RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #87 (Horace Grant)

[DCasey91]

Sorry to butt in but how is Walton not voted in yet (even a lot earlier)? I get the longevity argument but his peak was exceptionally high (top 20 ever?)
because he was exceptionally great.

I mean surely longevity has diminishing returns if about 40 or more players ranked ahead of him could never hold a candle to his peak. He actually won a championship as the best player in a team not close and was a Finals MVP/MVP already right there holds supreme weight behind it.

He has say three of the highest accolades/value accomplishments there is. He’s dangerously close to be put into the elite glue role player territory on other players backhalves when he was a superstar and of course was an elite role player in his own right years later in a different championship win. We all know he’s in a different tier of player then the players around this rank so I wouldn’t understand Walton at #87.

[HeartBreakKid]

Sorry to butt in but how is Walton not voted in yet (even a lot earlier)? I get the longevity argument but his peak was exceptionally high (top 20 ever?)
because he was exceptionally great.

I mean surely longevity has diminishing returns if about 40 or more players ranked ahead of him could never hold a candle to his peak. He actually won a championship as the best player in a team not close and was a Finals MVP/MVP already right there holds supreme weight behind it.

He has say three of the highest accolades/value accomplishments there is. He’s dangerously close to be put into the elite glue role player territory on other players backhalves when he was a superstar and of course was an elite role player in his own right years later in a different championship win. We all know he’s in a different tier of player then the players around this rank so I wouldn’t understand Walton at #87.

Throw in a vote then, cause at this point he can only do worse.

[Odinn21]

Sorry to butt in but how is Walton not voted in yet (even a lot earlier)? I get the longevity argument but his peak was exceptionally high (top 20 ever?)
because he was exceptionally great.

I mean surely longevity has diminishing returns if about 40 or more players ranked ahead of him could never hold a candle to his peak. He actually won a championship as the best player in a team not close and was a Finals MVP/MVP already right there holds supreme weight behind it.

He has say three of the highest accolades/value accomplishments there is. He’s dangerously close to be put into the elite glue role player territory on other players backhalves when he was a superstar and of course was an elite role player in his own right years later in a different championship win. We all know he’s in a different tier of player then the players around this rank so I wouldn’t understand Walton at #87.

This is an approach about Walton hype and romance. I'd urge you to take step back and realize that prime Walton missed 24 games per season over 3 season stretch before going down. It was not like he was healthy and his career was over suddenly.

Walton missed
47 games in his rookie season
31 games in his sophomore season
17 games in his 3rd season
24 games in his 4th season
Then he missed the entire season

And he was not playing big minutes. He just couldn't. He had only 1 reg. season month which he average 38+ mpg over 10+ games. Only once over 4 seasons.

He was not great enough to overlook the durability issues he experienced at his peak, let alone his overall longevity.

A side note about Walton's season with the Celtics in 1986, his prime falls so short of many names with the durability issues he had, while 1985 for McAdoo was not a reason, 1986 for Walton comes off as one.

[DCasey91]

That’s the thing though not great enough has to be incorrect here. He peaked very very high (top 20 or so) because he was that great not it isn’t some theory thing with Walton.

The group that has a MVP/and a Finals MVP is very illustrious. Impact metrics alone paints him as an ATG great defensive anchor and a more than capable offensive hub, its definitely not hype or romance in fact quite the opposite.

Anyway to the vote:

1. Bill Walton (kind of obvious to me)

2. Draymond Green. His RS play can be quite pedestrian but his Postseason play is very very sound. The best defender in a very long time now. Integral part of 3x winning teams. His Game 7 in 2016 was overshadowed by a goat level player but was an incredible performance.

3. Horace Grant. We are getting into the range of leading one options who couldn’t quite get over the hump (be it better teams, not optimal play, not good enough, etc, etc,) and elite glue guys that were apart of numerous championships. I think Horace and Green are very portable in numerous championship archetype teams. I have Green slightly ahead, his facilitating abilities is quite underrated imo.

[trex_8063]

That’s the thing though not great enough has to be incorrect here. He peaked very very high (top 20 or so) because he was that great not it isn’t some theory thing with Walton.

The group that has a MVP/and a Finals MVP is very illustrious. Impact metrics alone paints him as an ATG great defensive anchor and a more than capable offensive hub, its definitely not hype or romance in fact quite the opposite.

