RealGM Top 100 List #8

[therealbig3]

Magic vs Larry

Whether I vote for eith of them in this thread or not, I'd be remiss not to give at least a small take on one of the greatest rivalries in sports history. I see those arguing that Bird got off to the faster start, and that he was relied upon more heavily than Magic to start their careers. And I can respect that. But I don't think that tells ultimately who was better.

I think that they had a lot in common. Both had offensive genius. Both had unique, un replicable skill sets. I agree with those that say that Bird's skill set might be even more effective today than it was in his time due to the emphasis on the 3 point shot. It's hard to envision Bird using modern players...perhaps a funky combo of LeBron James and Dirk Nowitzki...LeBrons height, Dirk's build and athletic ability, LeBrons passing ability, Dirk's shot. I don't think he could play point forward, but he could definitely play a version of the point power forward role where he could receive the first pass and be the primary decision maker. And he'd be deadly off the ball, forcing defenses to adjust to the threat of his shot whether he had the ball or not. I see him as more of a SF (where he'd be a great rebounder), but he would also be a great 4, especially in small ball lineups. Bird was a beast in his time and would have still been massive impact if transported to this time period.

But one area in which Magic separates himself from Bird is that he is arguably the biggest non-center physical positional mismatch in ZnBA history. This was true in the 80s, and it would be true now. On offense, he was simply taller and bigger than anyone who could check a perimeter ball handler. While I could imagine putting LeBron on Garnett on Magic, this would hurt their team defenses because that would force a guard to defend a front court player. Magic was one of the most efficient scorers in NBA history, which is crazy for a point guard. But more than that, he was also one of the most efficient players ever at creating shots for teammates. Magic would see Bird's spacing and creation impact, and raise it with his own offensive engine effect (most analogous, IMO, to Steve Nash). And Magics rebounding was positionally GOAT level with the real ability to impact what lineups could be built around him.

Ultimately, I think that Magic peaked a bit higher and ened up as the better of the two. Slightly.

Counter-point: Because Magic was also much bigger than a typical PG...he was also a lot slower, and he usually couldn't check opposing PGs either, or he at least had a lot of trouble doing so. Which is why he usually played with an undersized SG (Byron Scott) that defended the opposing PG. As such, the defense's problem is solved in that case...put one of your wings on Magic, the other wing on Worthy, and you can use your PG on the undersized Scott, and that way, you're not giving up any real size mismatch anywhere. Of course, at 6'9", Magic was still usually bigger than a typical SG or even SF, but the size mismatch isn't anything outrageous...he usually torched his man anyway, but I don't think the offensive mismatch of Magic at PG is as great as you're saying, because he's in a mismatch on defense as well in that case.

[ElGee]

There's been a lot of KG talk in this thread and I'm reminded of a Ghandi quote about fighting -- I see a tremendous amount of recoil to an outlying opinion. D Nice, who makes very thoughtful posts, said it gives him "angst" for KG to be voted 4th. i say this to him and to everyone else:

If you "want" someone to be in a certain position, you will do everything in your power to uphold that identity. No amount of information will shake you from that ground. If, however, you want the "truth" (i.e. you care about the most accurate rankings regardless of the names attached to the rankings), you will constantly challenge your own beliefs instead of desperately trying to defend them.

I think it's more in the spirit of the project to flesh out and challenge the status quo with qualitative and quantitative historical information that most people don't entirely know. Is it a coincidence that some of these players are the same players criticized for their lack of team success? Now, that might be Losing Bias -- the tendency to remember more negatives from a loss -- or it might be people correlating team success to the individual heavily. Either way, it's hard to get either out of your head, and it's not happening over night.Nonetheless, the point of the project is to say "No, the traditional narrative is overly simplistic and sometimes it misses by a little and sometimes it misses by a LOT." I'll post here about KG while I have the time and the discussion is flowing, but Hakeem deserves equal treatment that ronnymac has provided.

It's clear to me that there are people who don't want Garnett to be selected/perceived in a certain position (regardless of whether he was actually that good). I'd say at this point, as someone who has been having this argument for 15 years:

-Keep in mind while I largely have to field questions about my opinion of KG, to me, +/- was a confirmation. I think for Doc MJ, it's more of an epiphany, and that's why he references more in the KG analysis than myself or others. I've been arguing for KG for 15 years based on him being a supercharged, 7-foot Pippen (oh, what a horrible player!). Pippen's probably my favorite player ever, but KG's offensive game is a clear two tiers ahead of Pippen's.

-At this point, it's literally sad (in the basketball nerd sense) to have to be scoffed at for placing someone in the top-10 who has 25k points, 14k rebounds and 5k assists. (Other members of that club: K. Malone, Kareem, who played 100/200 more games to get there, respectively.) Garnett won 4 rebounding titles. An MVP (should have been 2 IMO, and likely would have been 2 if not more missing a few games in 08 causing Boston to miss 68-70 wins.) A DPOY. Would be 16x All-star (including 99). Won an astounding 6 POMs in 2003+04 against Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, etc. 9x all-nba, 12x all-d. 8th all-time in Win Shares. These things to too superficial to be part of analysis, but my goodness this is not someone who needs a hint of revisionism to be put on mountain top.

-Finally, what I really want to ask KG naysayers is what they think when they find out a new piece of information they clearly (or couldn't possibly) have perviously known?


Did you really know that his defenses were horrible with him off the court and Duncan's weren't?
How good would you expect Minnesota to be with him on the court? 4 SRS? 5 SRS? What would be an acceptable level to you?
When I posted earlier about his Minny teams performance when controlled for health, did you really know they played at that clip? If so, how good would you think they would be with someone of Duncan's (apparently superior) ilk?

Those aren't rhetorical questions -- ask yourself, what exactly are you expecting from a superstar in (a) bad situations and (b) good ones.

If you are bold, you can spell it out in the thread and others will likely shock you with what else has happened in NBA history vis a vis the undisputed all-time greats.

Spoiler:

And if you read this post, or drza's or realbig3's and say to yourself, "OK, but I just don't trust KG at the end of games as much as the other "first options," then how do you explain the small divide between KG and Duncan in this regard and the data regarding the relative insignificance of this kind of crunch time play as well as the data that demonstrates Hero Ball is a poor strategy?

[penbeast0]

If you truly think KMalone and Barkely are legitimate candidates here and would vote for one of them at this spot, then I have no problem. I think the RAPM enthusiasts are making real arguments for Kevin Garnett at this point and would support him being this high; I don't agree but think that's different from what you are doing.

I wonder, am I an RAPM enthusiast? Because I've made a lot of KG arguments -- have thought higher than the guy than most for a long time -- and I don't believe I've cited anything regarding RAPM. In a long time, actually. The last RAPM discussion regarding KG I had, I was arguing against Doc MJ's conclusions based on his wonderful spreadsheet. And I have KG 7th (I use a "career value" criteria).

If you don't use RAPM, you certainly can't use on/off. And based on the criticisms I've seen, you can't use PPG or TS% or any other box derivative either because those are dependent on your teammates and *sigh* we have no way of perfectly controlling for them, so you can't really use any stats...really, I won't be dogmatic on conclusions but I'm telling you that you are doing some horrible scientific analysis if you throw out RAPM or this incredibly valuable family of stats.

And I COMPLETELY disagree with the tenor of this thread that RAPM should not be discussed. The value of these projects is in the information. It's like saying in the RPOY we shouldn't have discussed WOWY or estimated pace. Or in other projects, the Spacing Effect, concepts of Global Offense, etc...The. Best. Reason. to have these projects is the discussion of the theory, analysis and heavy connection of those things to information. The results don't really matter. The reasons do.

