RealGM Top 100 List #9

[Baller2014]

What would happen if we gave Olajuwon 2 sober, durable All-Star teammates for 4 consecutive years of his career? Not just at his peak...any 4 years of his career from 1986-1997. Just pick 4 years.

In Otis Thorpe's first 4 years with the Rockets he averaged 17-10-3 on killer efficiency. So that's one sober, extremely durable all-star team mate Hakeem had right there. It's strange for me to hear a top 10 player needs 2 all-stars to do anything notable in the regular season, or indeed win more than 41 games in some years (and hey, he had Sleepy Floyd that year, who was still in his prime and had been an all-star not long before arriving to the Rockets, so technically we could count him too). In the biggest sample we have of Hakeem's "horrible" support cast in games he missed, over 91 and 92, the Rockets were 28-20 in games without him. Doesn't seem too horrible to me.

It certainly contrasts poorly to rookie Bird, turning 29 win teams into 61 win contenders.

[Basketballefan]

-Amazing consistency. 13 years of big volume scoring at 55%+ TS.

While that is true and impressive it is also true that Kobe only has 6 years in the playoffs where he managed to volume score on 55%+ TS.

Top 5 MVP finishes in eleven different seasons.

He wasn't Top 5 in eleven different seasons though.
01 + 06-10. That is 6 years. Then you can argue he was Top 5 from 02-04.
Even if I gave him those 3 years that still only brings the total to 9 which is still incredibly impressive obviously.

I think it's fair to say Kobe was top 5 from 02-04 as well. He has arguments from 11-13 as well, not clear cut but certainly arguable. So overall you have 12 years that Kobe can be argued as a top 5 player..not a whole lot of players can make that claim.

Or if you want to look at it from a top 10 perspective Kobe was pretty much top 10 for 14 straight years.

[Basketballefan]

David Robinson also deserves some traction.

Robinson joined a Spurs 21 win Spurs team for the '89-'90 season and they improved by 25 wins from the previous one. One of the best 2-way bigs of all-time. 2nd All-Time in WS Per 48 behind only Michael Jordan and the 4th all-time leader in PER behind only Jordan, Lebron and Shaq.

In comparison to a player like Bird who is currently in the discussion for #9

Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob --- '90-'98 ---- 34.0 -----15.8 ---- 4.1 -----.525 -----.590 ---- 118 ---- 97 -----.261 ---- 27.8
Bird ----- '80-'88 ---- 30.9 ---- 12.7 ----- 7.6 ----- .519 ----- .570 ---- 116 ---- 101 ----- .217 ---- 24.2

As you can see D-Rob pretty much has the advantage all across the board with Bird's only advantage coming as a passer/playmaker, but when you include the other side of the ball it's not really close.

Playoff Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob --- '90-'98 --- 31.0 ---- 16.1 ---- 3.8 ----- .481 ----- .549 ---- 112 ---- 100 -----.188 ---- 24.1
Bird ----- '80-'88 ---- 28.4 ---- 12.4 ----- 7.4 ----- .489 -----.555 ---- 114 ---- 103 -----.183 ---- 21.9

Playoffs wise Bird has a small edge in efficiency and an obvious edge as a playmaker. Robinson wins out in rebounding and scoring albeit with slightly less efficiency. D-Rob however still enjoys a big edge in defensive impact even with the playoff dip, More than enough to make up for any edge Bird has in playmaking and efficiency.

Per 100 possessions don't matter...actual production/output does. With that said Drob's overall play and efficiency fell too much in the playoffs to be mentioned in the top 10. Now if you're talking about top 10 in the regular season then yes he'd deserve some "traction".

[acrossthecourt]

What would happen if we gave Olajuwon 2 sober, durable All-Star teammates for 4 consecutive years of his career? Not just at his peak...any 4 years of his career from 1986-1997. Just pick 4 years.

Hakeem Olajuwon
Robert Horry
Clyde Drexler
Reggie Miller
Kenny Smith

That's not crazy or unrealistic at all. That lineup still isn't as loaded as 1985-1988 McHale/Parish/Ainge/DJ + Maxwell in 1985 and Walton in 1986 off the bench. Hell Jerry Sichting would have been welcomed on Dream's teams in the 1980's.

If Hakeem got to play with even a modicum of the offensive talent these other all-time greats had, I'm sure his "offensive impact" would look a lot better. He was saddled with having to carry a load far too large from 1987 on (in addition to the amazing defensive work he was doing).

Question his leadership all you want...on the court, Olajuwon wasn't a selfish player. Like Shaq, Olajuwon always looked to make the right play. You're going to have to convince me that playing through somebody else on Houston from 1987-1990 would have been a better method of attack on offense if you want me to believe Hakeem's offense is overrated. I don't see it.

1) That's a crazy good team, actually, and Olajuwon's teams were known for depth and balance beyond him anyway.

2) If your teammates are poor offensive players, then they should be exposed without you, not get better.

3) His offensive "burden" wasn't unusually large in the 80's. He was like a 25-28 usage player with low assists. (He did do a lot on defense, of course.)

