However, I'd note that nearly all of Worthy's playoff sample is playing next to Magic Johnson. Look what happened to his TS% as soon as Magic was forced to retire, while Worthy is still in his early 30s (and in spite of '92 and '93 being his two BEST seasons in FT%); and look at the one playoff series after Magic was gone (39.1% TS).
I know it's easy to just chalk it up to Magic retiring, but I think Worthy was already on a downward trajectory before that.
From 1982-83 to 1989-90, Worthy's TS ranged from 57.1% on the low end to 61.3% on the high end. Going from 1989-90 to 1990-91(Magic's last year), his TS dropped from 58.6% to 53.1% - a 5.5% drop, which is in fact higher than the 4.1% drop he'd take from 91 to 92.
Also, if you look at his playoff TS, his 54.5% in the 1990 playoffs was his lowest up to that point, before dropping to 50.2% in 1991(albeit he was hurt for some of that).
I think he was going to decline with or without Magic.
This is speculative (though you may be right in that it's a combination of the two). However, the "oh, he was just already in dramatic decline by age 30" is not exactly a rousing endorsement of his candidacy either.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
To add in [for info's sake] the topg averages in the playoffs: Worthy 2.1 topg in the playoffs; Bosh 1.4.
I was specifically looking at the a:t ratios.
I wouldn't, personally. The majority of turnovers do not occur on the pass or on the attempt for assist. It also can lead to dramatic misleading results if comparing players of vastly different playmaking responsibilities.
It doesn't shift the needle much in either direction here, but in a general sense.....
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
Also there is rs output/accomplishment, which is not irrelevant (and in which I'd say Bosh narrowly outdoes Worthy [despite not playing to a Magic-like player for most of his career]). Narrowly outdoes him in accolades/media recognition, too, fwiw.
I really don't think Bosh would be getting much consideration here if he hadn't played with LBJ and Wade for four years.
I mean......would we be giving a damn about James Worthy if he hadn't had opportunity for all those deep runs with the Magic Lakers? Would Bill Walton be much more than a footnote in NBA history if he had NOT prevailed against the Sixers in '77? Would Draymond be on the list AT ALL if he hadn't landed on the Warriors?
Those things matter [a lot], no matter how much most of us insist that they do not.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: His time in Toronto does not make a strong enough case IMO.
Well, taken all on its own, no. But if he had STAYED in Toronto (i.e. those Miami years were played out in Toronto), and he maybe had like a solid decade of averaging ~21/9 on decent efficiency, leading a few teams to the playoffs with little supporting help........would I still be considering him for this project with that? Probably, yes. Would he still be in my top 80 (as he is now)? Perhaps not. But my top 100, yes.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Best player left, strong impact profile over larger samples, paticularly with playoff elevation, best era. on the shortlist of most talented players ever
2. Tatum
Strong impact profile, lots of team success, and doing it in the most talented iteration of the league.
Best player left
Nomination
1 Gus Williams 2. Marc Gasol
Would prefer to vote for gasol but may swap depending on who gets support.
Not neccesarily the most deserving player, but with Sam Jones being pushed for a while now, I'd say Grant's case is probably a better version of Jones':
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
I've pointed this out before, but these box-numbers likely don't give Grant his full credit as a co-primary paint-protector on Chicago:
(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)
Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentator[url][/url]s, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)
Distribution went
Pippen/Grant 14 each
Purdue 6 or 7
Cartwright 4
Armstrong/Jordan 1 each
FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else
All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.
FWIW, Chicago postseason defense tended to be closer to their postseason offense than one might think.
Horace Grant also probably deserves at least some credit for the 2001 Lakers dramatically improved postseason defense(and overall) performance relative to their 2000 iteration(their rim-protection numbers in particular were significantly).
Probably fair to say he played a "key role" on 4 champions and 5 finalists with three distinct cores(though there was common ground between all 3 teams). Nothing mind blowing in terms of rs impact(similar to Sam Jones and Sharman), but there's a consistent trend in terms of playoff results:
-> Chicago improves drastically overnight as he and pippen see their roles increase in 1990, looks similar to the 91 Bulls in the first two rounds per M.O.V iirc -> Chicago has their worst playoff run of the dynasty with his depature(despite looking pretty good without him in the RS) -> Magic go from a first round out to a finalist(though the "real nba finals" was arguably in the West) -> Lakers go from one of the worst champions ever to statistically maybe the best
All these teams specifically see their defense and ability to protect the paint rise and drop with his arrival and depature in the postseason.
I think if we're going to have the jones and sharmans inducted, Grant should also probably be there as well. Replication across contexts and a more clear connect between team performance and the nature of his contributions are advantages for him here I think.
TLDR: While both have eh rs profiles, unlike Sam Jones, Horace Grant has a consistent pattern of joining teams and seeing their playoff performance jump, and leaving teams and seeing their playoff performance fall, with his specific contributions correlating with the side of the floor the team jumps the most in. He also had one chance taking up a bigger role in 1994 and played like a legit no.2 on a contender. Sam Jones has no track record to speak off without the biggest impact outlier in history. Moreover, while the Bulls clearly missed Grant vs the Magic when he left, the Celtics went on their most impressive two-year playoff run with Sam Jones as a 6th man beating the 68 Lakers(highest mov ever with west), the 68 Sixers(wilt + a team that was good without him), the 69 Lakers(merger of 2nd and 3rd best team in the league, core that won a championship soon after), and the 69 Knicks(rotation that won the next year's championship and made three finals, winning two in short order). All in all, I'd say there are bigger questions around Sam Jones replicability than Grant and don't really see why Sam Jones should go ahead.
2. Marc Gasol
This omission is really weird to me:
-> Was the clear best player on a fringe contender, most notably going 2-1 up on the eventual champion 2015 Warriors before their point guard got hurt. -> Post-prime, was the clear-cut defensive anchor on a toronto side that won a title and then contended without their best player on the back of an all-time defense: Said defense becomes all-time when he comes, and returns to mediocrity when he leaves. Team immediately turns from contender to fringe playoff team -> Was correctly identified as the best defender in the league in 2013, and an all-time menace for opposing bigs(giannis, gasol) even post-prime -> Was helping the Lakers post the best defense and rs record and srs in the league before injuries derailed their 2021 campaign
The comparisons that come to mind are are
already inducted Sam Cousy who -> did not co-lead a team as close to winning as what Gasol led -> did not show the same level impact post-prime on a winner
already getting inductee votes larry nance -> did not co-lead a team as competitive as the grizzlies -> never won -> not as clear-cut of a defensive anchor
Bill Sharman -> same as cousy except without the MVP
Gasol has yet to get a single nomination vote, I don't get it at all. Probably should have been inducted already tbh.
3. Iggy A few years as the star(and defensive anchor) of playoff teams, and then post-injury played a key role for 3 championships and 6 final apperances over two teams. Since championship role-players are in vogue right now...
Also strong rapm for what it's worth.