I have no problem using RAPM to support an argument about who it the 8th greatest player of all time. I do have a problem with the fact that in this particular thread, less than 20% of the longer arguments being made are actually related to the thread topic. Please use RAPM to support a case for Hakeem v. Garnett; please do not argue about whether Wilt or Duncan belongs; whether players you have no intention of supporting at this point in time such as Bill Walton or Dirk Nowitzki are worthy or how they compare to Garnett. Using RAPM is fine; dragging the thread off into a discussion of Garnett v. players not being considered or general philosophical discussions of RAPM's value are best done in a separate thread.

[90sAllDecade]

Bird's rookie year record with the Celtics is misleading, he had tremendously improved team support from the previous year. ,,,,,,
Tiny and Cowens both made the all star game that year. All these factors aided Bird’s team success imo, so he benefited from better help his rookie year too versus what Hakeem succeeded with."

Cowens played 360 less minutes in 80 vs 79 - per 100 poss

79 - 48.3% fg 11.7 reb 20.2 pts 4.3 asst
80 - 45.3% fg 11.6 reb 20.4 pts 4.5 asst
retired in 81 even though team was contender (and won) title

So he played less, shot worse, rebounded and passed the same. I think that a former mvp made 2nd team all-defense and all-star on name and 60 win season.

So I really can't give any improvement to Cowens

Archibald - yes a big plus- but he wasn't the superstar he was before the injury, and he was always noted as a poor defender. But a top notch point guard - top 20 player in league - worth some wins

Maxwell - reduced minutes - went from leading league in FG% to leading league in FG% but up 58.4% to 60.9% - scored and rebounded pretty similar 79 to 80. 2.5% on 9.4 fga = .23 pts per game - so he really didn't play a lot better, some of that can be attributed to better passing with Nate and Larry, and he played less.

So, not that much of an impact

M.L. Carr was a starter on a 30 win Piston team in 79- great guy to have around, but really??

Chris Ford got an uptick with the introduction of the 3 point shot - but his minutes went down too, and he didn't help win a lot more games.

So, other than Nate I really don't see anybody who improved that much to advance the team. Ford, Maxwell, and Cowens all played less, and their stats aren't a lot better.



Three starters played less minutes, the one who played more was known as a minus defender -

Bird took the minutes of Marvin Barnes and Curtis Rowe

The team in 80 assisted more, turned the ball over less, and rebounded better than 79. Bird was an improvement in all these areas over Barnes/Rowe.

This is a reasonable argument imo, But I disagree with them not having an significant impact though.

Cowens and Tiny weren't the same players but still good enough to become all stars relative to competition that year, Cowens numbers were comparable to other all stars like Jack Sikma and Kermit Washington that year.

Tiny was #2 in the NBA in assists that year and his offensive numbers were comparable to another all star in Michael Ray Richardson that year who lead the league in assists.

Rookie Bird & teammate Cedric Maxwell comparison during 79-80 season:

Regular season




Playoffs




http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1980.html

The article give ML Carr credit for adding better leadership and intangiables to the locker room and new coach Bill Fitch for restoring a firm hand to Boston:

Not until training camp was Fitch convinced that Cowens was willing
to pay his price. "I only had Dave's word that he was going to bend
it to win," Fitch says. "He had to prove himself like everybody
else."

Fitch didn't leave any fan clubs behind him in Cleveland, but after
two seasons of chaos a firm hand was clearly needed in Boston, and
the Celtics seemed to welcome Fitch's tough discipline. "Getting
Fitch was the smartest move I ever made," says Auerbach. "He's a
disciple of mine, you know. He studied the way I coached and
everything."

Fitch's job was made easier when the Celtics signed free-agent
Forward M. L. Carr from Detroit and then unloaded McAdoo as
compensation in the bargain. Only two NBA players had more playing
time last season than Carr, and he led the league in steals, but it
was as much for his disposition--which is resolutely cheerful--as
his skills that Boston went after him.

...That didn't look like a particularly good bet when Carr reported to
early camp in September. Not wanting to risk an injury before he
had signed a contract, Carr had taken the summer off and came to
camp absurdly overweight. He wasn't a particularly impressive sight
in the Celtics' early preseason games. "I think if they hadn't
known me," Carr says, "they would have wondered what kind of
mistake they had made. We went down to New York for an exhibition
game and I was wobbling up and down the floor so badly they were
calling me Fat Boy, but I was just keeping my money tied around my
waist because I didn't know what the economy was going to do." By
the opening game of the regular season Carr had either slimmed down
or made a big deposit in a savings & loan because he came out of
the blocks like a rocket--a svelte rocket--and has given the
Celtics 14.3 points a game and incalculable leadership.

http://www.si.com/vault/1979/12/03/8242 ... f-a-rookie

ML Carr also took a reduced role in Boston, he had his best year by far the year right before joining rookie Bird:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rml01.html

I think Bird was the catalyst for sure, but to give him the credit for that team's success singularly is not putting things in context imo.

[andrewww]

I must admit that ElGee's post was very convincing regarding KG. Sometimes, its the perceived lack of multiple championships or a Finals MVP that makes it easy to knock him down a tier. Really, its his inability to volume scorer at high efficiency when called upon that makes it difficult to rank him objectively. I forgot who it was, but proved that while Duncan scored at higher efficiency against elite defenses, the gap isn't quite as large as generally perceived.

As such, you can really make case for him now but imo Hakeem's ability to be a go-to scorer while being as great if not greater than KG on defense..well you have a case for him over Magic or Bird. His peak rivals anyone in NBA history. It's clear that he's the best remaining two-way player at his peak on both ends of the floor, something Magic and Bird don't hold a canlde to.

However, those 2 are imho among the greatest offensive minds ever, although I see Nash, Oscar having cases too. Magic ultimately had the longer prime although Bird at his peak was perhaps more pronounced than Magic's. Magic is a arguably the greatest offensive player ever. Bird's game had no clear weakness offensively either and was an all-time great shooter (who'd probably be even dealier today where the 3 is emphasized more). HIs alright playoff performances are kind of what hold him back for me compared to Magic or Hakeem at their best. If I put Magic on any team right now and wanted to accumulate as many championships with any type of supporting cast, I'd have confidence that Magic would have the most consistent impact regardless of who was around him. Hakeem was the better position player per say, but hasn't sustained the type of dominance on one end of the floor like Magic did for a decade.

I vote for Magic Johnson

[D Nice]

Spoiler:

Estimated Top 6 Players Every Year from '00-'13

2000: Shaq, Malone, Garnett, Duncan, Mourning, Bryant

2001: Shaq, Duncan, Bryant, Garnett, McGrady, Iverson

2002: Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Bryant, Pierce, McGrady

2003: Duncan, Garnett, Bryant, McGrady, Shaq, JO

2004: Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, Bryant, McGrady, Nowitski

2005: Duncan, Nowitski, Nash, Shaq, Wade, Carter

2006: Bryant, Nowitski, Nash, Wade, Lebron, Duncan

2007: Bryant, Nash, Duncan, Nowitski, Lebron, Garnett

2008: Bryant, Paul, Lebron, Garnett, Howard, Nowitski

2009: Lebron, Wade, Bryant, Paul, Howard, Nowitski

2010: Lebron, Bryant, Wade, Howard, Nash, Nowitski

2011: Nowitski, Howard, Lebron, Rose, Durant, Wade

2012: Lebron, Durant, Paul, Bryant, Love, Garnett

2013: Lebron, Durant, Paul, Bryant, Curry, Anthony

If you call it a matter of circumstance that KG misses it in '06 (like Dirk in '03) the same
can be said of Kobe in '05. If 2000, 2002, and 2004 are large gaps in KGs favor 2009 and 2010 are enormous ones. The '06-'08 gaps would at least be comparable to '00/'02/'04.

Kobe is absent in '05 and '11 where he put up 28/6/6 56TS% and 25/5/5 55TS%. These are 2 of the 3 years (other would be 07) where it is legitimate to denigrate his ranking based on poor defense. You can knock his '10 RS defense too but that's a stance that is either ignorant to or deliberately avoiding context and it would at worst make him the 3rd best player in the league (or 4th behind Paul according to some of "teh pwnzer data").