Anyway to the vote:

1. Bill Walton (kind of obvious to me)

2. Draymond Green. His RS play can be quite pedestrian but his Postseason play is very very sound. The best defender in a very long time now. Integral part of 3x winning teams. His Game 7 in 2016 was overshadowed by a goat level player but was an incredible performance.

3. Horace Grant. We are getting into the range of leading one options who couldn’t quite get over the hump (be it better teams, not optimal play, not good enough, etc, etc,) and elite glue guys that were apart of numerous championships. I think Horace and Green are very portable in numerous championship archetype teams. I have Green slightly ahead, his facilitating abilities is quite underrated imo.

Please read the OP of the project main thread (link is in the Project Consolidation Thread stickies to the forum front page).

And if participating, you need to provide an ordered listing of ALL eligible candidates with traction (see last thread vote totals for idea of who that is). Thanks

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Carmelo Anthony
Vote 2 - Billy Cunningham
Vote 3 - Bernard King

The Rest: Tiny > DeBusschere > Terry Porter > Jerry Lucas > Gus Williams > Hornacek > Horace Grant > Dennis Johnson > Hawkins > Jokic > Walton

Peak carmelo developed into one of the best offensive players in the league. The “iso melo” stigma really became an outdated narrative as you saw all he really needed was a decent PG rotation to keep the ball moving (a little different, but billups certainly got the best out of him in denver). He became one of the better off the ball players in 12-13, actually shooting more efficiently and on higher volume than durant in catch and shoot situations. His transition to a great 3 pt shooter also opened up his game, and he stepped into transition 3s about as well as anyone in the league.

He’s obviously known for his great post up and face up game, but not acknowledged as much for being a great offensive rebounder for his position. He had a deceptively quick second jump and soft touch around the rim for put backs. He also possessed a unique rolling spin move to the hoop i’m not sure anyone else in the league has. The one thing he was really average at is finishing at the rim, and i’d say that partially has to do with him not being able to take advantage of the way the game is called these days. He wasn’t a freak show athlete like lebron, and he doesn’t have those long strides like durant / harden where they know the angles and draw fouls as easily as they do.

I then look at someone like dominique, who was voted in at #73, and I don't think carmelo should fall too far behind. Let's look at their first 11 seasons. You can change the years, but my point remains the same.

https://stathead.com/tiny/Vr6aD

They’re very comparable in most areas, and carmelo actually comes out as the better postseason performer, something wilkins was well criticized for, but still managed to get voted in much earlier. Melo also has a clear edge in relative scoring efficiency. I noted trex's argument in past threads about nique consistently carrying offenses with not much support. It's a valid point, although a good portion of melo's prime was wasted on poor PG play, which was the key to unlocking his best performance.

I'd also point out that while melo's transition to a role player was a bit rocky, he didn't call it quits like iverson when asked to come off the bench. You could make the argument that he was scapegoated in houston (to be clear, no conspiracy theories here about him getting blackballed -- that was just dumb). There's some revisionist history there as he literally came off the bench for HOU, so he did what they asked. Then last year in portland he did exactly what you'd want from a role player in year 17: 38.5% from 3 on 3.9 attempts per game, posting a positive net rating and on/off along with being a great teammate.

[trex_8063]

That’s the thing though not great enough has to be incorrect here. He peaked very very high (top 20 or so) because he was that great not it isn’t some theory thing with Walton.

The group that has a MVP/and a Finals MVP is very illustrious. Impact metrics alone paints him as an ATG great defensive anchor and a more than capable offensive hub, its definitely not hype or romance in fact quite the opposite.

Anyway to the vote:

1. Bill Walton (kind of obvious to me)

Where the longevity and durability concerns come to be very meaningful is for those of us directed more by a career [total] value added and/or Championship Odds added over replacement level (CORP).

Walton has a title and FMVP and MVP; and it's an illustrious group, from which he might be the only one left on the table. And that isn't lost on any us.

However, those guided by the aforementioned principles will try to parse out how much value he actually accumulated as a player; and to a degree that involves assessing his value that is independent [or mostly so] of TEAM accomplishments and media-awarded honors [imo, Kareem should have been rs MVP in '78, especially considering Walton's missed games; EDIT: although I just realized that's the year KAJ missed time, only four fewer missed games than Walton].

And a CORP principle attempts to gauge what the likelihood is that that player achieves a title "in a vacuum".

You might say, "But he DID win a title!"

