RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #6 (Hakeem Olajuwon)

[70sFan]

Seems topical.

Watch on YouTube

It's an excellent video from Ben and I am glad he got the chance to analyze more full games footage from that era (we can see 3-4 different games from 1960s against the Knicks that are not available anywhere).

I think that the more footage we get, the clearer picture we get about Wilt and Ben did an excellent job descibing Wilt's strengths and limitations on offensive end. Also, the more footage we get, the clearer it is that a lot of narratives surrounding Wilt's game are largely myths or assumptions (both from his fans and critics).

I think this video is a huge step up from Ben's top 40 profile and that's why I keep repeating that we need more footage from that era.

[ZeppelinPage]

Highly recommend this new video from Ben Taylor on Wilt Chamberlain, with new footage:

Watch on YouTube

I really enjoyed the analysis and overall tone Taylor had, really fantastic stuff here.

I found the portrayal of Wilt's offensive abilities to be accurate, and overall, it was a fair and positive assessment of his game. In the video, Taylor delves into aspects such as:

1. Offensive Fouls: He discusses the challenges Wilt faced in getting a position in the paint and how this impacted his game compared to players like Shaq.

2. Spacing: The era's spacing made it difficult to find passes and create opportunities for teammates, a problem evident in the 1964 footage that explains the teams offensive issues. His team was notably poor offensively, with the footage showcasing Hightower, Thurmond, and Guy Rodgers all on the court simultaneously, leading to some terrible spacing:

Spoiler:

3. Celtics' Defensive Strategy: Newspapers often mention teams doubling or tripling Wilt, especially in the playoffs. Although zone defense was theoretically illegal, the referees didn't enforce it. The Celtics would typically have a guard, usually K.C. Jones, fronting Wilt, while Russell covered him from behind. This ball denial strategy complicated the task of getting the ball to Wilt and reduced his shot attempts. Heinsohn or Jones would also sometimes drift from their man and disturb Wilt as he set-up in the post.

4. Monstrous Off-Ball Game: Wilt's status as one of the greatest offensive rebounders ever, combined with his ability to guide shots in for his team, made him virtually unstoppable around the paint.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do believe that the limitations in Wilt's dribbling that Taylor mentions, as well as the lack of scoring moves that create opportunities for teammates, are heavily influenced by the rules of the era in which he played. Such as harsher three-second calls, traveling violations, and dribble rules--this made offense significantly more challenging.

I agree with Taylor's analysis of Hannum's system in '67 taking better advantage of their talent. Players like Chet Walker and Hal Greer could also create their offense to take pressure off Wilt. Taylor is right to infer that Hannum's system didn't so much correct Wilt's approach but rather assembled the right players and structure to support him.

Taylor concludes by expressing a preference for the '64 version of Wilt. Wilt had the scoring and passing that season to anchor a team like the '67 76ers, but unfortunately, he lacked the offensive talent to achieve this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's noteworthy to add that the '64 Warriors actually declined in relative Offensive Rating compared to the '62 (Wilt's 50 PPG) and '63 (missed playoffs) Warriors. The same offense that Hannum implemented, although perfect for the 76ers, didn't work as well on a team with poor shooters and limited offensive talent.

This is something I've mentioned before, but those early Warriors teams were solid defensively but lacking in offense. After all, they were the worst offense in the league in '59 before Wilt joined—and that was with Arizin and Gola both playing.

This aligns with Taylor's final (and correct) conclusion in the video: That the 1964 version of Wilt offers the best blend of his offensive strengths.

Yet, the '64 team was actually the worst offense that prime Wilt played on.

This leads me to conclude that Wilt's peak offensive performance in '64 was hampered by some truly dismal offensive talent—a recurring theme throughout his early career.

This is why I believe that, although it may seem sub-optimal, the '62 offense was more efficient for that team. Because Wilt was on a more defensively oriented team, him taking a large portion of his team's shots made the offense better because he was far and away the most efficient scorer on the Warriors. As Pat Riley states in the documentary Goliath:

"Was he selfish? I don't think he was selfish. I think he had to shoot as much as he could for his team to win."

During the '62 season the Warriors were:

32-13 (71%) when Wilt scored 50+ points.
28-14 (67%) when Wilt attempted 40+ shots.

Hannum's shift towards a more pass-oriented style with his 'wheel' offense ended up enabling less efficient scorers to shoot more frequently. This allowed Wilt to conserve energy for defense and was worth the risk that teammates might improve with more open looks.

