Ben taylor top 10 players list

[falcolombardi]

Watch on YouTube

opinions ?

tldr:

davis out of top 10, based heavily on last season

10-lillard (sees zero case higher than 10)

9- doncic (thinks his heliocentrism overates his value, questions relatively weaker plus/minus metrics but admits it may be cause of dallas strong bench play, doubts on portability)

8-embiid (questions his passing, praised scoring and defense)

7-harden (similar criticisms on heliocentrism/portability as doncic ans questions why nets were not worse when he didnt play in reg season although sample is small)

6-lebron (questions health going forward)

5- kawhi (questions way clippers were so good without him, thinks his defense slipped)

4- durant (similar evaluation as kawhi but even a bit more efficient)

3- jokic (sees him as neutral defender considers there are minor but real concern around building a defense around him)

2- giannis (questions bucks playoffs offense, really high on his defense)

1-curry (emphasizes unmatchrd scoring volume + efficiency and portability, says that warriors played a 60 win pace without wiseman albeit in a small sample, questions defensive slip up)

[eminence]

Think he mentioned all the guys I would've considered for this type of thing. Did a good job mentioning strengths/weaknesses for each. Obviously values things a bit differently so came up with a bit of a different order.

All in all, pretty reasonable imo, not one of his more in depth videos though.

[Peregrine01]

Warriors were a 60-win team and a top-10 offense without Wiseman? That's news to me lol.

[jalengreen]

i dont see why portability would matter so much for a ranking of how players performed in a given season.

[Texas Chuck]

His list seems mostly fine though I wouldn't have Curry at the top. But like usual I find myself hating a lot of his approach. Portability is so irrelevant here as he knows none of these players are moving and that other than maybe Harden/KD all these teams are clearly built around these specific players.

[DQuinn1575]

Think he mentioned all the guys I would've considered for this type of thing. Did a good job mentioning strengths/weaknesses for each. Obviously values things a bit differently so came up with a bit of a different order.

All in all, pretty reasonable imo, not one of his more in depth videos though.

Overall a good list of Top 10, but he says he rates players how they fit in, then is Number 1 player, Curry, he talks about how well he played in only half his games, and said he played a lot better playing without Wiseman. Kind of questions the portability and fit.
Also I was a little surprised that he criticized various players' defense, but didn't seem to downgrade them very much for poor defense.

[eminence]

Watched again just to be sure... Am I listening to/watching the same video as y'all? Closest Ben got to talking about portability was when he mentioned what skills he values at the beginning (skills he sees as scaling to high level teams - shooting/passing/defense). As best I could tell he said the word portable zero times in the video (I certainly could've missed a time or two).

I think some may be projecting past thoughts about Ben and his approach onto this video (or just looking at Falco's summary).

[falcolombardi]

Watched again just to be sure... Am I listening to/watching the same video as y'all? Closest Ben got to talking about portability was when he mentioned what skills he values at the beginning (skills he sees as scaling to high level teams - shooting/passing/defense). As best I can tell he said the word portable zero times in the video (I certainly could've missed a time or two).

I think some may be projecting past thoughts about Ben and his approach onto this video (or just looking at Falco's summary).

that is his definition of portability, perceived skillset that scales better in strong teams

he mentions it or alternarively criticizes perceived limitations/ceiling in heliocentric style of many of the players, he raises concerns about it regarding mainly doncic and harden

[jalengreen]

Watched again just to be sure... Am I listening to/watching the same video as y'all? Closest Ben got to talking about portability was when he mentioned what skills he values at the beginning (skills he sees as scaling to high level teams - shooting/passing/defense). As best I could tell he said the word portable zero times in the video (I certainly could've missed a time or two).

I think some may be projecting past thoughts about Ben and his approach onto this video (or just looking at Falco's summary).

Oh i was just going off of the summary, didn't mean to hide that at all

But yeah that's what portability is - and again, I don't see why that matters in this discussion.

[SideshowBob]

I had Curry far and away #1 last year (even healthy Bron I would have had at #2 I think), followed by Jokic then Giannis/Embid all three clustered close. He's higher than I am on Durant and lower on Doncic. Otherwise in line (though I just didn't rank Lebron after that injury and return - he was no top 10 caliber player when he came back).

[eminence]

Watched again just to be sure... Am I listening to/watching the same video as y'all? Closest Ben got to talking about portability was when he mentioned what skills he values at the beginning (skills he sees as scaling to high level teams - shooting/passing/defense). As best I can tell he said the word portable zero times in the video (I certainly could've missed a time or two).

