What player have you changed your mind about over time?

[tsherkin]

A couple of threads have come up this past little while and I've been thinking about players that I've changed my mind about over time. Maybe some new data has come out, maybe you've learned some new things about the game, whatever it is, what are some players who you've altered your evaluation of as time has passed?

A simple example.

For me, Allen Iverson is a big one. When I was a teenager, he was everything I hated about basketball. He dribbled too much, he shot poorly, he was breaking the rules every time he touched the ball. Amusingly, I would later come to enjoy this as it became evident that the league was going to let it keep happening and some of my other favorite players did it all the time, so... My bad, AI. You were just a trailblazer for entertainment before I knew what that was, heh. The 01 Sixers had this awesome defense and he was just gunning away like an inefficient chucker, la la la. The regular criticisms leveled in his direction at the time. As I got older, and actually as I got to RealGM in particular, I started reading some stuff from some of the wiser, more educated minds and seeing some projects about elevating bad offenses, the value of inefficient scoring in such contexts, etc. Started seeing some more box score plus-minus kind of stuff, etc. And for a while, I was skeptical, being younger and with a head full of steam and all that. But ultimately, it became fairly clear that by every measure, Iverson was at least bootstrapping those bad offenses as described. Later, as he got to the Nuggets and the league environment changed and so forth and he continued to have trouble mixing with other scorers, other criticisms became relevant, but it was still true that what he'd been doing was about as good as it was going to get in that absence of a top-tier star in that era, like that extremely exclusive club of a handful of players in any season at the apex of the offensive game. No shame not being that, right?

And as I keep participating in these threads and doing stat searches and so forth, he keeps popping up with these seasons in impressive company, particularly for having more than one of them. A lot of them are fairly arbitrary search criteria, of course. 25 ppg, 4 apg, 5 OBPM. Stuff like that. But you poke around enough and it's clear that he was exerting a positive impact on some low offensive talent rosters, just as all his fans had been saying all along.



Something like that. What players come to mind for you guys?

[PistolPeteJR]

T-Mac, my first, true basketball love. The older I got and the more I understood the game, the more I realized he wasn’t the guy I always thought he was.

That said, I also don’t see him as some low-IQ, relentless chucker; the game was being played a certain way in the early 2000s and he definitely played to that tune at a high level.

[penbeast0]

Bill Russell. I came onto this site convinced that Wilt was the greatest player of all time but listening to a ton of analysis from a lot of really great posters moved me off Wilt and onto Russell, to the point where I came to have him over Jordan (and now LeBron) as the most impactful player of all time. I also started being convinced that Shaq carried Kobe to those first couple of rings but Kobe succeeding with Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom convinced me that there was more to him than I had thought. Many others but those are probably the most extreme.

[tsherkin]

Bill Russell. I came onto this site convinced that Wilt was the greatest player of all time but listening to a ton of analysis from a lot of really great posters moved me off Wilt and onto Russell, to the point where I came to have him over Jordan (and now LeBron) as the most impactful player of all time. I also started being convinced that Shaq carried Kobe to those first couple of rings but Kobe succeeding with Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom convinced me that there was more to him than I had thought. Many others but those are probably the most extreme.

Nice.

Yeah, Russell's an interesting one. I remember a time when I would look at him and be like "pffft, he'd be like a weaker Mutombo" or some similarly foolish remark when I was younger. But as I've read more and more about him, as more data has been unearthed, more footage, etc, he becomes a more compelling figure. Imagining what it took to do what he did in Boston at that time, then later as a player coach... just the various things he accomplished are very interesting. He's actually a major pivot for why I have become so reticent to do cross-era comparisons, because it's so hard to do them justice.

[70sFan]

I became much higher on defensive stars like Mutombo, Gobert, Green, Thurmond or Wallace. I used to think about them as solid starters who give you additional boost to your offensive stars, but I realized that top tier defenders are more impactful than most offensive stars, only the top tier superstars can have higher impact.

I used to be more influenced by boxscore numbers, now I understand that most of that is caused by team situation and role played.

[tsherkin]

I became much higher on defensive stars like Mutombo, Gobert, Green, Thurmond or Wallace. I used to think about them as solid starters who give you additional boost to your offensive stars, but I realized that top tier defenders are more impactful than most offensive stars, only the top tier superstars can have higher impact.

I used to be more influenced by boxscore numbers, now I understand that most of that is caused by team situation and role played.

Nice.