KG is absent in '09 due soley to injury but from '10-'13 his numbers are 15/8/2.5. Even while adding high end post-prime team defensive impact that is not a top 6 player. It might not be a top 10 player. And I actually gave in 6th in '12 anyway, because that year the field is really weak outside of the top 3 (years like that are the exception not the rule so don't start talking about not being able to approximate player value across the single-season composites).

This does not add up to one being better than the other when the playoff-only gap is bigger than the rank classification-ish comparison (whose legitimacy lies in the fact they were contemporaries) rendered here. Even iF you want to assign arbitrary over or even equal weight to 97-99 when these guys are pups and not carrying a team anywhere thats fine just understand that when you evaluate their legitimacy as support players kobe's stats are being suppressed by role (and coaching idiocy) in a way that KGs isn't over that same period. I'd call KG better over this stretch but it doesn't end up mattering very much.

Unless you somehow bump Kobe down 1-3 spots every year and Garnett up 1-2 spots every year listed there isn't impact-based logic around discussing him with guys that Kobe is clearly not discussed with. Especially not when the post-season resumes aren't close. It's presumptious to think I care about KGs ranking any more than Dirks or Iversons or Pierce's or anybody who has never played for my team (making the equally offensive assumption I don't have proper perspective on Laker players whoI am probably MORE educated about than the people I'm discussing them with). It has literally nothing to do with Garnett and everything to do with Hakeem Olajuwon, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlin, and Kobe Bryant. His absolute ceiling is 12. I would be equally un-receptive to an argument that didn't have Michael Jordan as a top 5 player or one that tried to peg Duncan as GOAT if he wins again next year. I don't think that makes me unreasonable but if you do guess what? I'm no longer voting so it literally does not matter..

Why can't I even skim these threads without being passive-aggressively baited in some form or fashion?

Is everyone just trying to derail these threads on purpose to make Penbeast as crazy as possible and I'm not in on the joke? If he asks for posts focusing on Hakeem/Magic/Bird and Garnett (penbeast0), as the administrator of the project, there's probably a good reason for that guys, no? If you don't want to make new arguments at least collect some excerpts from the past threads and feign a discussion...

[Baller2014]

Fitch is arguably a better coach, Heinsohn got inducted in the HOF as a player, Fitch got in as a coach. But lets say Heinshon is better and I agree with that, him getting fired, Sanders having a losing record and getting replaced and Cowens getting replaced all during midseason won't have an effect on the team? Could it be the owners were making incompetent decisions with these coaches?

Again, you're trying to have it both ways. The coaches were fired because they had bad records with the team, that's the reason most coaches are fired. You're trying to claim "man, all this swapping around of coaches messed things up!" Except it didn't. Heinsohn was fired for failing to get the team to win, and his replacement (Sanders) led the team to a better record. Then next season sanders failed to led the team to the expected results, and he was fired midseason for Cowens (who similarly led the Celtics to a better record than Sanders, and better than Heinsohn and Sanders had done in the previous season). So it doesn't seem like the "changing of coaches" was the problem, the changes happened in response to the team sucking. And changing the coach actually resulted in the teams sucking less, though they still sucked. I put it to you that the reason the teams sucked was just because they sucked, and not because of an invisible and undetectable spectre of doom emanating mysteriously from the owner.

This is your opinon, they made the all star team. Bird made them better but they were still talented players who did it many times before. We can agree to disagree.

And they didn't make the all-star team the year before. Tiny was better than the year before on paper, Cowens much worse. Seems like a wash to me.

You really think Bird had a higher peak? Well again, that is your opinion.

No, it's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of all the media you just cited, who uniformly agree with me. Sometimes the media is wrong, but usually they correct for that pretty quickly. This analysis was done in the Hakeem thread, and you ignored it entirely. Posters pointed out that Hakeem just wasn't getting any love in the media, and it can't just be blamed on lack on winning, because guys on teams that didn't win were routinely getting more love than him.

[Baller2014]

Estimated Top 6 Players Every Year from '00-'13

I could not disagree more with this list. Kobe was never the top player in the NBA, and the RPOY project agrees with me.

[drza]

drza set the standard earlier in the project with his Garnett breakdown (which mixed qualitative with quantitative; in case you're reading drza, I'd love a similar breakdown of Hakeem, who I didn't get to watch pre-peak though ronnymac, fatal9, 90salldecade, and a couple of others have done a great job fleshing those years out), even if abridged, it would be great to have someone breakdown both Kobe and Bird defensively over their careers.

Thanks for the compliment. And I wish I could provide a similar breakdown for Olajuwon. The thing is, the lion share of that Garnett breakdown came from watching absurd amounts of his games through the years (yay, League Pass). Unfortunately, while I watched Dream play, I didn't see nearly as many of his games and early in his career I wasn't exactly watching analytically (was way too young) or preparing cases on message boards (especially since, you know, I had no idea that there would ever be such a thing as the internet at that time). This also makes a direct comparison of KG and Olajuwon difficult, because there isn't a lot of common frames of reference for them. I tend to find it more interesting to compare all of KG, Olajuwon, Duncan and Robinson because that allows for more nuance in contrasting them. But it's still hard.

For what it's worth, my general memories of Olajuwon through the years:

Spoiler:

*I have dim memories of watching Olajuwon when he was in college. I was young enough at the time that I thought my dad was calling him and Clyde Drexler "Five Slamma Jamma". I remember at the time I thought that Drexler was the star, but I remember my dad being really excited about tall guy who the announcers said had come late to playing basketball. The tall guy's name confused me, though, because I heard that his name was 'Akeem Abdul Olajuwon' and I kept getting mixed up in my mind with 'Kareem Abdul Jabbar', who was my definition of a great center at the time.

*I remember there being an interview with Moses Malone, who was working with Olajuwon in the offseason, where Malone said "The boy only know 2 words. 'My ball', and 'womens'. This cracked my dad up, and he repeated the story often enough through the years that I'm not positive that I ever heard Moses say it or if I just remember my dad's version.

*I remember the hype around The Twin Towers, how announcers were saying that pairing the 6-10 Olajuwon with the 7-4 Ralph Sampson was going to take over the league. I remember that Olajuwon moved quicker and seemed stronger, but I was more impressed at the time with how absurdly tall and long Sampson was. Of the pairing, Sampson was more my favorite.

*I remember that though the Twin Towers were good, they weren't as good as the Lakers or Celtics (who were the best). I remember that those Rockets had Rodney Mcray and Lewis Lloyd and Robert Reid. For some reason I always thought Reid was pretty good, and an important member of the team.

*I remember being absolutely stunned when Sampson hit that crazy buzzer beater to eliminate the Lakers. The Twin Towers were good and all, but the Lakers had Kareem AND Magic. They were never supposed to lose to anyone except the Celtics.

*I remember after that, when Sampson started getting hurt all of the time, that I kind of lost interest in the Rockets. Without the other Twin Tower they weren't as interesting to me, and I didn't think they'd be that good.

*I remember when Akeem changed his name to Hakeem, which confused me about his name all over again because I could never remember which was the old spelling and which was the new. I also remember, around the same time, hearing that he was celebrating something called "Ramadan" and fasting from food for like a month during the season. I thought that was both crazy and cool, that he could do that.

*I remember the progression of great teams out West as the Lakers aged and then Magic had to retire. I remember when Portland started making the Finals thinking that was strange, because in my head they (like the Rockets had been with the Twin Towers) were good but not great. The only "great" team out West was supposed to be the Lakers, but now the Lakers had left the field empty to whoever stepped up. At this point I knew Hakeem to be a star, but there was nothing about him that made him stand out to me as a super-duper star. At that time, if I'd have been asked, I'd have lumped Olajuwon in with Robinson and Ewing as the best centers in the league. I'd have probably said that Robinson was the best of them, actually, because his game was just so electric.

