RealGM Top 100 List #11

[penbeast0]

My computer is acting up so I cannot do this myself, but if anyone has a spreadsheet set up, I wanted to post numbers for (a) career and (b) peak year normed to year 2000 stats (adjusted for points, rebounds, assists, ts%, etc. so that the numbers each player posted would be the equivalent distance from the average for the year 2000) for some of the top candidates for the next 10 spots. I find this more useful than rebound rate, etc. because it presents the information in a consistent and easily recognized and compared format.

IF I can get a new computer bought and set up and transfer over my spreadsheets (which looks unlikely right now), I will try to get to this but at the moment, I am taking forever just to post simple posts.

Players I would like to see comps v. league norm for . . .

Mikan
Pettit
Oscar
West
Havlicek
Gilmore
Erving
Moses
Ewing
DRobinson
KMalone
Barkley
Kobe
Garnett
Dirk
Nash

I don't think these are necessarily my next 15 (I rank Frazier over Nash, Pippen over Havlicek, etc.) but I think they are the ones likely to be brought up early and some of them will be pretty polarizing.

[Texas Chuck]

Glad you posted that before the inevitable "well its Kobe v KG" comments could be made.

Im really interested in hearing info on Oscar, West, and Karl Malone in particular. I think they all deserve to be in the mix at this point.

[therealbig3]

Glad you posted that before the inevitable "well its Kobe v KG" comments could be made.

Im really interested in hearing info on Oscar, West, and Karl Malone in particular. I think they all deserve to be in the mix at this point.

Agreed, and Dr. J as well.

I'm especially interested in Oscar, West, and Dr. J. I feel like I have a pretty good handle on K. Malone, KG, Dirk, and Kobe. All 7 of them are legitimate candidates at this point imo.

I'm probably going to go with KG again, but like I mentioned in the last thread, Jaivl's post about Oscar really has me thinking about him...and ElGee had a good post that suggested West was at least Oscar's equal...and Dr. J was kind of a monster, but I think I would take Kobe over him the more I think about it, but additional information about him would certainly be helpful.

[Baller2014]

Yeh, I'm on a business trip so my posting intermittently today (if at all), but for me this looks like Dr J v.s KG, with a few other contenders on the wings. Interested in hearing about Moses, K.Malone, D.Rob, West and even open to hearing Oscar's case again.

Others will make the KG case in more detail than I can, so I'll outline again my thoughts on Dr J v.s Kobe:

I was thinking about these two RE: the top 100 project:

The case for Dr J

Spoiler:

It’s odd that there has not been more traction for Dr J to this point. He has probably the highest peak of any remaining player, tonnes of longevity, great intangibles and could play both ends of the floor. The only real argument against him is that the ABA doesn’t count, and that’s an absurd argument which I’ll cover.

To begin with, let’s look at a post from Truelafan I found while searching realgm on this very subject:

Julius Erving has a higher peak. Kobe Bryant is a great player. He had had some amazing years. He has never had a year like Julius Erving had in 1976, where Doc led his team in...well, everything. He averaged 29.3 ppg, 11.0 rpg, 5.0 apg, 2.5 steals and almost 2 blocks per game. The kicker is that he played [better in the postseason and led a pretty nondescript team to a title. In the finals, he had Bobby Jones defending him. Bobby Jones has a legitimate claim to being one of the 5 best defensive players of all time. He was at his peak when he went up against Julius Erving in 1976. Erving dismantled him. Erving's 1976 season is one of the all time dominant seasons in every way. Kobe has never had a year like that. He's had some that were close...but so has Erving. So you kind of have to go with Erving's peak.

How much “better” did Dr J play in the playoffs? The guy was putting up 35-13-5-2-2 on a FG% of 53.3%. Ridiculous.
Dr MJ made this post on the #7 thread RE: Dr J:

It was me talking about Erving, and I'll confirm: There's no good reason at all to rate the NBA as clearly ahead of the ABA right before the merger. 5 years earlier sure, but the reason the merger happen had everything to do with the fact that the ABA kept gaining and gaining. By the end the ABA was winning more of the cross-league games than the NBA, and as I mentioned even the NBA's battlecry of "we played both sides of the ball" looks silly when you see how the ABA teams did when they came over and played with NBA rules.

Re: Declining numbers when he switched over. There were injuries yes, and there was a general decline that seems to me to come from a player whose game peaked more closely with his athleticism than your average all-timer - which says something about how special his athleticism was, and also says something about his BBIQ being good but not genius

The big thing though is simply that he was put onto another team with the worst fit imaginable. Philly's star George McGinnis was the knock off version of Erving: Both guys did it all, and both were used to their entire team being built around them in a unipolar manner. It was kind of like LeBron coming to Miami if you were to imagine Wade as a guy with no intention of sacrificing for build a great team around the new superior talent, except that the gap between LeBron & Wade as first option was smaller than the gap between Erving & McGinnis.