I think some may be projecting past thoughts about Ben and his approach onto this video (or just looking at Falco's summary).

that is his definition of portability, perceived skillset that scales better in strong teams

he mentions it or alternarively criticizes perceived limitations/ceiling in heliocentric style of many of the players, he raises concerns about it regarding mainly doncic and harden

"that is his definition of portability, perceived skillset that scales better in strong teams"

I feel there's got to be a bit more to his definition of portability, because as stated that's pretty much what everyone rating players in any manner uses, broadly speaking. Shout out to the guys rating players higher because they make their teams worse, lol.

The Harden/Doncic critiques seemed to me to be about their extreme heliocentricism leading to more imbalanced box-score #s and not believing those #s accurately represented their skill level. It doesn't seem particularly related to portability.

[eminence]

Also, I appear to be notably higher on PHX series LeBron than a lot of people. Generally speaking I thought he was fine (obviously it wasn't the best series of his career).

[Odinn21]

...

The issue of portability is he's using the approach as he feels like doing.
Also as it wasn't voiced directly, when he gives his criteria at the start, the first 2 of the criteria are directly related to portability.
Championship equity (his CORP itself directly, which accounts for offensive portability) and scaling.
All of these are hypotheticals. There's not a strong presence of portability in the video but there's too much hypotheticals going around.

I mean all of the following happens in the same video;
- Lillard and Doncic are not that good because they're playing on a slanted offenses. I mean he talks heliocentrism as if they are playing on offensively capable teams; as if +4 or better rORtg offense happens solely with their superstar.
- Harden is not as good as his box numbers because his impact fluctuates under 4 different circumstances; w/ Durant and Irving, w/ Durant and w/o Irving, w/o Durant and w/ Irving, w/o Durant and Irving.
I mean just come on. Like he would take any of these as that meaningful if they were postseason runs even though the sample sizes for each were less than 15 games. That part was utterly ridiculous.
Also he always put players producing less points in a richer position as a negative offensive portability. Harden scoring 17 points per 75 with both of Durant and Irving shows that he's the portable one because he can play and be great without trying to score that many points, not the other two.
- No mention of Antetokounmpo changing his style in the middle of the playoffs, going from point forward style to big man style while;
- Curry is #1 because how he played without Wiseman in the picture for 28 games which was less than half of Curry's games and less than 40% of 72 games. There's a strong interpolation, hypothetical coming from just 28 games.

I like the video and I think Taylor was clear about his intention about the video being food for thought. When I engage with him directly myself, it's obvious that he's not talking in certainties and actually thinks in ranges rather than direct spots.
Otoh, there should be no surprise about people disagreeing because there're fundamental differences.

[eminence]

...

The issue of portability is he's using the approach as he feels like doing.
Also as it wasn't voiced directly, when he gives his criteria at the start, the first 2 of the criteria are directly related to portability.
Championship equity (his CORP itself directly, which accounts for offensive portability) and scaling.
All of these are hypotheticals. There's not a strong presence of portability in the video but there's too much hypotheticals going around.

I mean all of the following happens in the same video;
- Lillard and Doncic are not that good because they're playing on a slanted offenses. I mean he talks heliocentrism as if they are playing on offensively capable teams; as if +4 or better rORtg offense happens solely with their superstar.
- Harden is not as good as his box numbers because his impact fluctuates under 4 different circumstances; w/ Durant and Irving, w/ Durant and w/o Irving, w/o Durant and w/ Irving, w/o Durant and Irving.
I mean just come on. Like he would take any of these as that meaningful if they were postseason runs even though the sample sizes for each were less than 15 games. That part was utterly ridiculous.
Also he always put players producing less points in a richer position as a negative offensive portability. Harden scoring 17 points per 75 with both of Durant and Irving shows that he's the portable one because he can play and be great without trying to score that many points, not the other two.
- No mention of Antetokounmpo changing his style in the middle of the playoffs, going from point forward style to big man style while;
- Curry is #1 because how he played without Wiseman in the picture for 28 games which was less than half of Curry's games and less than 40% of 72 games. There's a strong interpolation, hypothetical coming from just 28 games.

I like the video and I think Taylor was clear about his intention about the video being food for thought. When I engage with him directly myself, it's obvious that he's not talking in certainties and actually thinks in ranges rather than direct spots.
Otoh, there should be no surprise about people disagreeing because there're fundamental differences.

Agreed that these videos are more hypothetical than my tastes would prefer for the title he gives them (I wind up seeing them perhaps more as projection videos than he intends them to be). When he did his POY style votes he seemed to weight somewhat differently.