Yeah, there's a learning curve to how best to employ the various pieces of information we have access to, and how that should integrate with watching game film and such.

[Ambrose]

Reggie Miller. I only caught the tail end of his career and his box numbers were painfully mediocre. It took a lot of great analysis and data from a variety of sources to show me that he was far more impactful than the box score said due to his gravity and basketball IQ. His ability to elevate his play to a whole new level in the postseason consistently shows he was on another level than I previously thought and simply someone who cared more about winning than scoring 25/game.

[Cavsfansince84]

All of them. I mean I feel like its an ongoing thing with all players but obviously more so active ones. As we see more of them and use different or new methods for measuring impact and things like leadership it factors into our opinions. More recently I've come around to Nash more.

[Colbinii]

Reggie Miller, Kobe Bryant, the 1990s

[penbeast0]

Having read several posters here who told me so, I have come to realize that there was a massive evolutionary change in the human capacity right around the year 1980. All NBA players before that point were slow unathletic white men with a few exceptions who racked up undeserved numbers and accolades from playing against those slow unathletic white men. Then suddenly the new breed of mankind came into affect and everyone from that point on was a modern, capable basketball player led of course by Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. No one before that point could play modern basketball except for a few players like Wilt and Kareem would would be reserves or role players; after that point, it's all different.

I'm thinking of changing my RealGM name ....

There you go, fixed it.

[Statlanta]

Scottie Pippen.

I don't think he gets enough credit for the second three-peat Bulls, or remaining a solid player until his second Bulls stint.

[falcolombardi]

Scottie Pippen.

I don't think he gets enough credit for the second three-peat Bulls, or remaining a solid player until his second Bulls stint.

i actually wonder what history would look like if seattle kept pippen and developed hin alongside payton and kemp

would pippen have been seen as the best player in a likely multi championship team?, how does he develop in seattle in such a different scheme than bills triangle?

[Heej]

Bill Russell. I came onto this site convinced that Wilt was the greatest player of all time but listening to a ton of analysis from a lot of really great posters moved me off Wilt and onto Russell, to the point where I came to have him over Jordan (and now LeBron) as the most impactful player of all time. I also started being convinced that Shaq carried Kobe to those first couple of rings but Kobe succeeding with Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom convinced me that there was more to him than I had thought. Many others but those are probably the most extreme.

Nice.

Yeah, Russell's an interesting one. I remember a time when I would look at him and be like "pffft, he'd be like a weaker Mutombo" or some similarly foolish remark when I was younger. But as I've read more and more about him, as more data has been unearthed, more footage, etc, he becomes a more compelling figure. Imagining what it took to do what he did in Boston at that time, then later as a player coach... just the various things he accomplished are very interesting. He's actually a major pivot for why I have become so reticent to do cross-era comparisons, because it's so hard to do them justice.

Sounds elitist saying this but I think a person's take on Bill Russell's ability to translate to the modern game functions as a sort of bball IQ litmus test lol. If you think he wouldn't be a dominant fulcrum on a modern champion you're immediately creditless in my eyes.

[tsherkin]

Sounds elitist saying this but I think a person's take on Bill Russell's ability to translate to the modern game functions as a sort of bball IQ litmus test lol. If you think he wouldn't be a dominant fulcrum on a modern champion you're immediately creditless in my eyes.

Well, it does take some wondering about that one.

Clearly, the more video of him you watch, the more you can appreciate his passing and what have you. You also need to appreciate something simple like TS+, because his raw efficiency was around league average for most of the first half of his career. Not great team offense. Not even particularly good offense, but at least around average. And of course rebounding and defense, even if they wouldn't look in the box score the same way they did in his own time, that translates well enough. You can assemble a top end defense around him, and he had footspeed and bounce. His biggest issue would be his lack of shooting touch. He'd be one of those guys who didn't lead his team in scoring but still featured prominently in his team's success. You can see him in that 2013, 2014 Tim Duncan kind of role, right? Except obviously he'd be able to play more minutes than Duncan in his mid-30s, and he was a more mobile defender.

It's a real paradigm shift to stop and try to envision building a team around a player who won't be the best offensive player on his team. Or the second best offensive player on his team. Russell was an outlier in his time in terms of style of defense. The full measure of his defensive excellence wouldn't translate into the modern league, but he'd obviously be a perennial defensive titan. We've seen what guys like Duncan and Garnett can do, and then with modern defensive rules and so forth putting a premium on exactly the kind of defender he is, the only real question is how his offense would feature and what players you'd need around him.