*I remember being extremely excited when Barkley got traded to the Suns. For one, I really liked Barkley and the Suns were a fun team. But more importantly, I considered Barkley a super-duper-star and the Suns were the best hope to take out Jordan's Bulls, who I was not a fan of. At that time I'd have said that Barkley was better than Olajuwon, and probably that Robinson was too.

*I remember 1994, when (at least to my mind) Olajuwon suddenly went up a level. I had been disappointed (and surprised) when the Rockets took out the Suns (though I'm almost positive that was the series when KJ posterized Olajuwon, and I got a kick out of that". I was happy when the Rockets took out the Jazz, as I was never a big fan of theirs and I never really thought that highly of Stockton and Malone (more players that I recognized as stars, but didn't see as super-duper-stars). In the Finals I was really pulling for the Knicks...I wasn't especially a fan of theirs, but they'd earned my attention and respect with their battles with the Bulls through the years and I was hoping to see Ewing get a title. I was surprised by how much better Olajuwon was than Ewing in those Finals. In fact, as I mentioned, I was surprised by how good Olajuwon was through those whole playoffs. I thought I had known him, had a handle on his level, but in those playoffs I realized he had gone up a notch.

*I remember 1995, when David Robinson seemed to put everything together with a magical regular season. Like with Barkley, I was a Robinson fan. Maybe even more-so...it was hard not to pull for the Admiral. The Rockets were surprisingly down all season after their title, and even after they traded for Drexler they weren't as good as I might have thought. But for most of the year my attention was on the Magic, as Shaq and Penny looked like the new big thing in the NBA. Penny was actually on the verge of edging out Ron Harper to become my new favorite player, and I was pretty excited to see them make their run. In the meantime, the playoffs started out West, and suddenly Olajuwon was back to his old tricks again. I was watching the game when Robinson got that MVP trophy, and it seemed like Olajuwon got mad and decided to destroy him. For good or ill, that game long-formed my opinion of the relative hierarchy between the two (and of course, I'm not alone in that). I remember thinking that Olajuwon vs Shaq was going to make for an epic Final, but expecting the Magic to maybe win...until Nick Anderson missed those 4 free throws. My gut sank with each miss, and when the last one came off I just KNEW that the Rockets would hit a three. Their team just seemed like assassins, like they knew how to do what was needed to win. I felt like Hakeem and Shaq played each other to a standstill, but that the Rockets won in a sweep because they had the nerve for the moment and the Magic were too shook.

* I remember folks saying that the Rockets only won because Jordan retired, and thinking that was unfair. And thinking/hoping that Olajuwon would lead the Rockets back to the promised land one more time and take out the Bulls. But they couldnt get past the Sonics.

*I remember when Barkley joined Olajuwon in Houston the next season, getting my hopes up again that with this superteam they could meet the Bulls in the Finals and show Jordan who the REAL best from the class of 1984 were. But of course they came up short again.

*I remember the last gasps when Pippen joined Dream and Barkley in Houston after the second Bulls 3-peat, but by then none of them had the juice that they once had and the next generation was starting to take over.

Wow. When I started my "I remember"s, I wasn't expecting that section to be nearly that long. I guess the point of my reminiscing is that I was aware of and watching Olajuwon on some level from the time he entered the NBA, but that I wasn't exactly scouting him. But I guess I did see him enough to form opinions.

My impressions of Hakeem (as compared to Robinson, Duncan and/or Garnett)
Physically:

Spoiler:

Hakeem always struck me as athletic, but not in the same way that Robinson was. Robinson was longer, seemed faster, and seemed to jump higher. Olajuwon always seemed to be built like a tall short guy (if that makes sense. In other words, he was so proportioned that he didn't give the overwhelming impression of height that Robinson, Kareem or Sampson gave). I also don't have memories of overwhelming speed from Olajuwon, though he seemed quick enough to get his hand on everything in the paint (be it a block or a steal) so that impression isn't exactly air-tight. His agility and maneuverability were amazing, though, and I remember how whenever this would be noted the announcers would always point out his background as a soccer player

Defense:

Spoiler:

I remember Hakeem coming out on guards if necessary (most famous example being his block against the Knicks) but the vast majority of my impressions of him are at/near the rim. From that, even though he had the ability to go horizontal, I would say I'd expect his "horizontal defense" to be more similar to young Duncan's or Robinson's (and perhaps Russell's) than Garnett's. As someone (Doc MJ?) suggested up-thread, the type of defense that Garnett played wasn't necessarily conducive to the blocked shot. If roles were reversed, Olajuwon and his coach would have to decide what ratio of horizontal vs. vertical he wanted to be as a defender. And of course, that decision wouldn't be trivially made.

In fact, I'd say that Robinson and Hakeem probably had the most similarity in terms of defensive style of that four-some. Both were incredible shot-blockers but also extremely disruptive of the passing lanes.

It was pretty ironic that the lasting images (for me anyway) of that 1995 match-up were Robinson being so badly fooled by Olajwon's feints and head-fakes, because I kind of feel like Olajuwon would have also fallen for those fakes. Both Olajuwon and Robinson tended to look for the block a lot, which sometimes caused them to over-commit. I feel like this is a weakness for both when compared to Tim Duncan, who almost always seemed to play steady post defense without going for the fakes. I think that Garnett also tended to be better at this area, as he relied on being so darned long that I don't remember him often joining the para-troopers club when defending on-ball.

For all 3 of Hakeem, Robinson and Duncan I think their help defense primarily consisted of rim protection. As I mentioned, all had the athletic ability to show or occasionally switch out to a perimeter player if needed, but their primary areas of influence was the paint. Garnett's area of influence is more like the entire area inside the arc, but the trade-off is that he wasn't directly protecting the rim as often. Some believe this meant that the three center-like players were providing a more important service. I tend to feel like Garnett does more to blow up offenses with his extended range and that this was the more important skill, and got more-so with the rule changes in the "modern" NBA.

Offense:

Spoiler:

On offense, I feel like all four had distinct styles that produced different types of effects.

*Robinson was the best of the 4 on the fast break, and also the best in the face-up game. He was likely the tallest (I peg him at 7-1, KG at 7-1, Duncan at 6-11 and Olajuwon at 6-10, though I'm not positive of these heights) and best leaper which made him great at finishing if set up near the rim. Robinson had some back to the basket skills, but it wasn't his natural forte and depended more on athletic ability than skill. This isn't necessarily a good thing, as the skill tends to win out when faced with players of similar ability. Robinson showed the ability to scale up his scoring (especially in the regular season) when his team brought in more rebounding, and he also showed the ability/willingness to scale down his scoring with more energy focused on defense when playing next to Duncan. Robinson was an adequate passer, but in this company he's not at the top of that heap. As such, he is more ideally suited to be an offensive finisher than a low-post hub or offense creator for teammates.

Olajuwon had the most artistic post moves of the group, and he used them to maximal effect with more volume-scoring mentality than the others. Robinson peaked higher as a regular season scorer, but Olajuwon had the highest peaks in playoff scoring. Olajuwon was the most natural agile/fluid of the group, and that played out with his post moves. Olajuwon also had an excellent handle for a center, and could attack off the face-up. Olajuwon was never really as efficient a scorer as Robinson in the regular season, and I think in large part that's because he didn't share Robinson's proclivity for getting the "easy" shots (fast breaks, alley-oops) nor did he attack and draw fouls like the Admiral. However, his post moves were the exact opposite on the skill/strength continuum. Olajuwon was also (in this company) an adequate passer that got better as his career progressed. However, since he was more adept at post play than Robinson he was a better choice to be a low-post hub for the offense. Especially when surrounded by four shooters, as was the case during his championship runs. His volume/efficiency could potentially hinder his portability with respect to his peers, as we don't have a positive example of him scaling down his volume for the sake of team success if circumstances dictated the way that we do for the others in the group. But to be fair, I don't know that any of the other three could have taken on the volume scoring responsibility to the degree that he did during the Rockets' repeat years. Olajuwon was the best Iso scorer of the group.

