Primedeion wrote:Am I the only one who thinks Aldridge is getting crazy underrated? Not even nominated?
No, but you might be the only person who would expect him to have been nominated (therefore being a pretty secure Top 100 figure) and is specifically shocked at his exclusion to this point.
Aldridge’s best arguments are longevity of play, play in a more developed league than predecessors, and good (regular season) impact indicators. Any argument looking at success or achievement is dead in the water: he made one conference finals run as a sidekick and was (correctly) never considered a top five player.
So easy shorthand I like for that type of measurement (longevity, impact, and modernity) is RAPM x possessions. Will use the Cheema set because it provides those easily and takes us through 2021. Looking at that, we have Baron Davis at 450K. We have Mike Conley and Jrue Holiday in the same ballpark when adding 2022 and 2023, but even without, they are at 439K and 404K respectively. We have Vlade Divac at 219K over the back ~55% of his career; seems fair to read him as over 400K too. Aldridge is at 422K, which means even by this basis, I would probably be putting him fifth in line… and as a reminder, this is using a process that gives no regard to any pre-databall players or to any traditional markers of success.
He was a fine player, and if this were solely a cold CORP value list then he probably would make it, but there is too much history to the league worth recognising to reward that type of player, and even if we were taking an approach favourable to him, other players have similar or better cases.
Not an ideal pick but the current crop of nominees is kid of underwhelming imo. After all the hubaloo about modern and recency bias over the last few threads, it's wierd to me no one takes an issue with the 80's and 90's still getting way more representation than any other decade in terms of inductees who have played and peaked and current nominees, including the 10's and 2000's which took place after foreign talent doubled within a span of 6 years and kept increasing.
Is no one going to push for a course correction here?
But I digress. LA Bird made Walton's case better than I could so...
Spoiler:
LA Bird wrote:Walton is one of the most polarizing player on all time rankings so I don't really expect this writeup to change the minds of most voters. But I did switched sides myself so maybe one or two of you might also join me in the Walton camp after reading this.
The first thing with Walton is the number of seasons. Many will immediately disqualify him from a career list because he played too little but not all seasons are equal. Like LeBron said, 2 points isn't always 2 points. Similarly, 2 seasons isn't always 2 seasons. ElGee's CORP method has become quite popular on this board but I don't think many still grasp the difference between an all time level peak like Walton's and 'regular' superstars. If we refer to the graph below, the equivalent of a +7 season is about 3 seasons in the top 10, 4.5 seasons as an All Star, or 10+ seasons as an average starter. Walton's short peak loses him the debate against any elite player with a sustained peak but those guys have all been voted in a long time ago. We have reached a point in the project where some of the candidates were rarely or even never top 10 in any season. Rodman was inducted recently - how many top 10 and All Star level seasons did he have in his career? How about Horford who is likely to be nominated soon? The number of seasons matter in a career comparison but so does the value of each season.
Estimating peak Walton as a +7 player might seem high but arguments for his impact at his peak is pretty ironclad. He was the clear leader on both offense and defense for a title team that completely fell apart without him. Walton is the WOWY GOAT in ElGee's dataset with a +10 net difference in 77/78 (raw MOV change without any teammate adjustment is even higher at +12) and he is ~100th percentile in Moonbeam's RWOWY graphs. Furthermore, the team's second best player was another big in Maurice Lucas, and they had a good backup center in Tom Owens so there is no question either if Walton's impact metrics were inflated by poor replacements. He is arguably the best passing center besides Jokic, one of the top 3 defensive rebounders ever by era-relative percentage (which synergizes perfectly with his outlet passing), and he is among the GOAT defensive players. Walton's skillset checks all the boxes you would expect from an impact monster and he has the numbers to back it up too. And since this is a career not peak list, I should also point out Walton consistently had massive impact outside of his peak years.
This is often overlooked but Walton actually played more than just 77/78/86. Obviously, him missing the 79-82 seasons is a giant red flag but unless we are penalizing players for missed potential, those years just get a zero from me. Now, from the team's point of view, was he a negative contract because he was getting paid a lot for nothing? Of course. But salaries and contracts are not a consideration in this project. The best player and the best player relative to salary (ie the most underpaid) are separate topics. Moving on to the seasons where Walton actually played over half the games, we get 76/84/85, three more years where he averaged 58 games per season. It is not a lot of games but we normally still count seasons of that length for other players. For example, 96/97/98 Shaq over three years averaged 55 games per season and I don't believe anybody is writing off those years because he didn't hit a threshold in games played. Such seasons get valued less than full 82 game seasons but they still usually get some credit.