True, but let's see if I can explain the other way of looking at it by way of an analogy to a hand of Hold 'em [not sure if you've ever been a poker player]:
Suppose someone plays AQs (Ace-Queen suited) really aggressive and wins an enormous pot......"But he DID win a title!" is sort of like looking at that ONE hand played with AQs and concluding AQs will always win the pot.

CORP principles and [with a less specific intention] total career value above replacement principles looks at it in a manner sort of like a Monte Carlo odds calculator: determining how frequently AQs will win if played over and over MILLIONS of times against countless different combinations of opponents's hands and community cards [if it's not clear: the differing opponent hands and boards are analogies for potential team and league circumstances].

The resultant odds is the value of that season. And then you do the same for every other season. Peak Walton might be seen as someone who provides something like a +25% [or whatever] chance of winning a title to his team [in a vacuum].
But he doesn't provide a ton of value outside of his 2-3 top seasons.

Bill Walton's career [10 "hands" dealt] in poker terms might look like one AQs, one KQs, a couple of JTo, and six garbage hands. Something like that.

A secondary/tertiary star or semi-star who had a long durable career [15 "hands" dealt] might look like:
4 hands of QJs
3 hands of KJo
2 hands of JTo
1 hand of T9o
1 pocket treys
1 pocket deuces
and three utter garbage hands


Who is likely to have won more pots in total?
The tertiary star never had anything as nice as AQs or KQs, but look how many more fair-to-decent starting hands he had. Accumulated pot [championship] odds would actually favour the tertiary star.

And that's kinda where some of us come from in looking at Walton.
btw---Still need an ordered list of ALL tractioned players if you're going to participate.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #27:

Horace Grant - 2 (penbeast0, trex_8063)
Bill Walton - 2 (DCasey91, HeartBreakKid)
Billy Cunningham - 1 (Odinn21)
Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Connie Hawkins - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Carmelo Anthony - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)


Somewhat poorer turnout: even with one new voter, only 9 total this round.

We'll start by eliminating those bottom five, which transfers one vote each to Walton and Grant, ghosts the other three.....

Grant - 3
Walton - 3
(ghosted) - 3

So we'll look to Condorcet ranking between these two to decide it......and Grant leads Walton 5-4 among these nine voters. So Horace Grant is #87.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[DCasey91]

That’s the thing though not great enough has to be incorrect here. He peaked very very high (top 20 or so) because he was that great not it isn’t some theory thing with Walton.

The group that has a MVP/and a Finals MVP is very illustrious. Impact metrics alone paints him as an ATG great defensive anchor and a more than capable offensive hub, its definitely not hype or romance in fact quite the opposite.

Anyway to the vote:

1. Bill Walton (kind of obvious to me)

Where the longevity and durability concerns come to be very meaningful is for those of us directed more by a career [total] value added and/or Championship Odds added over replacement level (CORP).

Walton has a title and FMVP and MVP; and it's an illustrious group, from which he might be the only one left on the table. And that isn't lost on any us.

However, those guided by the aforementioned principles will try to parse out how much value he actually accumulated as a player; and to a degree that involves assessing his value that is independent [or mostly so] of TEAM accomplishments and media-awarded honors [imo, Kareem should have been rs MVP in '78, especially considering Walton's missed games; EDIT: although I just realized that's the year KAJ missed time, only four fewer missed games than Walton].

And a CORP principle attempts to gauge what the likelihood is that that player achieves a title "in a vacuum".

You might say, "But he DID win a title!"

True, but let's see if I can explain the other way of looking at it by way of an analogy to a hand of Hold 'em [not sure if you've ever been a poker player]:
Suppose someone plays AQs (Ace-Queen suited) really aggressive and wins an enormous pot......"But he DID win a title!" is sort of like looking at that ONE hand played with AQs and concluding AQs will always win the pot.

CORP principles and [with a less specific intention] total career value above replacement principles looks at it in a manner sort of like a Monte Carlo odds calculator: determining how frequently AQs will win if played over and over MILLIONS of times against countless different combinations of opponents's hands and community cards [if it's not clear: the differing opponent hands and boards are analogies for potential team and league circumstances].

The resultant odds is the value of that season. And then you do the same for every other season. Peak Walton might be seen as someone who provides something like a +25% [or whatever] chance of winning a title to his team [in a vacuum].
But he doesn't provide a ton of value outside of his 2-3 top seasons.

Bill Walton's career [10 "hands" dealt] in poker terms might look like one AQs, one KQs, a couple of JTo, and six garbage hands. Something like that.

