#14 Highest Peak of All Time (Oscar '63 wins)

[MisterWestside]

So the quandary becomes, in this particular project, one of where you think Dirk's peak was? In 2006 and 07 he had the best box score production, but his RAPM values were "only" top 5 - 6 in the league and many have raised the question about whether his offensive game was fully complete.

Dirk added more moves to his post arsenal, but again; I don't buy the elevation in offense by Dirk. He carried a larger offensive load in 2011 (just watched the entirety of the '06 Dirk vs. Spurs game 7 and '11 Dirk vs. Thunder game 2; the Mavs used Dirk in more iso sets in '11), but his turnovers went up and he wasn't as much of a force on the offensive glass. Dirk in '06 didn't command as much of the offense, but he played off the ball more and was more efficient overall (1.22 points per possession ). He also didn't play with optimal pieces in '06 -- instead of involving Dirk in more plays, Stackhouse and Harris wasted plenty of Mavs possessions with their poor shooting and/or high turnover rates. Compare that to '11, when players like Kidd, Barea, Chandler, Terry, and Marion all played off of Dirk, as opposed to getting in his way and wasting possessions with inefficient shot-creation. That team played with great synergy.

Dirk played way more playoff minutes, played with a less optimal squad, played a better first, second, and about the same or better third round opponent -- and his team still got to the Finals. I'm glad Dirk won the title in '11, but06 is my pick for best Dirk season.

[bastillon]

The story typically starts out with Wilt going to the Lakers (after lobbying to go there, and daydreaming about it the prior season because he wanted to hang out with movie stars), and van Breda Kolff being super-stubborn insisting that Wilt adapt to fit into his existing system. Wilt didn't want to do that, and we can only speculate as to the entirety of his reasoning, but fundamentally: 1) vBK was making him change, 2) vBK didn't make him change because he thought Wilt would be more impactful in his system than Wilt was in Philly, he simply thought his system was better than one with Wilt as the focus, 3) vBK clearly didn't have coach Hannum's or Sharman's charming willingness to "persusade", he saw Wilt's reluctance as defiance and acted like an authoritarian parent.

where did you get this narrative ? this is nice story-telling that you're doing but without historical background it doesn't mean a whole lot. where did you get these options of yours in particular ? I know what happened during that season and I think your interpretation is a bit "stretched out" if you will.

btw, that quote was "we're playing better without you" and it came in G7 of 69 NBA finals when Wilt wanted to be inserted back in but his coach denied him that opportunity seeing his team going on a big run with Chamberlain off the floor.

Oscar 1968 (19g) -10.5 SRS out, +2.6 in
Oscar 1970 (13g) -7.4 out, -1.3 in
Oscar 1972 (18g) 7.1 out, 11.9 in

While that last number is impressive, it's also kind of what we expect to see. If the number represented "true" value, then going from 7 to 12 is great...but remember this was in a widely distributed, totally spread-thin league. Thus, adding a player like Oscar, in theory, makes a bigger effect. Just something to keep in mind.

first of all, you have to control for games in which Oscar was playing half-speed. Oscar's injury happened in 57th game iirc and he never regained his form that season, hence the postseason struggles. his movement was very limited.

second, what's your comment on the transformation of Bucks after Oscar's trade ? that's a full year of near +8 jump with minor changes on the roster. yes, Bucks players matured (Kareem and Dandridge) but there's no reason for them to put up the best OWS of their careers in their 2nd-3rd years. Oscar's impact was huge and it's nicely backed up by historical accounts, particularly quotes from Kareem and other teammates.

question to all, how many of you actually watched Oscar play ? have you seen any of his games ? I feel he's getting underrated because of this. his footage is pretty rare and he wasn't flashy but that's not his fault and shouldn't impact our judgment as far as voting's concerned.