Other than the numbers of games, the next thing with non-peak Walton is his minutes per game. He did play less but I think there is too much emphasis on the number of minutes itself rather than his impact in those minutes. Which, if we are being honest, seems a bit inconsistent for a board that already voted for a career 6th man in Ginobili at #39 because of his high impact in low minutes. Looking at samples with more than 10 games, Walton's raw WOWY scores were consistently quite strong even during his non-peak years (outside of an ugly rookie season)
By the same measure, Dantley had 3 prime seasons with a negative raw WOWY (1980: -0.1, 1983: -2.0, 1988: -2.0) and Hagan, as trex_8063 pointed out before, often saw his teams perform better without him too. In other words, if we remove any preconceptions about his health, these forgotten years of Walton still provided more lift for his team than prime Dantley and Hagan did. The box scores are not as favorable to Walton but then again, his box score stats were never that impressive even at his peak. Still, a 13/10/3 slash line is comparable to some of the prime seasons of non-scorers like Unseld and Draymond. Walton is often penalized for having a GOAT-level peak because seasons which would otherwise be viewed as prime for lesser players get written off as meaningless for him, which in turn makes his already short career look even shorter than it really is.
1986 is the only non-peak season of Walton that gets any recognition but it is still underrated in my opinion. Winning 6MOY is nice but it relegates him to a mere footnote as just a good bench player when his impact was so much more. The Celtics saw a bigger jump after adding Walton than the Sixers did with Moses or the Warriors with Durant.
The Walton team stands far above the rest despite the starters in 86 playing fewer minutes than in 85 and 87. The only other roster change in 86 was swapping Quinn Buckner for Jerry Sichting but that doesn't explain the improvement on defense or why the team fell back down to earth in 87 with Sichting still playing. Walton was the difference maker that elevated the Celtics from great to GOAT team status. I am guessing Walton's naysayers will still bring up his low minutes off the bench as rebuttal but focusing on minutes alone is pointless without evaluating his contribution in those minutes. There is no guarantee that a 40 minute starter would have more impact than a 20 minute reserve just because he played more. And once we move pass the labels, it's obvious to see how big of a difference Walton made to the Celtics.
TLDR • Walton's peak is so much higher that one season from him is equal to the top 3 or more seasons of the other candidates. • His non-peak impact signals are still better than prime Dantley, Hagan and he had 3 of those years averaging at ~60 games. • He added All Star level lift to the Celtics as a ceiling raiser despite overlapping with an existing All Star at the same position.
Impact portfolio only really cleanly topped by Lebron and Russell, a dominant championship, and an MVP, not to mention a key role in a second dominant championship is better than what everybody else on the board has to offer.
2. Al Hoford
Going with these two as they seem to have the most traction, but will make a case some other players I think more deserving than most of the current nominees(and maybe even a couple inductees).
1.
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.
With Jones and Cousy getting some traction, i'll copy and paste some of the counterpoints offered in the #72 thread that I do not think have been satisfactorily addressed:
Skepticism on Sam Jones and Bob Cousy
Spoiler:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: As an era-relativist, I get irked when the only(or predominant) argument someone can come up with for one player over another is "tougher era".
I also take issue with "reasonably equivalent offensive production" when Sharman was significantly more efficient relative to his competition.
Ultimately though, my real gripe isn't that you might take Jones over Sharman(though I disagree with it), it's the fact that Sharman didn't make the Top 100 at all last time(or the time before that) while Jones made it both times. I just want to make sure Sharman is in the conversation because I don't see any argument for him not to make the list if Jones is in.
Or we can exclude both
Sam Jones does look better by WOWY, mostly by default:
In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him.
This trend would hold throughout most of Russell’s career. In ’66, Sam Jones missed eight games and Boston’s performance didn’t budge. Jones missed 11 more contests in ’69 and the team was about 2 points worse without him. All told, as the roster cycled around Russell, his impact seemed to remain
I would have pause considering either for the top 100 simply because they were on championship teams. I also know some voters here have put stock into moonbeam's version of psuedo-rapm where Russell is the gold standard regularized and torches the field to a degree no one else across history does with his raw inputs(doubles 2nd place Wilt iirc over a certain stretch). Lots of emphasis on points and ts add on average offenses seems odd. Sam Jones defense has been praised but he is a guard and the defenses don't actually seem to care too much about whether he's there or not. 1969 is probably not fair since it's 6th man Sam Jones, but 1966 Sam Jones put up one of his highest point totals and fg percentages so if that version is not making a signficant impact, why is he being voted in here, let alone Sherman?