A secondary/tertiary star or semi-star who had a long durable career [15 "hands" dealt] might look like:
4 hands of QJs
3 hands of KJo
2 hands of JTo
1 hand of T9o
1 pocket treys
1 pocket deuces
and three utter garbage hands


Who is likely to have won more pots in total?
The tertiary star never had anything as nice as AQs or KQs, but look how many more fair-to-decent starting hands he had. Accumulated pot [championship] odds would actually favour the tertiary star.

And that's kinda where some of us come from in looking at Walton.
btw---Still need an ordered list of ALL tractioned players if you're going to participate.

I like that analogy if we were playing for value and played poker a long time ago but the description is off for me. His equity value alone would be magnitudes higher as happened winning the highest accolades and the highest team accomplishment which players ranked above him would never hope to achieve no matter how many hands (seasons) are dealt to that said player because by definition their own equity/value wasn’t all that high ever to begin with. So the hands itself are jacked in Waltons favor in the beginning. A higher ranked player on this list would never have as valuable hands per say because they were never better at any point in time at his peak.
Anyway by using that poker analogy different tiered players can’t play with the big sharks because as history would turn out they would fail to achieve anything close to what Walton achieved.

If the goal wasn’t to win as much as value as possible but the true goal was to win the prize Walton is on a different level of course. So in a vacuum he represents tier one prime real estate so to speak.

But put it shortly there isn’t 86 greater players then Walton. He achieved the greatest in NBA accolades individually and from a teams perspective which is a different hemisphere to being comparable or greater than.

So AJ, to something like 10J doesn’t really cut it for me.

But this could also be hypocritical by mentioning Green, Grant but they too have their own unique value in championship equity as shown results wise.

I mean put simply theres 1/2 options that have been ranked ahead and haven’t achieved close to what Walton achieved even with longer timeframes.

GOAT level peers know how great he is.

Also I do take stats/impact metrics/hypotheticals/theories with backlogs to reality and what actually happened/ and what is presented. I mean some defensive metrics are flawed no question same with offensive ones could be bias/favoritism who knows.

In summary his peak was so damn high he looks out of place with surrounding rankings. Sports in general don’t do that.

90.Dumars 91.Lucas 92.Archibald 93 Gasol 94. Kemp 95.Anthony 96.Webber 97.Cunningham 98. Hawkins 99. Jokic
100. Mullin

[sansterre]

In summary his peak was so damn high he looks out of place with surrounding rankings. Sports in general don’t do that.

Sports in general are super peak-driven.

If you're voting peaks, God bless you. That's certainly a legitimate approach.

But the Championship Value argument isn't a big fan here. Imagine the following scenario:

You are the GM of a team. Your job is to win the most championships possible. You are given a choice of two possible players and their entire careers:

Player #1: He'll give you around 1500 minutes his first two years as around the 5th best player in the league when on the court, which is great but, again, only 1500 minutes (and he'll miss the playoffs one of those two years. Then he'll have two straight seasons as the #1 player in the league (only around 2000 minutes per season), and he'll miss the playoffs in one of them. The next seven years are basically lost to injury (as he's not as good as in his peak, he's only pulling about 1500 minutes in the good years - his coming back from injuries helped his real life team from about 25 to about 30 wins a year). The only way to keep him loosely healthy is to play him off the bench for 19 or so minutes a night (and even that only ends up being a 50/50 proposition). Soo . . . ATG when on the court, but is only healthy for one playoff at his peak, one at his pre-peak and then is a limited-minutes role-player (though a very good one) afterwards.

or

Player #2: Another lower usage player (another big), a slightly efficient scorer (far less than Player 1), strong rebounder (far less than Player 1) and good defender (far less than Player 1). But his prime is about 18k minutes, which is way more than Player 1's entire career (13k minutes), and he played another 15k minutes after. He was never remarkable and never scored a lot but he was a really nice piece for any playoff team that would work on almost any roster. And he consistently improved his scoring in the playoffs during his prime. As a #3 option for a team, he was a very valuable contributor on many excellent teams.

So.

Which player gives you more expected championships? On one hand, Player 1 (when on the court) is obviously better. But that whole "they only make two playoffs in their prime" is really scary. You've basically got to bet that Player #1 is so good in those two years that he gets you more likely rings than Player 2 gets you in more like 14+ years. Do I really think that Player 1 has seven times the odds of winning a ring in his years that Player 2 has? I don't.