So Erving goes there and does what's asked of him, which is quite a bit less than he's used to because the team is essentially alternating between he and McGinnis. Over time, as the 76ers realized this just wasn't good enough, McGinnis got phased down and then traded, and so by the time we get to the '80s Erving's basically doing what you can expect him to do in that time period - which is very impressive, but it's not what he looked like in his peak.

If the New York Nets had been able to come over to the NBA intact, there's every reason to believe that the progression of Erving's stats from '76 to '80 would have been much more of a straight line, and he'd have been been doing his thing leading what would have been a strong contender without anyone seeing his teammates as particularly strong. Good chance that if this happened, Erving's something of a GOAT candidate.

Nor did Dr J fade off in the way some assert:

For those saying that Dr. J declined in the NBA.

Per 100 possession numbers:
74-76 (ABA): 32-13-6, 5.1 stl/blk
77-79 (NBA): 28-10-5, 4.0 stl/blk
80-82 (NBA): 34-10-6. 5.2 stl/blk

His rebounding numbers dropped off which can be explained by the ABA being a smaller league, but Dr. J's numbers from 80-82 are very comparable to his 74-76 ABA peak. Even his steals and blocks, an indicator of athleticism, went up in the NBA despite the fact that he was age 29-31 in that span compared to 23-25 from 74-76.

So Dr J actually has the highest peak left, and great longevity, the guy was still an MVP candidate into the early 80’s, and didn’t drop off the map right after that either. And of course he was putting up 32-12-4-3-2 on 50% shooting back in 1973 at age 22. Dr J was simply a more talented individual than Kobe- he was bigger, stronger, and more athletic. He had huge hands that let him palm the ball to do ridiculous stuff, which combined with his awesome body control made him near unstoppable going to the basket. He was a fantastic defender as well, with natural talents like size, strength and length that Kobe simply lacked (not to mention effort). Check out this video showcasing some of Erving’s ridiculous body control and athleticism, all of which he makes look effortless:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DebtVv87jDc[/youtube]

Does the ABA “Count”?

Spoiler:

In addition to the usual arguments about exhibitions games and players who switched in and out of the ABA, let's look at the most compelling argument; the 2 teams whose rosters changed the least from ABA to NBA. The first is one I know well, my own Spurs.

In the 3 years prior to the merger the Spurs had a win% of 53.6%, 60.7% and 59.5%. In the first 3 years in the NBA the Spurs had a win% of 53.7%, 63.4% and 58.5%. They actually did better in the NBA. Some people criticise their SRS dropping in 1977, but that's easily explainable; James Silas, an all-aba 1st teamer in 1976, suffered a catastrophic injury (from which he never fully recovered) and played only 22 games in 1977. He barely played in 78 either. Despite that, the Spurs SRS kicked it back up to ABA levels in 1978, and by 1979 (when Silas returned at a reduced capacity) they recorded a higher SRS than they had ever recorded in their history and tragically lost in the conference finals (if they'd won, they were the likely champs that year). So with a healthy Silas the Spurs wouldn't have just been breaking even with their ABA results leading into the merger, they'd have been significantly outperforming them.

Then look at the Nuggets. Despite losing some players they were still an awesome NBA team. Not quite as good as they'd been in the ABA, that was a combination of a number of factors (and not every team is going to transition as smoothly as the Spurs), but they were still an awesome team. Just like the Spurs, critics mention that the Nuggets SRS dropped in 1977, and it did drop marginally, but what they don't seem to know is that the Nuggets actually had the 2nd highest SRS in a 22 team NBA in 1977. The team with the best SRS? The one who beat them, and who won the championship that year. Lots of ABA players showed much the same thing on an individual level. Sure, Dr J's stats went down on arriving to the NBA, but that was a combination of both his injuries and the team he was on. There were three 30 pt scorers and one 20 point scorer. That wasn't going to work, so the coach said they'd all have to take less shots to make it work, and it almost did, the 76ers were consistently ripping it up despite the presence of way too many gunners, on their talent alone.

In some ways the ABA was a tougher league. There were plenty of weak teams in the NBA by 1976, but in the ABA in 1976 there was exactly one weak team (the Squires). The other 5/6ths of the time you played either one of 3 teams who’d have been NBA contenders, or 2 other teams that would have made the NBA playoffs that year probably. The two titles Dr J carried his team to, especially in 1976, were won in an league that was as strong as the NBA.

