RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #14 (Jerry West)

[lessthanjake]

That's the point; when the 3 guard line-up was too small against Denver, the Lakers had no viable back-up.plan because Vando's inability to shoot 3s would have just given Jokic somewhere to hide on D. In desperation they turned to Rui, and it worked better than you'd have guessed, but that wasn't going to be enough.

I think someone can always try to come up with some X’s and O’s reason why some deficiency in a specific role player might have changed a series. But the bottom line is that that was a sweep, and role players always have serious deficiencies (if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be a role player!), so trying to wish away those deficiencies isn’t realistic.

No one got close to the Nuggets. They had a +8.7 net rating in the playoffs. Here’s a complete list of championship teams with a playoff net rating of at least +8:

- 2001 Lakers: +13.7
- 2017 Warriors: +13.5
- 1971 Bucks: +13.4
- 1991 Bulls: +13.2
- 1996 Bulls: +12.1
- 1987 Lakers: +11.3
- 1986 Celtics: +10.4
- 2018 Warriors: +10.3
- 2014 Spurs: +10.0
- 2016 Cavaliers: +9.5
- 1985 Lakers: +9.4
- 1961 Celtics: +8.9
- 2023 Nuggets: +8.7
- 1989 Pistons: +8.7
- 1999 Spurs: +8.5
- 1998 Bulls: +8.3
- 2015 Warriors: +8.2
- 2012 Heat: +8.0

That’s basically just a who’s who list of NBA dynasties in their best season(s). And the Nuggets are right there in the middle of it. The idea that they’re a fluke team or just got lucky with matchups is not consistent with how well they actually did.

Of course, just because other teams that have done this well before have always been successful in other years doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be the case with the Nuggets. For one thing, there’s more variance these days: There’s more injuries in this era, and the primacy of the three-point shot also makes outcomes of games a bit more random. So the best team is less likely to win again these days. But the bottom line is that a team that wins a title with a +8.7 net rating has a lot of leeway for things to not go as well (i.e. things like harder opponents, a bit worse form from the team’s players, worse matchups, etc.) and still be able to win. Indeed, historically, teams that do this well in a title run *do* virtually always win more than one title. So I think you should probably be a lot less sure that that won’t be the case for the Nuggets.

I’d also note that the Nuggets have already been hurt a lot by bad luck, so it’s a little odd to talk about them getting lucky this past season. Injuries killed their title chances in two MVP years for Jokic. They could potentially have just finished a three-peat in a world where they *actually* got good luck. They got bad luck and still have a title, and that’s because they won a title in the one peak Jokic year where the team hasn’t just been crippled with injury. And they did it easily.

[rk2023]

.

Certainly, Robinson falls in the postseason, no question, and it's one of the larger falls of any of the top star players. The thing is even when he falls, he just falls to the level of the other guys in this range statistically. And even then, he still has a massive non-box advantage due to his incredible defense. Like if it weren't for the playoff falls, his combination of all-time defense and all-time regular season numbers would probably make him a top 5 player all-time. His regular season play was that good. The 3 years of peak RS on/off data we have for him beats any 3-year stretch for LeBron.

It seems like Robinson almost gets punished for playing so well in the regular season in that it affixes the choker label on him where if he just had the same level of postseason play and played worse in the regular season, people would rank him higher. I don't think that's fair. Robinson's incredible regular season play was a major asset to his team and it gave them higher seedings and the best possible chance to try to put some sort of miracle run together with his weak supporting casts. He should get the grade he deserves based on his postseason play and then a little extra for being even better in the regular season. In all 10 of his prime postseason runs from 1990-2001, he posted a BPM of 6 or higher. Dirk, the only other player currently nominated for whom BPM is available did that 7 times total. I really think that the expectations of what we think he should have been able to do take away from us appreciating what he actually did.

I think "to the level" of them is a little bit of a stretch. I am on the same wavelength here when it comes to understanding Robinson's defense is buoying his case amidst this group - but when I'm looking more nuanced and considering that, beyond the stats and box score, Nowitzki/West/Oscar are driving offenses for their given team(s).. there's a case to be made that the offensive gap between them and Robinson outweighs the gap present on defense.