Walton, when on the court, was amazing. But his incredibly low number of career minutes (and low number of years when he was healthy for the playoffs) are giant value-limiters. A player like Horace Grant (#2) is probably the better bet. From a Championship Value point of view.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm not sure if it matters - but for the most part, if a GM had the chance to rent a legitimate superstar (the best player in the league basically) even for a couple of years they would almost certainly take it over someone like Horace Grant even if they could sign him for life.

I mean maybe GMs are dumb (many are), but that is almost certainly what would happen in many cases from how I've seen GM's deal with FA/trading.

[sansterre]

I'm not sure if it matters - but for the most part, if a GM had the chance to rent a legitimate superstar (the best player in the league basically) even for a couple of years they would almost certainly take it over someone like Horace Grant even if they could sign him for life.

I mean maybe GMs are dumb (many are), but that is almost certainly what would happen in many cases from how I've seen GM's deal with FA/trading.

Probably true, but they are *not* trying to make CORP decisions in that kind of timeframe.

GMs have high turnover. Saying "Do you want Door #1 that helps you right now or Door #2 that helps you in 10-15 years" a responsible GM will say "There's almost no chance I'll even be with the team in 10-15 years". GMs make win-now trades on the regular because winning now saves their job. The incentives in such decisions are strongly in favor of short-term value. Look at poor Sam Hinkie. He tore Philly down to make them a contender down the road. Now they're a contender. And he's collecting unemployment. CORP value endorsed his decisions, but he didn't remotely get to benefit from them.

If the trade were "Which do you want, Walton for four (only two playoffs) and then you're fired" or "Sixteen guaranteed years of Horace Grant, during which time you're guaranteed to retain your job" and the goal was to win the most titles during that limited tenure . . . I think the decision-making process would be considerably different.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm not sure if it matters - but for the most part, if a GM had the chance to rent a legitimate superstar (the best player in the league basically) even for a couple of years they would almost certainly take it over someone like Horace Grant even if they could sign him for life.

I mean maybe GMs are dumb (many are), but that is almost certainly what would happen in many cases from how I've seen GM's deal with FA/trading.

I would tend to agree with that given how high Walton's peak was and I would agree with possibly having Walton in my top 90-100 if he was mostly healthy during those two years but the problem I have is that he only played in about 120 rs games during those two years and was only available for one of the two playoff runs.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm not sure if it matters - but for the most part, if a GM had the chance to rent a legitimate superstar (the best player in the league basically) even for a couple of years they would almost certainly take it over someone like Horace Grant even if they could sign him for life.

I mean maybe GMs are dumb (many are), but that is almost certainly what would happen in many cases from how I've seen GM's deal with FA/trading.

Probably true, but they are *not* trying to make CORP decisions in that kind of timeframe.

GMs have high turnover. Saying "Do you want Door #1 that helps you right now or Door #2 that helps you in 10-15 years" a responsible GM will say "There's almost no chance I'll even be with the team in 10-15 years". GMs make win-now trades on the regular because winning now saves their job. The incentives in such decisions are strongly in favor of short-term value. Look at poor Sam Hinkie. He tore Philly down to make them a contender down the road. Now they're a contender. And he's collecting unemployment. CORP value endorsed his decisions, but he didn't remotely get to benefit from them.

If the trade were "Which do you want, Walton for four (only two playoffs) and then you're fired" or "Sixteen guaranteed years of Horace Grant, during which time you're guaranteed to retain your job" and the goal was to win the most titles during that limited tenure . . . I think the decision-making process would be considerably different.

It's worth noting that the GM is not actually the guy who makes this decision. The President and the owner supercede the GM.

Mark Cuban only cares about winning a title, he's hands on, his job secure - do you see him taking a risk on Walton over Grant? I do. Walton was basically seen the same way people see Lebron James today. (not with the durability obviously lol)


Maybe you only have a year or two with Walton - but if he fails then you would merely just go back to scratch. There isn't much of a difference between a lotto team with no good players and a lotto team with Horace Grant - they're both lotto teams, and need years of rebuilding to get right. Grant doesn't really move your needle from getting fired any closer (take Green on the Warriors last year for example, the Warriors would be pretty screwed without Curry even if they pretty much have 1/3rd of a potential big 3 on their team already in Green)


I can see how the totality of Grant's career is more valuable than Walton in some type of vacuum. But I don't think your chances of winning a title with him are really better. Basketball value isn't additive, you need an outlier team in order to win a championship and the fastest way to get that is with an outlier player.