The case against Kobe

Kobe’s impact is lower than guys currently being discussed

Spoiler:

Kobe was never the best player in the league in any year…and yet people here want to vote him in the top 15 of all-time. Just think about that for a sec…nor is that my opinion, that’s also the opinion of the RPOY project on realgm (with Laker fans making up one of the largest voter groups).

As I've been elaborating on throughout the top 100 project, the best way to tell how much a guy can impact a team is often to look at how he does with bad team mates, because it removes all the variables of how much star X really did. All the top 10-15 type guys we're talking about did that, heck even some non-top 15 type guys like Nash and Walton and Dwight have shown that sort of impact. Kobe never did that. He not only never did that, but he demonstrated pretty conclusively he couldn't do it. From 99-04 the Lakers record when Shaq was hurt, but Kobe played, was 23-26 (a 38 win pace). Shaq led the same support cast his fans will call "bad" to a 30-10 record over this period (good for a 61 win pace). In 05-07 without Shaq, Kobe's teams were never contenders, winning between 34 and 45 wins. In 05 Kobe's team wasn't that bad, he had an all-star quality player in Odom, a very good player in young Caron Butler, and several decent role players to round out the starting line-up (Mihm, who was a solid role playing big before his injuries, and Atkins, who was a starter on a 50 win team the following season). Nor can you blame the 05 season on Kobe's injuries (they were 28-38 in games Kobe played), or Odom's (because Odom was only rested once the Lakers knew the playoffs was out of sight; they had an unbelievably tough schedule leading into the playoffs, mostly against 50 win teams).

The 06 and 07 teams were worse, but were they really worse than the sorts of bad teams Dr J had in 1976, or Walton in 77, or Oscar’s Royals, or Rick Barry’s 1975 title team? I doubt it. Odom would easily have been the best non-Duncan player on most of those teams. In the 2008 season the record without Bynum or Pau was also a mediocre 9-7. Basically Kobe couldn't get anywhere with bad teams. You know who could? The guys he's being compared to. I won’t even get started on what advanced stats say about Kobe (especially in regards to his horribly overrated D). There are multiple years where the Lakers really underachieved if Kobe is the player he’s being made out to be; 03, 04, 05-07, 08, 11, and of course 2013, for which Kobe has to shoulder his share of the blame too.

People are trying to give props to Kobe for his volume scoring, but that makes little sense. Dantley was probably a better scorer, and nobody is seriously considering him for a long while. We should be less interested in volume, and more interested in impact.

So right off the bat Kobe’s at a disadvantage with most of the guys he’s being compared to. But it gets worse because of the next thing…

Kobe’s horrible intangibles- bad team mate, bad leader

Spoiler:

This post is from a recent thread:

It's basically because Kobe has a pretty horrible record as a team mate, perhaps one of the worst of all-time for any star, and in some ways it's worse than ever. Why? Because in the old days you could rely on Kobe to play like a star at least, but now with the injuries and his age? You're basically stuck in a soap opera about whose team it is, and how Kobe gets to close his career. It wasn't fun, just ask Dwight Howard. I suspect that's why we're seeing so much Kobe twitter activity all of a sudden, taking pot shots at people (like the ridiculous tweet where he claimed the Hornets snubbed him in the draft, when in fact it was the exact opposite way around). I won't focus on Kobe's decisions to force his way to the Lakers, but here are some tidbits from Kobe's career.

Getting into the NBA Kobe had grand dreams about how his career would pan out, and was not shy about telling his team mates how great he would become. This led to obvious tension in the team, most particularly with Shaq:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... biography/

“It pained me to see how much of a struggle it was for them me,” West writes, “how unwilling Kobe was to defer to Shaq in any way.”

Phil Jackson writes how West first alerted him to the issue when West called him into his office and confided that Kobe had come to talk to Jerry, to ask him for advice. What advice did Kobe want from one of the Laker greats?

Kobe had asked him how he had averaged 30-plus points a game when his team mate, Elgin Baylor, was also scoring 30-plus points per game.

To try and teach Kobe what it meant to be part of a team, Phil arranged an introduction between Kobe and his former student, Michael Jordan, who had to learn to sacrifice for the team. It didn't go the way Phil hoped:

I orchestrated a meeting between the two stars, thinking that Michael might help shift Kobe's attitude toward selfless teamwork. After they shook hands, the first words out of Kobe's mouth were "You know I can kick your ass one on one."

Phil goes on to say how he admired Kobe, but that:

Kobe had yet to reach out to his teammates to try to get to know them. Instead of spending time with them after games, he usually went back to his hotel room

.
Later in Phil's first season he pulled the team together so they could watch some game tape. He pointed out that the triangle couldn't work with selfish play, and opened the floor to the team:

Shaq spoke up... "I think Kobe is playing too selfishly for us to win". That got everyone fired up. Some of the players nodded in support of Shaq, including Rick Fox, who said, "How many times have we been through this?" No one in that room came to Kobe's defense... As Rick Fox put it, "Kobe's me-first attitude was a landmine that was about to explode. We all knew somebody had to step on it, but nobody wanted to. So Phil did it, and we all walk a lot more freely now

Things got so bad that Phil wrote:

One night that week I had a dream about spanking Kobe and giving Shaq a smack.

Even after winning a ring, Kobe's attitude hadn't settled much, in fact Phil worried each year that it got worse:

One player whose agenda wasn't hard to figure out was Kobe Bryant...Kobe was building his resume at the expense of the rest of the team. Early in the season I'd asked him to keep playing the way he had the year before, running the offense through Shaq and sticking with the system until the final minutes of the game, Kobe responded by nearly doubling the number of shots he took each game and adapting an erratic style of passing- or more often, not passing- that infuriated his teammates, especially Shaq. Kobe's selfishness and unpredictability gave the other players a sinking feeling that he didn't trust them anymore, which further eroded team harmony...

The previous year Kobe had embraced the triangle offence. He couldn't wait to test drive the system that had turned Michael and the Bulls into champions. But at the start of this season he told me he thought the offense was boring and too simple, and it prevented him from displaying his gifts. I understood, but I told him we needed to win the most games with the fewest mishaps, including injuries and end of season fatigue. I don't think he bought it... he wasn't interested in becoming Shaq's Pippen. He wanted to create shots for himself....

In his mind he had it all figured out. His goal was to become the greatest basketball player of all time. He was certain he knew what he had to do to get there. Why should he listen to anybody else? If he followed my advice and cut back his scoring, he'd fall short of his ultimate goal. How was I going to get through to this kid?

To try and stop Shaq and Kobe feuding Phil encouraged them to become friends off the court, but:

Kobe balked at the idea of getting too close to Shaq and was appalled by the big guy's attempts to turn him into his "little brother". As Kobe explained, they came from different cultures and had little in common. Shaq was an army brat from the South by way of Newark, New Jersey, and Kobe was the worldly son of a former NBA player from Philly by way of Italy.

Later that season, after Shaq made a (private) trade demand to Buss, Kobe responded by giving a (public) interview to Rich Bucher, where he ripped into Shaq for his free throw shooting, and remarked:

"Turn my game down? I need to turn it up. I've improved. How are you going to bottle me up? I'd be better off playing somewhere else."

Things didn't get easier from there:

During the next few weeks, Shaq and Kobe took their soap opera to absurd extremes. If Kobe noticed Shaq sliding up to one reporter, he'd refuse to talk to him or her, then promise an exclusive to someone else. And if Shaq saw that Kobe was getting his feet taped by one trainer, he'd insist on having his feet taped by another trainer. And so it went...

Brian Shaw, who had played with O'Neal in Orlando, said it reminded him of the clash between Shaq and rising start Penny Hardaway, except that Penny was ok playing Robin to Shaq's Batman, and Kobe wasn't.

Later that season, while discussing the subject with reporter Rick Telander, Phil mentioned that he'd heard a rumour about how Kobe would sabotage his HS team in games early on, so he could help them make a dramatic comeback. When this was published Kobe's mature response was to have his lawyer threaten to sue Phil.

The Lakers won a 3-peat anyway, but it wasn't enough. Rather than win, Kobe was worried about how he was perceived during these wins. He was, in his own words, sick of being Robin.

early signs indicated that Kobe wanted to move to another team where he could be the main man and not have to compete with Shaq for that honor. The team he seemed most interested in was our local rival, the Clippers. Early in the season he had made an awkward attempt to discuss his future with Clippers coach Mike Dunleavy- a violation of NBA rules. To his credit, Mike didn't let the conversation get very far.

This wasn't the last time Kobe would demand a trade in public. As soon as the going got tough in LA he tried to force his way to Chicago.

After another (private) team fight in the 2004 season Kobe responded by going public with Jim Gray, again ripping on Shaq, for being out of shape, and for his "childlike selfishness and jealousy". Charming.

For years Phil had tried to get through to Kobe, but despite 3 titles in 4 years, things just seemed to get worse. Phil wanted Kobe traded

"I can't coach Kobe...He won't listen to anyone. I can't get through to him".

A few days later Phil details how Kobe got him fired:

Dr Buss, who worried that his young star might jump to another team, visited Kobe in Newport Beach, and tried to persuade him to remain with the Lakers... shortly thereafter Kobe told Derek Fisher [about Jackson] "Your man's not coming back next year."... I felt completely blindsided... Kobe seemed to be revelling in it.