When Hannum joined the 76ers in '67 and implemented the same wheel system, the team had the necessary skill set to thrive under this offense with Wilt.

Let me clarify that I completely agree with Ben Taylor that Wilt and his teams were better when he passed more. Hannum's wheel offense was more reliable and consistent under the right conditions than Wilt shooting 30-40 times. It was also advantageous that, now that he was taking fewer shots, Wilt had more energy for defense. Sharing the ball and keeping it moving is the optimal way to play basketball when you have the right offensive talent—but the Warriors lacked that during Wilt's time there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, this was an impressive and well-researched video that I have few gripes about. Good work, Ben Taylor.

[70sFan]

It's noteworthy to add that the '64 Warriors actually declined in relative Offensive Rating compared to the '62 (Wilt's 50 PPG) and '63 (missed playoffs) Warriors. The same offense that Hannum implemented, although perfect for the 76ers, didn't work as well on a team with poor shooters and limited offensive talent.

This is something I've mentioned before, but those early Warriors teams were solid defensively but lacking in offense. After all, they were the worst offense in the league in '59 before Wilt joined—and that was with Arizin and Gola both playing.

This aligns with Taylor's final (and correct) conclusion in the video: That the 1964 version of Wilt offers the best blend of his offensive strengths.

Yet, the '64 team was actually the worst offense that prime Wilt played on.

This leads me to conclude that Wilt's peak offensive performance in '64 was hampered by some truly dismal offensive talent—a recurring theme throughout his early career.

This is why I believe that, although it may seem sub-optimal, the '62 offense was more efficient for that team. Because Wilt was on a more defensively oriented team, him taking a large portion of his team's shots made the offense better because he was far and away the most efficient scorer on the Warriors.

Yeah, Ben's analysis only confirmed my stance that these early 1960s Philly teams wouldn't be better with Wilt playing his post-1966 role. Wilt improved his passing game in 1964 due to the implementation of Hannum's system, players around him were more involved and the offense looked more fluild...

yet they finished with significantly worse offense than in 1963 (let alone 1962). I think people underestimate how mediocre Warriors team was offensively, especially after Arizin retirement.

[eminence]

It's noteworthy to add that the '64 Warriors actually declined in relative Offensive Rating compared to the '62 (Wilt's 50 PPG) and '63 (missed playoffs) Warriors. The same offense that Hannum implemented, although perfect for the 76ers, didn't work as well on a team with poor shooters and limited offensive talent.

This is something I've mentioned before, but those early Warriors teams were solid defensively but lacking in offense. After all, they were the worst offense in the league in '59 before Wilt joined—and that was with Arizin and Gola both playing.

This aligns with Taylor's final (and correct) conclusion in the video: That the 1964 version of Wilt offers the best blend of his offensive strengths.

Yet, the '64 team was actually the worst offense that prime Wilt played on.

This leads me to conclude that Wilt's peak offensive performance in '64 was hampered by some truly dismal offensive talent—a recurring theme throughout his early career.

This is why I believe that, although it may seem sub-optimal, the '62 offense was more efficient for that team. Because Wilt was on a more defensively oriented team, him taking a large portion of his team's shots made the offense better because he was far and away the most efficient scorer on the Warriors.

Yeah, Ben's analysis only confirmed my stance that these early 1960s Philly teams wouldn't be better with Wilt playing his post-1966 role. Wilt improved his passing game in 1964 due to the implementation of Hannum's system, players around him were more involved and the offense looked more fluild...

yet they finished with significantly worse offense than in 1963 (let alone 1962). I think people underestimate how mediocre Warriors team was offensively, especially after Arizin retirement.

I think those team results would indicate a similar level of personal effectiveness to the two approaches. '62 with Arizin/Gola is pretty clearly a more talented offensive cast than '64 with Hightower/Phillips/Thurmond. One would usually expect the higher passing volume approach to scale better to a more talented offensive cast, so I'm not sold on your conclusion and would lean the other way, though acknowledging that the evidence is not overwhelming or even particularly strong.

[70sFan]

It's noteworthy to add that the '64 Warriors actually declined in relative Offensive Rating compared to the '62 (Wilt's 50 PPG) and '63 (missed playoffs) Warriors. The same offense that Hannum implemented, although perfect for the 76ers, didn't work as well on a team with poor shooters and limited offensive talent.

This is something I've mentioned before, but those early Warriors teams were solid defensively but lacking in offense. After all, they were the worst offense in the league in '59 before Wilt joined—and that was with Arizin and Gola both playing.