Honestly would be wierd to be putting more of Russell's teammates on this list than last time when we have a bunch of new evidence/argumentation suggesting Russell is more valuable individually than people were crediting him as the last go around and we have a bunch of new players to consider. Do these players actually warrant being considered over 100 other nba players?
Am pretty open to Cousy since he was post-prime with his own unimpressive signal and I assume he did something to earn the MVP but...
trex_8063 wrote:
Will first emphasize that your above comments appear to specifically delineate Cousy's post-prime. And I'll also acknowledge that the league/game progressed faster than Cousy did as a player.
That said, the limited/noisy impact metric from the very same source (Ben Taylor) reflects decently upon Cousy: his prime WOWYR is +4.4, career +3.9.
As always, when using these sorts of numbers I think it can be worthwhile to check what the sample here is. I don't know what exact years are factored into prime, but up until 1957, Cousy doesn't really miss time with the exception of 52 and 51 where the Celtics see a +1.3 SRS improvement when Cousy joins. I don't highlight that to criticize rookie Cousy, but rather to highlight a potential discrepancy:
With how WOWYR works(this is true in general when you take stretched singals vs concentrated ones but WOWYR's "adjustments" compound this considerably), that +3.9(and perhaps to a degree the +4.4) is disproportionately operating off that 1951 and 1952 wothout sample and transposing it as part of the off for all the other years(where cousy barely misses time) as well. Also note, unlike Moonbeam's version, the much larger sampled +1.3 mark is not factored in at all.
In other words, that score, mantained over a very small per-season sample, is likely significantly inflated by 9 games coming with a much weaker cast from Cousy's first two years.
I am also somewhat concerned with the lack of success in this pre-russell prime period where the team does not make a single final in a very weak league winnig a grand total of 4 series. The term "offensive dynasty" is thrown around for the Cousy years, but success on one side of the court is really not the point.
The Celtics having goat-level defenses is cool, but it matters to the degree it helped produce the most successful team ever, not because the goat defense isinofitself of extreme importance. Good on them for having the best offenses pre-Russell, but does it really matter if they weren't the all that close to being the best team?
eminence wrote: On Cousy.
I think his early career WOWY signal is unfortunately impossible to pin down.
He/Macauley arrive in Boston at the same time, the league contracts from 17 to 10.5 teams, both the without and with samples have large gaps between their ratings/win% (in opposing directions). It all combines to make the '50 vs '51 Celtics comparison very difficult, though I think it's clear the two combine with Red to turn the franchise around (they were absolute garbage their first four seasons and turned into a consistent .500+/playoff squad).
He then misses a grand total of 1 RS game prior to '57.
Agreed that 'offensive dynasty' oversells the Celtics of the period (hey, sometimes we're all sellers). They were a decent to good team, built around a strong offense. Related - I believe they only won 3 series over that period (you may have counted the '54 round robin as two wins).
0-2 vs Knicks '51 1-2 vs Knicks '52 2-0 vs Nats '53 1-3 vs Knicks '53 2-2 '54 Round Robin (2-0 vs Knicks, 0-2 vs Nats) 0-2 vs Nats '54 2-1 vs Knicks '55 1-3 vs Nats '55 1-2 vs Nats '56
For comparison the other Eastern conference squads from '51-'56 (not counting tiebreakers). Knicks 6 series wins Nats 8 (counting the '54 round robin as 2 wins) Warriors 2 (their '56 title)
A worse but healthier version of the Lob City Clippers.
My current sentiment on inclusion in the top 100 for both is Cousy as a maybe(entirely on the basis of him winning an MVP really), and Sam Jones as a no. The former does not have notable team-success in the "prime" we don't have substantial data for and Russell's Celtics play better without him in the post-period.
For the latter, we have a peak signal where the Celtics do not drop-off without him, a marginal bit of lift in the year he's a 6th man, and is his claim to fame is scoring prowess on an average offense with the possiblity that this is a result of scheme(which still only works if we assume Sam Jones had substantially better impact than what can be discerned statistically).