4. Luka Donicic
Better peak than anyone left on the board besides Walton and argument for being the best in a vacuum. His longetivity is a knock but he was pretty much better than anyone here besides Bill in his second year in the league if not his first and while people may not be overly impressed by the round finishes and rs record, on a series to series basis, Luka's Mavs have done pretty well:
-> went toe to toe with "maybe win the title if kawhi is healthy" clippers with kawhi -> beat "best record over the last 5 years" suns a year removed from their final run
Mavs have been a fringe contender with Luka in the playoffs and haven't been a good team without him in the regular season if you go by game instead of "few minutes without". If Walton is getting serious inductee consideration, Luka deserves some nomination love I think.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Also there is rs output/accomplishment, which is not irrelevant (and in which I'd say Bosh narrowly outdoes Worthy [despite not playing to a Magic-like player for most of his career]). Narrowly outdoes him in accolades/media recognition, too, fwiw.
I really don't think Bosh would be getting much consideration here if he hadn't played with LBJ and Wade for four years.
[/quote] There are some advantages Worthy has from this lense.
1. Worthy also has a title as the clear 2nd best player on the team in 1988 and I think it would be fair to argue he produced more in all of his title runs than Bosh did in any of his.
2. Worthy also has an additional 2 final runs as the 2nd best player on the team
3. If you value championships as a bonus which this post makes me think you do, Worthy did win more.
4. To the degree accolades matter, the final mvp is a big notch in the resume
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
trex_8063 wrote:However, I'd note that nearly all of Worthy's playoff sample is playing next to Magic Johnson. Look what happened to his TS% as soon as Magic was forced to retire, while Worthy is still in his early 30s (and in spite of '92 and '93 being his two BEST seasons in FT%); and look at the one playoff series after Magic was gone (39.1% TS).
I know it's easy to just chalk it up to Magic retiring, but I think Worthy was already on a downward trajectory before that.
From 1982-83 to 1989-90, Worthy's TS ranged from 57.1% on the low end to 61.3% on the high end. Going from 1989-90 to 1990-91(Magic's last year), his TS dropped from 58.6% to 53.1% - a 5.5% drop, which is in fact higher than the 4.1% drop he'd take from 91 to 92.
Also, if you look at his playoff TS, his 54.5% in the 1990 playoffs was his lowest up to that point, before dropping to 50.2% in 1991(albeit he was hurt for some of that).
I think he was going to decline with or without Magic.
As someone in-between you two on Worthy, I think it is fair to point out his weak longevity (five all-NBA calibre years plus a couple of lower end all-star years), but I agree it is not fair to put that totally on Magic’s departure. With the acknowledgment that the Lakers consistently had pretty good backup point guards, prime Worthy functioned fine without Magic.
1984-91 Worthy in games with Magic: 19.2/5.6/3.1 with 2.0 turnovers on 57.8% efficiency (34.6 minutes per game) 1984-91 Worthy in 51 regular season games without Magic: 20.1/5.7/3.7 with 2.5 turnovers on 59.6% efficiency (35.4 minutes per game)
However, I'd note that nearly all of Worthy's playoff sample is playing next to Magic Johnson. Look what happened to his TS% as soon as Magic was forced to retire, while Worthy is still in his early 30s (and in spite of '92 and '93 being his two BEST seasons in FT%); and look at the one playoff series after Magic was gone (39.1% TS).
I know it's easy to just chalk it up to Magic retiring, but I think Worthy was already on a downward trajectory before that.
From 1982-83 to 1989-90, Worthy's TS ranged from 57.1% on the low end to 61.3% on the high end. Going from 1989-90 to 1990-91(Magic's last year), his TS dropped from 58.6% to 53.1% - a 5.5% drop, which is in fact higher than the 4.1% drop he'd take from 91 to 92.
Also, if you look at his playoff TS, his 54.5% in the 1990 playoffs was his lowest up to that point, before dropping to 50.2% in 1991(albeit he was hurt for some of that).
I think he was going to decline with or without Magic.
This is speculative (though you may be right in that it's a combination of the two). However, the "oh, he was just already in dramatic decline by age 30" is not exactly a rousing endorsement of his candidacy either.
Depends on how heavily you weigh longevity and how highly you think of his prime. If you think what he did before age 30 is impressive enough, the dropoff after age 30 wouldn't matter so much.
But that's a separate issue from how much his performance benefited from playing with Magic. AEnigma's post above makes a compelling argument that Worthy, at least statistically, held up fine without Magic in his prime.
Also, it is worth noting that from 1982-83 to 1990-91, Worthy was 29-24 in the RS without Magic. Above .500 at least(though, in the interest of transparency, Kareem was playing for all but two of those Magic-less games before his retirement in 1989).
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
To add in [for info's sake] the topg averages in the playoffs: Worthy 2.1 topg in the playoffs; Bosh 1.4.
I was specifically looking at the a:t ratios.
I wouldn't, personally. The majority of turnovers do not occur on the pass or on the attempt for assist. It also can lead to dramatic misleading results if comparing players of vastly different playmaking responsibilities.
It doesn't shift the needle much in either direction here, but in a general sense.....
Fair enough.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
Also there is rs output/accomplishment, which is not irrelevant (and in which I'd say Bosh narrowly outdoes Worthy [despite not playing to a Magic-like player for most of his career]). Narrowly outdoes him in accolades/media recognition, too, fwiw.
I really don't think Bosh would be getting much consideration here if he hadn't played with LBJ and Wade for four years.
I mean......would we be giving a damn about James Worthy if he hadn't had opportunity for all those deep runs with the Magic Lakers? Would Bill Walton be much more than a footnote in NBA history if he had NOT prevailed against the Sixers in '77? Would Draymond be on the list AT ALL if he hadn't landed on the Warriors?
Those things matter [a lot], no matter how much most of us insist that they do not.
I agree, they do matter, but - and maybe I'm wrong here - it feels like you want to ding Worthy for playing with Magic and Kareem while giving Bosh credit for playing with LeBron and Wade.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: His time in Toronto does not make a strong enough case IMO.
Well, taken all on its own, no. But if he had STAYED in Toronto (i.e. those Miami years were played out in Toronto), and he maybe had like a solid decade of averaging ~21/9 on decent efficiency, leading a few teams to the playoffs with little supporting help........would I still be considering him for this project with that? Probably, yes. Would he still be in my top 80 (as he is now)? Perhaps not. But my top 100, yes.
For 3 post season runs, Porter was the 1B to Drexler. A very efficient scorer, who ran the team well.
Alt nomination: Neil Johnston
I get it, today he wouldn’t be in the league. But in his time, he was dominant. 5 weak MVP level seasons amongst his peers.
What happened to your Gus Williams support lol.
His Jerry Lucas support too...though I was arguing against that.
