drza wrote:Travel has completely disconnected me from these discussions, and makes it hard to jump in at this point in the thread and make any difference. My main methods of evaluation thus far have been impact-oriented, trying to identify which (among the sea of great NBA players) have done the most to help their teams succeed. Evaluating this is more difficult once we get before the databall era, but with the +/- data from the 76ers statistician that fpliii gathered and the WOWY work that ElGee has spearheaded we've got more tools on that front than we have for any previous project.
Of the players left on the board, it seems to me that West, Robinson and Dirk have the best impact cases left. Dr. J, Malone and Malone also have strong cases in general, but there are more questions there. I'll get into them more in future threads (any that don't go in here), and they have the chance to move up my list. But coming in late without much time, for this thread I'll focus most on West, Robinson and Dirk.
Throughout this big post-o'-yours, you touched on quite a few things I wanted to discuss, so I'm going to use your post as a springboard.
drza wrote:West's WOWY results support that his abilities as a scoring team offense initiator made him one of the biggest impact players of his era, or any other. His game also seems very translatable across era, as there's little doubt in my mind that he would have been able to use the 3-pointer as a weapon to make him even more effective in the modern game than he was in his own. Injuries are a big concern for West.
This I certainly agree with. He could perhaps be one of the superstars who could best translate into other eras, as well as having a very portable play style. A quick note about his durability - he and Robinson share similar durability. Robinson RS GP - 987. West RS GP - 932. Robinson PS GP - 123. West PS GP - 153. In that respect, they're practically similar. One thing I would tack on as well is that this is where peak vs longevity can begin to rear its head - these two likely have the best peaks/impact footprints of any non-Mikan players by a large chunk. Now would be a good time for all of us to analyze things like that - does the longevity of Malone, Moses, Dirk, etc. make up for the massive gap in evidenced footprint?
drza wrote:Robinson was electric, to my eye test. His tournament run at Navy was some of the most exciting individual play I remember in the NCAA, and when he burst onto the scene in the pros after his tour of duty was up, he immediately looked like one of the best players in the NBA. Before the RPoY project I always felt like Robinson was overly downgraded for the Hakeem series in 95, but in that RPoY project several posters (especially Kaima) did a great job of pointing out how Robinson relatively struggled in 94, 96 and 98 against Karl Malone and the Jazz and used that as a basis for arguing that Robinson's playoff issues weren't just a Hakeem 95 thing, but a systemic issue. Subsequent research, posts and project discussions about Robinson's mechanisms of impact have been convincing that Robinson's game really does have tangible difficulty to be the focal iso-scoring lead in the playoffs...and that his overall offensive game wasn't diverse enough to maintain his offensive impact in the postseason. There is even some evidence that in the postseason in his peak, while trying to carry the load on both ends against some tough competition, Robinson's defensive impact slid a bit as well. These are all issues.
However, we have more information than that to work with to try to peg Robinson's level. It shouldn't have come as a shock to anyone, but Robinson's regular season on/off +/- data did peg him as the highest regular season impact player of the mid-90s (94 - 96). That's expected, but it is good to be able to quantify that. However, we also have quantitative impact estimates for another time period that is often minimized/ignored for Robinson...the 98 - 2000 period that has historically been considered the "Duncan era".
While it is unarguable that Duncan's presence as the focal point of the Spurs was huge in bringing the Spurs to championship level, and probably made the game much easier for Robinson...and while one could also strongly argue that Duncan may have been the actual leader of those teams and the player that opponents game-planned for...it's ALSO clear from the RAPM results that Robinson was having just about as much impact on the scoring margins of those 98 - 00 Spurs as Duncan was. Robinson was the defensive anchor on those teams, and with Timmy there as another offensive focus Robinson's offense was also able to flourish. And even in the postseason, the available on/off +/- numbers suggest that Robinson was able to maintain his huge regular season impact into the postseason in this era. Again, when we compare Robinson's postseason impact in the Duncan era to his impact at his peak, I think we have to credit Duncan's presence with making the game easier for him to maintain his best impact. However...that doesn't disqualify the impact itself. And I think that it also suggests that, while a team wouldn't want to move forward with Robinson as their focal offensive player, that a team that allows him to play to his strengths would be getting very possibly the highest impact player in the NBA in both the regular and post season.
This is something I touched on in a prior thread as well. I think one issue that comes with having a similar-level player at the same position playing at the same time is that they tend to be compared in light of just one of the players. That was a convoluted sentence, but this is what I mean. Take for example Duncan and KG. Oftentimes, the comparisons would use Duncan as the standard of measurement, even stylistically. KG couldn't be a rim-protecting anchor, KG couldn't be "the man" in the low post at high volume on offense, etc. You've heard it before. The issue is that what made KG great is entirely different than Duncan. Sometimes it doesn't happen (Wilt vs Russell - because of how obviously different they are), but it does happen often.
The biggest example is Hakeem vs. DRob. We place a standard on DRob that requires him to be the primary volume scorer on offense a la Hakeem. However, that was not his strength. Hakeem was more analogous to Duncan stylistically, and DRob was more like Russell stylistically. We saw, as you said, in the Duncan era that he (even post injury) had massive impact. I contend that much of the fault we can find with him are more stylistic biases in comparisons due to his contemporaries.
When you think about DRob as a roving defensive megastar, and a strong face-up, second option, that's what he actually was as a player. His PS drop is much more understandable when you consider this. His offense dropped because he was the only option in most of those teams, and he's not a volume scorer - that was never really his game. Then, he was tired because of more defensive attention, and thus his defense suffered (an analogous situation is Lebron in this past finals series). He could get by in the RS on raw ability, but not in the playoffs.
Now, imagine if he had more help, and better help, and was able to play the 98-00 role all throughout his prime. I contend that that was the role he would have naturally fit into. Compared to Hakeem the dual anchor, he falls short. Compared to Russell the defensive anchor, he falls short, but was a much better offensive player. If he had a Paul George, Danny Granger, Gordon Hayward, Klay Thompson, Monta Ellis, etc. (anyone who could carry a high load on offense) we'd be looking at more years like 98-00, but on a greater level. Hope that made some sense, if not I can clarify.