Duncan: I think that, while less flashy, Duncan's post game was as effective as Dream's. I also think that he was a better passer than either Robinson or Olajuwon. I think that this makes him as good of a low post hub option on offense as Olajuwon was. However, I don't think that either Duncan or Olajuwon are as good of big men offensive hub options as Shaq or Kareem. Thus, I don't know that you could scale up an offense built primarily around Duncan (or Olajuwon's) low-post offense to a best-in-the-league level the way that you could one built around Shaq or Kareem. However, what both Duncan and Olajuwon demonstrated with their post-game was the ability to lead/anchor an offense that was good enough to win with the right combination of strong defense and shooters. Duncan was good in the iso, but not brilliant like Hakeem could be. He also shared shooting range with Hakeem out to about 15 feet, which was a nice counter to the post games.

Garnett: Like on defense, Garnett's offense is stylistically the most different from the other three. He had a good iso scoring and post game, but not nearly on Hakeem's level. His effectiveness as a scorer down low could rival Duncan's, but he didn't spend as much time down there. Whether it was to prevent wear-and-tear or to put defenses off balance/prevent easy doubles, Garnett spent the most time of this group operating from the high-post/elbow. He was able to run perinneal top-5 offenses from his office in the high-post, pulling defenses towards him and opening up passing lanes and shooting space for teammates. Garnett was also the best passer of the group, and the one best suited to be an offensive hub due to his high-post ability. Garnett also had the most shooting range. Garnett was the lowest volume-scorer of the group, though very similar in that respect to Duncan. Conversely, this meant that KG's game was the one least dependent upon scoring to provide impact.

Conclusions: I don't know that we can make definitive conclusions about comparisons between Garnett/Duncan and Hakeem/Robinson. It is easier to compare within the generation since they had shared league cirucmstances and plenty of head-to-heads to work with. Robinson and Hakeem met each other in the postseason at the height of their powers, and Hakeem won. Hakeem led his team to two titles in ways that Robinson didn't have to when getting his two rings. Was this head-to-head and postseason success enough for Hakeem to counter the regular season dominance and regular season head-to-head success that Robinson had over Hakeem? For many it is, but I'm willing to re-visit it if someone makes a great case for Robinson. I'd entered the Retro Player of the Year project feeling that I'd still be willing to lean to Robinson in that comparison, and more than the 1995 matchup, it was the evidence presented about Robinson's issues with th e'94 and '96 Jazz that really swayed me that perhaps Robinson's problems in the postseason were more than coincidence. There has been a narrative explanation since then that speaks to Robinson's offensive style just not being conducive to the playoffs. It's sounded plausible and believable enough for me to go with it for now, but I'm still willing to be convinced otherwise.

KG and Duncan also met each other in the postseason in their primes (though it was their early primes), and essentially they played each other to a standstill twice. Duncan had much more team success, but the regression-based analysis methods seem to favor KG as perhaps having more impact. By my eye test and analysis I had Garnett over Duncan long before RAPM ever existed because I could see how much lift he was providing and didn't believe that anyone else could do as much. But I recognize that my opinion on that isn't the majority. And it only matters in this post to the extent that, as I mentioned above, it is easier for me to analyze this group together/vs. each other than it is to pick any two from different generations and compare them directly.

Ultimately, I think that KG's impact footprint is at least as large as the others in this group. I think that, stylistically, his approach scales up to maintaining that impact on better teams than the others. On defense, you could get his mega impact from the 4 slot while still potentially retaining a strong defensive center. Across the range of great teams, I think this is more likely than being able to pair Olajuwon or Robinson with an equivalently strong defensive 4. On offense, Garnett's ability to run a team from the high-post has more upside than a more post-centric offense run through the centers. Then, on the flip side, I fully believe that Garnett could have also won a title with a similar degree of team support as the '03 Spurs or mid-90s Rockets (he was a Cassell injury away from pulling it off in '04, IMO). There's been some push-back in this project against "portability", but I do think it's important to consider how impact might transfer to different situations and I think KG's the most portable of the lot. So on the whole I have Garnett (slightly) ahead of the others in this group. But obviously, the margins are extremely thin all the way around.

[ceiling raiser]

Great, great read drza. Skimmed it over, interesting insights, especially with regards to how you clustered and compared the four players (fun to read your recollections too, good stuff). There's a ton to digest, I'll have to read it over again fully tomorrow. Thanks a ton, I really appreciate it.

[SactoKingsFan]

I’ve decided to vote for Magic for several reasons. He’s the GOAT passer with amazing vision, which when combined with the body of a PF created significant matchup issues. Magic also had an all-time great peak/prime and was at the center of some of the most dominant offenses in NBA history.

GOAT vision and passing: prime (81-91) RS AST per 100: 15.1

prime PS AST per 100: 15.7

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cEYGS8rc3I[/youtube]


Central Component of Historically Great Offenses

Code: Select all

RS+PS            eORtg      Z-score*

1987 Lakers      115.9      2.34

1985 Lakers      114.6      2.01

1986 Lakers      113.2      1.86


*standard deviations above or below average

Only Steve Nash has led more historically great offenses, but he was essentially a statue on defense.

Great Rebounder
prime (81-91) RS RB per 100: 9.3; prime PS RB per 100: 9.1

Nearly Averaged Triple Double per 100 for Prime RS & PS

Prime RS: 25.6 PTS, 15.1 AST, 9.3 RB
Prime PS: 24.2 PTS, 15.7 AST, 9.1 RB

Matchup Issues

Magic’s vision, passing and size would have created major mismatches in any era. You basically need a perimeter defender like Pippen to even think about slowing Magic down without creating additional defensive issues.

Remarkably Consistent

11 seasons with 10+ WS, 11+ seasons with .191 + WS/48, .225 career WS/48, .610 prime & career TS%

Larry Bird: 9 seasons with 10+ WS, 8 seasons with .182+ WS/48, .203 career WS/48, .570 prime TS%, .564 career TS%

Magic's longevity isn’t that significant (prime lasted from 81-91) unless you’re comparing him to a player with superior peak/prime and/or extraordinary longevity. Even after only playing 37 games during his sophomore season, prime Magic played more games than prime Bird (80-88) (Magic = 797, Bird = 711), who only had 9 healthy prime seasons. I have Magic’s peak and prime as slightly superior to Bird’s, therefore, Bird would need a significant edge in longevity for me to rank him ahead of Magic.

As mentioned by others, Hakeem and KG are probably the best two-way players remaining. However, KG had some offensive issues and playoff struggles. Hakeem had a great peak, but he wasn’t as consistently dominant as some of the other top 10 candidates. Ultimately, Magic’s role in historically great offenses, GOAT vision/passing and all-time peak/prime gives him the edge over my remaining top 10 candidates (Bird, Hakeem and KG).

Vote: Magic Johnson

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

--snip--

You’ve persuaded me into moving KG up on my list, though not to the degree that I’m considering casting my vote for #8 in his favor.

Awesome. For the record, with a case like this, I go in fully expecting that this is the most I can hope for. I wouldn't have started my case for Garnett at the 4th spot if I didn't believe it, but I don't expect to "win" votes from people so much as give them some real food for thought.

I'm actually going to try to curtail myself a bit going forward because I realize I'm getting rather redundant, but the root of my tendency to focus on the greatness of a particular player more so than the comparisons is that it's the appreciation of the greatness that compels me more than anything else. It doesn't bother me if people have Duncan or Kobe ahead of Garnett, but when people dismiss him as if he's crippled it offends my sense of reverence for the game.