Possible he's just gotten unlucky with the games he's missed, but the evidence for Jones being top-100 worthy just isn't there 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
Note: My availability will be limited for the next week, so in addition to handing of thread running to other mods, I'm basically expecting to repeat my vote for a bit.<br /><br /><b><font color="#BF0040">Induction Vote 1: Cliff Hagan</font><br /><font color="#008040">Induction Vote 2: Bill Sharman</font></b><br /><br />So in the current Nominee pool, I see 3 legends, a talent whose ego damaged his prime significantly, and a player I love but I can't really separate from a lot of other guys.<br /><br />I'll take the two legends with decent longevity. Between Hagan & Sharman, here's the thing that's had me leaning Hagan:<br /><br />I see Hagan as a guy who, in practice, was more of a self-creator, and was exceptionally good at it. The fact that he was doing this on offense-dependent teams, with greater volume, and even more known for this in the playoffs, all while being 3 inches taller, makes me just see Hagan as a more capable star than Sharman.<br /><br />It's possible that I'm flat out wrong in my assessment of what happened, and and possible that Sharman was capable of doing more along these lines but wasn't given the opportunity next to Cousy. It's possible I'm mistaken on neither, but Sharman's defense was enough better that that should be the determining factor, but at this point I'm not convinced it should be.<br /><br /><b><font color="#008040">Nomination 1: Jayson Tatum</b></font><br /><br />So, I expect I'll be quoting DSMok's post until Tatum gets voted in, and as much as I want to credit him, I don't want to push notifications to him every dang thread. Hence, the quote below will be nameless.<br /><br />
Spoiler:
OK, as promised here are the 3-year stint RAPM results for relevant modern players. These are stints with a minimum of 5000 minutes, so at least 2 solid seasons within the 3 year window covered by a given run.<br /><br />This RAPM uses a new custom prior at the season level that is based on team efficiency, 2D position/role, minutes, and accolades. (For instance, an All-Star appearance in a given season increases the prior by +1 on offense.)
<br /><br />By point of comparison---LeBron has 13 stints above +8, and Duncan has 10.
<br /><br />Sure looks to me like Tatum is head and shoulders above the rest of the guys here. Look, folks who have been consistent about weighing longevity heavily have a perfectly reason to keep voting some other guys in above Tatum, but I would challenge the idea that Tatum's "just not that good". <br /><br />It's not that I don't think better guys exist than Tatum right now, but Tatum's an only-not-MVP-because-others-better guy to me, not someone who'd stick out as the worst MVP if he ended up taking home one of those trophies. And the man's been incredibly consistent in his impact almost from the jump. That really adds up quick for me. I tend to see the run of a standard core to be something like a 5 year thing, and but the Celtics were deep playoff teams right from the jump in Tatum's career 6 (well closer to 7 now I suppose) years ago and while he was a smaller part then, he was still utterly essential.<br /><br /><font color="#0040FF"><b>Nomination 2: Bob Davies</b></font><br /><br />I'll take the opportunity to give Davies love without threat of yanking my support away for a while. For me, I'm sold on him relative to the competition still in play. I think he was the leader and MVP of the first offensive dynasty in NBA history, and the result was a couple of chips in an epoch where all the others went to Mikan. And I think he showed better judgment about his own shot as he aged than Cousy did. I really think Cousy was convinced his schtick was working considerably better than it was because of the defense-driven team success.
Vote #1: Horace Grant -All timer of a #3 guy, played on good to great teams throughout his career -All around game well suited to fitting in on those great teams -Strong longevity, relevant near all of his career -Team accomplishment puts him above Horford for me (Duncan vs KG in miniature)
Vote #2: Al Horford -Similar level/style of player to Grant -A couple prime injuries ding him
Cunningham very close to getting a vote from me here, could be convinced I think. Better longevity than Hagan, better peak than Sharman.
Sticking with Sharman. Greatest perimeter scorer of his era, four championships, five finals appearances, came 5th in MVP voting the year before Russell arrived.
I've always been a fan of Horford's game, and I absolutely understand his value in the modern game as a high bball-iq guy who can play good defense while stretching the floor, but I still am not so convinced that he's a Top 100 guy, and I am surprised at the breadth of support for him this round. Especially on a ballot with five champions, three multi-time champions, two MVPs, and three NBA 50 at 50/75 at 75 guys, when Horford is in none of those categories.
eminence wrote:Not that it changes too much about the point, but I'd have Arizin pretty clearly ahead of Sharman as a perimeter scorer.