[Doctor MJ]

The story typically starts out with Wilt going to the Lakers (after lobbying to go there, and daydreaming about it the prior season because he wanted to hang out with movie stars), and van Breda Kolff being super-stubborn insisting that Wilt adapt to fit into his existing system. Wilt didn't want to do that, and we can only speculate as to the entirety of his reasoning, but fundamentally: 1) vBK was making him change, 2) vBK didn't make him change because he thought Wilt would be more impactful in his system than Wilt was in Philly, he simply thought his system was better than one with Wilt as the focus, 3) vBK clearly didn't have coach Hannum's or Sharman's charming willingness to "persusade", he saw Wilt's reluctance as defiance and acted like an authoritarian parent.

where did you get this narrative ? this is nice story-telling that you're doing but without historical background it doesn't mean a whole lot. where did you get these options of yours in particular ? I know what happened during that season and I think your interpretation is a bit "stretched out" if you will.

btw, that quote was "we're playing better without you" and it came in G7 of 69 NBA finals when Wilt wanted to be inserted back in but his coach denied him that opportunity seeing his team going on a big run with Chamberlain off the floor.

I don't know what to tell you. If you think what I've said is misleading or wrong, speak to that. If you're wanting me to source everything I say, that's just not going to habit. Much respect to the pro-level historical researchers out there (some of whom are in these threads), but I'm doing this for fun. I do plenty of research myself, but I don't maintain the database of articles and books necessary to pull that off myself. You're free to hold my opinion with however much or little respect you want, it's simply not worth it to me to achieve that level of organization as I'm not intending to write books on the subject (which, others here actually are).

Re: btw. Probably would have been better if I'd given more details. I guess this is indicative of how I think. Were someone to give a quote like I did calling it famous and providing the name of the guy who said it, I'd see that as prime googling input.

[ElGee]

@bastillon -- I'm wondering why you didn't control for the games he played hobbled down the stretch. Because if you did, you'd see there's no difference (12.1 SRS instead of 11.9).

To your other question, trades can speak to a big interaction. When a guy misses time in the RS (if roster is healthy), we can actually get a really nice idea of his VALUE to that particular team. I used to think in/out was a lesser version of on/off, and only after achieving ~20g sample will on/off map onto in/out data (bc so much of the on/off minutes are from the missed games). But really, they aren't measuring the same thing. On/Off is subject to all the lineup problems that APM tries to descramble. In/out is, quite literally, what happens when a guy is added to (or removed) from a specifically constructed roster. This is a slightly different, and equally (or more valuable) question to answer because no player in this situation can be co-varied with lineups. I'd rather have the lineup data to analyze, but with in/out teams can't hide/warp value with lineup trickery.

Trades, however, are not the same. Trades are taking one part off and replacing it with a completely new part. The information is still valuable (in both directions), but we can see MASSIVE interactive effects. (This makes sense in theory as a team is trading for a need). Historically:

-The 1969 Knicks were close to .500 before the DeBuscherre trade. They were ~ + 9 after.
-The 1980 Bucks improved by something like 10 pts adding Bob Lanier at the end of the year.
-The 04 Pistons with Rasheed saw a similar effect

I'm not saying this happened with Oscar, but you need to be careful with the context of "trade value." That said, it seems ridiculous not to credit Kareem and Dandridge for improving in their second year. I'd also consider Boozer and Allen upgrades, as well as the value of continuity from carrying over the same core for a second year.

And man, to each his own, but how can you not be less impressed with a 12 SRS in the early 70s split/expanded league than from, say, 1986 or 2008?

[bastillon]

Doc, I actually misread your last post. sorry bout that

ElGee, so Bucks were 12.1 SRS before Oscar's injury. I don't think they were +7 team with Oscar hobbled/not playing if you include all those games + PS. +7 team would probably win a title that year considering how poorly Lakers were performing in the PS (I believe you argued West was injured and that affected his shooting so Lakers offense fell off a cliff).

but I'm pretty sure Kareem and Dandridge wouldn't be putting up that kind of numbers without Oscar on the team. they posted career high OWS with Oscar at his best despite being 2nd/3rd year players. I actually watched 2 games from those seasons, neither was anywhere near their '77 peak form. I was actually surprised how raw Kareem looked.

also, I never said I was as impressed as I would be if it happened in 86 or 08.

[GSP]

Who was the better player for the whole 06? DWade or Dirk?

