio well, I'd like to think he has really good judgment about when to call his own number, particularly when in a comparison with someone who was such an outlier here like Miller.

[eminence]

1. Miller's scoring efficiency is now legendary. Dean Oliver once said he thought he'd made a mistake after seeing what his analytics said about Miller and he's not the only one. bkref recently add their TS Add stat and there we find that Reggie Miller ranks in the Top 5 all-time by the career stat. Among guards he's 2nd just behind Oscar Robertson. Among off-guards, he's WAY out in front more than 50% ahead of Ray Allen. This is no small thing to me.

Do you have a link to a career list for this, I was looking for one the other day, but couldn't find it.

[Magic Is Magic]

Reggie Miller is a confusing one for me because he literally hasn't done anything in his career and people still want to rank him over people like Scottie Pippen. I just can't understand that. Reggie Miller has the following:

0x MVPs
0x FMVPs
0x 1st all NBA
0x 1st All Defense
0x 2nd all NBA
0x 2nd All Defense
0x Top 3 MVP voting
0x Top 5 MVP voting
0x Rings

Yikes.

His "weapon" was scoring but he never even scored 25 ppg once in his career. He did achieve a 50-40-90 season which is pretty bad ass to me, but that's nearly his only achievement. I've been reviewing players in this ranking for the project and with my formula and compiling the numbers for him was interesting. Among the 50 players I tested, Reggie Miller was literally the lowest scoring player of the entire bunch.

Just as a small example, Allen Iverson has:

1x MVP
3x All NBA 1st
3x All NBA 2nd
1x > 25.0 PER run in the RS
3x top 5 MVP finishes

Miller literally has zero of all those categories but no one is talking about Iverson.

[Jordan Syndrome]

1. Reggie Miller
2. Patrick Ewing
3. James Harden

Miller - Best offensive CORP left, all-time great scorer in the post-season with insanely long longevity. Underrated defender given his low steal numbers and the most portable player of all-time.

Ewing - Not an insane peak, a tier down from the best 90s centers but still a tremendous force as a defensive anchor and an offensive floor raiser. Needed more offensive help around him to truly shine during his tenure in New York but his CORP is high and his prime is strong.

Harden - Potentially the highest peak left and a great 8-year prime from 2013-2020 with an all-time great 6-year prime from 2015-2020. Forever underrated for not winning in 2018 even though that could be the greatest non-title team in NBA History built on the back of Harden.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Reggie Miller is a confusing one for me because he literally hasn't done anything in his career and people still want to rank him over people like Scottie Pippen. I just can't understand that. Reggie Miller has the following:

0x MVPs
0x FMVPs
0x 1st all NBA
0x 1st All Defense
0x 2nd all NBA
0x 2nd All Defense
0x Top 3 MVP voting
0x Top 5 MVP voting
0x Rings

Yikes.

His "weapon" was scoring but he never even scored 25 ppg once in his career. He did achieve a 50-40-90 season which is pretty bad ass to me, but that's nearly his only achievement. I've been reviewing players in this ranking for the project and with my formula and compiling the numbers for him was interesting. Among the 50 players I tested, Reggie Miller was literally the lowest scoring player of the entire bunch.

Understanding statistics and participating in film analysis goes a long way in player evaluation. Reading basketball-references accolades page only gets you so far.

[Magic Is Magic]

Reggie Miller is a confusing one for me because he literally hasn't done anything in his career and people still want to rank him over people like Scottie Pippen. I just can't understand that. Reggie Miller has the following:

0x MVPs
0x FMVPs
0x 1st all NBA
0x 1st All Defense
0x 2nd all NBA
0x 2nd All Defense
0x Top 3 MVP voting
0x Top 5 MVP voting
0x Rings

Yikes.

His "weapon" was scoring but he never even scored 25 ppg once in his career. He did achieve a 50-40-90 season which is pretty bad ass to me, but that's nearly his only achievement. I've been reviewing players in this ranking for the project and with my formula and compiling the numbers for him was interesting. Among the 50 players I tested, Reggie Miller was literally the lowest scoring player of the entire bunch.

Understanding statistics and participating in film analysis goes a long way in player evaluation. Reading basketball-references accolades page only gets you so far.

Sure, but not being biased also helps a bit? What about Allen Iverson? Someone who is close in tiers to Reggie IMHO, but Iverson has a better career, no? Just as a small example, Allen Iverson has:

1x MVP
3x All NBA 1st
3x All NBA 2nd
1x > 25.0 PER run in the RS
3x top 5 MVP finishes

Miller literally has zero of all those categories but no one is talking about Iverson.

[Owly]

1. Miller's scoring efficiency is now legendary. Dean Oliver once said he thought he'd made a mistake after seeing what his analytics said about Miller and he's not the only one. bkref recently add their TS Add stat and there we find that Reggie Miller ranks in the Top 5 all-time by the career stat. Among guards he's 2nd just behind Oscar Robertson. Among off-guards, he's WAY out in front more than 50% ahead of Ray Allen. This is no small thing to me.