That's fair, I suppose. I think I had usually said best backcourt scorer of his era before(Arizin is listed at SF), I think I just used a different choice of words this time without thinking about it too much. The general point stands.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I've always been a fan of Horford's game, and I absolutely understand his value in the modern game as a high bball-iq guy who can play good defense while stretching the floor, but I still am not so convinced that he's a Top 100 guy, and I am surprised at the breadth of support for him this round. Especially on a ballot with five champions, three multi-time champions, two MVPs, and three NBA 50 at 50/75 at 75 guys, when Horford is in none of those categories.
I don't have a process I'm fully satisfied with, I don't know whether Horford would be my guy here ...
- Championships are a team achievement.
- MVP is an indirect measure of a player as an accolade and is a single year accolade (and the guys that have "an" MVP either do so in the weaker league ... [I mean if you think any Cunningham is better than peak-adjacent Jabbar ... we could have that discussion ... if not ... does him happening to play in that league matter to how good he was] and a guy who has a lot of his value tied up into that one season ... mileage can vary on how playoff '78 hurts ... if/how much paying a low availability Walton hurts ... but in terms of longevity and more relevantly longevity of quality the minutes are really low).
- Horford couldn't make the 50 list. He hadn't started playing then.
- Horford has 2 extra eligible years versus the guy eligible for the 75 list.
- The 75 list ... for whatever reason ... stuck rigidly to the 50 in a way that opined that Bing, Maravich, Greer, Monroe, Cunningham, Wilkens, Worthy, DeBusschere (peak-y guys like Archibald, Walton) were better than Dwight Howard. And Dwight left career value on the table etc he's not perfect... It's not a product of one person so maybe it's unfair to expect consistency but... it's hard for me to get any of them above Howard at first glance (peak-y guys, by peak most here will say Walton) ... how does one get all of them above? And I think at some point you're looking at it (no Lanier, despite an older tilt; no Gilmore ... so maybe no ABA but Cunningham not hurt enough by his lost years and lost peak, nor Barry by lost career volume...) and it's not looking so great ... unless you're just doing "legacy" and are happy to feed that loop ... there might not be that much weight to that list of players, especially if one imagines it doesn't add to the existing tools/knowledge base they have.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I've always been a fan of Horford's game, and I absolutely understand his value in the modern game as a high bball-iq guy who can play good defense while stretching the floor, but I still am not so convinced that he's a Top 100 guy, and I am surprised at the breadth of support for him this round. Especially on a ballot with five champions, three multi-time champions, two MVPs, and three NBA 50 at 50/75 at 75 guys, when Horford is in none of those categories.
I don't have a process I'm fully satisfied with, I don't know whether Horford would be my guy here ...
- Championships are a team achievement.
- MVP is an indirect measure of a player as an accolade and is a single year accolade (and the guys that have "an" MVP either do so in the weaker league ... [I mean if you think any Cunningham is better than peak-adjacent Jabbar ... we could have that discussion ... if not ... does him happening to play in that league matter to how good he was] and a guy who has a lot of his value tied up into that one season ... mileage can vary on how playoff '78 hurts ... if/how much paying a low availability Walton hurts ... but in terms of longevity and more relevantly longevity of quality the minutes are really low).
- Horford couldn't make the 50 list. He hadn't started playing then.
- Horford has 2 extra eligible years versus the guy eligible for the 75 list.
- The 75 list ... for whatever reason ... stuck rigidly to the 50 in a way that opined that Bing, Maravich, Greer, Monroe, Cunningham, Wilkens, Worthy, DeBusschere (peak-y guys like Archibald, Walton) were better than Dwight Howard. And Dwight left career value on the table etc he's not perfect... It's not a product of one person so maybe it's unfair to expect consistency but... it's hard for me to get any of them above Howard at first glance (peak-y guys, by peak most here will say Walton) ... how does one get all of them above? And I think at some point you're looking at it (no Lanier, despite an older tilt; no Gilmore ... so maybe no ABA but Cunningham not hurt enough by his lost years and lost peak, nor Barry by lost career volume...) and it's not looking so great ... unless you're just doing "legacy" and are happy to feed that loop ... there might not be that much weight to that list of players, especially if one imagines it doesn't add to the existing tools/knowledge base they have.
Your points re the 75 at 75 are valid and it's honestly the part of that sentence I care about the least.
And not for nothing, but of the 88 players we've inducted so far, 62 of them are champions, which is about 70%, so it appears that championships have seemed to matter to a certain degree in this project.