I'm not denying that Robinson is an indispensable force with amazing situational impact, but I would say that considering his regular season play "being that good" isn't quite factoring in the offensive tail-off against tougher competition/defense (see posts I've linked in the first exchange). With that as more an influence in where I'm coming from, how potent is/was his ability as a team's two-way anchor is in question for me as a whole. It's not the point that he's a dropper or playoff choker (both of which are labels with very little to no weight in meaningful basketball discussion). If his RS/PS results were more or less similar to one another.. he'd probably be regarded the same spot if not lower - keep in mind he wouldn't be having as gaudy of values for BPM/WS/AuPM/et al. For the latter-most point, there is appreciation for what he did. Being considered essentially a consensus top 20 player in NBA History (in more nuanced communities) is no small feat in the slightest. "The expectations of what we think he should have been able to do" is a moot point for those in the same camp of believing his RS production is overstated and believing his PS production is understated.

Like compare his postseasons to Oscar and West. How are they in any way better? Robinson put up at worst equal numbers in a tougher era with larger contribution outside the box score. He went 17-10 against tougher playoff competition than West went 16-12 against which is in turn much more impressive than Oscar's playoff record of 8-9. He won as many rings as both of them combined and was much more impactful than he was given credit for on the championship teams. It just seems like he has a clear edge any way you look at it, and the only thing he gets docked for is failing to reach the same heights of performance he achieved in the regular season.

Winning as many rings as both combined shouldn't be of concern here.. unless one would argue that 2003 Robinson is better than (say) 1963 Oscar or 1969 West just because he won a ring. Gun to your head, could you name a prime Robinson series akin to the 1963 Royals taking this projects' #4s team to the brink (ditto for many West vs. Boston series)? A lot of the winning is coming from the post Duncan draft Spurs era anyways. To clarify, I'm not having that nuance serve as a means to diminish Robinson. I believe for a few years in their overlap he was certainly San Antonio's defensive anchor and a Weak/Fringe-MVP level player. That's a nice feather in his cap for longevity and meaningful value being added. He just doesn't have a clear edge over the other nominees "any way you look at it". In fact, using a playoff BBR prime approach - he grades out fourth out of Dirk/Oscar/West. Is that a great way to look at it? Probably not. Is it a way to look at it? Yes, it is. I mentioned this at first, but since I see it cited multiple times.. a holistic view of "beyond the box score" considers that Nowitzki/West/Oscar are driving offenses for their given team(s) and pressuring defenses much more.. there's a case to be made that the offensive gap between them and Robinson outweighs the gap present on defense.

[rk2023]

One of the key reasons I have Dirk/Oscar ahead of West/Robinson/Durant is because of the role of an offensive catalyst.

I like to think of an offensive catalyst as a player who stirs the drink offensively. He is the nucleus to the offense, he causes [precipitates] the offense. LeBron James is an easy example of this to picture with LeBron Ball, where LeBron uses up 30+% of possessions and produces an astronomically efficient offense with simply some shooters and a rim finisher. Magic, Curry and Nash are three others who can easily be pictured in the role of an offensive catalyst [as you can see, they come in different shapes and sizes and affect the game differently]. I can very easily see Oscar and Dirk in this mold as well.

However, when it comes to players like Jordan, Kobe, Durant and to a lesser-extent West, they are like an Enzyme in that they can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of an offense [or reaction] but aren't the reason for the offense itself.

To me, this differentiation isn't easy but it is important when comparing and identifying players at the highest level.

I very much support this theory, but from an impact standpoint.. it seems Jordan and West have the track record of a catalyst rather than an enzyme when looking at WOWY and some of the on/off measures we have for both players (Kobe same logic, but less so in his case). Agree regarding Durant, Oscar, and Dirk’s classification.

[penbeast0]

Not sure why Dirk would have more of a "catalyst" role than second half of career West or Jordan who adds superior playmaking and defense to their equivalent or better offense. The others all share a big playmaking role, but Dirk seems not to fit your definition.

[rk2023]

Vote for #14 - Jerry West
Alternate Vote - Oscar Robertson
Nomination #1 - Karl Malone
Nomination #2 - TBD

West:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2311872&start=140#p107846583

Oscar:

Spoiler:

The original on-ball quarterback, shattering and re-setting the standard for heliocentric basketball as he reached his apex with a combination of unparalleled facilitation and hyper-efficient scoring. I posted a more in depth "cover page" of his impact and production in past threads, will link right below.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2309163&p=107712390&hilit=oscar#p107712390

As mentioned on this post and as comes off as general intuition, quite nearly of Oscar's career value was accrued through offense - where the box paints him as a very proficient player. When looking at his Royals tenure on offense, he stands out a ton from a team-result standpoint as well.

As one further step pragmatically - relative team offenses [where over a holistic sample, the Royals crumbled in Oscar's absence] for Cincy each of Oscar's years as well as the two before his drafting:
-2.7, 0.2, (Oscar drafted ->), 3.5, 4.7, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4, 2.6, 2.3, 4.3, 4.7.

Such results certainly came at the expense of slanting offensively as a team and trading off size/defense at the same time, but for what it's worth - those team results came at the hands of Oscar's on-ball control. He's the more durable out of the two 1960s superstar guards, so there's less of a "WOWY" sample - but some data to put pieces together from nonetheless.

Code: Select all

1961: Missed 9 games -> 36 win pace to 9
1965 & 66: Missed 9 games -> 46 win pace to 33
1968: Missed 10 games (pre Hairston trade) -> 46 win pace to 17
1968: Missed 7 games (post trade) -> 60 win pace to 17
1970: Missed 12 games -> 42 win pace to 18.

Most signals point to the Royals not being a great basketball team and Oscar having a profound impact on their success - where it becomes the case one could rationally assume a lot of the offensive slanted supporting cast in Cincy relied on Oscar's table-setting and volume creation amidst springing together a slate of top-tier offenses. I think this also could explain why Cincy's offenses yielded somewhat questionable playoff results (listed below), though I'm not the highest in the room on Oscar's PS translation.

1961-70 RS vs. 1962-67 PS:

Code: Select all

29.3/8.5/10.3 on 57.2% TS (+8-9), .224 WS/48
29.7/9.3/9.4 on 56.5% TS, .197 WS/48

Furthermore, his team offenses aren't exactly bullet-proof, though it seems silly to make this an 'Oscar thing' (seems more reasonable to guess this to be a team indictment) without further context - hard to find with the lack of film present:

Code: Select all

1962-64 PS: 4.3
1963-65 PS: 4.2
1964-66 PS: 3.1
1965-67 PS: 3.1

I think regardless, Oscar came into the league much more ahead of the curve than any other rookie to play on offense (perhaps excluding Mikan here). Despite being in a pretty mediocre situation, he maintained such level of play for a decade before scaling down and adding a few more quality seasons as a Buck. Curving longevity for the era he was in gives him a career in the heart of the teens all time for me.

Malone:

Spoiler:

How fundamentally sound Malone's game was - albeit with a fair share of gripes/flaws - enabled him to age well and accrue a fair share of longevity to his name. With meaningful value accrued being central to my criterion, I could certainly see Malone being higher if this was an evaluation in Regular Season sense. OTOH, playoff translation is why I can not entertain Malone over my pantheon (of everybody voted in, and the four current nominees besides Dirk and Robinson - whom I'm unsure if I even rate Malone over in itself).

Aside from Embiid and Robinson, there isn't another franchise cornerstone calibre player witnessing drop-offs, at face value, akin to Malone iirc. However, I would certainly attribute some of this to a sub-optimal basketball situation (eg. predictable schemes, mediocre team scoring.. funnily enough Malone's on/off from 1997-01 is decently higher in the PS sample than RS despite a much lower 'on' value - where both are quite impressive). This is not to say Malone's struggles vertically, not being a cerebral off-ball creator, settling for mid-ranges, and underwhelming interior scoring for his build didn't bottleneck Utah as well - though I feel like context often gets glossed over in Malone's case (and the playoff team results over multiple iterations aren't too damning, albeit a step down from RS levels - particularly on offense). As an all around player and thinking about other areas besides volume scoring, his turnover economy isn't too shabby and his defense is consistently a needle-mover but nothing all-time for his position. With all of this considered, I think such limitations bring him down from a top 15-20 to top ~30 apex. However, he maintains this Weak MVP level of play from 11 years in 1989-1999 - with 2 more (perhaps 3) All-NBA caliber seasons. That's enough for me to place him around the lower end of a Top 20.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Re: Jokic and Giannis

So many of you go on and on and how important longevity is, and the complain when it that might preclude those two from getting in yet. You can't have it both ways.

Jokic was #95 last time, and Giannis was #74. Either one of them moving into the top 20 would probably constitute the biggest jump in the history of this project(though I haven't actually looked.)

It seems more/most of the people pushing those two have been the ones with more of an emphasis on peak/prime play and achievement. For me, they’re both a ways’ to go from my nomination radar - being one who is moreso on the longevity side of things.

Re: Jokic and Giannis

So many of you go on and on and how important longevity is, and the complain when it that might preclude those two from getting in yet. You can't have it both ways.

Jokic was #95 last time, and Giannis was #74. Either one of them moving into the top 20 would probably constitute the biggest jump in the history of this project(though I haven't actually looked.)

Not sure who you're referring to here, but I'm not complaining about longevity getting in the way, longevity's just plain getting in the way and it is what it is.

Re: biggest jump in history of this project. Nah. Curry debut on the list in the 20s.

But I do expect Jokic to have one of the big jumps in history, which is what we should probably expect when a guy has 3 MVP-level seasons in 3 years in between projects.

Re: Jokic and Giannis

So many of you go on and on and how important longevity is, and the complain when it that might preclude those two from getting in yet. You can't have it both ways.

Jokic was #95 last time, and Giannis was #74. Either one of them moving into the top 20 would probably constitute the biggest jump in the history of this project(though I haven't actually looked.)

I think it’s pretty clear that the people who are heavy on longevity aren’t the ones who are nominating Jokić and Giannis now. It’s never been a top factor for me personally. Steph would be the most comparable player to Jokić for having an incredible 3-year span that would cause him to make a big jump. He went from unranked in 2014 to #29 in 2017. He basically had 4 prime seasons at the time of the jump compared to 7 for Jokic now and had accumulated 41.4 VORP across 574 games compared to 52.8 VORP across 596 games for Nikola.

It will probably take a while to get a coalition of support together for Jokić since as you say, some posters value longevity a lot more than others so I don’t see him going much higher than 19 or 20 and that seems very fair to me given what he’s accomplished. He still has 76 more games played than Mikan even when you add in the NBL stats and Mikan went 19th in the previous project. I’m certainly MUCH more impressed with Jokić playing the best offensive basketball in the history of the sport in his 596 games than I am with Mikan camping out next to the basket with a 6 foot key and throwing it on over short white guys in his 520 games.

Noted all. I guess I just thought that some of the people who were supporting those two were also longevity champions, but perhaps I was mistaken.

The ironic thing is, I'm not so big on longevity, so you'd think I'd be more open to Jokic/Giannis at this point, but I'm not ready for them yet.

For Jokic, I do think longevity is a bit of an issue. I said before the project began that while I don't put a lot of weight on longevity, less than ten years would give me pause. It's why, even as someone sympathetic to era-relativity, I only started championing Mikan a few threads ago rather than at the very beginning, because he only has, what, eight years(and two of them technically pre-date the NBA). Jokic is at eight years right now. He's at the beginning of a five-year contract right now. If he keeps playing at the level he's been for the duration of that contract and adds another ring or two, then I think he'll have a legit argument for Top 15 status.

For Giannis, it's not just the lack of longevity. I just think he's had some concerning playoff failures. The Bucks blew a 2-0 lead to the Raptors in 2019, get beaten pretty easily by the Heat in five games in 2020, and got beaten in embarrassing fashion as a #1 seed to the #8 seed Heat this year. Even in the year they won it all, 2021, how many times has it been said that they were, what, an eighth of an inch from losing in round 2 to a Nets team that had lost Kyrie and Harden? I'll look past 2022 since Middleton wasn't playing, but I just think there's a pattern of his teams having unimpressive playoff performances. Giannis has all the individual stats to qualify for consideration at this point, and he has a ring, but there's just something holding me back.

It also doesn't help that I am generally conservative when it comes to elevating active players up to the ranks of retired greats. Like, I'm ok with LeBron and Steph in the top 12 because LeBron is LeBron(and nearly at the end of his career) and Steph's impact and accomplishments are kind of undeniable at this point, but besides those two, I tend to be harder on active players. I think there's something to be said for evaluating a player with the distance of time.

[AEnigma]

^I am also on the side of caution with current players. Jokic is on a great trajectory right now, perhaps higher than Giannis’s. One year ago, I would not have considered that the case. There is no need to rush assessments of players still relatively early in their careers.

Anyway…

Out of the grouping, Robinson perhaps has the highest baseline in the RS - but the lowest in the playoffs and the biggest fall of this quartet. I can fully acknowledge that some of his defense excellence is unquantifiable, but as another sort of devils' advocate in the holistic scheme of things.. the other three much more accurately serve as primary creators for an offense and thus face a harder situation at accruing high box derivations - as opposed to a hybrid on/off ball big in Robinson. When looking at his career arc and some more signals (eg. resilience, supporting cast, manual scouting and film study) - I am basically left with a belief I've held heading into the project and am firm on at this moment in time. I see a player with a pretty damn strong top 20 case, but one where championing them this early and this much over the other nominees off of some RS BBR data is a questionable approach.

Certainly, Robinson falls in the postseason, no question, and it's one of the larger falls of any of the top star players. The thing is even when he falls, he just falls to the level of the other guys in this range statistically. And even then, he still has a massive non-box advantage due to his incredible defense. Like if it weren't for the playoff falls, his combination of all-time defense and all-time regular season numbers would probably make him a top 5 player all-time. His regular season play was that good. The 3 years of peak RS on/off data we have for him beats any 3-year stretch for LeBron.

I am going to set aside the box score citations because I see them as innately unsalable and I expect in the course of writing this post I will end up addressing them anyway.

What initially catches my attention more is the on/off citation. Do you know what I glean from that brief sample across a relatively stable team context and with no other adjustments or lineup information? It is that Robinson’s team fell off more when he was on the bench.

Now, over time and shifting contexts, that tends to be a good indicator of impact provided. But it is not a player ranking. I think that should be a common sense idea, but here it often has not been. Robinson’s on/off peaked in 1994. Was that his peak? Or was that the year he did he have no competent backup or starting point guard. Maybe you think both. Maybe you think that because of some nuanced analysis of his game concluding that he was a lesser defender in 1995 and 1996. Or maybe you think that because his box score production went up because, again, no legitimate point guard, so now Robinson has a sudden one-off spike in assists. [Oh look, I ended up talking about the box metrics after all.]

There is not some immense intangible value being uniquely lost for Robinson, because Robinson is great at showing up on the box score. We are not trying to go over the nuances of Steven Adam’s box-outs, screens, and rim deterrence, or quantify the exact value of a Steve Nash pass relative to anyone else’s pass. Yeah, there is a lot not captured by the box score; maybe that is why those metrics are a bit of a silly starting point? They do not really capture Dirk’s spacing effect either, and I am not sure there is much for you to quantify as what is being lost on either side here. I am inclined to agree that if something is missed, it is more likely on the defensive side, but again, does that really apply to Robinson specifically?

And then when he falls in the postseason because that production is not sustainable against good and focused teams, what then? Apparently we brush it off. By BBRef BPM and PER (why are we using this…), 1994 and 1995 are bottom half postseasons for Robinson. Bottom third by WS/48. Bottom three by single-year PIPM (although multi-year is more stable and consequently kinder). To me that should indicate that those monstrous regular season box scores you love so much do not actually reflect his playoff impact. He can do it in a situation where a better co-star misses time during the regular season and he has to keep the team afloat, because yeah, he is an outstanding regular season floor raiser. Ask him to do it in the postseason, and your team is probably screwed unless they have a ludicrously easy path and a sudden roleplayer hot streak.

It seems like Robinson almost gets punished for playing so well in the regular season in that it affixes the choker label on him where if he just had the same level of postseason play and played worse in the regular season, people would rank him higher. I don't think that's fair. Robinson's incredible regular season play was a major asset to his team and it gave them higher seedings and the best possible chance to try to put some sort of miracle run together with his weak supporting casts. He should get the grade he deserves based on his postseason play and then a little extra for being even better in the regular season.

I think it is much more a case of people over-indexing on unsustainable regular season production. Like I just said, there can be real value to regular season floor-raising. If it does not extend to the postseason, you are right, it is just a bonus. The starting point for Robinson should always be what he did in the postseason, because what he was doing in the regular season was mostly just better beating up on the exact teams that rarely show up in the postseason.

In all 10 of his prime postseason runs from 1990-2001, he posted a BPM of 6 or higher. Dirk, the only other player currently nominated for whom BPM is available did that 7 times total. I really think that the expectations of what we think he should have been able to do take away from us appreciating what he actually did.

What he actually did was get blown out by non-finalist Jazz teams two out of three years at his “peak” and led the team that fared the worst against them both defensively and overall. I do not really think that reflects well as a supposed GOAT-tier defender, no.

You could argue he peaked the same year as Dikembe and Hakeem, but whereas those two had all-time defensive performances, Robinson got eviscerated. And I do not want to hear it is because those two just had sooo much more help on their side. I know I am really harping on his peak here, but his peak is most of what is driving these early votes.

Like compare his postseasons to Oscar and West. How are they in any way better? Robinson put up at worst equal numbers in a tougher era with larger contribution outside the box score. He went 17-10 against tougher playoff competition than West went 16-12 against which is in turn much more impressive than Oscar's playoff record of 8-9.

I have done my share of West slander, but Rk already pointed out how Robinson has no equivalent to 1963 conference finals Oscar or 1966/68/69 Finals West in his losses. And as for his wins? Well, without Duncan, his best win is against the 2.9 SRS 1993 Trailblazers missing Clyde Drexler for a game. Better than West, as I have covered, but even Oscar in his whopping two playoff series wins without Kareem managed to top that.

He won as many rings as both of them combined

and was much more impactful than he was given credit for on the championship teams.

No, I think by this point he has been properly overcredited. If we had on/off for the 1971 Bucks where Oscar surpassed Kareem, would that change anything? Again, in 2003 he was playing as much as Malik Rose. Yes, he had a nice thing going with those Claxton/Manu/Duncan combinations, but as the second largest salary on the team, I think they could have managed to replace him pretty comfortably.

It just seems like he has a clear edge any way you look at it,

Unless we look at leading teams in the postseason.

and the only thing he gets docked for is failing to reach the same heights of performance he achieved in the regular season.

… Yes? We want to credit people for what they reach in the postseason. The regular season is just a means of making that easier, but the only time Robinson truly took advantage was in 1995 when he was gifted back-to-back sub-1-SRS opponents (benefit of being the 1-seed, absolutely, but also not remotely typical for 1-seeds).

He has incredible impact data in the samples we have available and then there’s the team going from a +6 SRS to a -8 SRS when he got injured before bouncing back to a +3 the following season.

A tanking team jumping to +3 after adding Robinson and rookie Tim Duncan (who posted better impact indicators than Robinson while playing more minutes) is not really a crazy result to me, and when I look at how they immediately had a stronger postseason performance than any prior Robinson team and were suddenly playing the Jazz to a relative draw rather than being blown out, Robinson is not the star capturing my attention.

PSRS
1990: +6.6
1991: -3.3
1992: -4.2 (no Robinson)
1993: +4.9
1994: -5.2
1995: +6.4
1996: +0.7
1998: +9.3 (with Duncan)
1999: +11.1 (with Duncan)
2000: +4

IDK, I think just looking at the Spurs DRtgs year-by-year from the season before he joined the team until his retirement would show that he has a larger impact defensively than is measurable by the box score.

That is not really quantifying anything, especially with the Spurs dropping off once Larry Brown leaves and jumping up immediately after Robinson’s retirement. Robinson was a great defender, and the box score misses a lot, but you seem to want to be able to cite box metrics and also just inflate them when they are insufficiently high on a player you like. We have some precedent here with Garnett that you do not need to be some consistent first option scorer with a bunch of playoff success to be admitted, and it is not like Garnett had ten postseasons of 6 BPM. I do not think Robinson’s postseason impact numbers are guaranteed to be anything special, but on the spectrum of Nikola Jokic to 1998 Shaq to Minnesota Garnett, does that even matter to you that much?

Look, I am obviously not high on the guy, and I will post more on that once he becomes a serious contender, but I can see the approach — and it is basically a watered down version of the Garnett approach. Less longevity. Less impressive overall peak. Less individual title and postseason equity. But in that same general vein of being best suited as a defensively focused co-option next to a good offensive player. It does not require we talk about whatever BPM happens to spit out and then whether we should be applying additional context to the number it spits out. If you think he was outright better than guys like Oscar and West and Dirk, you can make that argument without going that route.

[One_and_Done]

One of the key reasons I have Dirk/Oscar ahead of West/Robinson/Durant is because of the role of an offensive catalyst.

I like to think of an offensive catalyst as a player who stirs the drink offensively. He is the nucleus to the offense, he causes [precipitates] the offense. LeBron James is an easy example of this to picture with LeBron Ball, where LeBron uses up 30+% of possessions and produces an astronomically efficient offense with simply some shooters and a rim finisher. Magic, Curry and Nash are three others who can easily be pictured in the role of an offensive catalyst [as you can see, they come in different shapes and sizes and affect the game differently]. I can very easily see Oscar and Dirk in this mold as well.

However, when it comes to players like Jordan, Kobe, Durant and to a lesser-extent West, they are like an Enzyme in that they can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of an offense [or reaction] but aren't the reason for the offense itself.

To me, this differentiation isn't easy but it is important when comparing and identifying players at the highest level.

Oscar as 'an offensive catalyst' powered the Royals to an average of 42 wins a year over his 10 years there. I'll take D.Rob's floor raising thanks.

Now in fairness to Oscar, the Royals were not very good. Over those 10 years they were 12-42 in games without him. That's a noisy sample because it's spread out over so many years, but it looks like his floor raising is good, but not D.Rob/Dr J type of level.

Then of course Oscar suffers from playing in a weak era, where plenty of garden variety all-stars today would like like GOAT contenders.

[ZeppelinPage]

Vote: Jerry West
Nomination: Moses Malone

I was considering a few different players here, both older and modern. I value rebounding highly and what Moses was able to do in the playoffs. Few were able to haul down offensive rebounds like Moses. I can see arguments for other players but his performances and how he was able to impact the game places him above the competition for me. Now, onto West:

Rk2023's Post on Jerry West

Total Career Minutes Among Players Inducted or Nominated:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 66,297
LeBron James: 65,747
Kobe Bryant: 57,278
Tim Duncan: 56,738
Kevin Garnett: 55,701
Wilt Chamberlain: 55,418
Shaquille O'Neal: 50,016
Hakeem Olajuwon: 49,971
Michael Jordan: 48,485
Bill Russell: 48,223
Jerry West: 42,892
Larry Bird: 41,329
Magic Johnson: 40,783
Stephen Curry: 35,794
George Mikan: 9,850

As much as West was injured during the regular season, he was routinely making the Finals and those minutes add up. So, considering the fact that Magic's and Steph's careers were enough to place them in the top 11, did West play enough to warrant voting him in here? While durability is something often harped on with West, I believe he still played enough minutes (especially in the playoffs) to keep that from being a problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone here is knowledgeable enough to know just how good West was on offense during his time. His TS+ numbers on such a high volume are among the greatest ever. He was a fantastic all-around player that could drive or utilize his lighting fast pull-up to catch defenders off-guard.