Well, regardless, it seems like Gus has the nomination wrapped up this round. He's got three first place votes and a second place vote and I'll be adding another first place vote when I vote.
trex_8063 wrote:However, I'd note that nearly all of Worthy's playoff sample is playing next to Magic Johnson. Look what happened to his TS% as soon as Magic was forced to retire, while Worthy is still in his early 30s (and in spite of '92 and '93 being his two BEST seasons in FT%); and look at the one playoff series after Magic was gone (39.1% TS).
I know it's easy to just chalk it up to Magic retiring, but I think Worthy was already on a downward trajectory before that.
From 1982-83 to 1989-90, Worthy's TS ranged from 57.1% on the low end to 61.3% on the high end. Going from 1989-90 to 1990-91(Magic's last year), his TS dropped from 58.6% to 53.1% - a 5.5% drop, which is in fact higher than the 4.1% drop he'd take from 91 to 92.
Also, if you look at his playoff TS, his 54.5% in the 1990 playoffs was his lowest up to that point, before dropping to 50.2% in 1991(albeit he was hurt for some of that).
I think he was going to decline with or without Magic.
As someone in-between you two on Worthy, I think it is fair to point out his weak longevity (five all-NBA calibre years plus a couple of lower end all-star years), but I agree it is not fair to put that totally on Magic’s departure. With the acknowledgment that the Lakers consistently had pretty good backup point guards, prime Worthy functioned fine without Magic.
1984-91 Worthy in games with Magic: 19.2/5.6/3.1 with 2.0 turnovers on 57.8% efficiency (34.6 minutes per game) 1984-91 Worthy in 51 regular season games without Magic: 20.1/5.7/3.7 with 2.5 turnovers on 59.6% efficiency (35.4 minutes per game)
And he was 20-16 without Magic in those years; 29-24 without Magic for his whole career until Magic's retirement.
Doctor MJ wrote:Nomination 1: Chris Bosh Nomination 2: James Worthy
My mind is pretty open here, but of the players getting attention right now, I'm inclined to go with Bosh. There's no doubt that he was a legit B-list alpha, and I was extremely impressed by what he transformed himself into which enabled the Heatles to actually be something close to what they thought they could be.
I'll put Big Game James in there in the 2nd slot again. In comparison to guys like Gus Williams or Jerry Lucas, I really don't think it's close. Worthy was an exceptional player who stood out most against the strongest playoff competition.
I would encourage you to reconsider this going forward.
Bosh was an alpha for seven years in Toronto during which he accomplished virtually nothing, winning zero playoff series and having a positive SRS only twice. That's not all his fault of course, but it's hard to ignore. He has a decent-to-good impact signal with Toronto's numbers after he left for Miami, but I don't know if it's enough. And in Miami he was never more than #3.
First WRT to Worthy:
Worthy in playoffs: 21.1ppg/5.2rpg/3.2apg on 54.4% FG in 37mpg 28.1p/6.9r/4.3a(vs 2.8 to) per 100 57.8% TS(+4.1 over RS career league average) over 143 games
Bosh in playoffs: 16.7ppg/7.6rpg/1.3apg on 47.3% FG in 35.2mpg 24.4p/11.7r/2.1a(vs 2.2 to) per 100 55.3% TS(+1.6 over RS career league average) over 89 games
Worthy has measurable volume and efficiency advantages as a scorer as well as more assists with a better a:t ratio. Maybe you think Bosh's defense/rebounding make up for this, but I don't know about that.
Also, I don't think Lucas has a particularly strong argument, but I think you're underselling Gus. I did a big post in an earlier thread where I painstakingly illustrated how he consistently had positive impact throughout his career. But also, look at his 1979 playoff run to the championship:
vs Lakers: 30.8/4.8/3.2 on 50% FG - 54.5% TS vs Suns: 22.1/4.0/4.1 on 43.8% FG vs Bullets: 29.0/3.6/3.6 on 50% FG - 53.5% TS 150 WS/48, 4.7 BPM
A poorer series vs the Suns, but against Kareem and against Unseld/Hayes he had monster series, scoring 29-30ppg, and although he's not known as an efficient scorer, those TS%s are marginally above the RS league average that season. I don't think Bosh ever did anything like that in the playoffs.
I would also point out that Williams' minutes and subsequently other numbers got better from 1978 to 1979(and they were already good in 1978), and they won the Finals(against the same opponent) when Gus got better and reached his peak, which supports my position that he was the best player on those teams.
Williams went to two Finals and won a championship as arguably #1, and Worthy was arguably #2 for his last two championships and three Finals runs(87-89), not to mention the 91 Finals run(where his injury is often cited as a factor that may have altered the outcome of the series), and Bosh was a distant #3 for his two championships.
Finally, I would push issel over Bosh again, for all the reasons I've previously said - went to the Finals and got within a game of the ABA title without Gilmore, got within a game of the ABA title twice(once without Gilmore, once with) and had league-leading SRS and Net Rtg twice(not the same two seasons as the ABA Finals losses) while still scoring 27-30ppg, won the ABA title in 1975, had two additional conference finals appearances in the NBA, leads all potential nominees in total minutes played and WS/48, incredibly durable, etc etc.
tbh maybe issel should have already been nommed. If he's leading teams close in the nba and winning in the aba
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: I would encourage you to reconsider this going forward.
Bosh was an alpha for seven years in Toronto during which he accomplished virtually nothing, winning zero playoff series and having a positive SRS only twice. That's not all his fault of course, but it's hard to ignore. He has a decent-to-good impact signal with Toronto's numbers after he left for Miami, but I don't know if it's enough. And in Miami he was never more than #3.
First WRT to Worthy:
Worthy in playoffs: 21.1ppg/5.2rpg/3.2apg on 54.4% FG in 37mpg 28.1p/6.9r/4.3a(vs 2.8 to) per 100 57.8% TS(+4.1 over RS career league average) over 143 games
Bosh in playoffs: 16.7ppg/7.6rpg/1.3apg on 47.3% FG in 35.2mpg 24.4p/11.7r/2.1a(vs 2.2 to) per 100 55.3% TS(+1.6 over RS career league average) over 89 games
Worthy has measurable volume and efficiency advantages as a scorer as well as more assists with a better a:t ratio. Maybe you think Bosh's defense/rebounding make up for this, but I don't know about that.
Also, I don't think Lucas has a particularly strong argument, but I think you're underselling Gus. I did a big post in an earlier thread where I painstakingly illustrated how he consistently had positive impact throughout his career. But also, look at his 1979 playoff run to the championship:
vs Lakers: 30.8/4.8/3.2 on 50% FG - 54.5% TS vs Suns: 22.1/4.0/4.1 on 43.8% FG vs Bullets: 29.0/3.6/3.6 on 50% FG - 53.5% TS 150 WS/48, 4.7 BPM
A poorer series vs the Suns, but against Kareem and against Unseld/Hayes he had monster series, scoring 29-30ppg, and although he's not known as an efficient scorer, those TS%s are marginally above the RS league average that season. I don't think Bosh ever did anything like that in the playoffs.
I would also point out that Williams' minutes and subsequently other numbers got better from 1978 to 1979(and they were already good in 1978), and they won the Finals(against the same opponent) when Gus got better and reached his peak, which supports my position that he was the best player on those teams.
Williams went to two Finals and won a championship as arguably #1, and Worthy was arguably #2 for his last two championships and three Finals runs(87-89), not to mention the 91 Finals run(where his injury is often cited as a factor that may have altered the outcome of the series), and Bosh was a distant #3 for his two championships.
Finally, I would push issel over Bosh again, for all the reasons I've previously said - went to the Finals and got within a game of the ABA title without Gilmore, got within a game of the ABA title twice(once without Gilmore, once with) and had league-leading SRS and Net Rtg twice(not the same two seasons as the ABA Finals losses) while still scoring 27-30ppg, won the ABA title in 1975, had two additional conference finals appearances in the NBA, leads all potential nominees in total minutes played and WS/48, incredibly durable, etc etc.
In terms of consistency of framing ... Issel's finals without .. Gilmore ... that's off a negative SRS season that's so harmful to Bosh. But he's playing in a league where 8 of 11 teams make the playoffs (9 if you want to count the tie-breaker which is listed as a playoff game on Reference). And in that conference their mildly negative SRS got them second seed in the weak conference (in a weak league). Did Kentucky run a good team to seven games in the finals, yes and they weren't destroyed differential wise.
But this was a league that as I've related (re: Daniels) big men demolished that were far less outstanding in the NBA. And fwiw (this is super noisy - ABA roster stability isn't great in general - so huge pinch of salt ...) their SRS was better (and positive) the year before. And if Indy hadn't been in the East that year (they moved to the West the next year, when Issel arrived) they might well have gotten to the finals then.
These are more or less criticisms of the ABA that could apply to any of those ABA big men you're referencing, except I would note that Issel's production in the NBA held up better than almost any of them(I think probably only Gilmore looks better in the NBA).
Fwiw, only "twice" positive SRS ... he plays 7 years there ... 2 are younger than Worthy's rookie season and he's solid but not the sort of year driving guys cases here, then puts up star production where they're +1.5 with him on and -5.5 with him off ... so yeah only 2 of those 5 make the playoff but it wasn't his choice to dump Carter for nothing good or to take Bargnani number one ... in light of the pieces and where we are I'm not sure what you're expecting.. Fwiw, Worthy had health stuff in '92 so I'm not going to argue that as what one could expect from him as his role as the centerpiece ... but it's not like Worthy is a known quantity in that role, for whatever that's worth.
Worthy played his most playoff minutes in a role that optimized his production with a star that optimized his production. I think LeBron is the GOAT but he's not pass first like Magic and then add Wade too and you need Bosh, as a big that can do this job to be spacing the floor (some other big non shooters and even non-finishers didn't help). And fwiw I think I'd call their career playoff box rate aggregates are about tie (now average ... samples aren't always even ... though at first glance I'd say Worthy's rookie absence isn't dinged [but probably would/should be in most people's analysis], ant that probably actually raises what his average would be versus him playing that year and very little of old Worthy is probably more helpful [to him] than no very young or last years Bosh ... but I'm not looking closely so ... pinch of salt, that's more first glance than a firmer position).
Right, I said that Toronto's poor performance was not all Bosh's fault.
It's not just about optimization of production. As I said before, Bosh was a distant #3 for his title/finals runs. Worthy was legitimately #2 in 87-89. There is an issue of primacy during team success.
1) Except this isn't just a restatement of prior criticisms of a productivity gulf between early ABA bigs and NBA bigs ... it regards ABA in terms of conference ... and that Issel has a nice productivity run that year but if positive SRS is a bar that you value ... those Colonels (narrowly) failed to hit it despite (narrowly) hitting it the year before without him. And it's highlighting that the fact that he played in the lesser conference at that time (as well as a smaller league and a weaker league) which made a finals run substantially more likely.
2) Okay ... but is it his "fault" at all? Because your framing allows for anywhere between 0 and 99.999999% his fault ... if that framing works for you (it's not my favorite). What is it that we're supposed to take from this?
Not quite sure where you're going re "primacy" that, to my general reading would tend towards "option" and that is to do with an aspect of production. But if I take it that you're talking in terms of goodness/driver of team success ...
(a) Worthy isn't exactly clear cut number 2 throughout all that spell. In the 1988 regular season Byron Scott outperforms Worthy across all three Reference box composites.
(b) Rank order in a particular group isn't that meaningful to assessing goodness/utility especially generally but even within their particular context. Assuming Bosh is worse than Wade and Worthy is better than Scott (or whichever Laker is best in aggregate over that spell) in some particular windows ... does that make Wade > Bosh > Worthy > Scott(/other Laker) logically impossible ... no. If it is thought likely Wade is better than that Laker then it is probable that the rank tells us very little.
(c) The "window" framing focuses on Worthy's top 3 playoff PERs, his top 3 playoff BPMs and 3 of his top 4 playoff WS/48s. I don't know why the focus wouldn't be on all that they did.
Highly consistent two-way impact even as a young player which is rare. Obviously not much longevity, but the profile he's am asked in a short time is impressive.
Alt Vote: Luka Doncic
Again, needs longevity, but his playoffs rising and ability to create offense even with defenses geared to stop him has been incredibly impressive,
Nomination: Marc Gasol
Alt Nomination: Gus Williams
As someone who has literally your same votes and noms with the reverse order (funny coincidence) i wanna inquire a bit on tatum vs luka, as well to other tatum voters in general
How big do you actually think the longevity gap needs to be for the quality edge to be overcame?
Cause the way i see it the gap is not even particularly big and it actually feels bigger than it is
Tatum was a really good player for the 2017 and 2018 celtics but more in the category of above average wing/borderline all star
by 2019 rookie luka may have not made the playoffs coming into a lottery team but he already is a comparable at worst player to tatum
By 2020 he already outperformed tatum as he honestly may have dome every other season since
Even tatum crwoning achievement of beating the (injured) bucks in 2022 is matched by luka performance to take down to the 60+ wins suns the same season
How high do you guys actually value a couple years at 2017/2018 tatum level when compared with a half decade of both players at their primes where one has performed clearly better, specially post season?
If you had to choosw between 5 years of both in their primes but tatum got his 3 first seasons (16-18) too would it really be a deal maker to pick tatum instead?
So I’ll chime in to say:
Keep in mind that Tatum has ranked higher by POY in the last couple years and has more POY shares total.
This then to say, for those who agreed with those assessments, why would Luka have a quality edge at all? Tatum’s literally just been expanding his lead in Luka through the time that this project covers.
Of course for those who disagree with those earlier votes that’s different, and I think that’s the place for discussion in that particular debate.
Owly wrote:In terms of consistency of framing ... Issel's finals without .. Gilmore ... that's off a negative SRS season that's so harmful to Bosh. But he's playing in a league where 8 of 11 teams make the playoffs (9 if you want to count the tie-breaker which is listed as a playoff game on Reference). And in that conference their mildly negative SRS got them second seed in the weak conference (in a weak league). Did Kentucky run a good team to seven games in the finals, yes and they weren't destroyed differential wise.
But this was a league that as I've related (re: Daniels) big men demolished that were far less outstanding in the NBA. And fwiw (this is super noisy - ABA roster stability isn't great in general - so huge pinch of salt ...) their SRS was better (and positive) the year before. And if Indy hadn't been in the East that year (they moved to the West the next year, when Issel arrived) they might well have gotten to the finals then.
These are more or less criticisms of the ABA that could apply to any of those ABA big men you're referencing, except I would note that Issel's production in the NBA held up better than almost any of them(I think probably only Gilmore looks better in the NBA).
Fwiw, only "twice" positive SRS ... he plays 7 years there ... 2 are younger than Worthy's rookie season and he's solid but not the sort of year driving guys cases here, then puts up star production where they're +1.5 with him on and -5.5 with him off ... so yeah only 2 of those 5 make the playoff but it wasn't his choice to dump Carter for nothing good or to take Bargnani number one ... in light of the pieces and where we are I'm not sure what you're expecting.. Fwiw, Worthy had health stuff in '92 so I'm not going to argue that as what one could expect from him as his role as the centerpiece ... but it's not like Worthy is a known quantity in that role, for whatever that's worth.
Worthy played his most playoff minutes in a role that optimized his production with a star that optimized his production. I think LeBron is the GOAT but he's not pass first like Magic and then add Wade too and you need Bosh, as a big that can do this job to be spacing the floor (some other big non shooters and even non-finishers didn't help). And fwiw I think I'd call their career playoff box rate aggregates are about tie (now average ... samples aren't always even ... though at first glance I'd say Worthy's rookie absence isn't dinged [but probably would/should be in most people's analysis], ant that probably actually raises what his average would be versus him playing that year and very little of old Worthy is probably more helpful [to him] than no very young or last years Bosh ... but I'm not looking closely so ... pinch of salt, that's more first glance than a firmer position).
Right, I said that Toronto's poor performance was not all Bosh's fault.
It's not just about optimization of production. As I said before, Bosh was a distant #3 for his title/finals runs. Worthy was legitimately #2 in 87-89. There is an issue of primacy during team success.
1) Except this isn't just a restatement of prior criticisms of a productivity gulf between early ABA bigs and NBA bigs ... it regards ABA in terms of conference ... and that Issel has a nice productivity run that year but if positive SRS is a bar that you value ... those Colonels (narrowly) failed to hit it despite (narrowly) hitting it the year before without him. And it's highlighting that the fact that he played in the lesser conference at that time (as well as a smaller league and a weaker league) which made a finals run substantially more likely.
The Colonels had a .67 SRS and 0.9 Net drop when Issel arrived. So a very marginal drop in the same year they went through three coaches and had some other lesser roster changes too(Goose Ligon and Darel Carrier's minutes were cut some to make room for the newly added Cincy Powell). I don't know that one can draw any big conclusions about Issel from that, especially when there was a much bigger signal when Issel left Kentucky.
But anyway, the weaker conference thing is fair, but they didn't just make the Finals and get trounced. They took three games off a much stronger(by SRS and Net) Utah Stars team, losing in 7.
2) Okay ... but is it his "fault" at all? Because your framing allows for anywhere between 0 and 99.999999% his fault ... if that framing works for you (it's not my favorite). What is it that we're supposed to take from this?
That's a fair question. The Raptors were awful for most of Bosh's time there. It's just that a significant part of Bosh's case seems to rest on how impressive you think his time as Toronto's #1 was. I am not overly impressed by it, but by all means, if you disagree, make the case.
Not quite sure where you're going re "primacy" that, to my general reading would tend towards "option" and that is to do with an aspect of production. But if I take it that you're talking in terms of goodness/driver of team success ...
(a) Worthy isn't exactly clear cut number 2 throughout all that spell. In the 1988 regular season Byron Scott outperforms Worthy across all three Reference box composites.
If you look at RS and PO for 1987-1991, that's ten samples. You found one of the two where Scott is ahead of Worthy(the other being the 1991 playoffs when they were both hurt). Worthy tops Scott in eight out of ten samples, usually by significant margins int the playoffs.
1987 RS Worthy: .158/2.6 Scott: .136/1.1
1987 PO Worthy: .190/5.0 Scott: .119/-0.7
1988 RS Worthy: .143/2.3 Scott: .168/3.4
1988 PO Worthy: .148/4.3 Scott: .125/1.7
1989 RS Worthy: .158/3.0 Scott: .125/1.0
1989 PO Worthy: .175/5.1 Scott: .139/2.2
1990 RS Worthy: .172/3.8 Scott: .111/0.6
1990 PO Worthy: .106/2.2 Scott: .093/1.6
1991 RS Worthy: .143/2.5 Scott: .120/0.9
1991 PO Worthy: .048/0.2 Scott: .100/1.0
(b) Rank order in a particular group isn't that meaningful to assessing goodness/utility especially generally but even within their particular context. Assuming Bosh is worse than Wade and Worthy is better than Scott (or whichever Laker is best in aggregate over that spell) in some particular windows ... does that make Wade > Bosh > Worthy > Scott(/other Laker) logically impossible ... no. If it is thought likely Wade is better than that Laker then it is probable that the rank tells us very little.
It's a fair point, but all throughout this project primacy, particularly in high levels of team success, has mattered. Being #1 on a title team carries more weight than being #2, #2 carries more weight than #3, and so on.
(c) The "window" framing focuses on Worthy's top 3 playoff PERs, his top 3 playoff BPMs and 3 of his top 4 playoff WS/48s. I don't know why the focus wouldn't be on all that they did.
I'm really only comparing Worthy's 1986-87->1990-90(and 91 if you want to include it) to Bosh's 2010-11->2013-14, i.e. Worthy's years of greatest primacy winning championships to Bosh's most successful years. It's not that I'm not considering everything they did, I'm just saying I'm more impressed by Worthy's contributions to those championships than Bosh's to his.
Now, if you want to argue that Bosh's time as #1 in Toronto eclipses Worthy's time as a #3 from 1982-1986(though Worthy's statistical output in those earlier years is not much different than his later years, and to the extent it is, it could be chalked up to lower minutes), and/or that Worthy's post-1990 dropoff hurts him to a prohibitive point, you can, but I'd disagree.
Highly consistent two-way impact even as a young player which is rare. Obviously not much longevity, but the profile he's am asked in a short time is impressive.
Alt Vote: Luka Doncic
Again, needs longevity, but his playoffs rising and ability to create offense even with defenses geared to stop him has been incredibly impressive,
Nomination: Marc Gasol
Alt Nomination: Gus Williams
As someone who has literally your same votes and noms with the reverse order (funny coincidence) i wanna inquire a bit on tatum vs luka, as well to other tatum voters in general
How big do you actually think the longevity gap needs to be for the quality edge to be overcame?
Cause the way i see it the gap is not even particularly big and it actually feels bigger than it is
Tatum was a really good player for the 2017 and 2018 celtics but more in the category of above average wing/borderline all star
by 2019 rookie luka may have not made the playoffs coming into a lottery team but he already is a comparable at worst player to tatum
By 2020 he already outperformed tatum as he honestly may have dome every other season since
Even tatum crwoning achievement of beating the (injured) bucks in 2022 is matched by luka performance to take down to the 60+ wins suns the same season
How high do you guys actually value a couple years at 2017/2018 tatum level when compared with a half decade of both players at their primes where one has performed clearly better, specially post season?
If you had to choosw between 5 years of both in their primes but tatum got his 3 first seasons (16-18) too would it really be a deal maker to pick tatum instead?
So I’ll chime in to say:
Keep in mind that Tatum has ranked higher by POY in the last couple years and has more POY shares total.
This then to say, for those who agreed with those assessments, why would Luka have a quality edge at all? Tatum’s literally just been expanding his lead in Luka through the time that this project covers.
Of course for those who disagree with those earlier votes that’s different, and I think that’s the place for discussion in that particular debate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As someone who doesn't really want to see either of them in this Top 100, I would ask how much Tatum's team success played into those POY assessments. I only ask because Tatum has been in a better situation than Luka from day one. Tatum joined a team that had been in the ECF the year before, whereas Luka joined a lotto team. Tatum has had a clear and dependable #2 from day one, Luka is still looking for his. Tatum has had, on the whole, better management, better coaching, and better rosters for his whole career. He's never needed to carry his team the way Luka has from day one.
Luka's box composites clear Tatum's pretty heavily(though those are offense-slanted stats and Tatum's defense certainly closes the gap if not more), and he has a higher PO on/off.
Not necessarily saying I take Luka over Tatum, but these are reasons why someone might.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I agree, they do matter, but - and maybe I'm wrong here - it feels like you want to ding Worthy for playing with Magic and Kareem while giving Bosh credit for playing with LeBron and Wade.
I can see where you may have got that impression, but no, that wasn't my intent or method. I guess the statement came from feeling as though that is what you were doing in the other direction (credit Worthy, ding Bosh).
I have a number of gauging methods to help get an idea where players "belong" [according to the values of my criteria], so that I don't feel as though I'm tossing darts in the dark. Some of them factor in a number of things, including: *Various measures of box production and efficiency (both rs and playoffs [though I don't weight playoffs as heavily as some]), with peak and longevity both as considerations, too **WOWY ***Strength of era ****Team success (both rs and playoffs, and including Finals appearances and Titles [as well as Finals MVP honours]) *****Even a slight amount of consideration of media-awarded accolades and MVP shares
^^^NOTE wrt the bolded one that I'm not disregarding the benefits of landing on a great team, and that that factor should significantly favour Worthy.
I have another method that utilizes only minutes played [rs and playoff] and PER & WS/48 (because they're the only box-based aggragates we have that go back as far as '52)--->and weighting playoff minutes more heavily than rs by 3.25x........and it calculates cumulative production [based on that] above/below replacement level, AND figures that in SCALED terms (using year-by-year standard deviation within those two metrics).
In all of these, Bosh comes out ahead of Worthy (usually by 10-15 places, though by >20 in a couple).
I've then looked at some impact indicators we have for the modern era, to see if Bosh appears "overrated" by this largely box-based stuff. Here, for example is his league rank [often in big minutes] in RAPM [PI unless otherwise indicated] once he entered his prime:
'06: tied for 45th '07: tied for 19th '08 [arguable peak for him]: 9th '09: tied for 12th '10 [another arguable peak year]: 9th '11: tied for 14th '12: tied for 21st '13: tied for 56th
^^^Not greatly different from the impression one would get from the box-aggragates.
In cumulative Points Above Average inclusive of all player-seasons from '97-'14, he's ranked 19th. And in the career RAPM (all player-seasons from '97 to '24 [and includes playoffs]==>which is slightly more than half of all player-seasons in NBA/BAA history, btw), he's tied for 51st (with bigger minutes than a number of players ahead of him).
So these also more or less suggesting he's a decent candidate.
We don't have the same for Worthy, though I note Bosh looks slightly better via WOWYR. I also note their respective PIPM wins added [which admittedly is mostly box-informed]: Bosh at 111.58, Worthy at 79.23.
So no, I'm not disregarding anything. I simply think Bosh was better, even if he didn't always play on a great team that near-guaranteed a chance to contend every year of his prime. This is not trying to take away from Worthy, who is a great player, who I DO have in my top 100. But I have Bosh higher.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: These are more or less criticisms of the ABA that could apply to any of those ABA big men you're referencing, except I would note that Issel's production in the NBA held up better than almost any of them(I think probably only Gilmore looks better in the NBA).
Right, I said that Toronto's poor performance was not all Bosh's fault.
It's not just about optimization of production. As I said before, Bosh was a distant #3 for his title/finals runs. Worthy was legitimately #2 in 87-89. There is an issue of primacy during team success.
1) Except this isn't just a restatement of prior criticisms of a productivity gulf between early ABA bigs and NBA bigs ... it regards ABA in terms of conference ... and that Issel has a nice productivity run that year but if positive SRS is a bar that you value ... those Colonels (narrowly) failed to hit it despite (narrowly) hitting it the year before without him. And it's highlighting that the fact that he played in the lesser conference at that time (as well as a smaller league and a weaker league) which made a finals run substantially more likely.
The Colonels had a .67 SRS and 0.9 Net drop when Issel arrived. So a very marginal drop in the same year they went through three coaches and had some other lesser roster changes too(Goose Ligon and Darel Carrier's minutes were cut some to make room for the newly added Cincy Powell). I don't know that one can draw any big conclusions about Issel from that, especially when there was a much bigger signal when Issel left Kentucky.
But anyway, the weaker conference thing is fair, but they didn't just make the Finals and get trounced. They took three games off a much stronger(by SRS and Net) Utah Stars team, losing in 7.
2) Okay ... but is it his "fault" at all? Because your framing allows for anywhere between 0 and 99.999999% his fault ... if that framing works for you (it's not my favorite). What is it that we're supposed to take from this?
That's a fair question. The Raptors were awful for most of Bosh's time there. It's just that a significant part of Bosh's case seems to rest on how impressive you think his time as Toronto's #1 was. I am not overly impressed by it, but by all means, if you disagree, make the case.
Not quite sure where you're going re "primacy" that, to my general reading would tend towards "option" and that is to do with an aspect of production. But if I take it that you're talking in terms of goodness/driver of team success ...
(a) Worthy isn't exactly clear cut number 2 throughout all that spell. In the 1988 regular season Byron Scott outperforms Worthy across all three Reference box composites.
If you look at RS and PO for 1987-1991, that's ten samples. You found one of the two where Scott is ahead of Worthy(the other being the 1991 playoffs when they were both hurt). Worthy tops Scott in eight out of ten samples, usually by significant margins int the playoffs.