In any case, I wasn't laying any of those things out as requirements to make the list or anything of the sort, I was just expressing surprise at Horford having such strong support on a ballot with other players that have those accolades.
You can just say you think he has a worse peak than four of these guys and that the fifth at least has four titles (and another appearance) to his name. That is fine by itself; it does not need to be some broader commentary on who was given what award or recognition.
AEnigma wrote:Seems about as “surprising” as Nance’s placement.
You can just say you think he has a worse peak than four of these guys and that the fifth at least has four titles (and another appearance) to his name. That is fine by itself; it does not need to be some broader commentary on who was given what award or recognition.
In essence, that's all I was saying. I was only stating an opinion about this particular vote and nothing beyond it.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:And not for nothing, but of the 88 players we've inducted so far, 62 of them are champions, which is about 70%, so it appears that championships have seemed to matter to a certain degree in this project.
I don't pretend to exactly know every participants criteria. I know many do care about team level achievements [i.e. Rings] (as distinct from approximated championship probability added/CORP) more than me.
That said I don't think the the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise given. There's a correlation of course. Good players make championships more likely. We're looking at good players. These lists will skew towards champions. To the extent that people think playoff variation from RS performance is more signal of a different underlying performance standard in a significantly different environment (rather than more variance, noise over a smaller sample) or else just, based on its importance, regard the playoffs with significantly larger weight this will even more so lead to a the thing being defined tying itself to what is assessed to be a good player. But that doesn't mean people (necessarily) say title therefore player is better than otherwise. It certainly could be argued that this may be done by some consciously, unconsciously or indirectly (2nd-hand, through the revised opinions of others).
John Salley won titles in different locations and was genuinely important in Detroit's playoff runs. He won't be chosen though. Whilst I believe many do value championships as an evaluative tool of players (or whatever they're assessing, rings might make more sense if it's "careers") more than me ... it doesn't necessarily follow from a high proportion of champions that championships mattered in the evaluations
Most people's top 10s would be entirely champions. Because such players will tend to raise teams to the extent a title over their career becomes highly likely. Say I value Garnett as top 10, or Robertson. If so, personally I'd hope Pierce and Allen or Kareem having some unfortunate injury in their respective finals wouldn't change how I saw them as players as personally that's not what I'm interested in measuring in a player list.
To Horford if you think there's less value there then other candidates, as I said I'm not invested in that. But if you think the support unmerited, that he is worse, a more direct line of reasoning might be more persuasive.
Induction vote: Al Horford There are other non-inducted players I'd rank ahead of him.......however, none of them are yet nominees. He's simply my default best here. Long career of consistent usefulness in a very tough/competitive era, peaking as a roughly All-NBA 3rd Team level player (though has multiple seasons at that level, as he was so consistent). Has been a key player on a number of very good teams (even 1 or 2 contenders), adapted his game to fit into new systems/new roles. I love the versatile defense, spacing and passing he provides from the 4/5 position, GOAT-tier big-man turnover economy; seems like an awesome locker-room guy, too.
Alternate vote: Horace Grant I could go with Grant ahead of Horford, actually, but it's super-close, and Horford has more traction. I like Grant's defense, offensive rebounding, GOAT-tier turnover economy, and soft floor-spacing he provides; and for a good long time. Meshed easily with several contenders in his career.
If it comes to any runoff, I'm presently ranking them: Horford > Grant > Hagan > Sharman > Walton > Cunningham
Nomination: Dominique Wilkins Alt Nomination: Chris Bosh
Could flop these two, pending preferences of others.
As to Dominique, I know he had his playoff failings, but his WOWY profile (referenced in the #87 thread) is respectable for this stage of the list. He was often the ONLY notable scorer his team had, and obviously would then be the focal point of the opposing defense. So I thus just cannot see how a guy who was even capable (through his talents and durability/longevity) of scoring >26k points in a very competitive era with mostly good shooting efficiency in his primeand a GOOD turnover economy (comparable to that of LeBron James and Ray Allen in mTOV%; BETTER THAN guys like Scottie Pippen, Latrell Sprewell, and Sidney Moncrief), and doing so while often at the helm of some of the best offenses in the league for a few years in the mid-late 80s....
....who was also a good offensive rebounder, and placed 53rd in MVP win shares [fwiw], and who looks competitive via PIPM wins added [see below]..... idk, the guy described belongs somewhere in the top 100, imo.
I'd also REALLY like to see guys like Chris Bosh, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Dan Issel gain some traction.