.
when asked by the media if Phil's departure affected his free agency Kobe told reporters "I don't care". This is while Phil was trying to coach the team to a championship. The 2004 defeat of course was largely Kobe's fault. Rather than pass to Shaq, who was playing outstandingly, Kobe gunned it and shot horribly. The team lost, but Kobe seemed to prefer losing "his way" than winning another title as Shaq's Robin. He wanted to be the finals MVP this time, and taking as many shots as he felt he needed to in order to do that. After the loss Rick Fox summed it up:

"A team always beats a group of individuals... we picked a poor time to be a group of individuals"

Jackson was fired right after, and Shaq was moved to placate Kobe, who signed immediately afterwards. Sure, Magic got his coach fired once too, but at least that turned out to be the right move. Kobe wasn't doing this for the right reasons, indeed he had to swallow his pride and agree for Phil to come back after things fell apart without him. Forcing the team to move Shaq in a rush, so he would agree to re-sign, almost certainly hurt the Lakers in their quest to get fair value back (and indeed, keeping Shaq would have been more sensible).

Kobe had games where he would refuse to shoot to make "a point", often hurting the team as the opposing team reacted accordingly.

During the final week of the season, Kobe, who had never been shy about shooting, took just one shot in the first half of a game against Sacramento, allowing the Kings to take a 19-point lead and win handily. The media concluded that Kobe had intentionally tanked the game to improve his negotiating position with Dr Buss. Kobe said he was just doing what the coaches had asked him to do- share the ball- but nobody bought it. One player, speaking anonymously, told the LA Times... "I don't know how we can forgive him."

This led to an ugly scene at practise the next day. Kobe burst into the training facility in a rage and polled every player, one by one, trying to find out who was responsible for the quote. It was a wrenchingly painful episode.

Nor was this sort of thing confined to minor games. Who could forget game 7 v.s the Suns where Kobe responded to media criticism that he shot to much by refusing to shoot. Seriously?
http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.b ... out_the_mo

The problem with Kobe's attitude is it has a very real effect on the team's on the court performance.

And who could forget Kobe's horrible leadership in regards to Dwight Howard, who was reportedly hesitant to come to LA in the first place after Kobe's pitch to him was for him to come "be my Tyson Chandler". The two clearly had issues during the season, much of it revolving around Dwight feeling that Kobe was shooting too much. Kobe's pitch for Dwight to stay at his meeting with the Lakers was not much better. After promising to "teach Dwight how to win" Kobe was asked by Dwight:

Was this going to be his last year? "No," replied Kobe. "I'm planning to be around for three of four more years."

At that point, according to others in the room, Dwight's eyes went blank and he drifted away. In his mind the game was over.

Can anyone think of another top 15 player who other star players and coaches reacted thusly to? I sure can't, and it hurts him a lot.

[DannyNoonan1221]

Would like to hear Oscar/Baylor/Moses/Pettit. Heard a lot of KG/Kobe. Don't think either of those two are a lock for the next three spots. Depends on those 4, maybe one or two others (D. Robinson, Malone)

[Jaivl]

Vote: Oscar Robertson

If Magic was voted in, I see no reason not to vote Oscar a couple of spots next. Offensive impact is the main argument. Check this in/out data (thanks to ElGee):

Spoiler:

So basically when Oscar was off the court for the Royals (70 game sample), the team was worse by nearly 8 SRS points (more precisely 7.99). Of course it's easier to add impact with weak supporting casts, but Oscar's production was worth literally half the team.

Then he goes to the Bucks with Kareem. Already a good team without him (Kareem is top 3 ever, you know), post-prime Oscar bumps a title contender (+7 SRS) to GOAT status (+12 SRS).

That's way bigger offensive impact than Kobe ever had. And considering RAPM data shows Kobe as a neutral defender (at best), I have to vote Oscar.

(I'm aware there isn't full RAPM data for the '01 and '02 seasons, arguably Kobe's best seasons in that end. Still, the eyetest shows him as a very capable man defender -when focused-, but a below average team defender. In fact, Lakers' defenses were usually better with Kobe out (I can post the defensive in/out numbers tomorrow if needed). You sure can't convince me Kobe is a impactful defender, and I consider Oscar the better offensive player: better scoring efficiency, better playmaking, at worst similar athleticism).

EDIT: Oscar is roughly +7 TS% above league average for his career. Best mark between the all-time great volume scorers (sans Barkley). +8.5 TS% between '63 and '67.

[Clyde Frazier]

This is easily going to be the toughest decision for me thus far. So many viable candidates for this spot. Will take the next day or so to do my research, and i'm sure there will be some great discussion as well.

[tsherkin]

For lulz, and because I'm fairly tired of hearing about longevity when discussing anything but length of peak, here we go. We've got 9 guys selected so far (10, really, but the main list isn't updated), so here are their career lengths up to and including their final all-star season, with their total seasons played in brackets besides that:

Jordan - 13 (15), 930 GP in Chicago, two partial seasons (18 and 17 GP)
Kareem - 20 (20, though his last three were total horsecrap AS selections), 1,560 GP (probably 17 legit AS seasons)
Russell - 13 (13), 963 GP
Wilt - 15 (15), 1 12-game season, 1,045 GP
Duncan - (17+), 1,254 GP and counting, has played < 30 mpg in 3 of the last 4 years, not an AS in 12 or 14
Shaq - 17 (19), 1,207 GP, 6 seasons < 60 GP (not including the lockout), really dropped off after 2005
Lebron - 11 (11), 842 GP and counting
Magic - 12 (13), 906 GP (37 GP in his second season)
Hakeem - 13 (18), 1,238 GP, 5 seasons of 61 GP or less (not inc. lockout), mostly after 97.

That's our current top 9. We see the relevance of a player tail off sharply past the 13-year mark mostly, and even for players with remarkable longevity, they clearly move into secondary roles once they pass that point. The relevance of that to a project of this sort seems dubious at best, especially given how many guys in the top 9 have played under 1,000 games or for fewer than 15 seasons.

For giggles and completionism:

Karl Malone - 17 (19), 1,476 GP, stopped really being relevant after his 16th season
Moses Malone (inc ABA) - 15 (21), 1,455 GP, stopped being relevant as a dominant player after year 15
Kobe - 18 (18) - 1,245 GP, was voted an AS this year because fans are idiots, despite playing only 6 games
Garnett - 16 (19) - 1,377, hasn't played more than 71 games since 07, hasn't been worthwhile on O since 2011
Doctor J (inc ABA) - 15 (15), 1,243 GP, debatable merit as an AS in his final season
Admiral - 12 (14) - 987 GP, has a 6-game season in there, clearly a roleplayer his last 3 seasons, debatable AS selection in 01
Dirk - 16 (16) - 1,188 GP and counting, has a 53 GP season in there in 2013, was brutal in the PS this year

Bird - 13 (13) - 897 GP, 6-game season in 89, played 60 and 45 games in his last two seasons and never really came all the way back after the foot/back issues that really killed him in 89 and after.

A lot of these guys with excellent longevity are adding to stellar careers, yeah, but I question the value of such things in this project. Perhaps I'm wrong, but while it's good for a franchise to have that face for a long time, I don't really think it does too much to add to their legacy unless they are fortunate enough to be able to pass the torch. That said, one could say much the same thing about winning rings, so my main aim is to throw out there in one spot a list so everyone can see how people stack up.

There's an implicit and inverse correlation of some sort between individual accolades/team success and the relevance of longevity in our minds, I think, which suggests that longevity is our default after we've passed beyond the really successful guys who dominated the crap out of the league, like Jordan, Magic, Russell and Wilt.

[Baller2014]

Just to clarify, while Oscar made the Bucks better it was very clear the Bucks were probably going to win the title in 1971 even without him. They won 56 games the year before he arrived (would have been the best record in the NBA in 1971), then Kareem improved as a player. In 4 years on the Bucks the win-pace in the 40 games Oscar missed puts them as a 61 win team.

[ceiling raiser]

Just to clarify, while Oscar made the Bucks better it was very clear the Bucks were probably going to win the title in 1971 even without him. They won 56 games the year before he arrived (would have been the best record in the NBA in 1971), then Kareem improved as a player. In 4 years on the Bucks the win-pace in the 40 games Oscar missed puts them as a 61 win team.

Eh, disagree that they win without him.

Using wins on their own is dangerous since they're prone to noise, it's probably better to calculate margin or SRS and project W-L record from there.

[Clyde Frazier]

Just to clarify, while Oscar made the Bucks better it was very clear the Bucks were probably going to win the title in 1971 even without him. They won 56 games the year before he arrived (would have been the best record in the NBA in 1971), then Kareem improved as a player. In 4 years on the Bucks the win-pace in the 40 games Oscar missed puts them as a 61 win team.

I don't really see how oscar's 23.5 PPG, 5 RPG and 9.5 APG on 52% from the field and 81% from the line in the finals would've been easily replaceable. And if we're going with hypotheticals here, the knicks lost by 2 pts in game 7 to the bullets in 71. If the ball bounces a few times in their favor, who knows what happens against an oscar-less bucks. Reed very well could've had enough of an impact on kareem to bring them down.

[tsherkin]

Just to clarify, while Oscar made the Bucks better it was very clear the Bucks were probably going to win the title in 1971 even without him. They won 56 games the year before he arrived (would have been the best record in the NBA in 1971), then Kareem improved as a player. In 4 years on the Bucks the win-pace in the 40 games Oscar missed puts them as a 61 win team.

I don't really see how oscar's 23.5 PPG, 5 RPG and 9.5 APG on 52% from the field and 81% from the line in the finals would've been easily replaceable. And if we're going with hypotheticals here, the knicks lost by 2 pts in game 7 to the bullets in 71. If the ball bounces a few times in their favor, who knows what happens against an oscar-less bucks. Reed very well could've had enough of an impact on kareem to bring them down.

I doubt strongly that Reed would have done so. Kareem seemed to have Reed's number in what few games they played against one another from 69-70 through 73-74 (16), averaging 30+ ppg in those matchups. Then he averaged 34+ against Reed in the playoffs (a small sample, just one series in 1970), but I find it REALLY doubtful that Reed would have posed any serious threat to Kareem as a defensive presence.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Some thoughts on Moses.

He was a really special rebounder and the GOAT offensive rebounder.
Scoring wise he isn't bad statistically.
Over his Prime you could expect around 20-25ppg usually on good efficiency.
He wasn't usually a very efficient a scorer from the field but he was great at getting to the line and shot a very good percentage (especially for a C). He also obviously got many baskets off of offensive rebounds.

Moses however was not a good passer nor over his Prime a good defender.
His team defenses were usually below average.
He was also pretty turnover prone.

I tended to assume that his offensive impact was probably not that amazing due to his poor passing and turnover issues however his teams throughout his early Prime usually had Top 5 offenses or at worst above average offenses so maybe I am underrating him on that end?

Then again he got to play with some nice offensive talent in guys like Erving, Hayes, Barry, Toney & Cheeks.

Once he left Philly and went to Washington he anchored one of the worst offenses in the league despite still being in his Prime
Plus he usually didn't have a high usage rate.
Not sure I see Moses being capable of anchoring a really good offense in a high usage role where you'd just throw the ball to him like he was Shaq or Kareem and ask him to go to work.

I don't really see how oscar's 23.5 PPG, 5 RPG and 9.5 APG on 52% from the field and 81% from the line in the finals would've been easily replaceable. And if we're going with hypotheticals here, the knicks lost by 2 pts in game 7 to the bullets in 71. If the ball bounces a few times in their favor, who knows what happens against an oscar-less bucks. Reed very well could've had enough of an impact on kareem to bring them down.

Good post.
Oscar was the vocal leader of that team (a role Kareem could not have handled) and he completely orchestrated the Milwaukee offense.
Beyond that he was still an All-Star level player and a legend with one of the highest BBIQ's ever.

Losing him would have dramatically weakened that Bucks team and would have made another team upsetting them in the playoffs FAR more likely.

[magicmerl]

There's too many people to compare them all to each other. So I'm going to start by looking at the two best offensive candidates from the #10 pick, Dirk and Barkley. David Robinson looks like he belongs in this group if you look at his stellar regular season numbers, but when you turn a harsh eye on his postseason production it's not as pretty.

Code: Select all

Player. TRB  AST STL BLK TOV PF  PTS  TS%  USG% ORtg DRtg OWS   DWS  WS    WS/48
Barkley 15.9 5.4 2.1 1.1 4.3 4.2 30.2 .612 24.8 119  105  123.3 53.9 177.2 .216
Dirk... 11.8 3.8 1.3 1.3 2.7 3.6 32.8 .582 27.0 117  104  131.6 53.2 184.8 .208

And in the playoffs
Player. TRB  AST STL BLK TOV PF  PTS  TS%  USG% ORtg DRtg OWS   DWS  WS    WS/48
Barkley 16.7 5.1 2.0 1.1 3.7 4.3 30.0 .584 25.2 118  107  13.6  5.9  19.5  .193
Dirk... 13.1 3.3 1.4 1.2 3.0 3.7 33.0 .579 27.3 117  107  17.3  5.2  22.6  .196

Dirk scored more himself, while Barkley was primarily trying to draw a double-team. Dirk produced a little more overall, because of his longevity advantage. Both players had runs where everything came together, although Barkley was never quite able to get over the hump.

There seems to be some bugs in the BBR pages, because Dirk's 05 playoff series loss 4-1 to the Kings, Dirk has an ORtg/DRtg of 125/98 on his BBR page, but 124/100 on the series stats page:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... tdi01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAC-DAL

I honestly don't know who the better player is between these two.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Some thoughts on West VS Kobe.
The longevity gaps is much smaller then most assume.