I have some questions for you regarding what exactly you consider in your ATL rankings, particularly as it pertains to Garnett, but also Bill Russell (more on that later). I’ll be sort of working along a logical line of thought tangentially back to Russell, but starting with KG……

I’ve been trying to figure out how you came to rank him #4 all-time, and as a starting point I figured some of it has to do with how you rank his peak, which I believe you said you rank #3 all-time, big gap ‘till Duncan at #4…….BOTH ahead of MJ!, and apparently a very sizable gap between KG and MJ. How exactly did you reach this conclusion where MJ’s peak is not even in your top 4 (or perhaps 5? 6??), yet KG is #3?

Wait what? Aaaah, let me clarify:

Garnett has my #3 peak of the databall era, which doesn't include Jordan's peak. I rank Jordan's '90-91 season #1 all-time.

Looking below I think that that actually addresses the confusion. Sorry about that. Let me know if you have any other questions.

I'll also address some of the other Russell-focused points, but I'm going to put them in spoilers because Russell's already inducted.

Spoiler:

Longevity/durability/consistency…….KG could certainly be top 5-6 in this regard. Certainly he’d still fall a little behind Kareem and Parish, as well as probably K.Malone and perhaps Stockton. After that, it’s probably got to be either him or Moses Malone (not really considering Kevin Willis ). But back to Russell: Russell has a small to near-negligible longevity/durability/consistency case over Bird, Magic, and Lebron. But his longevity kinda pales in comparison to everyone else that has been voted in or who is in the discussion at this point. Yet he was still your pick for GOAT. So perhaps longevity isn’t a huge consideration either???

Good observation.

I tend to make allowances in my longevity factor especially with guys from back in the day in all sports. Consider a guy like Jim Brown in football. There you had a guy who only played for 9 years, but was absolutely dominant the whole time, and retired because he could make more money doing other things. How much sense does it make to treat that like it was a weakness on his part?

There's also the matter that stuff damaged guys bodies back in the day that either doesn't know or is fixable. The advent of real basketball shoes as opposed the Chuck Taylors whose design came out of the Roaring 20s alone saves so much wear and tear!

Russell played at a time where 13 years was plenty long, and he'd won 11 titles where his chief rival had won only 1. I don't consider it weakness for a human being to move on at that time.

However if Russell played now and truly only lasted 13 years today while we see Duncan and Garnett continuing to be extremely effective 18 years in, that would indeed be a weakness.

Now to be clear, I'm not crediting Russell with GOAT longevity just because I give him a pass. A guy who plays 13 years with a similar arch to Russell today is going to have that comparison occur on equal footing as best as I can manage it.

Maybe your picking Russell GOAT has to do with measures of team success (‘cause he is the GOAT in that regard). But that doesn’t jive at all with Garnett being #4. ALL things considered (titles, finals appearances, playoff appearances and deep playoff runs, cumulative rs record, SRS considerations, etc)......Garnett’s probably got the worst overall resume of team success of anybody mentioned so far on this project, with the exception of Barkley and perhaps Robertson. So I’m not seeing a consistent correlation there either.

I don't count the rings to give Russell the GOAT nod, I've come to the conclusion that the reason he was so off the charts in his rings was due to him having singular impact. That might seem like rationalization to you, but know that I didn't have Russell as my #1 until relatively recently despite the fact I always knew he won 11 rings.

So is the biggest reason for Garnett being at #4 on your ATL coming down to the RAPM data you’ve been advocating and defending quite extensively (because he IS a top 4 all-time overall as far as that data is concerned)? And if so, how are you justifying Russell as GOAT?

Even if RAPM data were available for that era, I doubt Russell would be much of a + offensively. Maybe as much as +1 or so, just in that he helped them get out and run. Otherwise, are you expecting his defensive +/- to be around +7 to +9 year after year, thus giving him GOAT status?

Realistically the whole concept of RAPM would break down back then even if we had the data. The top stars just played too much. There wasn't a concept of having a true second unit, and so in few minutes you played without your star there wasn't so much a plan as it was just hanging in there. As such literally attaching a number like "+9" isn't simply an oversimplification as it is in the modern game, it can be almost meaningless.

I still try to think in those terms to maintain a consistent basis, and my eyes opened to what I now believe Russell was doing when I saw how off the charts the Celtics were on defense - which I'm having trouble accessing my spreadsheet on, but basically from my assessment the Celtics were just a good deal more dominant on defense than what you see on either side of the ball from any other teams in history, and they did this playing Russell huge minutes and platooning everyone else. I just don't know how to look at that and not see Russell having a mega-impact.

And even if that is your belief, what about strength of era considerations? I don’t agree with this “Russell as mythic figure” ideology, wherein Russell is thought to be near super-human on defense. Even if his defensive “impact” (don’t want to get into semantics of that word, and think you know what I mean anyway) was +7.0 to +9.0 back then, do people really believe that could be the case today, in an era where NOBODY (not even KG) has ever had a DRAPM as high as 7.0 (even KG never had one higher than 5.2 when he was playing actually “star-level minutes”.....and even that’s a bit of a stretch calling 32.8 mpg “star-level”).

Basically I think no one else could do what Russell did back then, and even adjusting for strength of era, the 11-ring-type-of-sustained-dominance is so much of an outlier that to me what he did is the most impressive thing in the NBA's history. This remains true even though I acknowledge he wouldn't be as suited to today's game.

Re: DRAPM ceiling. By my scaled scores, Garnett did go north of 7, and Mutombo nearly hit +10 in the first year we have for him ('98).

I addressed this in the Vote for #1 thread: the thing about Russell’s immense defensive impact in his own time had a lot to do with being able to cover a lot of ground both vertically AND horizontally, and do it very very quickly. Here were some era peers quotes I cited:

---

"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam, “Big E For Elvin's Two Big Efforts: His coach didn't let him go head-to-head with Chamberlain and Russell on successive nights, but Hayes wowed 'em anyway.” Sports Illustrated. Nov. 25, 1968. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... x.htm)

“Bill’s great mobility enabled him to block jump shots all over the court.”
— Pete Newell

“Russell would chase you everywhere. I’ve taken 20-footers that were blocked by Russell.”
— Johnny Kerr

“Bill Russell used to be able to go out and block shots. You’ve got to differentiate that from Wilt Chamberlain, who would block the shots coming to the basket, but Russell would go out and deter you from shooting.”
— Marty Blake, NBA Director of Scouting Services

“He was a unique defensive player because he could literally come out and play a guard or forward. Most centers can’t do that. Even today, there is no way that they can play guards, but he could do that.”
— Jerry West

“[H]e could go out and defend out on the perimeter, which seems to be a lost art today.”
— Marty Blake

“I’ve seen him come out and pick up players like Neil Johnston and Bob Pettit. He doesn’t stand in one spot.”
— Jacko Collins, supervisor of NBA officials

“He was so […] quick off the ball that he could double-team and trap you at a moment’s notice or jump out to help a defender on a pick and roll.”
— Oscar Robertson, The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game, p. 142

Notice how almost all these quotes refer to Russell’s ability to cover ground, how he could be 15-20 feet away from the play, and then recover to deny a shot at the rim or some such. And I’m not saying that Russell wasn’t a great athlete, or that he wouldn’t still be considered an amazing athlete by today’s standards. What I’m saying is that his level of athleticism is less of an outlier by today’s standard.

Consider who the perimeter players he was doing most of the stuffing on back in the day. There were a couple of pretty athletic ones, mostly notably Oscar Robertson, but also Jerry West and perhap Lenny Wilkens were pretty quick/athletic, too. Otherwise we’re talking about guys like Guy Rodgers, Richie Guerin, Cliff Hagan, Gene Shue, Slater Martin, Dick McGuire, Paul Arizin, Larry Costello, Don Ohl…...these were all guys who would be considered---by today’s standards---if not slow, at least “not very fast”. And they all played decidedly BELOW the rim, too.