[therealbig3]

The RAPM which says Dirk supposedly got way better on defense, to me, says something that mysticbb has touched on before. His defensive RAPM looks good not because he himself is an amazing defender, but because he can carry an offense to the point that he allows the Mavs to play strong defensive lineups around him. For example, as I've mentioned before, with Kidd/Terry/Marion/Dirk/Chandler (only one self-creator outside of Dirk in Terry), the Mavs posted a 125.57 ORating (+20.01) with a 90.70 DRating (-19.92) in the 2011 playoffs...so they were a +34.87 team with that lineup on the court in the playoffs.

So it may seem like his defensive RAPM is getting better, while his offense has remained constant, so what gives? If he improved his offense, why is his offense constant while the defense is better? I think it's because of the different lineups that are used with him now. They're not using Nash/Finley with him anymore, they're using past their prime version of Kidd and Marion (or in 09, J. Howard), one decent ball handler and creator in Terry, and a defensive minded center, such as Haywood or Dampier or Chandler. That is really not strong offensive support at all, so I can understand why his offensive RAPM hasn't really improved, even though he has personally become a better offensive player. I can also see why his defensive RAPM has vastly improved, even though he hasn't become a better defensive player.

So imo, the overall impact that RAPM says he's having is there, it's just that the splits between offense and defense aren't being properly assigned, or are being affected by the types of lineups that Dallas has mainly used around Nowitzki.

And his production in 09 was really quite strong actually. Compare his per 36 RS and PS numbers in 09 to 06:

06 RS: 25.1 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.8 TOpg, 58.9% TS
06 PS: 22.7 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.8 TOpg, 59.6% TS

09 RS: 24.7 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 2.3 apg, 1.9 TOpg, 56.4% TS
09 PS: 24.5 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.1 TOpg, 63.5% TS

His RAPM was a little lower in 09, but his +/- for the PS that year was +14.37. Now, I know they got torched by the Nuggets in the playoffs that year, so I wouldn't expect Dirk's defensive numbers to look great, since he plays most of the same minutes as Melo and Billups. But look at the offense of the two most common lineups that the Mavs played in the playoffs that year:

Kidd/Terry/Howard/Dirk/Dampier = 113.14 ORating
Kidd/Barea/Howard/Dirk/Dampier = 130.77 ORating

[drza]

Vote: 63 Oscar Robertson

[Doctor MJ]

The RAPM which says Dirk supposedly got way better on defense, to me, says something that mysticbb has touched on before. His defensive RAPM looks good not because he himself is an amazing defender, but because he can carry an offense to the point that he allows the Mavs to play strong defensive lineups around him. For example, as I've mentioned before, with Kidd/Terry/Marion/Dirk/Chandler (only one self-creator outside of Dirk in Terry), the Mavs posted a 125.57 ORating (+20.01) with a 90.70 DRating (-19.92) in the 2011 playoffs...so they were a +34.87 team with that lineup on the court in the playoffs.

So it may seem like his defensive RAPM is getting better, while his offense has remained constant, so what gives? If he improved his offense, why is his offense constant while the defense is better? I think it's because of the different lineups that are used with him now. They're not using Nash/Finley with him anymore, they're using past their prime version of Kidd and Marion (or in 09, J. Howard), one decent ball handler and creator in Terry, and a defensive minded center, such as Haywood or Dampier or Chandler. That is really not strong offensive support at all, so I can understand why his offensive RAPM hasn't really improved, even though he has personally become a better offensive player. I can also see why his defensive RAPM has vastly improved, even though he hasn't become a better defensive player.

So imo, the overall impact that RAPM says he's having is there, it's just that the splits between offense and defense aren't being properly assigned, or are being affected by the types of lineups that Dallas has mainly used around Nowitzki.