Not sure I understand your first point - "Lillard and Doncic are not that good because they're playing on a slanted offenses. I mean he talks heliocentrism as if they are playing on offensively capable teams; as if +4 or better rORtg offense happens solely with their superstar."

I read his Harden portion differently, to me he was fairly positive on Harden lowering his scoring volume with the Nets. I didn't like the Harden one because I thought it was the most hypothetical of them all. Harden was not good with the Rockets and only okay (relative to top 10 players) with the Nets while missing 40% of the season. Pretty much zero argument he actually had a better season than Lillard.

Also agreed on the fundamental differences depending on what different folks value, I should have emphasized that more in my initial reply.

For reference my top 5 POY voting for last season was as follows:
1. Giannis
2. Jokic
3. Gobert
4. Embiid
5. Curry

Had a group of 6 I mentioned behind them as HMs - Kawhi, PG, KD, LeBron, Dame, Luka that would in some order round out my top 10.

[LukaTheGOAT]

i dont see why portability would matter so much for a ranking of how players performed in a given season.

He is attempting to project how much you can raise a random team's championship odds, not just how you perform in the specific situation you are in.

[LukaTheGOAT]

...

The issue of portability is he's using the approach as he feels like doing.
Also as it wasn't voiced directly, when he gives his criteria at the start, the first 2 of the criteria are directly related to portability.
Championship equity (his CORP itself directly, which accounts for offensive portability) and scaling.
All of these are hypotheticals. There's not a strong presence of portability in the video but there's too much hypotheticals going around.

I mean all of the following happens in the same video;
- Lillard and Doncic are not that good because they're playing on a slanted offenses. I mean he talks heliocentrism as if they are playing on offensively capable teams; as if +4 or better rORtg offense happens solely with their superstar.
- Harden is not as good as his box numbers because his impact fluctuates under 4 different circumstances; w/ Durant and Irving, w/ Durant and w/o Irving, w/o Durant and w/ Irving, w/o Durant and Irving.
I mean just come on. Like he would take any of these as that meaningful if they were postseason runs even though the sample sizes for each were less than 15 games. That part was utterly ridiculous.
Also he always put players producing less points in a richer position as a negative offensive portability. Harden scoring 17 points per 75 with both of Durant and Irving shows that he's the portable one because he can play and be great without trying to score that many points, not the other two.
- No mention of Antetokounmpo changing his style in the middle of the playoffs, going from point forward style to big man style while;
- Curry is #1 because how he played without Wiseman in the picture for 28 games which was less than half of Curry's games and less than 40% of 72 games. There's a strong interpolation, hypothetical coming from just 28 games.

I like the video and I think Taylor was clear about his intention about the video being food for thought. When I engage with him directly myself, it's obvious that he's not talking in certainties and actually thinks in ranges rather than direct spots.
Otoh, there should be no surprise about people disagreeing because there're fundamental differences.

Agreed that these videos are more hypothetical than my tastes would prefer for the title he gives them (I wind up seeing them perhaps more as projection videos than he intends them to be). When he did his POY style votes he seemed to weight somewhat differently.

Not sure I understand your first point - "Lillard and Doncic are not that good because they're playing on a slanted offenses. I mean he talks heliocentrism as if they are playing on offensively capable teams; as if +4 or better rORtg offense happens solely with their superstar."

I read his Harden portion differently, to me he was fairly positive on Harden lowering his scoring volume with the Nets. I didn't like the Harden one because I thought it was the most hypothetical of them all. Harden was not good with the Rockets and only okay (relative to top 10 players) with the Nets while missing 40% of the season. Pretty much zero argument he actually had a better season than Lillard.

Also agreed on the fundamental differences depending on what different folks value, I should have emphasized that more in my initial reply.

For reference my top 5 POY voting for last season was as follows:
1. Giannis
2. Jokic
3. Gobert
4. Embiid
5. Curry

Had a group of 6 I mentioned behind them as HMs - Kawhi, PG, KD, LeBron, Dame, Luka that would in some order round out my top 10.

He doesn't really punish players a ton for missed RS games which I know is controversial, though he takes missed PS games as a bad thing and will drop you heavily for that.

[falcolombardi]

i dont see why portability would matter so much for a ranking of how players performed in a given season.

He is attempting to project how much you can raise a random team's championship odds, not just how you perform in the specific situation you are in.

i feel like he gives some guys too much points if that ks the criteria

curry for example, the kind of curry he prefers as portable/ceiling raiser (more off ball and running off picks than spamming pick and rolls) requires a very specific system with many good passers and lots of reps (we kinda saw it with wiseman and oubre struggling in that system)

a harden or doncic that isos/picks and rolls over and over while specialists roll or stand in the corner is much simple to pull off in a random team, catch and shoot guys or rolling bigs are easier to find than experienced and talented passers or playmaker bigs imo

aestheticss aside is probably simpler to build a 2018 rockets style supporting cast and system than a 2016 warriors one

[LukaTheGOAT]

i dont see why portability would matter so much for a ranking of how players performed in a given season.