Compare that to guys like Russell Westbrook, Kevin Durant, Tony Parker, Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Vince Carter, Derrick Rose, etc. I sincerely doubt Russell would be able to recover and stuff guys like this with same degree of “ease”.
EDIT: Also, wrt to blocking jump-shots--->I think Russell likely had a bit more "peace of mind" in gambling on jump-shooters in that era, because offenses very nearly LIVED on mid-range shots in that era; and also he likely wasn't particularly afraid of the relative speed of many players in that day ("if he gets me on the shot-fake, I still have time to recover..."). Today, I don't think he could feel so comfortably leaving the floor to contest mid-range jumpers.

It’s like I said to Albert Einstein once, I said, “Al…..everything’s relative, baby.”

Quite simply, the gap in athleticism between Russell and the rest of the league has closed substantially in the last 50+ years. There’s a much higher proportion of athletes that are roughly “of Russell’s caliber” in the league today. And more importantly, the athletic difference between him and the league’s “mediocre” athletes is smaller than it was 50 years ago. Sure he’d still have the psychological edge and the great defensive IQ; but the other big thing that made him such a remarkably impactful defender (his near-ridiculously superior athleticism) would no longer be as big of a factor.

He’d still probably be one of the most impactful defenders ever, even in the modern context. I just don’t necessarily think it would be any bigger than what guys like Garnett or DRob have done. I don’t think it would be the +7.0 to +9.0 necessary to make him GOAT-like in impact in the modern league.

Now one might ask Why should that matter? Why do we need to consider era equivalency and era portability? Well, I suppose we don’t. Though if we’re not, then it’s like penbeast keeps asking: when are we going to give Mikan his day in court? Because if we’re saying era equivalency and portability don’t matter, than Mikan absolutely needs to be getting consideration very very soon; and Robertson and West should be getting consideration NOW. We can’t just make it a consideration for some, but give others (like Russell) a pass.

Anyway, all that brings me back to my original ponderings: what goes into your considerations for ATL ranking? Because I just can’t find the colinearity between Russell at #1 and Garnett at #4. It seems as though you must be placing high emphasis on factors A, B, and C for one guy, but placing primary emphasis on factors D, E, and F for the other. Which, if you're not being consistent in how you rank players, isn't that by definition bias?

[/quote

Key thing here is noting the distinction between Russell-era dominance and Mikan-era dominance. Simply put, increase in era difficulty from 1950 to 1970 utterly dwarfs 1970 to 2014 imho. I do essentially dock Russell for his era, but it's not enough to overcome how vastly more successful he was over the course of his career than everyone else. In Mikan's case though the docking is a much bigger deal. I mean I don't even think Mikan was as good a talent as Bob Pettit and both are primarily associated with the '50s. Mikan was much more dominant, but in the early '50s which were just that much worse than the late '50s.

[batmana]

Spoiler:

Since a large portion of this thread is about Kevin Garnett and particularly him in comparison to David Robinson, I will give my opinion on that matter. First of all, David Robinson is brought at this point not because people expect him to be top 10 (see that he doesn't have a single vote so far) but because to some of us, he is clearly better than Garnett. The short story, to me, is: Robinson is better, a lot better, than Garnett defensively (Robinson - 1st tier alongside Russell, Hakeem, Duncan; Garnett - at least a tier below). Robinson is better offensively (a better scorer, a good passer); he is certainly not worse in rebounding; he has less range which is not really a factor (Shaq had even less range and it only made him more dominant); Garnett clearly has the longevity advantage.
My verdict - Robinson's prime is better than Garnett's, so much better that the longevity card doesn't get played at all. If they were comparable, I'd have used it. The way I see it is that Robinson alone made you a 50-win playoff team; Garnett was also very good but not that good.

My vote for the No. 8 spot goes to Magic Johnson.

I kinda surprised myself voting for LeBron before Magic but maybe I hadn't given it enough thought.

Magic comes up here as a transcendent player who turned himself into a terrific leader, both with his play and with his demeanor. He was an excellent performer, regularly upped his play during the most important moments. He overcame some early-career fallbacks and exorcised the Lakers demons (Boston) beating them in 2 of 3 finals series.

Magic was probably the best passer ever and is the all-time leader in APG; he was the best rebounder for his position; he showed he could be a volume scorer on incredible efficiency; he turned himself from a shaky into a very consistent shooter and extended his range to become a legit threat from 3-point range; he had a knack for steals and contrarily to some poorly-scripted criticism, he could survive in today's NBA against the small speedy PGs just fine; he wouldn't get his pocket picked on every dribble (I know this criticism isn't present in the thread but it's still ridiculous some people think like that), and he has always thrived in up-tempo basketball. Magic did make everybody around him better (more than LeBron) while being able to score himself if he had to; he was the catalyst who made the Lakers superteam an offensive juggernaut. I have little doubt he could improve a mediocre team with his overall impact. After Kareem's retirement, he showed he could lead his team to a surprise Finals appearance. It is such a shame his career was cut short by his illness as he would have likely produced more all-NBA seasons.

His competition for this place (IMO) is Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon. Bird is very comparable to Magic numbers-wise; he was probably the best leader ever (up there with Russell). I feel that he has more playoff "failures" and that's why I give the nod to Magic.

Hakeem is unique with his unbelievable 2-year peek. He was one of the best defensive anchors ever (possibly behind Russell), his offense was versatile and he could score in volume, albeit not with Shaq's efficiency. He had the complete game with superb passing, rebounding, FT shooting (above average for a C), man-to-man defense (not just team defense). I feel Hakeem's early years were not on par to his peak years though (not numbers wise as his numbers are almost video-game like in some of those years). He struggled with his leadership, at times was a questionable teammate; if it wasn't for those two sublime seasons (and post-seasons) he would be pretty even with The Admiral (in my book).

HM to Kobe, Jerry West, Dr J, Moses, The Mailman who are in my next tier but don't compare very well to the three players I discussed in length here.

[Baller2014]

I won't say you've moved me on KG at all. I already thought he was 12th, and all I'm doing now is considering him 11 v.s 12 against Dr J, which in my opinion is an extremely reasonable position to hold. I've been tough on Hakeem, but I can't for the life of me see how KG could be a better player. Hakeem was better at him than everything, his prime looks better, and his peak blows KG away.

[ardee]

Ok screw the KG debate, we'll have plenty more of that later.

I'll be voting Magic here, and either Bird or Kobe after that. Lemme do a Magic/Bird comparison:

The primary issue I take with some of the arguments made in favor of Larry surrounds the 1980-83 period. A few of the points I want to consider are:

1. The idea that Larry's team wasn't just as loaded as Magic's, if not more. Those '83 Cs might just have the most loaded top 7 I've ever seen. Bird, Parish, McHale, Maxwell, Tiny, Ainge and Henderson. Wow. Magic had Kareem of course, who was better than any Celtic, and Wilkes, as his best teammates. Nixon was great, but you can also argue he was taking away from Magic at the time. Cooper was there but really wasn't at the level he'd hit at the late 80s.

I think the Cs monstrous front-court gives them somewhat of an advantage but I'm happy to call teammates a wash. Just want to dispell the notion that Bird was toiling away on some crappy team while Magic was living it up with superstars.

2. 1980-83 Playoffs

Bird: 20.5/12.8/5.8, 50.5 TS%, 105 ORtg
Magic: 17.9/10.3/10.3, 57.5 TS%, 117 ORtg

Just putting that out there. Bird had a regular season advantage, no doubt, but Magic was outperforming him in the Playoffs. He averaged a triple double over four years! And he was definitely more efficient, and it's not like defenses could key in on Bird, not with the other guys he had.

I feel like people are just ignoring also that Magic was key to the Lakers' two titles in that time period. People go on about Bird's all-around contributions in the 1981 Finals: 15/15/7 was impressive as hell, but it's not like Magic wasn't killing it either. He didn't deserve the '80 Finals MVP but he averaged a triple double for the series and only had one of the single greatest games in NBA history. That has to count for something right? In 1982 he put up 16/11/8 on 63% TS in the finals, and was key to the Lakers trapping defensive schemes. He had Bird's all-around contribution + great efficiency.