West had 11 quality years 61-73 (minus 67 due to injury)
Kobe had 11 quality years 00-10

Statistically they are close over their Prime years.
West : 29 / 6apg on 47%FG / 56%TS
Kobe : 28 / 5apg on 45%FG / 54%TS

West would probably have a higher TS% if he played in later years due to the 3pt shot.

Yes Kobe also has 11-12 but I felt he was a very low impact player those two years and I discount his 13 season due to injury. I also discounted Wests 67 year due to injury so its fair.

Other thoughts.
West was a much better Finals performer and he had better team intangibles.
He was a better leader and to my knowledge didn't have problems with teammates or with his teams management.

I have also only read good things about his defense.
Even in his last season at age 35 he still averaged nearly 3spg with .7bpg.
I am sure in his Prime he was a lock for 3+spg and 1+bpg.

[Clyde Frazier]

Just to clarify, while Oscar made the Bucks better it was very clear the Bucks were probably going to win the title in 1971 even without him. They won 56 games the year before he arrived (would have been the best record in the NBA in 1971), then Kareem improved as a player. In 4 years on the Bucks the win-pace in the 40 games Oscar missed puts them as a 61 win team.

I don't really see how oscar's 23.5 PPG, 5 RPG and 9.5 APG on 52% from the field and 81% from the line in the finals would've been easily replaceable. And if we're going with hypotheticals here, the knicks lost by 2 pts in game 7 to the bullets in 71. If the ball bounces a few times in their favor, who knows what happens against an oscar-less bucks. Reed very well could've had enough of an impact on kareem to bring them down.

I doubt strongly that Reed would have done so. Kareem seemed to have Reed's number in what few games they played against one another from 69-70 through 73-74 (16), averaging 30+ ppg in those matchups. Then he averaged 34+ against Reed in the playoffs (a small sample, just one series in 1970), but I find it REALLY doubtful that Reed would have posed any serious threat to Kareem as a defensive presence.

I'll be more specific: i'm sure kareem could get his 30 PPG in a finals matchup against reed. I'm just not sure it'd be enough without oscar to beat the 71 knicks. I was really thinking more in the realm of a handful of possessions per game that reed could have deterred kareem. They did beat the bucks 4-1 in the playoffs a year earlier on their way to the championship.

[tsherkin]

I'll be more specific: i'm sure kareem could get his 30 PPG in a finals matchup against reed. I'm just not sure it'd be enough without oscar to beat the 71 knicks. I was really thinking more in the realm of a handful of possessions per game that reed could have deterred kareem. They did beat the bucks 4-1 in the playoffs a year earlier on their way to the championship.

Yeah, that's something else, I was just responding to the notion that Reed would have mattered. In 70 when they matched up, the Bucks lost 1-4 with Kareem going off for 34.2 ppg. The series got progressively worse for the Bucks as it went on, culminating in the Game 5 obliteration.

Without Oscar, I don't see the 71 Bucks beating the Knicks, should that matchup have happened, I agree. Oscar was an integral part of that squad.

[ThaRegul8r]

I don't really see how oscar's 23.5 PPG, 5 RPG and 9.5 APG on 52% from the field and 81% from the line in the finals would've been easily replaceable. And if we're going with hypotheticals here, the knicks lost by 2 pts in game 7 to the bullets in 71. If the ball bounces a few times in their favor, who knows what happens against an oscar-less bucks. Reed very well could've had enough of an impact on kareem to bring them down.

I doubt strongly that Reed would have done so. Kareem seemed to have Reed's number in what few games they played against one another from 69-70 through 73-74 (16), averaging 30+ ppg in those matchups. Then he averaged 34+ against Reed in the playoffs (a small sample, just one series in 1970), but I find it REALLY doubtful that Reed would have posed any serious threat to Kareem as a defensive presence.

I'll be more specific: i'm sure kareem could get his 30 PPG in a finals matchup against reed. I'm just not sure it'd be enough without oscar to beat the 71 knicks. I was really thinking more in the realm of a handful of possessions per game that reed could have deterred kareem. They did beat the bucks 4-1 in the playoffs a year earlier on their way to the championship.

The Knicks owned the Bucks. I'm not with my notes right now, so I can't post the exact record.

[tsherkin]

The Knicks owned the Bucks. I'm not with my notes right now, so I can't post the exact record.

Got you on that already, it was 1-4 and Kareem was going off like a bang. See above.

[Baller2014]

Their SRS from 1970 would have gone up, because Kareem was much better in year 2 than year 1 (that's clear when we look at stats, media commentary, the eye test, etc). They still would have won the most games anyway, and the team who beat them last year wouldn't have been in the way.