Steve Kerr might be a slightly positive player, but 60 years of him probably is not more valuable than the entire career of Michael Jordan - if 60 is too little then you can tag on a 100 more years. Perhaps the numbers might add up in a way that the scale tips in the hypothetical immortal Steve Kerr, but no one is probably trading Jordan for him regardless.

[sansterre]

I'm not sure if it matters - but for the most part, if a GM had the chance to rent a legitimate superstar (the best player in the league basically) even for a couple of years they would almost certainly take it over someone like Horace Grant even if they could sign him for life.

I mean maybe GMs are dumb (many are), but that is almost certainly what would happen in many cases from how I've seen GM's deal with FA/trading.

Probably true, but they are *not* trying to make CORP decisions in that kind of timeframe.

GMs have high turnover. Saying "Do you want Door #1 that helps you right now or Door #2 that helps you in 10-15 years" a responsible GM will say "There's almost no chance I'll even be with the team in 10-15 years". GMs make win-now trades on the regular because winning now saves their job. The incentives in such decisions are strongly in favor of short-term value. Look at poor Sam Hinkie. He tore Philly down to make them a contender down the road. Now they're a contender. And he's collecting unemployment. CORP value endorsed his decisions, but he didn't remotely get to benefit from them.

If the trade were "Which do you want, Walton for four (only two playoffs) and then you're fired" or "Sixteen guaranteed years of Horace Grant, during which time you're guaranteed to retain your job" and the goal was to win the most titles during that limited tenure . . . I think the decision-making process would be considerably different.

It's worth noting that the GM is not actually the guy who makes this decision. The President and the owner supercede the GM.

Mark Cuban only cares about winning a title, he's hands on, his job secure - do you see him taking a risk on Walton over Grant? I do.


Maybe you only have a year or two with Walton - but if he fails then you would merely just go back to scratch. There isn't much of a difference between a lotto team with no good players and a lotto team with Horace Grant - they're both lotto teams, and need years of rebuilding to get right. Grant doesn't really move your needle from getting fired any closer (take Green on the Warriors last year for example, the Warriors would be pretty screwed without Curry even if they pretty much have 1/3rd of a potential big 3 on their team already)

That's fair, but we're back to a semantic position.

Is it Walton's career value vs Grant's? If so, I think Grant wins because he has way more seasons to accrue championship value.

But is it Walton's career + replacement level players for the years he was injured/not playing vs Grant? Now it's a lot closer because Grant's later career is being compared to a 2% player, and that does count for something.

Counterpoint (which TRex already brought up in the other thread): Walton commits you to shelling out big money for a guy that is off the court twice as much as he's on the court. He may get you some sweet years in the '76-77 range, but he'll implode you in the '79-85 range. Compare that with Grant that takes nothing off the table and lets you keep building.

I'm gonna stop posting about this because TRex moved this into the new thread (and is doing fine on this position), but I think it's an interesting discussion.

[Cavsfansince84]

This is an approach about Walton hype and romance. I'd urge you to take step back and realize that prime Walton missed 24 games per season over 3 season stretch before going down. It was not like he was healthy and his career was over suddenly.

Walton missed
47 games in his rookie season
31 games in his sophomore season
17 games in his 3rd season
24 games in his 4th season
Then he missed the entire season

And he was not playing big minutes. He just couldn't. He had only 1 reg. season month which he average 38+ mpg over 10+ games. Only once over 4 seasons.

He was not great enough to overlook the durability issues he experienced at his peak, let alone his overall longevity.

A side note about Walton's season with the Celtics in 1986, his prime falls so short of many names with the durability issues he had, while 1985 for McAdoo was not a reason, 1986 for Walton comes off as one.

This is exactly why I simply can't put Walton in my top 100 as someone whose primary criteria tends to be how good they were in their prime as well as the length of it. Walton was arguably the best player in the world(or tied with Kareem) for a two year stretch but the problem is he wasn't close to healthy even during those years before his prime ended. He only played in the playoffs in one of those two years. I simply cannot put him in the top 100 based on 1 season, pieces of a few others and then 2 years as a 6th man. Same reason I don't have Hawkins in my top 100 either.