Looking at some of our candidates and other notable non-inducted players (and a few recent inductees) by PIPM career wins added (as I know it's a metric some have expressed significant confidence in or appreciation of).....
(Shawn Marion: 123.97) Maurice Cheeks: 119.15 (Jack Sikma): 117.54 Terry Porter: 116.64 Horace Grant: 114.81 (Tony Parker: 113.50) **Dan Issel: 67.54 (**9-year NBA career ONLY; pro-rated for all 15 seasons would come to 112.57 [though his ABA seasons are likely to be even MORE highly rated]) Chris Bosh: 111.58 LaMarcus Aldridge: 109.02 Dominique Wilkins: 105.11 Al Horford: 88.24 Carmelo Anthony: 87.39 Chris Webber: 85.49 Chris Mullin: 84.82 Alex English: 82.41 (Sidney Moncrief: 78.53) Bill Walton: 52.38
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
trex_8063 wrote:Induction vote: Al Horford There are other non-inducted players I'd rank ahead of him.......however, none of them are yet nominees. He's simply my default best here. Long career of consistent usefulness in a very tough/competitive era, peaking as a roughly All-NBA 3rd Team level player (though has multiple seasons at that level, as he was so consistent). Has been a key player on a number of very good teams (even 1 or 2 contenders), adapted his game to fit into new systems/new roles. I love the versatile defense, spacing and passing he provides from the 4/5 position, GOAT-tier big-man turnover economy; seems like an awesome locker-room guy, too.
Alternate vote: Horace Grant I could go with Grant ahead of Horford, actually, but it's super-close, and Horford has more traction. I like Grant's defense, offensive rebounding, GOAT-tier turnover economy, and soft floor-spacing he provides; and for a good long time. Meshed easily with several contenders in his career.
If it comes to any runoff, I'm presently ranking them: Horford > Grant > Hagan > Sharman > Walton > Cunningham
Nomination: Dominique Wilkins Alt Nomination: Chris Bosh
Could flop these two, pending preferences of others.
As to Dominique, I know he had his playoff failings, but his WOWY profile (referenced in the #87 thread) is respectable for this stage of the list. He was often the ONLY notable scorer his team had, and obviously would then be the focal point of the opposing defense. So I thus just cannot see how a guy who was even capable (through his talents and durability/longevity) of scoring >26k points in a very competitive era with mostly good shooting efficiency in his primeand a GOOD turnover economy (comparable to that of LeBron James and Ray Allen in mTOV%; BETTER THAN guys like Scottie Pippen, Latrell Sprewell, and Sidney Moncrief), and doing so while often at the helm of some of the best offenses in the league for a few years in the mid-late 80s....
....who was also a good offensive rebounder, and placed 53rd in MVP win shares [fwiw], and who looks competitive via PIPM wins added [see below]..... idk, the guy described belongs somewhere in the top 100, imo.
I'd also REALLY like to see guys like Chris Bosh, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Dan Issel gain some traction.
Looking at some of our candidates and other notable non-inducted players (and a few recent inductees) by PIPM career wins added (as I know it's a metric some have expressed significant confidence in or appreciation of).....
(Shawn Marion: 123.97) Maurice Cheeks: 119.15 (Jack Sikma): 117.54 Terry Porter: 116.64 Horace Grant: 114.81 (Tony Parker: 113.50) **Dan Issel: 67.54 (**9-year NBA career ONLY; pro-rated for all 15 seasons would come to 112.57 [though his ABA seasons are likely to be even MORE highly rated]) Chris Bosh: 111.58 LaMarcus Aldridge: 109.02 Dominique Wilkins: 105.11 Al Horford: 88.24 Carmelo Anthony: 87.39 Chris Webber: 85.49 Chris Mullin: 84.82 Alex English: 82.41 (Sidney Moncrief: 78.53) Bill Walton: 52.38
I would be open to a LMA push. No strong opinions about issell but you're welcome to persuade
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
Why Nique rather than his contemporary Alex English? Both great scorers and apparently great guys, Nique is clearly the better rebounder, English the better playmaker, English more versatile and without the playoff efficiency fail. Nique was flashier, had more accolades, and had the best nickname in NBA history but I don't think he was actually better. Willing to listen though.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:To Horford if you think there's less value there then other candidates, as I said I'm not invested in that. But if you think the support unmerited, that he is worse, a more direct line of reasoning might be more persuasive.
You know what? Fair enough. I'll say the following then(though I don't expect anyone will change their votes)...