Clearly, he'd be an amazing defender and a top-end rebounder. That part translates easily. He was a smart guy, he'd handle the schemes and everything no problem. And being able to roam and double and do what he wanted without the illegal defense rules would be nice. You put him at the 5 and you've got yourself an easy path to a high-end defense. Then you just need to get your offense set up, and with the quality of D he provides, you generally need a lower level of overall team offense in order to get yourself going, and lower requirements on who you need to field, which helps.

[Heej]

Sounds elitist saying this but I think a person's take on Bill Russell's ability to translate to the modern game functions as a sort of bball IQ litmus test lol. If you think he wouldn't be a dominant fulcrum on a modern champion you're immediately creditless in my eyes.

Well, it does take some wondering about that one.

Clearly, the more video of him you watch, the more you can appreciate his passing and what have you. You also need to appreciate something simple like TS+, because his raw efficiency was around league average for most of the first half of his career. Not great team offense. Not even particularly good offense, but at least around average. And of course rebounding and defense, even if they wouldn't look in the box score the same way they did in his own time, that translates well enough. You can assemble a top end defense around him, and he had footspeed and bounce. His biggest issue would be his lack of shooting touch. He'd be one of those guys who didn't lead his team in scoring but still featured prominently in his team's success. You can see him in that 2013, 2014 Tim Duncan kind of role, right? Except obviously he'd be able to play more minutes than Duncan in his mid-30s, and he was a more mobile defender.

It's a real paradigm shift to stop and try to envision building a team around a player who won't be the best offensive player on his team. Or the second best offensive player on his team. Russell was an outlier in his time in terms of style of defense. The full measure of his defensive excellence wouldn't translate into the modern league, but he'd obviously be a perennial defensive titan. We've seen what guys like Duncan and Garnett can do, and then with modern defensive rules and so forth putting a premium on exactly the kind of defender he is, the only real question is how his offense would feature and what players you'd need around him.

Clearly, he'd be an amazing defender and a top-end rebounder. That part translates easily. He was a smart guy, he'd handle the schemes and everything no problem. And being able to roam and double and do what he wanted without the illegal defense rules would be nice. You put him at the 5 and you've got yourself an easy path to a high-end defense. Then you just need to get your offense set up, and with the quality of D he provides, you generally need a lower level of overall team offense in order to get yourself going, and lower requirements on who you need to field, which helps.

Honestly I'd see him functioning as a super Draymond as in the pivot passer/floor general, dive and dump man, and all around defensive menace switching and rim protecting; except he'd get out in transition better than AD and be the most dominant transition big in the league. I agree he wouldn't be able to dominate as much on defense now as he did then but I'd still have him as the most impactful defender in the league, and particularly in the playoffs. Also he'd be the only guy in the league to give LeBron a run for his money on chase down blocks, as apparently that was his specialty back in the day.

Another funny comparison I think of with him is a souped up version of iirc 2013 Joakim Noah that made a solid run at top 3 in MVP voting with his facilitating, defense, and transition run-outs. I just think watching him move with the fluidity he has for his size I don't really see any big matching that other than Jonathan Isaac when he was producing. Someone that can move like that for that size and the IQ and mental toughness that he had, basketball is a sport made for a person like that to dominate in some way imo even if it's an uncommon way.

[tsherkin]

Honestly I'd see him functioning as a super Draymond as in the pivot passer/floor general, dive and dump man, and all around defensive menace switching and rim protecting; except he'd get out in transition better than AD and be the most dominant transition big in the league.

Or basically a souped up version of iirc 2013 Joakim Noah that made a solid run at top 3 in MVP voting. I just think watching him move with the fluidity he has for his size I don't really see any big matching that other than Jonathan Isaac when he was producing. Someone that can move like that for that size and the IQ and mental toughness that he had, basketball is a sport made for a person like that to dominate in some way imo even if it's an uncommon way.

It would take a good organization to do it, of course. An atypical model like that would require some finesse because it would deviate so much from the traditional model. And the league has changed enough that he'd need a good deal of offensive help. Or at least guys who clicked at the right time, anyway. But it would be interesting to see. He wouldn't have to shoot a ton, and we've seen not all that long ago that a defensive titan and then some solid but not top-tier guards with good overall spacing can get it done.