4) Here's another set of games: In the 68 regular season games with Hakeem, they were a +3.1 offense, roughly, adjusted for the competition. In the 14 games without him, they were a +3.2 offense. Again, they didn't miss him on offense. They were better in the playoffs on offense with him, however, but not by any special mark.

5) Hakeem's best offensive team pre-Barkley/Pippen/getting old was 1986. After that, Sampson had injury problems, and their second best offensive season (until 1993) was 1991 ... you know, the year he missed a large chunk of games with injury.

[90sAllDecade]

Team Support comparison Larry Bird vs Hakeem:

Larry Bird
13 year career

Years with 1 All Star Player: x13
Two All Star players: x10

*K. McHale (All NBA 1st team x1, Def. 1st team x3, Def. 2nd team x3, Sixth Man of the Year x2)
R. Parish (All NBA 2nd team x 1, All NBA 3rd team x1)
D. Johnson (Def. 1st team x1, 2nd team x3)
B. Walton - age 33 (Sixth Man of the Year x1)
D. Cowens - age 31 (Def. 2nd team x1)
C. Maxwell (Finals MVP x1)


Hakeem
17 year career

Years with 1 All Star Player: x7
Two All Star players: x1

*R. Sampson (All NBA 2nd team x1)
C. Drexler - age 32 (All NBA 3rd team x1)

[acrossthecourt]

Spoiler:

David Robinson also deserves some traction.

Robinson joined a Spurs 21 win Spurs team for the '89-'90 season and they improved by 25 wins from the previous one. One of the best 2-way bigs of all-time. 2nd All-Time in WS Per 48 behind only Michael Jordan and the 4th all-time leader in PER behind only Jordan, Lebron and Shaq.

In comparison to a player like Bird who is currently in the discussion for #9

Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob --- '90-'98 ---- 34.0 -----15.8 ---- 4.1 -----.525 -----.590 ---- 118 ---- 97 -----.261 ---- 27.8
Bird ----- '80-'88 ---- 30.9 ---- 12.7 ----- 7.6 ----- .519 ----- .570 ---- 116 ---- 101 ----- .217 ---- 24.2

As you can see D-Rob pretty much has the advantage all across the board with Bird's only advantage coming as a passer/playmaker, but when you include the other side of the ball it's not really close.

Playoff Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob --- '90-'98 --- 31.0 ---- 16.1 ---- 3.8 ----- .481 ----- .549 ---- 112 ---- 100 -----.188 ---- 24.1
Bird ----- '80-'88 ---- 28.4 ---- 12.4 ----- 7.4 ----- .489 -----.555 ---- 114 ---- 103 -----.183 ---- 21.9

Playoffs wise Bird has a small edge in efficiency and an obvious edge as a playmaker. Robinson wins out in rebounding and scoring albeit with slightly less efficiency. D-Rob however still enjoys a big edge in defensive impact even with the playoff dip, More than enough to make up for any edge Bird has in playmaking and efficiency.

Per 100 possessions don't matter...actual production/output does. With that said Drob's overall play and efficiency fell too much in the playoffs to be mentioned in the top 10. Now if you're talking about top 10 in the regular season then yes he'd deserve some "traction".

People shouldn't dismiss per poss/min stats.

NO ONE is every saying playing less minutes is better. That's not the point.

Think of this: a player goes for like 46 minutes a night. He's a C. He averages 12 rebounds and leads the team.

He gets injured. You have some pretty decent backups, but they averaged single digit rebounds. Does your team fall apart with respect to rebounds?

No. He's rebounding like Hawes and Ibaka. His rebounds are replaceable. Average players and decent backups can grab as many rebounds in that allotted time. His ability to play 46 minutes is great in a way, but he's not good enough that it matters because he's not providing you something extra.

That's why per poss/min. stats matter. It's more accurately reflective of what's being provided and what can be replaced.

I wrote an article on this actually if you want a more long-winded argument using Manu:

Spoiler:

There’s a divide between NBA fans and the analytics contingent. This divide is being breached more and more every day, but there’s still a lot of work to be done in explaining NBA statistics to a wider audience.

For instance, NBA stats, in advanced terms, are framed per possession or per minute, but the general basketball public finds that approach troubling or just plain mysterious. However, it’s built on really simple ideas that have relevance branching out into so many different areas of influence that even casual fans should understand it.

One of the most important practical applications of advanced numbers in basketball is the ability to compare dissimilar players. Manu Ginobili is one of the best illustrations of this concept — how do you value a high-level player who doesn’t play the minutes a typical star does? Even in his heyday, Manu never topped 31.1 minutes per game. If you compare him to other All-Star-caliber guards who play 38 minutes, how do you weigh Manu’s performance fairly?

This is where certain advanced stats come in, and it is not some super advanced topic that requires a math or science-based degree.

A common basketball stat that estimates value is Win Shares, popularized by basketball-reference.com.

Team wins are credited to players via box score stats. It can be used to compare a player like Ginobili to a heavy minutes starter who isn’t as efficient.

For example, Joe Johnson averaged 21.7 points per game in 2008, beating over Ginobili’s 16.5 in 2007; and Joe averaged more assists while equaling him in rebounds. If Johnson averaged more points by a significant amount, then how did Manu have more Win Shares? The answer, basically, is that Ginobili was so much better on a per possession minute basis that it gives his team more value. He got more points out of his shot attempts, and on a per minute basis he was outscoring Johnson.