I don't see the hate Magic is getting for 1980-83, he was solidly a top 5 player in the period along with Bird, Kareem, Doc and Moses. I don't know the exact order but even if Bird was better (probably was), it wasn't by much.

When I look at the real meet of their careers, 1984-91, I see five transcendent superstar seasons for Bird, and two decent All-Star level seasons. Magic matches Bird's top-end level seasons (1987-91), but was still among the best in the league from 1984-86. Unless you think 1984-88 Bird was THAT much better than 1987-91, I don't see how Bird provides more value. Both won 3 MVPs in that stretch, only Bird won them over a pre-prime Magic and Nique, while Magic won his over peak Jordan, Barkley and Ewing.

Absolute peak Bird was probably better than absolute peak Magic (1986 Bird and 1987 Magic), but given Bird's Playoff injuries I think Magic just provides more value. He's definitely my pick here, should have already been voted in.

Vote: Earvin Magic Johnson

Next thread is Bird vs. Kobe for me, going to be a hard choice to make.

[Doctor MJ]

So I've been spending time watching Magic & Bird on YouTube. It makes me happy. To me it still defines the game of basketball to me in a lot of ways.

I voted Garnett here, and I don't believe we're in a runoff, but Magic vs Bird is clearly being debated a bit, so I'll join in that discussion.

The more I think about it, the more I think Bird is the more unusual player, from this key perspective:

He's an off-ball savant.

General rule is that the true offensive savants prove their status when they get more control. They are on ball, and they are using their brain & body to force the field of play to be more what they want.

That's not Bird's main thing to me. To me with Bird it's more a guy who seems to accept what's given, see a way to exploit it, and then hustle to make it happen. There are other guys you can talk about doing this to some degree, but typically when we talk about them we're really talking defense as at least half their impact (Walton for example).

Bird has some of that on defense, but obviously it's his offense that's his #1 thing. And when I say "off-ball" that's an oversimplification. If someone called Reggie Miller an off-ball savant I wouldn't say they are wrong, but Bird clearly takes it quite a bit further. It's a distinction along the lines that after everything else, what Reggie's looking to do when he gets the ball is shoot, whereas Bird has a battery of choices at his disposal and the only given seems to be that he already knows what he's going to do before you even know he's going to be there getting the ball.

Of course that doesn't even go into the pre-ball differences. Bird seems to get rebounds like Reggie gets passes, and Bird with his bigger body is able to get where he needs to go with plenty of space without relying on a complicated array of obstacles.

Just looking at the offense, and considering the impact of it when Bird play, the interesting thing to me is this:

I don't think it's as effective as being an on-ball savant at peak, but it's considerably more portable.

People sometimes take issue with Steve Nash because he requires control to do his thing, and I always brush this aside with the statement that a team's a fool to choose to not give him control when he's so good with it, but the thing is, when we look at Bird's rookie year, I think the natural portability of his game has everything to do with him being possibly the most impactful rookie in NBA history. He just makes stuff happen in the moment even if you don't design everything around him.

In the end if you know full well who your savant is, to me it's best to give that guy as much direct control as possible, and that means being more on-ball, and I don't see Bird taking to that as well as Magic, so to me it all aligns pretty well: Offense-only Magic's got the better peak, but Bird had more years with extreme impact, and the reason has less to do with Bird being more mature early on, or even being given more primacy, and more to do with the fact that his game is not as primacy-dependent.

Saying all this: I'll explicitly say I'm not talking about defense here, and I'm not talking about how this would translate across eras. You may already have a sense of how I'm thinking here, but this isn't a vote, and really what I wanted to just spend time pondering was the nature of each guy's tendencies within their characteristic offensive genius.

Do you agree with how I put it? Do you see issues with it?

[ardee]

So I've been spending time watching Magic & Bird on YouTube.

It's like basketball crack, I've wasted so much time before finals watching clips from the 1984, 1985 and 1987 Finals.

[D Nice]

And of course that's what happened in Boston. As I've said before, it might have been called The Big 3 as a marketing term, but it really wasn't, not by Heatle standards at least. People's assessment of what that supporting cast was before the '07-08 season started wasn't nearly enough to make it a contender

Otherwise awesome post but this is just not true. If this was your experience then the group with which you were hashing this out with his highly questionable, either vis-a-vis agenda or just lack of understanding. The consensus in virtually any circle I personally recall was that this was a team with 3 top 10(ish?) players. Perhaps KG was done as a franchise player and Pierce/Ray were thought to be in decline, but nobody thought they weren't still mid all-star level players. No team throughout history combining talents who posted...

22/13/4
25/6/4
26/5/5 (goat shooter/offensive synergy player)

The year prior could ever not be conceived of as not stacked. People thought there might be issues in the same vein we thought "Wade and Lebron duplicate 2 much." But nobody foresaw a GOAT team, which is what they were. That is where they overshot expectations (first round stumbles against ATL notwithstanding).

The only other pre-season title picks I remember (that actually picked up traction) that year were San Antonio and Phoenix...

[Baller2014]

If anyone is curious I have the vote Magic 12 (not including Hodge's non-vote), Bird 6, Hakeem 3, KG 1. If I had to guess, that's the order these next 4 will be voted in. After Hakeem things will start to get crazy though. Better get some Dr J material ready.

[DQuinn1575]

This is a reasonable argument imo, But I disagree with them not having an significant impact though.

Cowens and Tiny weren't the same players but still good enough to become all stars relative to competition that year, Cowens numbers were comparable to other all stars like Jack Sikma and Kermit Washington that year.


Tiny was #2 in the NBA in assists that year and his offensive numbers were comparable to another all star in Michael Ray Richardson that year who lead the league in assists

I didn't say Cowens and Archibald weren't good

But Cowens played less, shot worse, and rebounded and assisted the same. He didn't get better being a year older in 1980 from 1979,

Archibald did get better - I said he was one of the top 20 players in the league. Michael Ray Richardson isn't a great comparison because Richardson was a near great defender, while Archibald was always considered below average. So some credit does go to Archibald - the team improved somewhat due to him - I don't have a measure at this time.

Rookie Bird & teammate Cedric Maxwell comparison during 79-80 season

Maxwell, like Cowens, played less minutes in 80 versus 79. He shot better, but had already led league in FG% in 79. Having Bird as his running mate at forward really helped him. Marvin Barnes was an inside player, taking him out opened up the middle. Curtis Rowe was nowhere near the outside threat or passer that Bird was. So, Maxwell played less, but was somewhat more effective - at least partially due to Bird.

The article give ML Carr credit for adding better leadership and intangiables to the locker room and new coach Bill Fitch for restoring a firm hand to Boston:

ML Carr was a great guy to have on your bench, and deserves a little credit for improvement.
Fitch? Team didn't really suffer when he left. Right guy at the right place? Any coach who is there when the team
improves that much gets credit/Coach of Year, etc. I'm pretty hesitant to give a lot of win credit to coaches not named Jackson, Pop, or Riley.

I think Bird was the catalyst for sure, but to give him the credit for that team's success singularly is not putting things in context imo.

I gave Archibald credit, and a little bit to Carr.

Cowens and Maxwell played less in 80 than 79. Cowens didn't statistically do better, and he was aging - he retired the next year.
Maxwell played better, but he had a perfect fit as a partner in Bird - Barnes took up space where Maxwell wanted to be; Rowe didn't shoot or pass real well as a 3.

Just like you cant give Kareem 100% of the credit in Milwaukee, or Duncan 100% in San Antonio, Bird was not singularly worth 32 wins. But other than Archibald, the starters didn't change or improve much.
It still leaves us with one of the very biggest improvements due to one player
And much more than Magic, Olajuwon, or Garnett.