Do you have a link to a career list for this, I was looking for one the other day, but couldn't find it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZKyz688S74yyo8Dy4T5vuAkIXZggKJK6QdiUnQqSx8/edit#gid=174375588

May not be comprehensive (e.g. Feerick's 258.6 season isn't in the peaks list - and those years aren't in the seasons lists, it seems to be non-pro rata so 50s and before players are working at a disadvantage - Kenny Sears seems to be missing from the career list and peaks list ...) but should work as an at a glance guide.

[edit: Steve Johnson, James Donaldson, Tyson Chandler, DeAndre Jordan, Cedric Maxwell, Dave Twardzik, Kiki Vandeweghe also absent as examples ... I imagine it has the top guys ... as a ranking list as you go away from the top few guys I'd feel iffy citing it as a ranking number for peaks or career).

[Jordan Syndrome]

Reggie Miller is a confusing one for me because he literally hasn't done anything in his career and people still want to rank him over people like Scottie Pippen. I just can't understand that. Reggie Miller has the following:

0x MVPs
0x FMVPs
0x 1st all NBA
0x 1st All Defense
0x 2nd all NBA
0x 2nd All Defense
0x Top 3 MVP voting
0x Top 5 MVP voting
0x Rings

Yikes.

His "weapon" was scoring but he never even scored 25 ppg once in his career. He did achieve a 50-40-90 season which is pretty bad ass to me, but that's nearly his only achievement. I've been reviewing players in this ranking for the project and with my formula and compiling the numbers for him was interesting. Among the 50 players I tested, Reggie Miller was literally the lowest scoring player of the entire bunch.

Understanding statistics and participating in film analysis goes a long way in player evaluation. Reading basketball-references accolades page only gets you so far.

Sure, but not being biased also helps a bit? What about Allen Iverson? Someone who is close in tiers to Reggie IMHO, but Iverson has a better career, no? Just as a small example, Allen Iverson has:

1x MVP
3x All NBA 1st
3x All NBA 2nd
1x > 25.0 PER run in the RS
3x top 5 MVP finishes

Miller literally has zero of all those categories but no one is talking about Iverson.

You are using completely arbitrary numbers.

Iverson ('98-'08): 91.3 WS, 3.9 OBPM
Miller ('90-'00): 120.9 WS, 4.5 OBPM

Post-Season Iverson ('98-'08): 7.3 WS, 4.8 OBPM
Post-Season Miller ('90-'00) : 15.7 WS, 5.9 OBPM

To me, picking Allen Iverson over Reggie Miller shows a complete misunderstanding of the object of Winning Basketball.

Here is the thing about Allen Iverson: You will never win with him being your best offensive player. You can never win with your system built around Allen Iverson. I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and say "You can't build an offense around Reggie Miller as the primary playmaker"--but you can build offenses around Reggie Miller as a player.

Now, who makes for the better second option? The play who routinely worked off-ball to G.O.A.T level efficiency? The player who routinely performed at the highest levels in the post-season against all-time great defenses?

Here is the list of Ranks of the offenses from 1990-2000 where Reggie Miller was the Star and Focal Point.

Spoiler:

7th
7th
6th
5th
11th
8th
6th
15th
4th
1st
1st

Here is Allen Iverson team ranks from 1998-2008.

Spoiler:

21st
23rd
25th
13th
23rd
11th
26th
24th
15th
skip
11th

Nuggets go from 11th Offense in 2008 to 7th in 2009 (Iverson played half season) and then up to 3rd in 2010.

Philly goes from 23rd in 2006 to 26th in 2007 with Half season of Iverson to 18th in 2008.

You need to ask yourself how you rank players and what you value. Do you value how much a player contributed to winning? Do you value accolades? Do you value arbitrary Per/48 Win Share numbers over tiny sample sizes?

[Owly]

Reggie Miller is a confusing one for me because he literally hasn't done anything in his career and people still want to rank him over people like Scottie Pippen. I just can't understand that. Reggie Miller has the following:

0x MVPs
0x FMVPs
0x 1st all NBA
0x 1st All Defense
0x 2nd all NBA
0x 2nd All Defense
0x Top 3 MVP voting
0x Top 5 MVP voting
0x Rings

Yikes.

His "weapon" was scoring but he never even scored 25 ppg once in his career. He did achieve a 50-40-90 season which is pretty bad ass to me, but that's nearly his only achievement. I've been reviewing players in this ranking for the project and with my formula and compiling the numbers for him was interesting. Among the 50 players I tested, Reggie Miller was literally the lowest scoring player of the entire bunch.

Understanding statistics and participating in film analysis goes a long way in player evaluation. Reading basketball-references accolades page only gets you so far.

Sure, but not being biased also helps a bit? What about Allen Iverson? Someone who is close in tiers to Reggie IMHO, but Iverson has a better career, no? Just as a small example, Allen Iverson has:

1x MVP
3x All NBA 1st
3x All NBA 2nd
1x > 25.0 PER run in the RS
3x top 5 MVP finishes

Miller literally has zero of all those categories but no one is talking about Iverson.

I think there's a move, versus the mainstream, against awards as a measure of player ability here (insofar as there is any collective identity) except perhaps where it is the least worst tool because of information limits.

Iverson played in the databall era. And his MVP is one of the most problematic, not only because we have box measures that make it look dubious as we may have for older "dubious-looking" MVPs but also impact data that says he's good, but not really remotely close to to the top tier of impactors (see, for instance https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm).