APBRmetrics

Mike G would you consider doing 2 lists for the top 5? Peak Value and Career Value?

Not. Why fragment things like that? It's like some college conference with a 'regular season champion' and a 'tournament champion'.

What the hell is Peak Value, anyway? Best single season? Best postseason? Best playoff game? Best quarter? Best single play?

Once you split it off that way, there's an infinite number of interpretations.
I was guarding a guy once, and he said he was a banker; and I said I had recently used the ATM at his bank, and it shorted me $5.
He said, "I haven't got it on me", leaned back and drained the jumper.
Best play I've ever seen.

Meanwhile, a real player's "peak" -- however defined -- contributes to his career value. Is there an obvious reason a player with PER of 25.0 one year and 15.0 for 9 years has had a better career than any other player who had PER of 16.0 over 10 years? Was that one season more 'exciting', perhaps? To whom?

If a player is all-world today and mediocre tomorrow, is the bitterness of disappointment factored into the "value" of his one other-worldly season?
I just don't see how "Peak" has any value of its own. John Starks threw down over Jordan and Pippen, and that was his Peak (I guess). Did the Knicks win that game? I don't recall, but they didn't win the series, and Starks never did that again, so what good was it really?

Honestly, it's a bit like comparing a happy 50-year marriage to a series of affairs with glamorous random others. It's just weird. Good luck to anyone trying to gather consensus on "peak" value.

I've been ranking careers statistically for a good while now. There are 13 players in the 'top-50' candidates in the poll, who were active in 2013. For the curious, here's a track of their ranks in my spreadsheet in the last 9 years.
Only players with 10,000 'equivalent totals' (Pts+Reb+Ast...) are in the list.An active player's ranking may drop as he's passed by better/active players: Retrograde.
Garnett was alltime top 10 for one year, before LeBron got by him.

As you can see, for his last 6 years of meritorious service, Tim Duncan has moved up one spot in the alltime rankings. It's pretty thick in that uppermost echelon.

In the same interval, LeBron has gone from just into the top 100, to just into the top 10. He passes lesser superstars like they were standing still.

I went for Jordan, LeBron, Shaq, CP3, and Wade.

Shaq would be there if he stayed in shape.
CP3 might get there someday.
Wade would be there if not for injuries.

Just trying to spice up the voting LOL.

Sort of a wished-for top 5 ?

Does anyone have an argument for Russell vs Wilt?
This contention was not settle-able when they were playing, nor for a while afterward.
Do we now have objective evidence or data supporting one over the other?

http://bkref.com/tiny/3VzRz

I'm no stats heavyweight, but it seems to me that the Wilt vs. Russell debate can never be settled via data. One has an overwhelming edge in regular season productivity, the other has an overwhelming edge in championship success... it all comes down to how heavily one weighs the relative importance of those two things.

As to Mike G's question -- how to justify LeBron as a top-fiver even if he never plays another minute -- I'll try to make the case as I see it (and with my limited statistical understanding).

I think LeBron's last five years constitute the greatest stretch of play ever by an NBA player not named Michael Jordan, and I'm not even sure that last caveat is necessary. That's based partly on numbers, partly on subjective factors.

NUMBERS: in the past five years, LeBron's put up four of the top eleven seasons ever by WS/48 (plus another top-100 showing), and four of the top thirty seasons ever by total Win Shares (if you prorate his '11/'12 performance over an 82-game schedule). He's also put up three postseasons of historic quality (the two championship campaigns plus his absurd 35/9/7 output in 2008-09) and two other very good ones (albeit ones with monstrous asterisks). Win Shares are the only publicly sortable metric I'm aware of, but Kevin Pelton has written that LBJ's '09/'10 and '12/'13 seasons are the two best ever by WARP, so I'm guessing LeBron fares no worse by that method. In the simplest numerical terms, LeBron has been the undisputed #1 player on three Finalists and two champs in the past five years... guys have done better, but not many, and I'd rate several of them ahead of him overall.

SUBJECTIVE FACTORS: Three big things here.

1) I think the quality of play in the league LeBron has dominated is at least as high as it's ever been, as I'm a believer that high-profile, big-money sports leagues tend to attract better talent both on and off the court as time progresses. Some will agree with this, some will think this absurd, but it's what I believe.

2) I think the league has never quite seen anything like the carrying job LeBron did in his last years in Cleveland, when he dragged a truly dismal supporting cast to number-one seeds. On the heels of Jordan's first retirement, the '93-'94 Bulls were still a three-seed, a team a questionable call away from a Conference Finals appearance and possibly better... even after losing Horace the next season, they were playoff-bound with or without Michael. Conversely, the '10-'11 Cavs, and frankly the '04-'10 Cavs whenever LeBron sat, were a ludicrously terrible, unacceptable team. I mean, LeBron actually got flak for not being able to carry Mo Williams, Delonte West, a fitfully healthy Anderson Varejao and a 33-year-old Zydrunas Ilgauskas to a championship. What other player could've gotten anybody thinking that a title would even be possible in that scenario? No NBA player ever turned chicken shit into chicken salad the way LeBron did in Cleveland.

3) Most importantly, I think LeBron's defensive versatility is an asset that the numbers may fail to fully capture. A guy that can handle David West and Tony Parker assignments in consecutive rounds, and captain a stifling transition D, while running the offense -- there's just no precedent for something like that.

Focusing on this five-year stretch is, of course, arbitrary in a way that favors LeBron. There's not nearly as strong of a case that he's had the best eight-year run ever, and certainly a number of guys have logged more aggregate production than he has to date. Still, his overall resume isn't exactly a joke. In terms of the regular season, he's already 20th all time in Win Shares, a mere three WS behind Magic, a guy who's received a number of votes here to nobody's surprise. By WS/48, Lebron is sixth all-time, behind only Michael, the Admiral, Wilt, CP3 (!) and Neil Johnston (a guy only the most wild-eyed old-school fans would claim is an all-timer).

You know where LeBron ranks in career postseason Win Shares? Seventh, ahead of Russell, among others. Yes, LBJ's had more playoff rounds to play with than Russell and other elders, but his contributions aren't illusory. The top-three postseason performers of all time, by Win Shares per 48 Minutes:

1. Michael Jordan, .2553
2. George Mikan, .2541
3. LeBron James, .2382

I'm more than open to the possibility that I'm overrating LeBron because I love watching him play. Certainly another healthy season of massive production and postseason success would make his top-five case a lot more solid. But the way I weight regular season vs. playoffs, and the trends in league quality over time, and soft factors like versatility and supporting cast, I'd have him behind Jordan, Kareem and Russell and ahead of everyone else, strictly based on his career to this point. That's just how it looks to me.

Mike G wrote:So "on track" is the same as "there"? Because there's just no way he stops playing suddenly?
People suddenly stop playing all the time.

No, because "on track" is what he "had been" (past tense). I then listed his accomplishments (I could add MVP shares) that suggest he very much belongs amongst the all time elite. Your own lists on this thread put him up there. All the more so when you eliminate players who most don't consider top 5 material (notably Stockton and Malone) all the more so.

That said I see no reason we should assume LeBron will retire tomorrow given that he is playing this preseason. As such as stated he gets so marginal benefit because we know he might yet add to that wheras I would be surprised to see Jabbar or Jordan add to their resumes. If we were projecting Durant would have been selected in our top 25. So no this, isn't about being on track and tbh I don't really see how you could read that into what was posted. If that were what I was doing I would suggest LeBron is in robust health and if we were to assume anything why not project him to play up to the average age of modern era 4+MVPers (Jordan 40, Jabbar 42, so average is 41). Is there "just no way" that that happens?

And do great players (the subject at hand) suddenly stop playing "all the time". Constantly? Are they going down like flies? Michael Jordan and Magic would represent the only great players I can recall who retired in their prime (and even then both came back. Twice!). Okay there’s somewhat of a selection bias in that the players we consider great are likely to be those who played full careers. Still I can’t think of too many would be greats who established themselves and then retired suddenly. A few at a lesser level fell off, having been less established than LeBron (D Thompson, Walton, G Hill, A Hardaway, Groza, B Roy?). As stated in the original post, being active helps “at the margins”. As in he’s very plausible for top 5 right now, and having the possibility (probability) of adding to that just makes me more comfortable with saying he’s better than Duncan. If LeBron couldn’t play again after tomorrow I might put Duncan ahead. But I might not. And there’s no need to date my list by assuming he’ll do absolutely nothing else. Presently he’s 4-6ish. Projecting his career I’d see him as 1.5-3ish. It’s the former that makes me think he’s probably worthy of top 5 status.

Mike G wrote:Sort of a wished-for top 5 ?