This aligns with Taylor's final (and correct) conclusion in the video: That the 1964 version of Wilt offers the best blend of his offensive strengths.

Yet, the '64 team was actually the worst offense that prime Wilt played on.

This leads me to conclude that Wilt's peak offensive performance in '64 was hampered by some truly dismal offensive talent—a recurring theme throughout his early career.

This is why I believe that, although it may seem sub-optimal, the '62 offense was more efficient for that team. Because Wilt was on a more defensively oriented team, him taking a large portion of his team's shots made the offense better because he was far and away the most efficient scorer on the Warriors.

Yeah, Ben's analysis only confirmed my stance that these early 1960s Philly teams wouldn't be better with Wilt playing his post-1966 role. Wilt improved his passing game in 1964 due to the implementation of Hannum's system, players around him were more involved and the offense looked more fluild...

yet they finished with significantly worse offense than in 1963 (let alone 1962). I think people underestimate how mediocre Warriors team was offensively, especially after Arizin retirement.

I think those team results would indicate a similar level of personal effectiveness to the two approaches. '62 with Arizin/Gola is pretty clearly a more talented offensive cast than '64 with Hightower/Phillips/Thurmond. One would usually expect the higher passing volume approach to scale better to a more talented offensive cast, so I'm not sold on your conclusion and would lean the other way, though acknowledging that the evidence is not overwhelming or even particularly strong.

If you think that the Warriors should have used more motion around Wilt and Wilt should have used his passing game more in 1962 to set up his teammates, then I agree.

If you think that Wilt should have played in 1962 the way he did in 1967, then I disagree

[eminence]

Yeah, Ben's analysis only confirmed my stance that these early 1960s Philly teams wouldn't be better with Wilt playing his post-1966 role. Wilt improved his passing game in 1964 due to the implementation of Hannum's system, players around him were more involved and the offense looked more fluild...

yet they finished with significantly worse offense than in 1963 (let alone 1962). I think people underestimate how mediocre Warriors team was offensively, especially after Arizin retirement.

I think those team results would indicate a similar level of personal effectiveness to the two approaches. '62 with Arizin/Gola is pretty clearly a more talented offensive cast than '64 with Hightower/Phillips/Thurmond. One would usually expect the higher passing volume approach to scale better to a more talented offensive cast, so I'm not sold on your conclusion and would lean the other way, though acknowledging that the evidence is not overwhelming or even particularly strong.

If you think that the Warriors should have used more motion around Wilt and Wilt should have used his passing game more in 1962 to set up his teammates, then I agree.

If you think that Wilt should have played in 1962 the way he did in 1967, then I disagree

I can get with that, though I'm not sure Wilt was capable of the transition at that time.

[OhayoKD]

Yeah, so I think you're interpreting some of this data very weirdly. Let's start with RAPTOR. A statistic that is less predictive than LEBRON or RPM because it does not input RAPM directly and it's creator was working on the assumption that perimeter players were overrated and two-way bigs were underrated.

To begin with, we do actually have metrics from Steph’s prime that are not rate stats and do still have Steph easily ahead. For instance, RAPTOR is a rate stat, but they also convert that into a non-rate stat with their WAR measure. And by that measure, Steph is ahead of LeBron every year in the last decade except 2017-2018 and of course 2019-2020.

Very cool. Here's the thing. Steph does not do the best in RAPTOR WAR. Credit for beating Lebron in a set of data that excludes all his MVP years(we've went from "half" a prime to "barely any of it"), but both James Harden and Nikola Jokic come out at 1st just as many times(3), and Jokic sees a bigger gap than any of Steph's twice. Steph only gains significant seperation in 2016 with Draymond finishing second.

Things go from bad to worse if we switch to the RAPTOR on/off, because now, somehow, "prime" Lebron looks better, coming ahead several times including 2016 and 2017 and finishing first just as often(2). Steph is only spared the embarrassment of Lebron coming out at first a 3rd-time thanks to 2016-leader Draymond Green. He could not carry Steph past Lebron in the finals, but he got it done on the illustrious stage of 538:



Note that this is per-possession. With an accumulative measure we can be pretty sure Lebron would have come out ahead of Steph in 16, 17, and 18.

Needless to say, Jokic still clears, finishing first not once, not twice, but three-times in a row.

The most predictive/stable metrics like say LEBRON seem to hate Steph more:

There is no point doing a non-box filter here because even with box Steph does not come close to an "impact king" leading the league only twice by less than a win in 2015 and 2017. He falls behind Lebron in 16 and 18 and is just a win ahead in 2017. For the four-year stretch of 14-18(taking Lebron to the spot where most top-10 candidates are at or near retirement), Lebron generates more wins.