He is attempting to project how much you can raise a random team's championship odds, not just how you perform in the specific situation you are in.

i feel like he gives some guys too much points if that ks the criteria

curry for example, the kind of curry he prefers as portable/ceiling raiser (more off ball and running off picks than spamming pick and rolls) requires a very specific system with many good passers and lots of reps

a harden or doncic that isos/picks and rolls over and over while specialists roll or stand in the corner is much simple to pull off in a random team, catch and shoot guys or rolling bigs are easier to find than experienced and talented passers or playmaker bigs imo

aestheticss aside is probably simpler to build a 2018 rockets style supporting cast and system than a 2016 warriors one

I don't necessarily disagree, but he seems to think that

1)Curry makes the system, not the other way around

2) He doesn't care about floor-raising as much as maybe we do and he cares about guys playing with the best players and how things look. He thinks Curry's skill set works with any star because he doesn't need the ball in his hands. So he likes the fit of Steph and KD better than Harden and KD. And I suppose he feels a fit of Steph and AD would be similar to Harden and AD, despite Steph not being the same level of P&R passer as Harden. Also since most stars like to isolate, he appreciates the spacing Curry provides.

[70sFan]

One thing I dislike in this video - he doesn't adjust for missed games in RS after health adjustments, which is strange to me. I mean, Durant wouldn't make the playoffs in most teams but he was fortunate enough to have a team that played as well without him. I just can't have this performance over Doncic or even Embiid for example.

Another thing is projecting Curry's value on 28 games sample. It's way too small sample to extrapolate it on the full season. Otherwise, I'd argue that Moses is the best offensive center ever based on his hot streak in 1982.

Other than that, I like the video. My ranking would be a lot different of course, but his tiers make sense. I mostly agree with his observations about each player strengths and weaknesses.

[Odinn21]

Agreed that these videos are more hypothetical than my tastes would prefer for the title he gives them (I wind up seeing them perhaps more as projection videos than he intends them to be). When he did his POY style votes he seemed to weight somewhat differently.

Not sure I understand your first point - "Lillard and Doncic are not that good because they're playing on a slanted offenses. I mean he talks heliocentrism as if they are playing on offensively capable teams; as if +4 or better rORtg offense happens solely with their superstar."

Taylor always talks pretty negatively about heliocentrism but he doesn't factor the available personnel as much as he should. My point was "would the Blazers or the Mavs offense get better if Lillard or Doncic started to play on-ball less". And the answer is a "clearly no" for me. There's no point in bashing heliocentric offenses just because helocentrism is not ideal for championship level offenses.

I read his Harden portion differently, to me he was fairly positive on Harden lowering his scoring volume with the Nets. I didn't like the Harden one because I thought it was the most hypothetical of them all. Harden was not good with the Rockets and only okay (relative to top 10 players) with the Nets while missing 40% of the season. Pretty much zero argument he actually had a better season than Lillard.

I disagree. He was pretty negative anything about Harden's play with the other 2 imo.

Fwiw, there's a big difference between doing a PoY rankings for a finished season and doing a best player rankings for an upcoming season. The latter is way more of a projection.
I don't think Taylor was saying Harden was better than Lillard in 2020-21 season. He was saying he's expecting Harden to be better than Lillard in 2021-22 season.

Also agreed on the fundamental differences depending on what different folks value, I should have emphasized that more in my initial reply.

There's always a strong consideration for scaling/portability in Taylor's opinions. For me, he's just doing it way too much because more often than not, in his takes hypothetical "XXX on a contending team" trumps real life circumstances with real life personnel. That's why I disagree with him on many different rankings. But that's a fundamental issue.
In general, we see things pretty similarly but we do not think of things similarly and that leads us to different conclusions.
So, it's all good. Just a healthy variety in discussions.

For reference my top 5 POY voting for last season was as follows:
1. Giannis
2. Jokic
3. Gobert
4. Embiid
5. Curry

Had a group of 6 I mentioned behind them as HMs - Kawhi, PG, KD, LeBron, Dame, Luka that would in some order round out my top 10.

Going back to this; I think you were a bit too harsh on Curry by leaving him out of the top 3. I certainly disagreed with Embiid over Curry since Embiid missed even more significant chunk of the season.