Does anyone have an argument for Russell vs Wilt?
This contention was not settle-able when they were playing, nor for a while afterward.
Do we now have objective evidence or data supporting one over the other?

http://bkref.com/tiny/3VzRz

I'm firmly in the Wilt camp. And will be until someone can accurately isolate Russell's impact and show that it greater (despite rebounding less, scoring substantially less and doing so substantially less efficiently).

And there’s no need to date my list by assuming he’ll do absolutely nothing else.

The list we're creating is dated 2013: Through the 2013 season and playoffs, how do players' careers rank?
I don't assume anything about what might be, nor what might have been. That's the whole point. That's what it means to analyze the facts and data.

As I mentioned, Tim Duncan has hardly been idle for the last 6 years, and his rank on my spreadsheet has moved from 7th to 6th. I do think his career, thru the 2013 season, is greater than LeBron's. The present tense is where we are.

... when you eliminate players who most don't consider top 5 material (notably Stockton and Malone)

Ouch! I didn't think it necessary to state that this isn't a popularity contest. Ranking careers here, not likeability.

I have Jordan as the clear #1; Wilt and Kareem are #2 and 3, almost interchangeable.
Russell is down there at #13 now, having been eclipsed several times in recent years. He's really the one (not LeBron) who seems a bit unfeasible in the top 5.

The Russell Celtics were 10-0 in game-7's, during their 11 title runs. Maybe it wasn't entirely luck, even acknowledging that a 3-3 series must be pretty evenly matched; but they could hardly have been any luckier.

I know it won't be popular, but I will stick with Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Bird, Magic.

I think mine are:

Russell-Jordan-Wilt-Bird-Robertson

but I'll have to think about it further before casting a vote.

Mike G wrote:

And there’s no need to date my list by assuming he’ll do absolutely nothing else.

The list we're creating is dated 2013: Through the 2013 season and playoffs, how do players' careers rank?
I don't assume anything about what might be, nor what might have been. That's the whole point. That's what it means to analyze the facts and data.

As I mentioned, Tim Duncan has hardly been idle for the last 6 years, and his rank on my spreadsheet has moved from 7th to 6th. I do think his career, thru the 2013 season, is greater than LeBron's. The present tense is where we are.

And as above in the present tense I have LeBron at roughly 5. But Duncan is certainly in his ballpark. But say, for the sake of argument, I thought the net of all other stuff was equal, why shouldn't (in all probability) having more in the tank be something that nudges it in LeBron's favour. Are not his age and acitve status data too?

Mike G wrote:

... when you eliminate players who most don't consider top 5 material (notably Stockton and Malone)

Ouch! I didn't think it necessary to state that this isn't a popularity contest. Ranking careers here, not likeability.

I have Jordan as the clear #1; Wilt and Kareem are #2 and 3, almost interchangeable.
Russell is down there at #13 now, having been eclipsed several times in recent years. He's really the one (not LeBron) who seems a bit unfeasible in the top 5.

The Russell Celtics were 10-0 in game-7's, during their 11 title runs. Maybe it wasn't entirely luck, even acknowledging that a 3-3 series must be pretty evenly matched; but they could hardly have been any luckier.

And fine, when I say most, I mean all published authors and list compilers. Now it's not a popularity contest, it's authors staking their credibility (to the masses and basketball cogniscenti) and finding Malone wanting. I like Malone. I think that he is probably underrated because of percieved clutch failings and people having trouble computing that he played at MVP contender level for so long. From what I've seen I find it difficult to seen why anyone would have Barkley over him (and some/many do) given that: their stats peaks are near identical, Malone played better defense, played for longer and played well for longer. I think Stockton was substantially underrated whilst he played and the popular idea that Isiah Thomas is as good as or better than him is laughable. I'm just saying nobody else has voted Malone top 5 (I assume thats you) and I don't think anyone will. But make a case for him if you don't want to see him slide. Perhaps a metrics board will be more appreciative, but critics have placed him an average of 18th (technically 18.23077), internet "popularity contests" have put him 12-17, NTA has him at 34.

Re: Boston and luck whilst I'm lower on Russell than most and thus typically end up arguing against him, but I'd take a different route to that position. Whilst they probably were fortunate to have won all those series deciders (game 7s and game 5s), they were probably unfortunate to have been in that many. I would posit that being 3-3 (or 2-2 in a five gamer) doesn't actually mean the teams were that evenly matched. I think (should probably check) Boston tended to have significant points diff advantages in those series (and in the '58 finals they lost) and had much better records than most of those opponents. Then again I'm not sure that's a case for Russell's greatness. There having been so many series going the distance allows people to say "ah it was really close, so Boston couldn't have had that great a supporting cast" (ignoring that Boston was that good, and however good they were they were that good with Russell) and in a somewhat alligned argument suggest that their game 7/game 5 record was thus decided exclusively by Russell as though he were some magical "win fairy" who couldn't lose, and wouldn't do so no matter what team you put him on.

But say, for the sake of argument, I thought the net of all other stuff was equal, why shouldn't (in all probability) having more in the tank be something that nudges it in LeBron's favour. Are not his age and acitve status data too?

Granted, it's almost a sure bet. I am spoiled by having had the luxury, at any time, to go back and "see" on a spreadsheet what the summary of stats has done to rank all players at all times. I can see that he entered the top 10 just this year, that he entered the top 50 in 2008, etc. Trajectory is one thing, position is another.

He's got a clear path to the basket, the pass is en route: what could go wrong?
The scoreboard doesn't change until he's recorded the basket.

Another voter has not just extrapolated LeBron's future, he's openly voted for players based on what they might have done, had circumstances been different. I have no clue how to follow that logic, but everyone gets a vote in a democracy.

Regarding Malone advocacy, did you miss the opening posts? It's Malone, Kareem, Wilt, and Jordan looking dominant in numbers of superb seasons. Malone is the one constant.
He's nobody's "favorite" player, apparently. Not when he played, and not now. He has no fan club, no cheerleaders. Even among metrics-minded people, everyone overlooks his numbers. I find that odd.

I'll have to think about it further before casting a vote.

Actually, you can change any of your votes at any time.

Not sure when to stop the voting for this round. As I said in the OP, a smaller number (5) of votes was chosen to hopefully get an actual un-tied ranking order, at least for the top 5.
Whenever I've checked, there have been ties among the top 5 -- like 3 players (Wilt, Russell, Magic) tied at #4

We could say 'regulation time' ends at 8 AM Tues. (EST); and if there's a tie, it goes another day -- or to sudden death, whether someone changes a vote or a new voter appears. But that requires that I actually check the ballot.

Since we can change our votes, we might abandon someone for another who actually is in the running. I could abandon Malone, for example, to push another into the top 5.

onlxn wrote:I'm no stats heavyweight, ...
I'm more than open to the possibility that I'm overrating LeBron because I love watching him play. Certainly another healthy season of massive production and postseason success would make his top-five case a lot more solid. But the way I weight regular season vs. playoffs, and the trends in league quality over time, and soft factors like versatility and supporting cast, I'd have him behind Jordan, Kareem and Russell and ahead of everyone else, strictly based on his career to this point. That's just how it looks to me.

First, welcome to the discussion and to the forum. This is a great first submission, and you're even objective about your own subjectivity, which is rare.

Another healthy, productive, and successful 2 or 3 seasons, and he's there. Jordan at the same age was already talked about as GOAT, with just about identical accomplishments.

But let's shift gears. If you're not sold on league quality in Bill Russell's era, how does he get the pass over Shaq, Malone, Duncan, Olajuwon, et al ? Unlike LeBron, he joined a team that was already a perennial contender, and he joined it at the same time as ROY Tom Heinsohn. Those Celtics were much more than just Russell.

Mike G wrote:

onlxn wrote:I'm no stats heavyweight, ...
I'm more than open to the possibility that I'm overrating LeBron because I love watching him play. Certainly another healthy season of massive production and postseason success would make his top-five case a lot more solid. But the way I weight regular season vs. playoffs, and the trends in league quality over time, and soft factors like versatility and supporting cast, I'd have him behind Jordan, Kareem and Russell and ahead of everyone else, strictly based on his career to this point. That's just how it looks to me.

First, welcome to the discussion and to the forum. This is a great first submission, and you're even objective about your own subjectivity, which is rare.

Another healthy, productive, and successful 2 or 3 seasons, and he's there. Jordan at the same age was already talked about as GOAT, with just about identical accomplishments.

But let's shift gears. If you're not sold on league quality in Bill Russell's era, how does he get the pass over Shaq, Malone, Duncan, Olajuwon, et al ? Unlike LeBron, he joined a team that was already a perennial contender, and he joined it at the same time as ROY Tom Heinsohn. Those Celtics were much more than just Russell.

Ramsey rejoined the Celtics that year too (though he was not, as I seem to recall Bill Simmons suggest in The Book of Basketball, a rookie). Also Boston had a better record before Russell's arrival than with him that year (though I think I've heard their MoV was better with Russell).