[Heej]

Honestly I'd see him functioning as a super Draymond as in the pivot passer/floor general, dive and dump man, and all around defensive menace switching and rim protecting; except he'd get out in transition better than AD and be the most dominant transition big in the league.

Or basically a souped up version of iirc 2013 Joakim Noah that made a solid run at top 3 in MVP voting. I just think watching him move with the fluidity he has for his size I don't really see any big matching that other than Jonathan Isaac when he was producing. Someone that can move like that for that size and the IQ and mental toughness that he had, basketball is a sport made for a person like that to dominate in some way imo even if it's an uncommon way.

It would take a good organization to do it, of course. An atypical model like that would require some finesse because it would deviate so much from the traditional model. And the league has changed enough that he'd need a good deal of offensive help. Or at least guys who clicked at the right time, anyway. But it would be interesting to see. He wouldn't have to shoot a ton, and we've seen not all that long ago that a defensive titan and then some solid but not top-tier guards with good overall spacing can get it done.

Good point. Can't discount the fact that he had the luxury of playing for Red Auerbach much of his career. He'd probably have a harder time just floor raising a team into contender status but much like KG I could see his impact exploding with the right mix

[tsherkin]

Good point. Can't discount the fact that he had the luxury of playing for Red Auerbach much of his career. He'd probably have a harder time just floor raising a team into contender status but much like KG I could see his impact exploding with the right mix

Yeah, and it wouldn't take TOO much. I mean, he doesn't have KG's proficiency with 20-footers to work with, but then, Chicago in 2014 was able to parlay Noah into useful roles despite him generally not being able to shoot from about 3 feet to about 16 feet that year and being a 39.7% shooter from 16-23 feet. And Russ looked like he was much more mobile. Chicago didn't actually win, of course, and in fact went down in the first round. They were the 2nd best defense in the league, the 2nd slowest team in the league, and unfortunately, the 3rd worst offense in the league. They won 48 games and went down in 5 to the Wizards. That would be how NOT to build around someone like Russ, heh.

In the past 17 seasons, three teams have won a ring with an offense ranked worse than 8th in the league. They have been 3rd, 4th and 1st ranked defenses. 5 teams have won it with defenses ranked worse than 8th, ranking 6th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd and 7th on offense.

More punch required on the offensive end, for sure.

[PistolPeteJR]

Sounds elitist saying this but I think a person's take on Bill Russell's ability to translate to the modern game functions as a sort of bball IQ litmus test lol. If you think he wouldn't be a dominant fulcrum on a modern champion you're immediately creditless in my eyes.

Well, it does take some wondering about that one.

Clearly, the more video of him you watch, the more you can appreciate his passing and what have you. You also need to appreciate something simple like TS+, because his raw efficiency was around league average for most of the first half of his career. Not great team offense. Not even particularly good offense, but at least around average. And of course rebounding and defense, even if they wouldn't look in the box score the same way they did in his own time, that translates well enough. You can assemble a top end defense around him, and he had footspeed and bounce. His biggest issue would be his lack of shooting touch. He'd be one of those guys who didn't lead his team in scoring but still featured prominently in his team's success. You can see him in that 2013, 2014 Tim Duncan kind of role, right? Except obviously he'd be able to play more minutes than Duncan in his mid-30s, and he was a more mobile defender.

It's a real paradigm shift to stop and try to envision building a team around a player who won't be the best offensive player on his team. Or the second best offensive player on his team. Russell was an outlier in his time in terms of style of defense. The full measure of his defensive excellence wouldn't translate into the modern league, but he'd obviously be a perennial defensive titan. We've seen what guys like Duncan and Garnett can do, and then with modern defensive rules and so forth putting a premium on exactly the kind of defender he is, the only real question is how his offense would feature and what players you'd need around him.

Clearly, he'd be an amazing defender and a top-end rebounder. That part translates easily. He was a smart guy, he'd handle the schemes and everything no problem. And being able to roam and double and do what he wanted without the illegal defense rules would be nice. You put him at the 5 and you've got yourself an easy path to a high-end defense. Then you just need to get your offense set up, and with the quality of D he provides, you generally need a lower level of overall team offense in order to get yourself going, and lower requirements on who you need to field, which helps.

Honestly I'd see him functioning as a super Draymond as in the pivot passer/floor general, dive and dump man, and all around defensive menace switching and rim protecting; except he'd get out in transition better than AD and be the most dominant transition big in the league. I agree he wouldn't be able to dominate as much on defense now as he did then but I'd still have him as the most impactful defender in the league, and particularly in the playoffs. Also he'd be the only guy in the league to give LeBron a run for his money on chase down blocks, as apparently that was his specialty back in the day.