I think Walton just had a higher peak than Horford. As far as scoring, Walton appears to have a marginal edge in both volume and efficiency, but it's just that, marginal, and on its own not enough to be a compelling argument.
But by the numbers he was clearly a better rebounder; Horford's max rebounds per 100 was 16.3 in his rookie season, while was at 18.3 in both of his peak years, 77 and 78. Additionally, when you look at TRB%, Walton's career average is 19.8% compared to Horford' 14.1%; Walton was at 20%+ in each of his four years in Portland, as well as for the 85 Clippers(when he played 67 games), and just a hair under at 19.4% for the 86 Celtics, while Horford peaked at 18% in his rookie season and has been more in the 11-12% range for the last nine seasons.
I wouldn't generally use blocks as an indicator of overall defensive prowess, but when looking at two high-level defenders like this(particularly when one is pre-databall), you look for separators where you can find them, and the fact that Walton averaged 3.6 blocks per 100 for his career to Horford's 1.8 supports Walton's reputation as an ATG defender(I could be wrong, but I think I've seen people from Walton's heyday compare him to Russell defensively). Horford is a great defender, but Walton, when healthy, might've been one of the greatest ever.
Walton is also generally regarded as one of the greatest playmaking bigs ever. His outlet passes, as well as his ability to hold the ball above his head in the post and pass it out with one hand, with precision. By the eye test, it looks like unicorn stuff. It's also worth noting that in the years Horford was in Atlanta, they had a negative rel ORtg for over half of those seasons(five out of nine). I don't think it's a huge leap to suggest that Walton was more of an offensive engine.
Walton's (lack of) longevity will be a dealbreaker for some. TBH, I was on the fence about him until recently, but upon examining him closer, I've been sold on his peak greatness, and at this point on the list, I'm more excited to support him than most remaining players.
--
With Cunningham, it's not just that he won an MVP in the ABA, it's that he had three other Top 10 finishes(two of them Top 5) in MVP voting in the NBA.
It may not matter to everyone, but I think Cunningham had a different level of primacy in his peak years than Horford ever had, even for the 2015 Hawks. He did everything from scoring(on higher volume but somewhat lower efficiency than Horford) to rebounding to defense to playmaking. This is reflected in the Sixers' numbers - Ortg, DRtg, SRS, W/L - falling off a cliff when Cunningham went to the ABA.
--
With Hagan, it's that he was #1, or at worst #1A, on a championship team.
--
Sharman and Grant are both more tertiary, like Horford, and it's harder to draw a big gap between any of them unless you break era-relativity, but for me, with Sharman, I just think he stood out more in his era than either Horford or Grant...that is, I'm not sure that, in era-relative terms, either Horford and Grant were as elite at anything within the leagues they played in as Sharman was at scoring the ball.
I do not see much of argument for LMA. Very little team success(and I would sooner attribute the success of the 16 and 17 Spurs to Kawhi), not especially efficient as a scorer, leaves something to be desired as a rebounder for a 6'11' guy, -6.2 career playoff on/off. One would have to really think something of his defense and playmaking, imo, to make the case.
As far as fringe bigs go, I'd rather Webber get the nod. Issel too.
penbeast0 wrote:Why Nique rather than his contemporary Alex English? Both great scorers and apparently great guys, Nique is clearly the better rebounder, English the better playmaker, English more versatile and without the playoff efficiency fail. Nique was flashier, had more accolades, and had the best nickname in NBA history but I don't think he was actually better. Willing to listen though.
With Nique, I think the string of strong SRSs from 86-89 is a big selling point. My thing though, is that Dominique was there for three years before that stretch and two years after that stretch(before his achilles injury), and in those seasons, despite him being healthy and, by the numbers, not doing much differently individually(particularly in 90 and 91), the team was significantly worse. We can look at teammates, and who else was coming and going, but to me there's no obvious answer as to why the team was so much better in those few years.
As for nicknames, it's one of the best, but I don't really think "Magic" has any competition for being the greatest - it's replaced the man's given name for most people. "Tiny" in the same vein. Doctor J is up there too.
I'm impressed Sharman's longevity as well as efficiency relative to his era. Scoring as efficiently as he did may have been even more difficult given the celtics' gameplan of getting up as many shots as possible. Solid and consistent contributor to multiple celtics championship teams. One of the more accomplished guards of his era with 7 all NBA selections and 5th and 7th place MVP finishes.