[DCasey91]

I'm not sure if it matters - but for the most part, if a GM had the chance to rent a legitimate superstar (the best player in the league basically) even for a couple of years they would almost certainly take it over someone like Horace Grant even if they could sign him for life.

I mean maybe GMs are dumb (many are), but that is almost certainly what would happen in many cases from how I've seen GM's deal with FA/trading.

Thanks for that insight, a rock in onehand is better than two sticks sort of thing even if that rock only delivers one championship by his own great play, you are by definition so far along the timeline of winning one over an elite role player. There’s only X amount of NBA players that won a chip as the undisputed best player on the team. There’s more role players of course. And those players were ranked accordingly, total value metrics like CORP etc, don’t measure that fact out. They measure total value, how do measure a prize winning horse over a horse that wasn’t placeworthy (I.e not ranked in the top ten by his own era so to speak).
Sports are results driven. Walton as history shows got you the one and only chip for the clubs whole tenure, that in itself outside the fact just adds on to it. 51 years so to speak and one championship because Walton played for them. Now look at all the elite role players, All stars, All NBA, potential MVP candidates, basically it’s a different tier as such I’ll rightfully reward his huge peak over anyone else that’s left.

When given an option again it’s unwise not to pick Walton because this isn’t all theory he won the biggest prize that teams play for. It is hindsight but if more teams took that approach it would result in more chance at a championship imo. Lakers took a risk (Davis has durability issues, Lebron is GOAT worthy but is older) look how much they gave up?
All stars in 2 different teams etc. it was a calculated risk that paid of in the end.

[trex_8063]

Probably true, but they are *not* trying to make CORP decisions in that kind of timeframe.

GMs have high turnover. Saying "Do you want Door #1 that helps you right now or Door #2 that helps you in 10-15 years" a responsible GM will say "There's almost no chance I'll even be with the team in 10-15 years". GMs make win-now trades on the regular because winning now saves their job. The incentives in such decisions are strongly in favor of short-term value. Look at poor Sam Hinkie. He tore Philly down to make them a contender down the road. Now they're a contender. And he's collecting unemployment. CORP value endorsed his decisions, but he didn't remotely get to benefit from them.

If the trade were "Which do you want, Walton for four (only two playoffs) and then you're fired" or "Sixteen guaranteed years of Horace Grant, during which time you're guaranteed to retain your job" and the goal was to win the most titles during that limited tenure . . . I think the decision-making process would be considerably different.

It's worth noting that the GM is not actually the guy who makes this decision. The President and the owner supercede the GM.

Mark Cuban only cares about winning a title, he's hands on, his job secure - do you see him taking a risk on Walton over Grant? I do.


Maybe you only have a year or two with Walton - but if he fails then you would merely just go back to scratch. There isn't much of a difference between a lotto team with no good players and a lotto team with Horace Grant - they're both lotto teams, and need years of rebuilding to get right. Grant doesn't really move your needle from getting fired any closer (take Green on the Warriors last year for example, the Warriors would be pretty screwed without Curry even if they pretty much have 1/3rd of a potential big 3 on their team already)

That's fair, but we're back to a semantic position.

Is it Walton's career value vs Grant's? If so, I think Grant wins because he has way more seasons to accrue championship value.

But is it Walton's career + replacement level players for the years he was injured/not playing vs Grant? Now it's a lot closer because Grant's later career is being compared to a 2% player, and that does count for something.

Counterpoint (which TRex already brought up in the other thread): Walton commits you to shelling out big money for a guy that is off the court twice as much as he's on the court. He may get you some sweet years in the '76-77 range, but he'll implode you in the '79-85 range. Compare that with Grant that takes nothing off the table and lets you keep building.

I'm gonna stop posting about this because TRex moved this into the new thread (and is doing fine on this position), but I think it's an interesting discussion.

It is a very interesting discussion; I'm sort of glad it has been kicked off.

Relating to the "GM's will always take the short-term high risk/reward" option......I don't know that that necessarily proves anything. This is a slightly political take, but humans by our very nature are short-sighted (and generally want gratification now [or as close to "now" as we can get]). Look at climate change and the push [or lack thereof] to move to electric cars, sustainable energy, etc......it's GOT to happen. Those paying attention to the signs and science KNOW we're fastly approaching a precipise, and have been urgingn politicians and law-makers for decades. But little changes in the "now".....

Because that change is inconvenient to those that can make it happen, and it would erase the "now"-profits/benefits that some are enjoying.....all in the interest of some uncertain "down the road" benefit.