And his production in 09 was really quite strong actually. Compare his per 36 RS and PS numbers in 09 to 06:

06 RS: 25.1 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.8 TOpg, 58.9% TS
06 PS: 22.7 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.8 TOpg, 59.6% TS

09 RS: 24.7 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 2.3 apg, 1.9 TOpg, 56.4% TS
09 PS: 24.5 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.1 TOpg, 63.5% TS

His RAPM was a little lower in 09, but his +/- for the PS that year was +14.37. Now, I know they got torched by the Nuggets in the playoffs that year, so I wouldn't expect Dirk's defensive numbers to look great, since he plays most of the same minutes as Melo and Billups. But look at the offense of the two most common lineups that the Mavs played in the playoffs that year:

Kidd/Terry/Howard/Dirk/Dampier = 113.14 ORating
Kidd/Barea/Howard/Dirk/Dampier = 130.77 ORating

This is more quality thought.

The idea that a player's defensive +/- might look good because his offense allows better defensive guys on the court is something that's been around since people started talking about +/-, but it's never gotten well developed so far as I know because of lack of evidence. By that I mean, a player might seem to be showing that in one year, but it doesn't maintain in any ongoing fashion even when that player's role seems to stay the same when we used advanced metrics. So so far as I was concerned, it was noise, but I'm always open to new scenarios.

Let me also say that although we're at this point emphasizing the defensive shift, the overall shift was more dramatic than that and included offense as well. As mentioned, Dirk doubled his deviation in one year. That's a huge leap forward to the point where I think we're a bit beyond saying "Dirk's gotten so good that they can shift lineups around him for defense".

I'll revisit what I said before, when I said, "Either Dirk got better, the team got a better fit around Dirk, or something weirder happened." To me if a player isn't getting better, but his RAPM is showing an abrupt change, I'm not sure what else to call that but "fit" in the broad sense that includes team strategy. If someone has a different way to explain it, then I'd like to hear that. Obviously "fit" is a bit of a charged word for good reason. It tends to imply that there's some baseline level that's "real", and superior fit adds a bonus to that.

As a rule, I don't subscribe to that. To my mind, the baseline is more on the high end of things regarding fit, because I often times see scenarios where a player is simply being misused. However, I do consider it a fair point that when we compare players with different degrees of "fit" on their teams, it doesn't make sense to act like their both at the baseline if we're talking about how "good" they are as opposed to the more concrete measurement of "value".

I don't contest Dirk's value to these teams, however when we are trying to judge the goodness of these players I get nervous when I point to a +/- statistics that I can't put into more concrete terms. And Dirk's numbers going through the roof so late in his career makes me think that the Mavs have hit the fit jackpot around Dirk in a way that I don't know if it's ever been done before. Can you think of another player who in his 13th year on a team, 11th year in prime, and after what seemed like a pretty graceful arch, all of a sudden saw his value explode like this?

And this is where I start feeling the need to tip my cap to the Mavs. A team who has been building around this star for most of that 11 years tinkering with different approaches, and all the while being the inventors of modern +/- analysis, if anyone was going to see shocking breakthroughs in the +/- of their star despite no glaring improvement from him, wouldn't it be the Mavs?

[drza]

For what it's worth, I wrote up essentially the same thing that therealbigthree did about Dirk possibly allowing for better defenders then decided not to post it (I will now, below). I paused because (in addition to not being sure that the detailed data would support the assertion) I wasn't sure that what I was writing was really much of a rebutal to the "mega fit" argument that DocMJ just made. Here, then, is what I was going to write:

There's something more to be added to these numbers though...What was the claim about 2011 Dirk before Dallas won the title? It was "hey, that guys added something to his offensive game over the years." Of course, no one liked to finish the sentence as they should have with "which I didn't notice because I was busy calling him soft and a choker." But yes, everyone agreed Dirk added something to his offense. I never thought this made up for his defense/rebounding edge in 06 bc 06 Dirk was an offensive monster too. But...

If he added something to his offense, why in the world are people championing a measurement that says he got way way better on defense?

Playing devil's advocate, I've seen two main arguments for why Dirk's +/- impact might be higher than what you'd expect based on the box scores: his tremendous spacing, and his ability to carry an offense to such a degree that he could be surrounded by defensive role players. It's the second that would most fit here, since in '11 the Mavs were able to sustain a sufficient offense while starting Tyson Chandler, Shawn Marion, DeShawn Stevenson and Jason Kidd...all 4 defensive minded players with limited offensive utility.

Considering that Defensive RAPM doesn't say that a player because a better defender (it says instead that the team's defense played better with him on the court), couldn't one argue that a) Dirk was always a solid if low impact defender (defensive RAPM from 0.1 - 1.5 in previous 8 seasons) but b) his offensive ability allowed Dallas to surround him with a lot more defensive talent on-court. And that even if this may have fooled the RAPM measure into apportioning his impact more to defense than to offense, he still earned the overall impact score but it was just put in the wrong column?

But the thing is, isn't that in fact an argument FOR mega fit? That the Mavs found the formula: surround Dirk with strong defenders/defensive role players whose offensive games are limited but role specific to fit around a creator? That they found the formula so much, in fact, that they could swap out pieces that fulfill similar roles in 2012? That maybe the big failing of the 2012 Mavs was that Odom, the guy meant to come in and be the quality frontcourt fit around Dirk, instead flamed out?

Shrugs. Both my earlier (here, quoted) post and this most recent one have a lot of speculation in them. More speculation than I'm willing to bank on as a workable theory. But I guess my present thought after seeing therealbigthree flesh out what I didn't post earlier and DocMJ make the counters that I was thinking...is that maybe they're in fact arguing the same thing. That maybe Dirk's offense DOES allow the team to play better defenders...but that the Mavs discovering this and rolling with it is the exact super-fit that DocMJ argues that Dirk shouldn't get all of the credit for. Still a very interesting conversation.

[Doctor MJ]

Who was the better player for the whole 06? DWade or Dirk?

I rated Wade higher during the regular season (his low MVP showy was based on lazy voters continuing to credit Shaq for Wade's production).
Dirk was better in the first 2 rounds, Wade was better in the last 2 rounds.

It never seemed really close to me who was more impressive by the end.

[MisterWestside]

I don't contest Dirk's value to these teams, however when we are trying to judge the goodness of these players I get nervous when I point to a +/- statistics that I can't put into more concrete terms. And Dirk's numbers going through the roof so late in his career makes me think that the Mavs have hit the fit jackpot around Dirk in a way that I don't know if it's ever been done before. Can you think of another player who in his 13th year on a team, 11th year in prime, and after what seemed like a pretty graceful arch, all of a sudden saw his value explode like this?

Steve Nash?

But you hit the nail on the head DocMJ. I find it counter-intuitive that Dirk's own abilities as a basketball player skyrocketed when he put together some impressive campaigns as a (should be) prime 20-something year old in the mid 200s. His 07, 09, and 10 seasons were all great, but some people thought he posted his best seasons already (06 and 07) and was trending downward as a player.

[ElGee]

Interpreting Lineup Data

realbig3, I've really enjoyed your posts in this project. I like where you're going here. But I think your last post here is a perfect example of not looking at the entire picture. (There's a bit of cherry picking here, and I imagine it's unintentional.)

(1) We need to consider the small sample size of the PS. There's really no other way to say this, it's a REALLY big deal in trying to make these kinds of conclusions. Way way moreso with lineup data, where the most used lineup of a team might play 200 min. Variance/error are off the charts

(2) The most used lineup of the 2011 PS Mavs had an ORtg of 94.4. I mention this because you have quite a story to tell if you say "well hey, look, the Nowitzki-led lineup that played 163 min had an ORtg of 127!" Well, yeah, and the Nowitzki-led lineup that made one substitution, Jason Terry for Deshawn Stevenson, was terrible offensively by the same standard. How do you reconcile this?

(3) The thing you should be looking at, if you haven't already, is whether this data is impressive relative to other lineups. Is it?

According to BR, the 2011 Mavs have the two best ORtg lineup from 2008-2012, and they are indeed both somewhat outlying. Of course, we know the Mavs are the originators of obsessing over lineup data, so maybe it isn't too surprising if we dig deeper...

The Best Offensive Lineup of the Last 5 Playoffs...

Let's look at the No. 1 lineup, the Peja lineup...they couldn't even play it against the Heat, which was predictable heading into the series. Let me say that again -- they could not play this offensively-slanted lineup against Miami bc of matchup problems. (They tried it for 10 pos, were outscored 8-7, and scrapped it.)

Another thing to note is the 3-point shooting. Like, a big, giant huge note. Mavs hit 16 3's per 100 possessions at 56% shooting -- this was the lineup that went bonkers against LA. If you bring the 3-point shooting down to just "fantastic," at 40%, you lose 13.4 points/100 off the total.

The Mavericks Best Lineup

The second lineup on the list burned Miami. They were the lineup that put together the perfect shooting run (save for a blocked shot) at the end of G2. They also never really played for more than 4 consecutive minutes. (In a game in LA they went 5:03 together!) Again, shouldn't you be asking yourself "if this lineup is so dominant, why does it seem to play only at strategically opportune times?" (eg the Lakers 2010 lineup REGULARLY played for 5-8 minute stretches uninterrupted.)

[You can also look at the RS to increase sample. The RS ORtg of the Terry unit was 119 in 187 min. For the outlying 137 unit with Peja, it was 111 in 41 min.]

Oh, and these are all things that you should intuitively know from watching the PS.

(a) The Mavs pick and choose lineups brilliantly.
(b) The Mavs were video-game hot during stretches WITH hand-picked lineups.
(c) The Mavs also struggled with other lineups which is
(d) why the Mavs won an extremely close title and didn't roll people like the 96 Bulls, despite their outlying lineups.

No reasonable human with working eyes watched the 2011 playoffs as they unfolded and thought "man, this Mavs offense is HISTORICALLY dominant, only they keep subbing in bad players for some reason!"

And while +35.6 is amazingly impressive (Terry lineup), no one actually thinks that's anywhere close to how good they "really" are, right? Because we could just also use the RS data and we'd see it's the 3rd-best offensive lineup of the last 5 years, but only the 13th-best overall lineup: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... y=diff_pts Of course, they play in strategically beneficial situations, as you'll notice they are the BEST big-minute lineup of the last 5 years...but they only average 5.5 mpg together. (!) The other "notable" top lineups -- as in, this is our best lineup, we want to play it as much as possible -- average 13 to 16 minutes.

For an actual, no holds bard, holy **** impressive lineup, look at the Rondo-Allen-Pierce-KG-Perkins lineup -- they played 4400 minutes together at +13.5 and 19.2 mpg. Now THAT's a freaking impressive lineup. (Or even the Pho starting lineup in 2005 -- 1520 MP, 19.5 mpg, +14.7. The Det starting 5 played 4700 MP over 3 years at +11.5 while playing 21.2 mpg. And on and on...)

[Doctor MJ]

For what it's worth, I wrote up essentially the same thing that therealbigthree did about Dirk possibly allowing for better defenders then decided not to post it (I will now, below). I paused because (in addition to not being sure that the detailed data would support the assertion) I wasn't sure that what I was writing was really much of a rebutal to the "mega fit" argument that DocMJ just made. Here, then, is what I was going to write:

There's something more to be added to these numbers though...What was the claim about 2011 Dirk before Dallas won the title? It was "hey, that guys added something to his offensive game over the years." Of course, no one liked to finish the sentence as they should have with "which I didn't notice because I was busy calling him soft and a choker." But yes, everyone agreed Dirk added something to his offense. I never thought this made up for his defense/rebounding edge in 06 bc 06 Dirk was an offensive monster too. But...

If he added something to his offense, why in the world are people championing a measurement that says he got way way better on defense?

Playing devil's advocate, I've seen two main arguments for why Dirk's +/- impact might be higher than what you'd expect based on the box scores: his tremendous spacing, and his ability to carry an offense to such a degree that he could be surrounded by defensive role players. It's the second that would most fit here, since in '11 the Mavs were able to sustain a sufficient offense while starting Tyson Chandler, Shawn Marion, DeShawn Stevenson and Jason Kidd...all 4 defensive minded players with limited offensive utility.

Considering that Defensive RAPM doesn't say that a player because a better defender (it says instead that the team's defense played better with him on the court), couldn't one argue that a) Dirk was always a solid if low impact defender (defensive RAPM from 0.1 - 1.5 in previous 8 seasons) but b) his offensive ability allowed Dallas to surround him with a lot more defensive talent on-court. And that even if this may have fooled the RAPM measure into apportioning his impact more to defense than to offense, he still earned the overall impact score but it was just put in the wrong column?

But the thing is, isn't that in fact an argument FOR mega fit? That the Mavs found the formula: surround Dirk with strong defenders/defensive role players whose offensive games are limited but role specific to fit around a creator? That they found the formula so much, in fact, that they could swap out pieces that fulfill similar roles in 2012? That maybe the big failing of the 2012 Mavs was that Odom, the guy meant to come in and be the quality frontcourt fit around Dirk, instead flamed out?

Shrugs. Both my earlier (here, quoted) post and this most recent one have a lot of speculation in them. More speculation than I'm willing to bank on as a workable theory. But I guess my present thought after seeing therealbigthree flesh out what I didn't post earlier and DocMJ make the counters that I was thinking...is that maybe they're in fact arguing the same thing. That maybe Dirk's offense DOES allow the team to play better defenders...but that the Mavs discovering this and rolling with it is the exact super-fit that DocMJ argues that Dirk shouldn't get all of the credit for. Still a very interesting conversation.

Well at the core of what we're running into again and again in this project is value vs goodness. 2 very closely related concept that I'm not sure really if everyone here even really buys into as separate entities.

Value is a great indicator of goodness, but if I were going by value on my list here Jordan wouldn't be #1. I don't believe he ever lifted the Bulls like LeBron lifted the Cavs...but I don't see any reason why he couldn't have lifted a team as much as LeBron lifted the Cavs in the right setting, so why am I penalizing Jordan for bad luck?

This of course is an amusing statement because Jordan didn't have bad luck, he had better luck than LeBron, and hence had more team success. This is a good thing, and the notion that Jordan should have been considering getting traded to a crappy team so he could show off for us making this list is hilarious.

But the key is LeBron's "bad luck" wasn't all bad. He couldn't have that much value on a more talented team, but he also could have had a weak talented supporting cast that didn't fit well. Make no mistake, there's no freaking way LeBron could turn any group of losers into a 60+ win team. He got lucky to compared to many.

Getting back to Dirk and mega-fit, I don't want to penalize him for it, but I want to have a level playing field. I always try to think of this as "rounding up" the guys with worse fits, but I concede that the effect is pretty much the same as if I were rounding Dirk down. In the end, I suppose I think the key piece of thought is this:

The +/- family of stats are the key evidence we have of Dirk's peak value, and the most sophisticated tool we have shows a 1 year jump that more than doubles the deviation that Dirk had had the previous couple years. A way to look at this is to say what New Dirk's impact is as much bigger than Old Dirk's impact as Old Dirk's impact was to an average NBA player.

If you think this is coming from Dirk all of a sudden skyrocketing in his goodness, that's amazing, and you should expound on that.

If you think this is coming from a newfound mega-fit strategy around Dirk, the you should only let that change your opinion about Dirk if you think that you have a sense of which player are capable of that mega-fit and which aren't. Any who also could have such a mega-fit that didn't get that opportunity, you need to round them up.

Consider while you're doing this that Dirk had the fortune of being the star of a single franchise for a very long time, with many different lineups, with the franchise that pretty much invented lineup analysis.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't contest Dirk's value to these teams, however when we are trying to judge the goodness of these players I get nervous when I point to a +/- statistics that I can't put into more concrete terms. And Dirk's numbers going through the roof so late in his career makes me think that the Mavs have hit the fit jackpot around Dirk in a way that I don't know if it's ever been done before. Can you think of another player who in his 13th year on a team, 11th year in prime, and after what seemed like a pretty graceful arch, all of a sudden saw his value explode like this?

Steve Nash?

But you hit the nail on the head DocMJ. I find it counter-intuitive that Dirk's own abilities as a basketball player skyrocketed when he put together some impressive campaigns as a (should be) prime 20-something year old in the mid 200s. His 07, 09, and 10 seasons were all great, but some people thought he posted his best seasons already (06 and 07) and was trending downward as a player.

See I do think Nash is a logical point of comparison when we're talking about an unexpected leap forward. That thing with Nash though is that he had only had 3 real prime years before his breakthrough, and his breakthrough came with glaring team changes: It was the first time a team had ever really designed an offense around him the way most superstars have from the beginning. It's really far easier to understand Nash than Dirk in this case.

[Dipper 13]

So why it wasn't worked so good in 1969?

Perhaps here the belief happens to be that pure jump shooting is the most important aspect of the game?



Sports Illustrated - April 15, 1968

"New York is doing what San Francisco does, and what they both learned from Boston," Alex Hannum said, announcing that he, too, was ready to escalate. "It is a matter of taking the initiative. You start out touching your opponent and establish in the minds of the officials that a certain amount of contact is natural. Then you begin to grab and hold, and finally you start pushing. Then the other team starts the same thing and pretty soon it all deteriorates into what I call a rat game."

It is also called muscleball. In the West, however, the game is called finesse. Without the massive man in the middle, the Lakers and Warriors are employing a style that differs vastly from the classic Eastern thump-thump. They both spread wide, move the center outside and try to work for drives down the middle or long shots off high picks. Both teams like to run, both possess depth and shooters. It probably will come down to a question of whether San Francisco's larger forwards—Rudy LaRusso and Fred Hetzel—or L.A.'s smaller, quicker ones—Elgin Baylor and Tommy Hawkins—are the more efficient combination. The Lakers, who finished the season 30-8 with Baylor nearly at his oldtime best and with a healthy Jerry West now available, are obviously the logical choice.

...

"This whole team gets along better together than any I've ever played on," Jerry West says. "That's part of the reason I was so discouraged when I was hurt again a few weeks ago. We're a more aggressive team. I play against better defense in practice than in a lot of games. "And this is absolutely the best-shooting team I have ever seen. I mean shooting. Not drop it in or beat it to death on the backboard."

There has been a great deal of talk all year about how Van Breda Kolff has managed to spread the scoring load around. But in the Lakers' first playoff series, which they won in five games against Chicago, Baylor and West made 293 of 510 Laker points. Both players appear as contented and assured as they have ever been, and when the Eastern teams get through hacking each other to death, the survivor may not be prepared for finesseball.

acted like an authoritarian parent.

No kidding.


Sports Illustrated - April 29, 1968

In Los Angeles the Lakers watched the final game on TV, rooting for Boston. To a man, they believe they can handle the Celtics, matching their speed, giving Russell the boards but out hooting the rest. Like Boston, too, the Lakers are a team with continuity of top personnel, more closely knit than ever this year under the fresh, easy stewardship of Coach Bill van Breda Kolff, who rails at them all, one by one, and then quickly forgets. In turn, the players look upon their new coach with a sympathetic but bewildered affection. As L.A. Reporter Merv Harris points out, he may be the only coach in history to make bed checks and then keep the poor players awake, drinking beer and talking basketball into the wee hours—until the players beg to please have the bed check concluded.

[Josephpaul]

Kobe 09 gets my vote .He avg 32.4 PPG and 7.4 AST in the finals . The first game he came out firing with 40 PTS 8st 8TRB. For the whole playoffs he avg 26.8 PER had 5.3 TRB 5.5 AST and 30.2PPG . His greatest playoff performance.


Worth a read about Kobe's playoffs performances.

http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/2009 ... r.html?m=1

[Doctor MJ]

Thanks for sharing Dipper!

[Josephpaul]

In the WCF he was unstoppable as well 34pts 5.8 AST 5.8 Reb. As you can see from the blog he got better as playoffs continued . A show of growth and rising to the challenge.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Jerry West '68

Still waiting to see what people really think of this pick. I'm a bit bothered that no real Oscar vs West debate seems like it's going to happen despite some initial arguments presented there.

I do think think West's explosiveness on both ends of the court combined with his high BBIQ more than matches Oscar's savant offensive game with a not so explosive defense.

However, if Oscar gets in here, I can't really say as I think it's a terrible choice. Very few players had a brain like Oscar.