Finally there's RPM....

Okay, but the size of the gaps depends on the metric we’re looking at.

For instance, if we look at RPM, Steph had two out of the three largest gaps to 2nd place that Steph and LeBron have had (including having the year with the largest gap)

Yeah, I don't think that is correct:



Steph has the 2nd and 3rd biggest gap, but Lebron has the 4th, 5th, and 6th biggest gap(2013, 2009, 2007), and led the league 9-times to Steph's 4. Lebron seems rather clearly advantaged to me there and things probably get lopsided if we look at larger stretches. Not to mention the scores here being artificially suppressed...

, and Steph’s average gap to 2nd place was higher than LeBron’s (despite having led the league one extra time). NBAshotcharts one-year RAPM goes back to 2009-2010 (so, to be fair, doesn’t include the 2008-2009 season for LeBron, but does include the others in his prime), and Steph again has two of the top three biggest gaps the two have had, including having by far the biggest one. And Steph has way larger gaps in that RAPM in the longer time horizons.

Sure. Competing with 3 league-leading Lebron years, Steph wins the "average rs gap to 2nd place" competition. That excludes the postseason where things consistently swing towards Lebron, and some of that advantage probably goes away if we account for volume...but sure, by shot-charts apm steph is advantaged in the SDs. Those longer-time spans exclude everything before 2011-2012(5-year) and 2012-2013(3-year) so not really going to bother with that

Here's the thing. The higher APM scores are artificially suppressed and at a certain value treshold(like say, the biggest raw delta in with/without and before/after in nba history) a metric like RAPM tends to misallocate value to role-players(especially over 1-year increments). In 2010 Lebron scores first with the second highest score in the database(Dirk's 2011 is #1). #2 is Anderson Varejoa, a player who with 28.5 minutes per game, notches one of the highest scores in the set, to join the pantheon of one-off adjusted-plus-minus toppers alongside 2009 Lamar Odom.

We've already covered how looking at what is actually happening in lineups and games with and without lebron(and his best teammates) pours cold-water on Steph's "best regular season ever" case. But we also find with real-world analysis, that there are various other players from this time-period who potentially have their own 2016's

Spoiler:

But even if we agree to put great weight on Steph scaling the top of an artificial-scale, this is still only the regular season. With any sort of playoff-filter...
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AdaCB40YpgRzVNeTlQOXBVbG8/edit?filetype=msexcel&resourcekey=0-gWiVDJOG6Nf625WSJh9nCw
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AdaCB40YpgSDdKQU16WEVJOE0/edit?filetype=msexcel&resourcekey=0--8EhcunJTXwZy4fdkWbiDg
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OzfLtHanVmSCPy8Y3cvCj5uFG9k7cPbDO9sQq9JgbuU/edit
Steph falls behind both Lebron and Draymond. He is not even the undisputed impact king of his own team. I also do not know that a period with prime cp3(an all-time impact darling), kobe, dirk, nash(impact darling), and wade could properly be described as a lull. Depending on what you use, Lebron also takes the lead facing late-prime Duncan and Garnett.

Regardless, such concerns are not really a factor with the sort of analysis referenced above. Analysis which does not favor Steph. And even in a comparison with say, Garnett or Shaq, that not real RS advantage evaporates during the playoffs.

In any event, to be honest, I’m more concerned with how good the player is, not exactly how much they played. Missing some games in the regular season can hurt a team by potentially making it hard to make the playoffs and whatnot, but when your team wins at a 68-win pace when you play and you do actually play a good bit, your team isn’t going to have issues with that.

Fascinating. I wonder if there is a "floor-raiser" this logic applies better to. Nah, perish the thought.

[Bklynborn682]

I finally created Shaq offensive possessions video(s) vs Duncan from 2002 WCSF. I had to split it into two videos, my old laptop sucks recently:

G1:

Watch on YouTube

ISO Plays: 2/8 FGA, 2 fouls drawn
Overall: 4/13 FGA, 3 fouls drawn

G2-G5:

Watch on YouTube

G2:

ISO Plays: 2/4 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge
Overall: 2/4 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge

G3:

ISO Plays: 4/7 FGA, 1 fouls drawn
Overall: 5/9 FGA, 1 fouls drawn, 1 charge

G4:

ISO Plays: 1/1 FGA, 0 fouls drawn
Overall: 2/6 FGA, 1 fouls drawn,

G5:

ISO Plays: 2/7 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge
Overall: 3/8 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge

Total:

ISO Plays: 11/27 FGA, 9 fouls drawn, 2 charges
Overall: 16/40 FGA, 11 fouls drawn, 3 charges

Duncan defended Shaq on 43% of his total shots and 29% of his total shots came against Shaq in isolation. That's 8 shots per game (5.4 attempts from isolation).

If we exclude game 4 (the only game when Robinson played more than 30 minutes), then Shaq took 34 out of 76 shots against Duncan (45%) and converted them at 41% from the field.

All in all, I think we can conclude that Duncan indeed played significant periods on Shaq and slowed him down considerably (he shot 40% vs Duncan and 48% against the rest of the team, 41% if you want to include only isolation scoring).

Would you like me to do similar analysis for 1995 finals?

Nice job but I have to point out some slight context.
Before game 1 Shaq slices his wrist on his shooting hand that requires multiple stitches.
During game 1 Shaq slices his middle finger on his shooting hand again requiring multiple stitches
During game 3 Shaq lands on David Robinsons foot spraining his ankle with both Gary Vitti and Phil Jackson saying if this was the regular season this injury would require easily 1-2 weeks out.
And obviously Shaq had been dealing with the arthritic toe all season.
But it’s pretty clear if you watch all the laker playoff games that year. That shaq was at his worst physically during the spurs series and he didn’t truly regain his explosiveness and ability to play through and over contact until game 5 against the kings.

[lessthanjake]

Yeah, so I think you're interpreting some of this data very weirdly. Let's start with RAPTOR. A statistic that is less predictive than LEBRON or RPM because it does not input RAPM directly and it's creator was working on the assumption that perimeter players were overrated and two-way bigs were underrated.

You can come up with reasons to discount specific measures if you want. I have provided the results from an enormous amount of measures, so you can really pick and choose what you like best, to be honest, and it’ll come out in Steph’s favor. Or perhaps take an approach that one can’t really know for sure what is better and look at the overall picture instead. Either way works great for Steph.

To begin with, we do actually have metrics from Steph’s prime that are not rate stats and do still have Steph easily ahead. For instance, RAPTOR is a rate stat, but they also convert that into a non-rate stat with their WAR measure. And by that measure, Steph is ahead of LeBron every year in the last decade except 2017-2018 and of course 2019-2020.

Very cool. Here's the thing. Steph does not do the best in RAPTOR WAR. Credit for beating Lebron in a set of data that excludes all his MVP years(we've went from "half" a prime to "barely any of it"), but both James Harden and Nikola Jokic come out at 1st just as many times(3), and Jokic sees a bigger gap than any of Steph's twice. Steph only gains significant seperation in 2016 with Draymond finishing second.

LeBron was barely in his prime after 2012-2013? I’m confused. Because that’s definitely not consistent with arguments used in LeBron’s favor (and I think correctly used in his favor). It seems a bit selective to now narrow down LeBron’s prime to be only a few years, and that’s not something I think the vast majority of people would agree with.

And yeah, Steph is behind Jokic the last few years in most of these measures (as is everyone else). But Jokic is playing at an unbelievable level the last few years, and Jokic wasn’t finishing ahead of Steph earlier in the past decade. I’m not asserting that Steph has been at the top of these metrics every year for a decade. No one has.

Things go from bad to worse if we switch to the RAPTOR on/off, because now, somehow, "prime" Lebron looks better, coming ahead several times including 2016 and 2017 and finishing first just as often(2). Steph is only spared the embarrassment of Lebron coming out at first a 3rd-time thanks to 2016-leader Draymond Green. He could not carry Steph past Lebron in the finals, but he got it done on the illustrious stage of 538:

RAPTOR on/off is not an independent metric. It is an input into the overall metric. And you can see why it’s not the overall metric because it is clearly super super prone to randomness (for instance, Nic Claxton ranked #4 in the NBA this past season). But yes, if you want to say that LeBron outdid Steph in one particular component that goes into an overall metric that Steph does better in, then I guess you can do that.

The most predictive/stable metrics like say LEBRON seem to hate Steph more:

You’ve elsewhere listed EPM as one of the metrics you think is most predictive/stable. Why is that dropped here? How does Steph fare compared to LeBron in that measure? They even have a non-rate-stats version of it. Who has done better in it more often?

And even with the metric you chose here (i.e. LEBRON), which one of them has been above the other more in the 9 years of Steph’s prime? Is it not the case that Steph has been above LeBron 6 out of 9 years in the default version of the stat (i.e. the rate-stat version) and 5 out of 9 years even in the non-rate version?

There is no point doing a non-box filter here because even with box Steph does not come close to an "impact king" leading the league only twice by less than a win in 2015 and 2017. He falls behind Lebron in 16 and 18 and is just a win ahead in 2017. For the four-year stretch of 14-18(taking Lebron to the spot where most top-10 candidates are at or near retirement), Lebron generates more wins.

Again, we can’t compare year to year stats like that. Who was ahead of the other more often during Steph’s prime? It was Steph.

Finally there's RPM....

Okay, but the size of the gaps depends on the metric we’re looking at.

For instance, if we look at RPM, Steph had two out of the three largest gaps to 2nd place that Steph and LeBron have had (including having the year with the largest gap)

Yeah, I don't think that is correct:



Steph has the 2nd and 3rd biggest gap, but Lebron has the 4th, 5th, and 6th biggest gap(2013, 2009, 2007), and led the league 9-times to Steph's 4. Lebron seems rather clearly advantaged to me there and things probably get lopsided if we look at larger stretches. Not to mention the scores here being artificially suppressed...

So, when you went to get those screenshots, did you notice how when you went to the webpage for RPM, it defaulted to ranking by “RPM” rather than ranking by the “WINS” category, and that to get your screenshots you had to specifically change it? Did you check whether what I said about RPM was accurate using the actual default version of the stat that is actually called RPM? It was.

And, if you insist on using the “WINS” category instead, please tell me who finishes ahead of the other more often in the last decade.

Here's the thing. The higher APM scores are artificially suppressed and at a certain value treshold(like say, the biggest raw delta in with/without and before/after in nba history) a metric like RAPM tends to misallocate value to role-players(especially over 1-year increments). In 2010 Lebron scores first with the second highest score in the database(Dirk's 2011 is #1). #2 is Anderson Varejoa, a player who with 28.5 minutes per game, notches one of the highest scores in the set, to join the pantheon of one-off adjusted-plus-minus toppers alongside 2009 Lamar Odom.

Did you ever wonder whether maybe other players on Steph’s team have the same effect in some metrics? Draymond, perhaps? Or perhaps others? You’re not talking about a LeBron-specific phenomenon.

But even if we agree to put great weight on Steph scaling the top of an artificial-scale, this is still only the regular season. With any sort of playoff-filter...
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AdaCB40YpgRzVNeTlQOXBVbG8/edit?filetype=msexcel&resourcekey=0-gWiVDJOG6Nf625WSJh9nCw
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AdaCB40YpgSDdKQU16WEVJOE0/edit?filetype=msexcel&resourcekey=0--8EhcunJTXwZy4fdkWbiDg
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OzfLtHanVmSCPy8Y3cvCj5uFG9k7cPbDO9sQq9JgbuU/edit

I’ve provided a bunch of playoff and regular season + playoff metrics in my posts. Steph looks good throughout. Take a look at the “spoiler” section on impact metrics in my prior post, as well as that post’s listing of where Steph ranked in the league in PS AuPM/g each year. It looks very good for Steph.

Steph falls behind both Lebron and Draymond. He is not even the undisputed impact king of his own team. I also do not know that a period with prime cp3(an all-time impact darling), kobe, dirk, nash(impact darling), and wade could properly be described as a lull. Depending on what you use, Lebron also takes the lead facing late-prime Duncan and Garnett.

I’d direct you to my earlier post, which has a “spoiler” section that addresses this completely. The upshot is that to the extent Draymond has an edge in low-sample-size playoff data, it’s a result of early-round playoff series’s against weak opponents that Golden State easily beat. Once you look beyond those, the Warriors do better in the playoffs with Steph on the floor than with Draymond on the floor. I’d hardly put much credence in a fact that is based on a low sample size of data that is reversed once you eliminate the data points that are clearly the least important.

[70sFan]

Nice job but I have to point out some slight context.
Before game 1 Shaq slices his wrist on his shooting hand that requires multiple stitches.
During game 1 Shaq slices his middle finger on his shooting hand again requiring multiple stitches
During game 3 Shaq lands on David Robinsons foot spraining his ankle with both Gary Vitti and Phil Jackson saying if this was the regular season this injury would require easily 1-2 weeks out.
And obviously Shaq had been dealing with the arthritic toe all season.
But it’s pretty clear if you watch all the laker playoff games that year. That shaq was at his worst physically during the spurs series and he didn’t truly regain his explosiveness and ability to play through and over contact until game 5 against the kings.

It is probably the weakest series in Shaq's best years (1998-03), but we should point out that Shaq underperformed in almost every series against the Spurs during that period.

[eminence]

I'd probably go with Kostya's DPM as the 'best' public all-in-one in terms of predictive power/stability.

Great visualizations too, check out the 'Historical Career Trajectory' tab (which I believe starts with the '97-'98 Season).

https://apanalytics.shinyapps.io/DARKO//

[cupcakesnake]

It's pretty fun when two strong candidates emerge and we get a ton of this head-to-head debate. I had Hakeem and Wilt in a tier here so to get to read all kinds of takes specific to this ranking is one of the things that makes this project great.

Does anyone have strong feelings on how Wilt and Dream compare defensively, especially relative to era? In a vacuum, I think Hakeem is a better defensive player due to his quickness advantage (those ballerina feet help him in almost every kind of defensive situation, some of which have been well-documented in this thread). But Wilt is probably the greatest athlete ever at that size, and the sheer obstacle he was in that era of basketball is mountainous. Goaltending wasn't as strict either, which meant Wilt was allowed to occasionally snatch shots out of the sky.

I have Hakeem and Wilt categorized amongst NBA greats who were poorly utilized in their own eras due to combinations of poor coaching, roster construction, roster talent level, and era related rules. I think it's more egregious with Wilt, who was the subject of a flawed basketball experiment (let the highest FG% player take all the shots!) for most of his physical prime. Not only that, but basically anyone who wasn't on the Celtics in the 60s should be considered to have poor fortune when looking at their career success and championship equity. But Hakeem is on the short-list of stars who played with low levels of talent for most of his career.

[lessthanjake]

I'd probably go with Kostya's DPM as the 'best' public all-in-one in terms of predictive power/stability.

Great visualizations too, check out the 'Historical Career Trajectory' tab (which I believe start with the '97-'98 Season).

https://apanalytics.shinyapps.io/DARKO//

My understanding is that that metric is meant to be predictive rather than evaluative. Which would mean it’s super useful in certain situations, but that it’s not really meant for something like this.

[trex_8063]

Perhaps rag doll is overstating it, but Shaq played with a combination of force and dexterity that would have been far too much for Wilt to handle. Wilt didn't play with anything like the power Shaq did.

Might have something to do with not wanting to rack up 5-6 offensive fouls before even reaching the 4th quarter. The game was officiated very differently then.
To put it plainly: Shaq wouldn’t have played with that bullish force/power in Wilt’s era either; because the officiating of the time simply didn’t permit it.

[Bklynborn682]

Nice job but I have to point out some slight context.
Before game 1 Shaq slices his wrist on his shooting hand that requires multiple stitches.
During game 1 Shaq slices his middle finger on his shooting hand again requiring multiple stitches
During game 3 Shaq lands on David Robinsons foot spraining his ankle with both Gary Vitti and Phil Jackson saying if this was the regular season this injury would require easily 1-2 weeks out.
And obviously Shaq had been dealing with the arthritic toe all season.
But it’s pretty clear if you watch all the laker playoff games that year. That shaq was at his worst physically during the spurs series and he didn’t truly regain his explosiveness and ability to play through and over contact until game 5 against the kings.

It is probably the weakest series in Shaq's best years (1998-03), but we should point out that Shaq underperformed in almost every series against the Spurs during that period.

Not really just this series and 99 when again he was dealing with an injury (knee tendinitis) but that’s more of an excuse. that 99 spurs team may be the goat defensive team in terms of defending any all time post player.

[One_and_Done]

Nice job but I have to point out some slight context.
Before game 1 Shaq slices his wrist on his shooting hand that requires multiple stitches.
During game 1 Shaq slices his middle finger on his shooting hand again requiring multiple stitches
During game 3 Shaq lands on David Robinsons foot spraining his ankle with both Gary Vitti and Phil Jackson saying if this was the regular season this injury would require easily 1-2 weeks out.
And obviously Shaq had been dealing with the arthritic toe all season.
But it’s pretty clear if you watch all the laker playoff games that year. That shaq was at his worst physically during the spurs series and he didn’t truly regain his explosiveness and ability to play through and over contact until game 5 against the kings.

It is probably the weakest series in Shaq's best years (1998-03), but we should point out that Shaq underperformed in almost every series against the Spurs during that period.