1987 RS Worthy: .158/2.6 Scott: .136/1.1
1987 PO Worthy: .190/5.0 Scott: .119/-0.7
1988 RS Worthy: .143/2.3 Scott: .168/3.4
1988 PO Worthy: .148/4.3 Scott: .125/1.7
1989 RS Worthy: .158/3.0 Scott: .125/1.0
1989 PO Worthy: .175/5.1 Scott: .139/2.2
1990 RS Worthy: .172/3.8 Scott: .111/0.6
1990 PO Worthy: .106/2.2 Scott: .093/1.6
1991 RS Worthy: .143/2.5 Scott: .120/0.9
1991 PO Worthy: .048/0.2 Scott: .100/1.0
(b) Rank order in a particular group isn't that meaningful to assessing goodness/utility especially generally but even within their particular context. Assuming Bosh is worse than Wade and Worthy is better than Scott (or whichever Laker is best in aggregate over that spell) in some particular windows ... does that make Wade > Bosh > Worthy > Scott(/other Laker) logically impossible ... no. If it is thought likely Wade is better than that Laker then it is probable that the rank tells us very little.
It's a fair point, but all throughout this project primacy, particularly in high levels of team success, has mattered. Being #1 on a title team carries more weight than being #2, #2 carries more weight than #3, and so on.
(c) The "window" framing focuses on Worthy's top 3 playoff PERs, his top 3 playoff BPMs and 3 of his top 4 playoff WS/48s. I don't know why the focus wouldn't be on all that they did.
I'm really only comparing Worthy's 1986-87->1990-90(and 91 if you want to include it) to Bosh's 2010-11->2013-14, i.e. Worthy's years of greatest primacy winning championships to Bosh's most successful years. It's not that I'm not considering everything they did, I'm just saying I'm more impressed by Worthy's contributions to those championships than Bosh's to his.
Now, if you want to argue that Bosh's time as #1 in Toronto eclipses Worthy's time as a #3 from 1982-1986(though Worthy's statistical output in those earlier years is not much different than his later years, and to the extent it is, it could be chalked up to lower minutes), and/or that Worthy's post-1990 dropoff hurts him to a prohibitive point, you can, but I'd disagree.
The marginality of Kentucky's drop was I think, repeatedly acknowledged. It's as much that 0 SRS was your own threshold and you highlight finals but don't note something held against Bosh, despite arriving in a better position to do it than Bosh. So I'm not saying I draw strong conclusions off though if there aren't other big causes it may provide some support to the idea he can post box (mainly offensive) numbers without generating what might be considered commensurate impact.
Fwiw, on how good Bosh was I've outlined the case fwiw (box numbers and solid impact indicators at first glance). As I said it just felt like you're throwing out their not being good and retreating behind "not all his fault" and ... he seems productive and impactful and we're in the 90s.
(fwiw, just throwing thoughts out there - not to this debate but otoh, I didn't think him dissimilar to P Gasol in his playing days - Bosh started younger, both productive on weak teams from 21. Neither quite top-tier superstar where you're likely to build a strong contender with them as (clear?) best player but top 10 ish? Goes to maybe mid 20s usage but not a huge volume scorer. Could fit around superstars whilst ceding primacy. Bosh's production takes more of hit (I think partially situational). Gasol starts his career before Bosh and has long, productive (but maybe not impactful), post-prime tail whilst Bosh's career is cut short in the back end of his prime. In short Gasol obviously gets an advantage on years - I haven't looked closely, instinctively I'd say the gap is mainly in the extra years and we're getting due on Bosh - but this is more vibes-y, extemporaneous thought vomit than a case)
Regarding Scott, Worthy ... it's wasn't a big point but fwiw. You were talking 87-89. Assuming you mean (per conventions here) 86-87 to 88-89 that's 3 seasons. In the bulk part of one of those ... as I say Scott looks better across all Reference composite box aggregates. It depends what you meant by "Worthy was legitimately #2 in 87-89" and on average that's true but there are readings that could be taken from that phrasing that aren't supported.
For me rank shouldn't matter. I've explained why. If it's a useful shorthand for a specific level of usage ... "I can expect him to take on 2nd option usage at a helpful efficiency" and people all understand it okay. But I care about how important you are not the rank. if a team fields a baby and you're only the 4th most important player winning going 4-on-5 I suspect you're still doing pretty well. An absurd example but yeah I don't think rank is helpful. If others do that's up to them.
I don't know, contributions to what happened to be championships (or more, championship adjacent years I think?)... granting that you say you're not ignoring the rest ... I'm still just not that enamored with that framework. John Salley contributed more to his title teams than Bob Lanier or Karl Malone did to theirs but ... I'm not sure it helps evaluate them (and yes you're saying similar role but ... like I say I don't see the virtue of the framework). And as I said before looking at full career playoffs it didn't look like there was some great separation between the two (see earlier post). But if we are separating it out, If the question is .. do I take ... Bosh's 18815 minutes, 21.3 PER, .158 WS/48 (61.8 WS), 2.1 BPM (19.6 VORP) +5.7 on-off, plus the partial 15 and 16 seasons over Worthy's 9535 mp, 17.8 PER, .144 (28.6), 1.9 (9.3) impact unknown plus the ... less than scintillating late career Worthy years ... then yes there's a difference in quality and quantity (with a tradeoff that I'll get into). Worthy is also playoff unavailable in an otherwise quality year. Bosh's minutes are up and averages down off the first year or two which are more marginal (especially y1), so one could get a larger rate production gap trading down the minutes and cumulative advantages ... either framework seems to me to suggest a Bosh advantage.
Owly wrote:1) Except this isn't just a restatement of prior criticisms of a productivity gulf between early ABA bigs and NBA bigs ... it regards ABA in terms of conference ... and that Issel has a nice productivity run that year but if positive SRS is a bar that you value ... those Colonels (narrowly) failed to hit it despite (narrowly) hitting it the year before without him. And it's highlighting that the fact that he played in the lesser conference at that time (as well as a smaller league and a weaker league) which made a finals run substantially more likely.
The Colonels had a .67 SRS and 0.9 Net drop when Issel arrived. So a very marginal drop in the same year they went through three coaches and had some other lesser roster changes too(Goose Ligon and Darel Carrier's minutes were cut some to make room for the newly added Cincy Powell). I don't know that one can draw any big conclusions about Issel from that, especially when there was a much bigger signal when Issel left Kentucky.
But anyway, the weaker conference thing is fair, but they didn't just make the Finals and get trounced. They took three games off a much stronger(by SRS and Net) Utah Stars team, losing in 7.
2) Okay ... but is it his "fault" at all? Because your framing allows for anywhere between 0 and 99.999999% his fault ... if that framing works for you (it's not my favorite). What is it that we're supposed to take from this?
That's a fair question. The Raptors were awful for most of Bosh's time there. It's just that a significant part of Bosh's case seems to rest on how impressive you think his time as Toronto's #1 was. I am not overly impressed by it, but by all means, if you disagree, make the case.
Not quite sure where you're going re "primacy" that, to my general reading would tend towards "option" and that is to do with an aspect of production. But if I take it that you're talking in terms of goodness/driver of team success ...
(a) Worthy isn't exactly clear cut number 2 throughout all that spell. In the 1988 regular season Byron Scott outperforms Worthy across all three Reference box composites.
If you look at RS and PO for 1987-1991, that's ten samples. You found one of the two where Scott is ahead of Worthy(the other being the 1991 playoffs when they were both hurt). Worthy tops Scott in eight out of ten samples, usually by significant margins int the playoffs.
1987 RS Worthy: .158/2.6 Scott: .136/1.1
1987 PO Worthy: .190/5.0 Scott: .119/-0.7
1988 RS Worthy: .143/2.3 Scott: .168/3.4
1988 PO Worthy: .148/4.3 Scott: .125/1.7
1989 RS Worthy: .158/3.0 Scott: .125/1.0
1989 PO Worthy: .175/5.1 Scott: .139/2.2
1990 RS Worthy: .172/3.8 Scott: .111/0.6
1990 PO Worthy: .106/2.2 Scott: .093/1.6
1991 RS Worthy: .143/2.5 Scott: .120/0.9
1991 PO Worthy: .048/0.2 Scott: .100/1.0
(b) Rank order in a particular group isn't that meaningful to assessing goodness/utility especially generally but even within their particular context. Assuming Bosh is worse than Wade and Worthy is better than Scott (or whichever Laker is best in aggregate over that spell) in some particular windows ... does that make Wade > Bosh > Worthy > Scott(/other Laker) logically impossible ... no. If it is thought likely Wade is better than that Laker then it is probable that the rank tells us very little.
It's a fair point, but all throughout this project primacy, particularly in high levels of team success, has mattered. Being #1 on a title team carries more weight than being #2, #2 carries more weight than #3, and so on.
(c) The "window" framing focuses on Worthy's top 3 playoff PERs, his top 3 playoff BPMs and 3 of his top 4 playoff WS/48s. I don't know why the focus wouldn't be on all that they did.
I'm really only comparing Worthy's 1986-87->1990-90(and 91 if you want to include it) to Bosh's 2010-11->2013-14, i.e. Worthy's years of greatest primacy winning championships to Bosh's most successful years. It's not that I'm not considering everything they did, I'm just saying I'm more impressed by Worthy's contributions to those championships than Bosh's to his.
Now, if you want to argue that Bosh's time as #1 in Toronto eclipses Worthy's time as a #3 from 1982-1986(though Worthy's statistical output in those earlier years is not much different than his later years, and to the extent it is, it could be chalked up to lower minutes), and/or that Worthy's post-1990 dropoff hurts him to a prohibitive point, you can, but I'd disagree.
The marginality of Kentucky's drop was I think, repeatedly acknowledged. It's as much that 0 SRS was your own threshold and you highlight finals but don't note something held against Bosh, despite arriving in a better position to do it than Bosh. So I'm not saying I draw strong conclusions off though if there aren't other big causes it may provide some support to the idea he can post box (mainly offensive) numbers without generating what might be considered commensurate impact.
I realize I said that about Bosh's time in Toronto, but many of the SRSs his Toronto teams posted were much further into the negative than that Kentucky team. And as for Issel's impact, the SRS dropoff when he left Kentucky(with all the other major players still there) still stands.
Regarding Scott, Worthy ... it's wasn't a big point but fwiw. You were talking 87-89. Assuming you mean (per conventions here) 86-87 to 88-89 that's 3 seasons. In the bulk part of one of those ... as I say Scott looks better across all Reference composite box aggregates. It depends what you meant by "Worthy was legitimately #2 in 87-89" and on average that's true but there are readings that could be taken from that phrasing that aren't supported.
I mean, he had better numbers for 2/3 regular seasons and more importantly all three postseasons, right? He was, effectively, the #2 option from 86 or so until Magic retired.
I don't know, contributions to what happened to be championships (or more, championship adjacent years I think?)... granting that you say you're not ignoring the rest ... I'm still just not that enamored with that framework. John Salley contributed more to his title teams than Bob Lanier or Karl Malone did to theirs but ... I'm not sure it helps evaluate them (and yes you're saying similar role but ... like I say I don't see the virtue of the framework). And as I said before looking at full career playoffs it didn't look like there was some great separation between the two (see earlier post). But if we are separating it out, If the question is .. do I take ... Bosh's 18815 minutes, 21.3 PER, .158 WS/48 (61.8 WS), 2.1 BPM (19.6 VORP) +5.7 on-off, plus the partial 15 and 16 seasons over Worthy's 9535 mp, 17.8 PER, .144 (28.6), 1.9 (9.3) impact unknown plus the ... less than scintillating late career Worthy years ... then yes there's a difference in quality and quantity (with a tradeoff that I'll get into). Worthy is also playoff unavailable in an otherwise quality year. Bosh's minutes are up and averages down off the first year or two which are more marginal (especially y1), so one could get a larger rate production gap trading down the minutes and cumulative advantages ... either framework seems to me to suggest a Bosh advantage.
I don't really know what you're basing the notion that Sally was more important than either of those guys on.
But after looking at the numbers, I can agree that Bosh's Toronto tenure appears to hold marginally more value than Worthy's earlier years based on the rate metrics(and more than that if you weight longevity heavily). But I still think 87-89 Worthy's playoff production is more consequential than Bosh's 11-14.
Induction Vote #1: Billy Cunningham Induction Vote #2: Cliff Hagan
It looks like this round is down to Doncic and Cunningham. Cunningham was effective in two leagues and has hardware - a ring and an MVP - and longevity on his side, so I'll give him my vote.
Second vote was between Hagan and Davies and, while they were both arguably championship alphas, I am just more impressed with Hagan's individual statistical output.
Nomination Vote #1: Gus Williams Nomination Vote #2: James Worthy
Williams looks like he has it, and I will solidify that with another vote for him. He had consistent impact throughout his career as a two-way player and looks quite possibly like the most important player on a team that won a title, went to two Finals, and an additional WCF.
Worthy was one of the better playoff performers of his generation and was arguably the second most important player during the latter part of the Showtime dynasty.
Vote #1: Bob Davies -1st great guard -Could make plays or score at a high level -Longevity surprisingly good for starting in his mid 20s -The Royals he led were likely the #2 team of the era
Vote #2: Billy Cunningham -Showed success in multiple roles -Despite the injury issues has relatively good longevity on this particular ballot -Just a good all-around forward in my estimation
Tatum>Hagan>Luka
Nomination #1: Chris Bosh -Similar to the just inducted Horace Grant, bit worse longevity, bit more offensive punch
Nomination #2: Gus Williams -Other folks have spoke on it at length, but the impact signals are there and he found team success