Screen Shot 2014-05-28 at 8.30.29 PM

A critic would counter that Johnson is adding more value because he was actually on the court and averaged more points per game, but if Johnson doesn’t play that doesn’t mean his 21.7 points disappear completely; his possessions are divvied up among other else, and it’s the difference between what Johnson produces and what a Johnson-less team would produce that we’re interested in. That is the crucial point in understanding value stats. Replacing Manu’s production, meanwhile, would be more difficult because of how efficient he is with his shots and how well-rounded he is as a player. Ginobili is even more valuable to a championship contending team because of he good he plays on a per minute basis. Good teams likely have a few players to carry the scoring load; if you want to make a difference you have to provide at a higher level.

By the way, another metric would have similar results. With Hollinger’s PER, Manu had 14 estimated wins added in 2007, while Johnson had 11.9 in 2008. And Manu crushes Johnson in advanced plus/minus stats.

While it’s fairly easy to see how Manu is better than Joe Johnson, it’s not exactly tough competition. A better match-up would be Ginobili and Vince Carter in 2007, arguably his best season post-Toronto. Carter cracked 25 points per game; Ginobili never made it past 20. Yet despite Carter playing 50% more total minutes, they’re nearly even in Win Shares. How does this happen? Again, don’t think of Carter adding 25 points to his team; he’s using up opportunities that can be (partially) replaced by teammates. Manu’s stats were less replaceable because he was ridiculously efficient and filled up the stat-sheet in numerous ways.

Screen Shot 2014-05-28 at 8.31.47 PM

This is related to another term that’s used frequently in sports analytics: replacement level.

The replacement level is the level at which you can find a cheap player at any possible time. It’s used a lot in baseball where positions are less malleable and if you’re missing a shortstop, you have to find someone who can play that position. In the NBA, rotations are shorter and positions are fluid so absences or injuries are mostly covered by your same core players, but you still need guys on, say, veteran’s minimum contracts to fill in any voids.

Why do we set the baseline so low and not at something like an average player? A Fangraphs post (about baseball, of course) explains one important reason why:

If the baseline is set to average, then the results of the metric will actually favor inferior talents whose lack of skills convince their manager to keep them chained to the bench in lieu of better players who actually take the field on a semi-regular basis.

Since replacement level is set low, almost every player will have a Win Share score ranging from 0 to higher values. If you see other similar value metrics in basketball, it will most likely be using a very low baseline, often based on a calculation of replacement level.

Setting the baseline that low is useful for a few reasons, but it’s why basketball-reference is listing an unexceptional player with a long career, like Derek Fisher, with a Win Share total near legends with short careers, like David Thompson or Bill Walton. Fisher has 62.3 Win Shares, but if we compared him to an average player it’s -6.1 Win Shares (read this as he’s 6 wins below what an average player would provide). Yao Ming, who was clearly better than Fisher at his best, only has 65.9 Win Shares, but compared to the average player he’s providing 33 more wins.

This is where Manu Ginobili has even more of an advantage over players like Joe Johnson and Vince Carter. If you’re on the same team as players like Duncan and Parker, you have to have compelling reasons to take the ball out of their hands.

His per possession stats are mesmerizing — there’s a reason San Antonio plays so well with him on the court with his ability to take step-back three’s, throw bullets to open players, or drive to the basket with his patented Euro-step, picking up a high rate of free throws.

Manu doesn’t play heavy minutes, but he’s so good when he plays he’s still more valuable than most starters. Production is mostly replaceable; Ginobili is not.

[RayBan-Sematra]

I think it's fair to say Kobe was top 5 from 02-04 as well.

Not unreasonable to think that but I don't think he was indisputably Top 5 in all three of those years.

He has arguments from 11-13 as well, not clear cut but certainly arguable.

I don't think so. His impact from 11-12 was pretty small and in 13 he was unable to compete in the post-season.
Honestly he might not even make my Top 10 from 11-12. 13 he would but only for regular-season.

Or if you want to look at it from a top 10 perspective Kobe was pretty much top 10 for 14 straight years.

I would say 11 years (00-10).
I am really low on his 11-12 stretch. Was pretty high on his 13 season but again we have the injury.

[An Unbiased Fan]

-Amazing consistency. 13 years of big volume scoring at 55%+ TS.

While that is true and impressive it is also true that Kobe only has 6 years in the playoffs where he managed to volume score on 55%+ TS.

Fair enough point, but it should be noted Kobe faced the 2nd toughest defenses in the playoffs behind Shaq. And his career TS% in the playoffs is 54% despite that. Not to mention the endless "Kobe Stoppers" that teams tried to slow Kobe with like Patterson, Bowen, Christie, T.Allen.

He wasn't Top 5 in eleven different seasons though.
01 + 06-10. That is 6 years. Then you can argue he was Top 5 from 02-04.
Even if I gave him those 3 years that still only brings the total to 9 which is still incredibly impressive obviously.