Shaq's injuries were there all playoffs, and he dominated every series except the Spurs one. An article someone linked in an earlier thread had Malik Rose noting 'he looked fine to me', and of course these same injury arguments were wheeled out in other series that year. Shaq was, like most guys, banged up a little in the playoffs. I see no evidence it affected him more than most guys.

[eminence]

I'd probably go with Kostya's DPM as the 'best' public all-in-one in terms of predictive power/stability.

Great visualizations too, check out the 'Historical Career Trajectory' tab (which I believe start with the '97-'98 Season).

https://apanalytics.shinyapps.io/DARKO//

My understanding is that that metric is meant to be predictive rather than evaluative. Which would mean it’s super useful in certain situations, but that it’s not really meant for something like this.

I kind of agree, but not really a DPM unique problem, any plus/minus variant past a raw APM is done to increase predictive power/reliability, not to make the metric better at evaluating what's happened.

[Bklynborn682]

Nice job but I have to point out some slight context.
Before game 1 Shaq slices his wrist on his shooting hand that requires multiple stitches.
During game 1 Shaq slices his middle finger on his shooting hand again requiring multiple stitches
During game 3 Shaq lands on David Robinsons foot spraining his ankle with both Gary Vitti and Phil Jackson saying if this was the regular season this injury would require easily 1-2 weeks out.
And obviously Shaq had been dealing with the arthritic toe all season.
But it’s pretty clear if you watch all the laker playoff games that year. That shaq was at his worst physically during the spurs series and he didn’t truly regain his explosiveness and ability to play through and over contact until game 5 against the kings.

It is probably the weakest series in Shaq's best years (1998-03), but we should point out that Shaq underperformed in almost every series against the Spurs during that period.

Shaq's injuries were there all playoffs, and he dominated every series except the Spurs one. An article someone linked in an earlier thread had Malik Rose noting 'he looked fine to me', and of course these same injury arguments were wheeled out in other series that year. Shaq was, like most guys, banged up a little in the playoffs. I see no evidence it affected him more than most guys.

I disagree against Portland that year he looked fine even considering the toe issue. But starting game 1 against San Antonio you could see Shaq missing little chip shots that are 99% of the time baskets but Shaq admitted that after the wrist and finger stitches he had trouble controlling the ball in one hand and he was uncomfortable dunking because the stitches opened up on him twice. Than after the ankle injury he was jumping like old Sabonis and truly didn’t get his lift back until game 5 of the king series.
Every one has pains and minor injuries in the playoffs the only years I’d use as a valid argument that affected shaqs level of play would be 02 & 05. With 99 being 50/50 in terms of qualifying it as a impact injury because he could only play on the left box as he had no stability nor lift using his left leg as his power leg. Or if the spurs twin towers just deserve 100% credit.
P.s. clearly the spurs deserve tremendous credit regardless.

[f4p]

I will note thar Magic and Hakeem played together during their respective primes, and I think most at the time would have been incredulous at the idea that Hakeen was better. Maybe they were all wrong, but I think an extŕaordinary level of proof is required for what would have been seen as an extraordinary claim.

well, they played a playoff series against each other in 1986 and hakeem looked like the best player in the series and also won the series against magic's more talented team. that doesn't make hakeem better than magic in the 1980's (and i'm not saying he was) but if people weren't at least wondering who was better and weren't thinking they were close, then i don't know what other proof they would want.

[Dr Positivity]

I don't think Wilt has enough of a stronger career for his time period than Shaq, to make up for 60s < 90s/00s. Wilt had moments of ultra dominance, but also had his personality issues to deal with. Shaq simplified his game compared to Wilt and it worked.

Magic has maybe best career for his era but slight longevity deficit and personally I value the gap between 80s and 90s/00s as significant, between the 3s and I think the athleticism leveled up around this time.

Hakeem I said my issues with, I think he was on track for a fringe top 20 all time career until 93, and as great as he was after that, I don't think it was quite enough in those 3 years to move him all the way up to 6. Yes everyone's seasons are worse after their 3-4 best ones too, but I think the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th is a little less of a fall off for other stars like Magic/Shaq/KG for me than for Hakeem.

That leaves Shaq and KG. KG is an interesting case because I don't value his scoring any more than like LMA's, but not sure you need it with that level of defense, spacing and passing, and he is tremendous fit with other stars. Still, I think Shaq proved the value of a guy who's just flat out dominant and affects the opposing team's whole gameplan.

Vote

1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Hakeem Olajuwon

Nominate Stephen Curry