Another funny comparison I think of with him is a souped up version of iirc 2013 Joakim Noah that made a solid run at top 3 in MVP voting with his facilitating, defense, and transition run-outs. I just think watching him move with the fluidity he has for his size I don't really see any big matching that other than Jonathan Isaac when he was producing. Someone that can move like that for that size and the IQ and mental toughness that he had, basketball is a sport made for a person like that to dominate in some way imo even if it's an uncommon way.

Reading tsherkin's post right before yours, the first thing I thought of was that the closest thing to building a team around a Russell-type would be Draymond today, but of course, as you stated it, on steroids. I also wonder if Russell would have benefited some from the extra space in today's game without the paint being as crowded as it was. To think how dominant he was when it was crowded; imagine now with less traffic in there... that said, there's also longer rebounds now, something to consider, idk, thinking out loud.

But yeah, it would have been real fun to see a team build around Draymond as a focal piece. That would have challenged many people's understanding of the game (including my own), one would hope, especially in a time where the offense has surpassed the defense from an evolutionary standpoint and then with the rule changes.

[Ambrose]

Sounds elitist saying this but I think a person's take on Bill Russell's ability to translate to the modern game functions as a sort of bball IQ litmus test lol. If you think he wouldn't be a dominant fulcrum on a modern champion you're immediately creditless in my eyes.

Well, it does take some wondering about that one.

Clearly, the more video of him you watch, the more you can appreciate his passing and what have you. You also need to appreciate something simple like TS+, because his raw efficiency was around league average for most of the first half of his career. Not great team offense. Not even particularly good offense, but at least around average. And of course rebounding and defense, even if they wouldn't look in the box score the same way they did in his own time, that translates well enough. You can assemble a top end defense around him, and he had footspeed and bounce. His biggest issue would be his lack of shooting touch. He'd be one of those guys who didn't lead his team in scoring but still featured prominently in his team's success. You can see him in that 2013, 2014 Tim Duncan kind of role, right? Except obviously he'd be able to play more minutes than Duncan in his mid-30s, and he was a more mobile defender.

It's a real paradigm shift to stop and try to envision building a team around a player who won't be the best offensive player on his team. Or the second best offensive player on his team. Russell was an outlier in his time in terms of style of defense. The full measure of his defensive excellence wouldn't translate into the modern league, but he'd obviously be a perennial defensive titan. We've seen what guys like Duncan and Garnett can do, and then with modern defensive rules and so forth putting a premium on exactly the kind of defender he is, the only real question is how his offense would feature and what players you'd need around him.

Clearly, he'd be an amazing defender and a top-end rebounder. That part translates easily. He was a smart guy, he'd handle the schemes and everything no problem. And being able to roam and double and do what he wanted without the illegal defense rules would be nice. You put him at the 5 and you've got yourself an easy path to a high-end defense. Then you just need to get your offense set up, and with the quality of D he provides, you generally need a lower level of overall team offense in order to get yourself going, and lower requirements on who you need to field, which helps.

Honestly I'd see him functioning as a super Draymond as in the pivot passer/floor general, dive and dump man, and all around defensive menace switching and rim protecting; except he'd get out in transition better than AD and be the most dominant transition big in the league. I agree he wouldn't be able to dominate as much on defense now as he did then but I'd still have him as the most impactful defender in the league, and particularly in the playoffs. Also he'd be the only guy in the league to give LeBron a run for his money on chase down blocks, as apparently that was his specialty back in the day.

Another funny comparison I think of with him is a souped up version of iirc 2013 Joakim Noah that made a solid run at top 3 in MVP voting with his facilitating, defense, and transition run-outs. I just think watching him move with the fluidity he has for his size I don't really see any big matching that other than Jonathan Isaac when he was producing. Someone that can move like that for that size and the IQ and mental toughness that he had, basketball is a sport made for a person like that to dominate in some way imo even if it's an uncommon way.

Bill Russell has no business being a floor general on offense unless you want your offense to suck. He was a capable passer but absolutely not someone who could consistently create for others or manipulate defenses to create openings. By all accounts he was highly turnover prone. As a secondary guy flipping it the open man when they collapse on him near the rim? He's great. Anything more than that and he's out of his depth.