Have to disagree here. Kobe was both a Top 5 MVP finisher & All-NBA 1st team from 2011-13. I think those years are similar to Shaq's from 2004-06, in that Kobe wasn't neccesarily prime anymore, but still one of the best in the league.

I also feel the fact Kobe was able to be a Top 5 player 3 straight years post-prime, speaks to his longevity. Both Kobe & Bird's primes were about 9 years, but Kobe had the better pre-prime(Bird entered the NBA at 23), and post-prime.

Not sure I would agree with that.
I felt he was a very good to elite defender from 00-02 and from 08-09 but outside of that he was often a neutral or negative defender.
Over his career he is closer to being a neutral defender then he is to being a very good/elite one.
So I feel more comfortable calling him a 1-way player.

I'd say from 99-03 was his defensive prime. He started bulking up circa 2004, and I think that slowed him a little, plus caused more nagging little injuries. including the plantar that plagued him in 2005. From 06-10 he bounced back, but not at the Frobe level of defense, especially with the scoring loads he had to carry. Not to mention the rules that made it harder to even guard on the perimeter. Going back to Team USA in 2008, Kobe was on full display for those who don't see many Laker games.

That said, you would be hardpressed to name guards to replace him on those All-D teams. I think in general, we're harder on smaller players about defense, though I will concede Kobe certainly had bad moments here and there defensively in his later years. But then again, what player hasn't. Even MJ got crossed up by Iverson late in his playing days.

I don't see his playoff success as being unusually good.
He did very good from 08-10 but the competition especially at the top end in 09 & 10 wasn't particularity strong.
Duncan was in a slump and the Spurs were trying to figure out what direction they were gonna head in and KG got injured effectively ending a potential Boston dynasty.
Yes he also had lots of success in the early 00's but those were Shaq's teams. Kobe was pretty much a Pippen in 00/02.

Don't think its fair to call Kobe Pippen. He was Early Magic in the 3peat days. In general I don't like downgrading either Shaq/Kobe on those teams because I view them as the GOAT duo. it was literally 2 guys whose 3rd best player was Derek Fisher, completely wrecking the NBA. It was the best post & perimeter player on the same team. Kobe's 2001 was pretty special, was it not.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0HtbJFEzJM[/youtube]


And even post-Shaq, Kobe still had a 11-1 record with SRS advantage, 3 Finals, and a back2back team. he's the only player other than Russell to win back2back titles with nearly completely different squads.

Durant just had a 36 / 6 / 6apg on 68%TS month last year.
Durant also maintained those averages over 16 games while Kobe maintained his over only 13.

Should be noted Kobe had two 40+ ppg on 60% TS months in 2006. I view Kobe's as greater because that month included the best scoring game in modern history, and the GOAT scoring game where Kobe dropped 62 in 3, and outscored the 06 Mavs by himself.

Durant's month is impressive, but his TS% is skewed to me because of all the iffy FTs he's given. MJ and others had better overall months than KD's, IMO.

[RSCD3_]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

Excuse me Doctor MJ,

I frequently hear arguments that the other 90's centers ( Ewing , Olajuwon, and Robinson ) were better scorers than KG because of how much more efficient they were. But I was wondering how much of that has to do with era so could you please compare their primes ( whatever years you believe ) to each other using TS % relative to the years their primes encompass and post them.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Is there some reason why you can't do this yourself?

No, not really I was just hoping you had the numbers at arms reach, but you don't have to look for it. I was just interested in the data of it because people point to garnett's lower TS as an example of how he should be penalized for it in the rankings while many of the people he is being compared to played in a more offensive friendly era.

I know you are probably a busy person so I don't want to have the reputation of a freeloader of advanced stats

Sorry for bothering you, that wasn't my intention

[Basketballefan]

Spoiler:

David Robinson also deserves some traction.

Robinson joined a Spurs 21 win Spurs team for the '89-'90 season and they improved by 25 wins from the previous one. One of the best 2-way bigs of all-time. 2nd All-Time in WS Per 48 behind only Michael Jordan and the 4th all-time leader in PER behind only Jordan, Lebron and Shaq.

In comparison to a player like Bird who is currently in the discussion for #9

Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob --- '90-'98 ---- 34.0 -----15.8 ---- 4.1 -----.525 -----.590 ---- 118 ---- 97 -----.261 ---- 27.8
Bird ----- '80-'88 ---- 30.9 ---- 12.7 ----- 7.6 ----- .519 ----- .570 ---- 116 ---- 101 ----- .217 ---- 24.2

As you can see D-Rob pretty much has the advantage all across the board with Bird's only advantage coming as a passer/playmaker, but when you include the other side of the ball it's not really close.

Playoff Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob --- '90-'98 --- 31.0 ---- 16.1 ---- 3.8 ----- .481 ----- .549 ---- 112 ---- 100 -----.188 ---- 24.1
Bird ----- '80-'88 ---- 28.4 ---- 12.4 ----- 7.4 ----- .489 -----.555 ---- 114 ---- 103 -----.183 ---- 21.9

Playoffs wise Bird has a small edge in efficiency and an obvious edge as a playmaker. Robinson wins out in rebounding and scoring albeit with slightly less efficiency. D-Rob however still enjoys a big edge in defensive impact even with the playoff dip, More than enough to make up for any edge Bird has in playmaking and efficiency.

Per 100 possessions don't matter...actual production/output does. With that said Drob's overall play and efficiency fell too much in the playoffs to be mentioned in the top 10. Now if you're talking about top 10 in the regular season then yes he'd deserve some "traction".

People shouldn't dismiss per poss/min stats.

NO ONE is every saying playing less minutes is better. That's not the point.

Think of this: a player goes for like 46 minutes a night. He's a C. He averages 12 rebounds and leads the team.

He gets injured. You have some pretty decent backups, but they averaged single digit rebounds. Does your team fall apart with respect to rebounds?

No. He's rebounding like Hawes and Ibaka. His rebounds are replaceable. Average players and decent backups can grab as many rebounds in that allotted time. His ability to play 46 minutes is great in a way, but he's not good enough that it matters because he's not providing you something extra.

That's why per poss/min. stats matter. It's more accurately reflective of what's being provided and what can be replaced.

I wrote an article on this actually if you want a more long-winded argument using Manu:

Spoiler:

There’s a divide between NBA fans and the analytics contingent. This divide is being breached more and more every day, but there’s still a lot of work to be done in explaining NBA statistics to a wider audience.

For instance, NBA stats, in advanced terms, are framed per possession or per minute, but the general basketball public finds that approach troubling or just plain mysterious. However, it’s built on really simple ideas that have relevance branching out into so many different areas of influence that even casual fans should understand it.

One of the most important practical applications of advanced numbers in basketball is the ability to compare dissimilar players. Manu Ginobili is one of the best illustrations of this concept — how do you value a high-level player who doesn’t play the minutes a typical star does? Even in his heyday, Manu never topped 31.1 minutes per game. If you compare him to other All-Star-caliber guards who play 38 minutes, how do you weigh Manu’s performance fairly?

This is where certain advanced stats come in, and it is not some super advanced topic that requires a math or science-based degree.

A common basketball stat that estimates value is Win Shares, popularized by basketball-reference.com.

Team wins are credited to players via box score stats. It can be used to compare a player like Ginobili to a heavy minutes starter who isn’t as efficient.

For example, Joe Johnson averaged 21.7 points per game in 2008, beating over Ginobili’s 16.5 in 2007; and Joe averaged more assists while equaling him in rebounds. If Johnson averaged more points by a significant amount, then how did Manu have more Win Shares? The answer, basically, is that Ginobili was so much better on a per possession minute basis that it gives his team more value. He got more points out of his shot attempts, and on a per minute basis he was outscoring Johnson.

Screen Shot 2014-05-28 at 8.30.29 PM

A critic would counter that Johnson is adding more value because he was actually on the court and averaged more points per game, but if Johnson doesn’t play that doesn’t mean his 21.7 points disappear completely; his possessions are divvied up among other else, and it’s the difference between what Johnson produces and what a Johnson-less team would produce that we’re interested in. That is the crucial point in understanding value stats. Replacing Manu’s production, meanwhile, would be more difficult because of how efficient he is with his shots and how well-rounded he is as a player. Ginobili is even more valuable to a championship contending team because of he good he plays on a per minute basis. Good teams likely have a few players to carry the scoring load; if you want to make a difference you have to provide at a higher level.

By the way, another metric would have similar results. With Hollinger’s PER, Manu had 14 estimated wins added in 2007, while Johnson had 11.9 in 2008. And Manu crushes Johnson in advanced plus/minus stats.

While it’s fairly easy to see how Manu is better than Joe Johnson, it’s not exactly tough competition. A better match-up would be Ginobili and Vince Carter in 2007, arguably his best season post-Toronto. Carter cracked 25 points per game; Ginobili never made it past 20. Yet despite Carter playing 50% more total minutes, they’re nearly even in Win Shares. How does this happen? Again, don’t think of Carter adding 25 points to his team; he’s using up opportunities that can be (partially) replaced by teammates. Manu’s stats were less replaceable because he was ridiculously efficient and filled up the stat-sheet in numerous ways.

Screen Shot 2014-05-28 at 8.31.47 PM

This is related to another term that’s used frequently in sports analytics: replacement level.

The replacement level is the level at which you can find a cheap player at any possible time. It’s used a lot in baseball where positions are less malleable and if you’re missing a shortstop, you have to find someone who can play that position. In the NBA, rotations are shorter and positions are fluid so absences or injuries are mostly covered by your same core players, but you still need guys on, say, veteran’s minimum contracts to fill in any voids.

Why do we set the baseline so low and not at something like an average player? A Fangraphs post (about baseball, of course) explains one important reason why:

If the baseline is set to average, then the results of the metric will actually favor inferior talents whose lack of skills convince their manager to keep them chained to the bench in lieu of better players who actually take the field on a semi-regular basis.

Since replacement level is set low, almost every player will have a Win Share score ranging from 0 to higher values. If you see other similar value metrics in basketball, it will most likely be using a very low baseline, often based on a calculation of replacement level.

Setting the baseline that low is useful for a few reasons, but it’s why basketball-reference is listing an unexceptional player with a long career, like Derek Fisher, with a Win Share total near legends with short careers, like David Thompson or Bill Walton. Fisher has 62.3 Win Shares, but if we compared him to an average player it’s -6.1 Win Shares (read this as he’s 6 wins below what an average player would provide). Yao Ming, who was clearly better than Fisher at his best, only has 65.9 Win Shares, but compared to the average player he’s providing 33 more wins.

This is where Manu Ginobili has even more of an advantage over players like Joe Johnson and Vince Carter. If you’re on the same team as players like Duncan and Parker, you have to have compelling reasons to take the ball out of their hands.

His per possession stats are mesmerizing — there’s a reason San Antonio plays so well with him on the court with his ability to take step-back three’s, throw bullets to open players, or drive to the basket with his patented Euro-step, picking up a high rate of free throws.

Manu doesn’t play heavy minutes, but he’s so good when he plays he’s still more valuable than most starters. Production is mostly replaceable; Ginobili is not.

It's simply my opinion. I go by actual on court production, i don't obsess over advanced stats and don't treat the game like it's a video game simulation. Just because you disagree doesn't make it fact.

[ceiling raiser]

It's simply my opinion. I go by actual on court production, i don't obsess over advanced stats and don't treat the game like it's a video game simulation. Just because you disagree doesn't make it fact.

Why specifically do you hold this opinion though? The conversation is the main takeaway from this project (as opposed to the rankings), so it's good to get an idea of not only how everybody feels, but what one's reasons are as well.

[Basketballefan]

I think it's fair to say Kobe was top 5 from 02-04 as well.

Not unreasonable to think that but I don't think he was indisputably Top 5 in all three of those years.

He has arguments from 11-13 as well, not clear cut but certainly arguable.

I don't think so. His impact from 11-12 was pretty small and in 13 he was unable to compete in the post-season.
Honestly he might not even make my Top 10 from 11-12. 13 he would but only for regular-season.

Or if you want to look at it from a top 10 perspective Kobe was pretty much top 10 for 14 straight years.

I would say 11 years (00-10).
I am really low on his 11-12 stretch. Was pretty high on his 13 season but again we have the injury.

So Kobe averaging 25 5 5 55 TS% while leading the Lakers to the 2nd seed isn't top 10? I know his playoffs weren't that great but come on he did enough to be top 10 that year. What about 2012 28 5 5 again leading them to a top 3 seed and 30 5 4 in the playoffs. I can understand if you have concern about his efficiency and defense that year but again he was good enough to be top 10. If you still disagree then name 10 better.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Fair enough point, but it should be noted Kobe faced the 2nd toughest defenses in the playoffs behind Shaq. And his career TS% in the playoffs is 54% despite that. Not to mention the endless "Kobe Stoppers" that teams tried to slow Kobe with like Patterson, Bowen, Christie, T.Allen.

Fair points though when we are talking about GOAT offensive players I usually prefer not to make excuses for them.

Have to disagree here. Kobe was both a Top 5 MVP finisher & All-NBA 1st team from 2011-13. I think those years are similar to Shaq's from 2004-06, in that Kobe wasn't neccesarily prime anymore, but still one of the best in the league.

Oh I know he got the votes those years but I just feel that in reality he wasn't a Top 5 guy after 2010.

From 11-12 he was really inconsistent with his offensive efficiency and dominated the ball more to make up for his decline in ability.
Add to that his very poor defense and I don't see a guy who was having a huge impact or the type of impact he usually had.
Just because a player is putting up volume offensive stats does not mean they are having All-Star level impact.

Maybe you could argue he was Top 5 in 13? but once you take his injury into account he obviously cannot be ranked that high. Being unable to compete in the playoffs is a big deal.

I'd say from 99-03 was his defensive prime. He started bulking up circa 2004, and I think that slowed him a little, plus caused more nagging little injuries. including the plantar that plagued him in 2005. From 06-10 he bounced back, but not at the Frobe level of defense, especially with the scoring loads he had to carry. Not to mention the rules that made it harder to even guard on the perimeter. Going back to Team USA in 2008, Kobe was on full display for those who don't see many Laker games.

Yeah his physical Prime ended in 04 but he was still very capable up until 2010.
In years like 06/07 I didn't think he was playing very good defense but that is because he didn't put the effort in not because he lacked the ability.

That said, you would be hardpressed to name guards to replace him on those All-D teams.

Perhaps. Would depend on how the All-D awards were being given out in general.
Are specialists winning them for other positions and if so why don't specialist guards get the vote?

Don't think its fair to call Kobe Pippen. He was Early Magic in the 3peat days.

I dunno.
I feel like Kobe's level of production and his impact in 00 & 02 wasn't really beyond what Pippen was giving the Bulls in the early 90's.

00 = 21 / 4.4 on 52%TS
02 = 26.5 / 4.6 on 51%TS

Numbers kind of speak for themselves don't they?
Those numbers (even with advanced stats included) aren't really better then early 90's Pip or late 00's Gasol.

In general I don't like downgrading either Shaq/Kobe on those teams because I view them as the GOAT duo.

That is fine and I respect your perspective.
I view them in 01 as arguably the GOAT duo but in the other two years they are more like a good year from Jordan/Pip.

Kobe's 2001 was pretty special, was it not.

It really was but I can't pretend he played at that same level in 00 & 02.
Was really an outlierish year during the 3peat.

And even post-Shaq, Kobe still had a 11-1 record with SRS advantage, 3 Finals, and a back2back team. he's the only player other than Russell to win back2back titles with nearly completely different squads.

Yeah and when I said his success wasn't "unusually good" I was comparing him to the best of the best on the GOAT list.
Obviously compared to most ATG's his playoff success is excellent.

Durant's month is impressive, but his TS% is skewed to me because of all the iffy FTs he's given. MJ and others had better overall months than KD's, IMO.

Fair enough but I don't agree with your argument.
06 was the year where you couldn't blow on a perimeter player without a whistle being called and that is the year Kobe has the streaks you brought up.
Even if KD did get more ref love then Kobe the rules being at their worst in 06 probably evens it out.

[Baller2014]

Team Support comparison Larry Bird vs Hakeem:

Larry Bird
13 year career

Years with 1 All Star Player: x13
Two All Star players: x10

*K. McHale (All NBA 1st team x1, Def. 1st team x3, Def. 2nd team x3, Sixth Man of the Year x2)
R. Parish (All NBA 2nd team x 1, All NBA 3rd team x1)
D. Johnson (Def. 1st team x1, 2nd team x3)
B. Walton - age 33 (Sixth Man of the Year x1)
D. Cowens - age 31 (Def. 2nd team x1)
C. Maxwell (Finals MVP x1)


Hakeem
17 year career

Years with 1 All Star Player: x7
Two All Star players: x1

*R. Sampson (All NBA 2nd team x1)
C. Drexler - age 32 (All NBA 3rd team x1)

This is a misleading analysis, not least of all because Bird's teams performed much better than Hakeem's Rockets, so you're not comparing equivalent results. It's also ridiculous because long before Bird had awesome team mates (and of course he generally had better team mates than Hakeem) he led a bum lotto team to 61 wins as a mere rookie.

[Basketballefan]

It's simply my opinion. I go by actual on court production, i don't obsess over advanced stats and don't treat the game like it's a video game simulation. Just because you disagree doesn't make it fact.

Why specifically do you hold this opinion though? The conversation is the main takeaway from this project (as opposed to the rankings), so it's good to get an idea of not only how everybody feels, but what one's reasons are as well.

I don't like to use them simply because per min/per poss don't account for wear and tear or the production that actually happened. People always use Manu and how his per-minute production is on par with the Kobe's the Wade's or what have you, that may be so but it honestly doesn't matter if he can't play those minutes to put those numbers up. It's basically a "what-if" he could play those minutes.

[Baller2014]

Kobe's 2001 was pretty special, was it not.

It was not. Kobe was being guarded by scrubs in the Spurs series. Literal scrubs. The best player, Antonio Daniels, was a career back-up. The Spurs were so shorthanded on decent backcourt players they played him 42mpg that series. That's how bad it was.

And even post-Shaq, Kobe still had a 11-1 record with SRS advantage, 3 Finals, and a back2back team.

Well yeh, if you just cherry pick 3 select years that's his playoff record. I could do much the same thing for Bird. And the teams Bird was beating in 84-86 weren't no Orlando Magic's and Denver Nuggets.

[acrossthecourt]

It's simply my opinion. I go by actual on court production, i don't obsess over advanced stats and don't treat the game like it's a video game simulation. Just because you disagree doesn't make it fact.

Why specifically do you hold this opinion though? The conversation is the main takeaway from this project (as opposed to the rankings), so it's good to get an idea of not only how everybody feels, but what one's reasons are as well.

I don't like to use them simply because per min/per poss don't account for wear and tear or the production that actually happened. People always use Manu and how his per-minute production is on par with the Kobe's the Wade's or what have you, that may be so but it honestly doesn't matter if he can't play those minutes to put those numbers up. It's basically a "what-if" he could play those minutes.

That's not the point. Read what I wrote.

[ElGee]

What would happen if we gave Olajuwon 2 sober, durable All-Star teammates for 4 consecutive years of his career? Not just at his peak...any 4 years of his career from 1986-1997. Just pick 4 years.

Hakeem Olajuwon
Robert Horry
Clyde Drexler
Reggie Miller
Kenny Smith

That's not crazy or unrealistic at all. That lineup still isn't as loaded as 1985-1988 McHale/Parish/Ainge/DJ + Maxwell in 1985 and Walton in 1986 off the bench. Hell Jerry Sichting would have been welcomed on Dream's teams in the 1980's.

If Hakeem got to play with even a modicum of the offensive talent these other all-time greats had, I'm sure his "offensive impact" would look a lot better. He was saddled with having to carry a load far too large from 1987 on (in addition to the amazing defensive work he was doing).

Question his leadership all you want...on the court, Olajuwon wasn't a selfish player. Like Shaq, Olajuwon always looked to make the right play. You're going to have to convince me that playing through somebody else on Houston from 1987-1990 would have been a better method of attack on offense if you want me to believe Hakeem's offense is overrated. I don't see it.

1) That's a crazy good team, actually, and Olajuwon's teams were known for depth and balance beyond him anyway.

2) If your teammates are poor offensive players, then they should be exposed without you, not get better.

3) His offensive "burden" wasn't unusually large in the 80's. He was like a 25-28 usage player with low assists. (He did do a lot on defense, of course.)

4) Here's another set of games: In the 68 regular season games with Hakeem, they were a +3.1 offense, roughly, adjusted for the competition. In the 14 games without him, they were a +3.2 offense. Again, they didn't miss him on offense. They were better in the playoffs on offense with him, however, but not by any special mark.

5) Hakeem's best offensive team pre-Barkley/Pippen/getting old was 1986. After that, Sampson had injury problems, and their second best offensive season (until 1993) was 1991 ... you know, the year he missed a large chunk of games with injury.

So your general point about offensive distribution and the lesser desirability of low-post volume scorers is excellent.

However, there are a few things to note in Hakeem's case.

(1) He wasn't nearly the passer/defense reader 86-92 than he was from 93-96.
(2) You can't look at ORtg or DRtg splits in a vacuum without understand lineup and strategy.
(3) There is a "resiliency" to his team offenses after 93

That said, I'm also confused on some of your numbers. I get different numbers for David Robinson vs -3 defenses 90-98. I get different numbers for the Rockets than what you've been posting.

91 Rockets ORtg IN 107.7 (-0.5)
91 Rockets ORtg OUT 108.3 (+0.3)

92 Rockets Ortg IN 106.7 (-1.2)
92 Rockets ORtg OUT 105.8 (-2.8)

(Btw, in 38 missed games from 91-92, the Rockets played at a 35-win pace, down from a 46-win pace with Hakeem.)

I would add, noting the change in 93, that from 93-97 Houston played in 81 postseason games and had a +6 ORtg. This is not to say their absolute ORtg was very high (although in 95 it was 115 in the PS), but that there was a resiliency to Olajuwon as an offensive hub against elite defenses. Frankly, this is why I value him highly on offense in these years and see him somewhat differently than almost all traditional "offensive anchor" bigs. He can play from the mid-post, or back to the basket, and his actions/decisions are quick and decisive. Double at your own peril, or deal with a high-efficiency half-court mismatch...I don't think it's the most scalable offensive approach, but the idea that there doesn't seem to a strong defense to counter it is compelling. (Note -- the 93 Rockets were +2.3 offensively. +1.6 PS...although +3.0 w/Maxwell in and the PS ORtg was sabotaged by G5 vs. LAC in which Max, Horry and Garland shot 4-25. The other 11 PS games were 110 or +4.2. 94 was -0.4 in the RS, +5.2 PS, 95 post-trade +4.7, +8.2 PS. 96 Rockets w/Dream+Drexler +2.9 (110.5 raw) although only +0.8 PS before 97 going over +10 in the PS.

[Basketballefan]

Why specifically do you hold this opinion though? The conversation is the main takeaway from this project (as opposed to the rankings), so it's good to get an idea of not only how everybody feels, but what one's reasons are as well.

I don't like to use them simply because per min/per poss don't account for wear and tear or the production that actually happened. People always use Manu and how his per-minute production is on par with the Kobe's the Wade's or what have you, that may be so but it honestly doesn't matter if he can't play those minutes to put those numbers up. It's basically a "what-if" he could play those minutes.

That's not the point. Read what I wrote.

I did read it. But if i choose to not weigh them as heavily as you it's still my choice.

[andrewww]

Kobe's 2001 was pretty special, was it not.

It was not. Kobe was being guarded by scrubs in the Spurs series. Literal scrubs. The best player, Antonio Daniels, was a career back-up. The Spurs were so shorthanded on decent backcourt players they played him 42mpg that series. That's how bad it was.

And even post-Shaq, Kobe still had a 11-1 record with SRS advantage, 3 Finals, and a back2back team.

Well yeh, if you just cherry pick 3 select years that's his playoff record. I could do much the same thing for Bird. And the teams Bird was beating in 84-86 weren't no Orlando Magic's and Denver Nuggets.

I will have a post regarding the candidates for the #9 spot shortly.

But Baller2014, you couldnt be more wrong or obvious in your personal agenda against Kobe. If the team with the best regular season record had pure scrubs on the perimeter, then how do you explain these stats in the Sacramento series when he was guarded by Doug Christie, who was arguably the best perimeter defender of wing players back in 2001? The entire playoffs for the Lakers was a 1 and 1a scenario depending on the matchup. Revisionists like yourself believe otherwise.

Against Sacramento:
Kobe 35.0 PPG, 9.0 RPG, 4.3 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.5 BPG, 47.3 FG%
Shaq 33.3 PPG, 17.3 RPG, 2.3 APG, 0.5 SPG, 3.3 BPG, 59.8 FG%

Any real fan who actually watched the NBA back then knew the Western Conference was where the real competition was.

Enough with this nonsense and propaganda. No one has an obligation to vote for any one player, but you are simply adding nothing of substance to this discussion.