What I did want to bring to light was Jerry West's defensive ability. Earlier I saw someone mention something along the lines of "West was a good defender but nothing spectacular" so I did want to go into a little more detail about what coaches, players, and writers of the time thought about West's defense. This is important because, while there is a good amount of footage on West out there, nobody watched West more than these contemporary sources. Afterwards, I wanted to show more of what West can do on film.

"I don't even like to talk about myself but I think I would have set a steal record that no one would have ever come close to--no one."
-- Jerry West on Point Forward with Andre Igoudala and Evan Turner

"I think the best player that I had play defense against me was Jerry West."
-- Sam Jones in a 2011 ESPN interview

Jerry West was around 6'5" in shoes. He's spoken about his athletic abilities before, but he was quite a standout in his era and would hold up even today. He was quick, long (around a 6'9" wingspan), and could jump higher than most players.

Through my research I've found what seems like countless mentions of Jerry West's defense. His stealing and blocking ability was frequently mentioned:

"Certainly, he blocks more shots than any other guard ever and more than most centers. Then, too, he breaks up a lot of plays."
-- Bill Sharman in 1965, years before he coached West

Spoiler:

"Jerry is a superstar on offense who can be just as valuable on defense and you can't find too many of those around . . . He blocks more shots than any other guard."
-- Warriors Coach Bill Sharman in 1967, years before he coached West

Spoiler:

"At his position, nobody does as good an all-around job. Bill Russell is 6-10, so he is big enough to plug up the middle, but West deflects more passes and blocks a lot of shots."
-- Fred Schaus in 1967

Spoiler:

"...I lost count of all his steals and blocked shots."
--Basketball column by John Hall following 1968 Western Conference Finals

Spoiler:

"Sure, Jerry gets a lot of steals, but people often overlook how many times he touches the ball on defense during the game. He has the quickest hands of any player I've ever seen."
-- Hot Rod Hundley on West in 1969

Spoiler:

"[Jerry West] merely leads the NBA in assists and the world in steals, deflected passes and broken dribbles."
-- 1970

Spoiler:

Jerry West records 7 steals in the 3rd quarter against the Sonics:

Spoiler:

Jerry West records 9 steals and a "few" blocks:

Spoiler:

Jerry West records 10 steals in three quarters:

Spoiler:

Jerry West records 12 steals against the Phoenix Suns in the 1970 playoffs:

Spoiler:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Praise of West's general defensive abilities was also common:

"Right close by his offensive prowess was his defensive ability, and to me, Jerry West was the most underrated defensive player in that era."
-- Red Auerbach

"West is the greatest superstar in the league at both ends of the court."
-- Warriors Coach Bill Sharman in 1968, years before he coached West

Spoiler:

"I've often said he's the best defensive guard EVER to play the game . . . I know he has two or three times more blocked shots than any guard who lived."
-- Lakers coach Bill Sharman in 1973

Spoiler:

"He is the best defensive guard in the league."
-- Chicago Bulls coach Johnny Kerr in 1968

Spoiler:

"It's the best defensive job done on me this year -- or any year for that matter."
-- Hall of Famer Lou Hudson after 1970 Western Conference Finals where Jerry West held him to 16.3 PPG on a 29 FG%

Spoiler:

"Jerry's defense is what they miss the most when he's not there . . . West gives more defensive effort when the other team has the ball than any other of the big offensive stars in the entire NBA."
--Cincinnati Royals player on West in 1964

Spoiler:

This is all just a snippet of many more mentions regarding West's defense that I have found, far too many to list here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's take a look at the film and see if it supports what contemporary accounts are telling us.

West has described "seeing the game in slow motion" and thinking about the game in "angles" as a key reason for his impactful defense. His long arms and quick hands could find these angles and poke the ball free. This, combined with his leaping ability, led to plays like this:

West Steal to Win Game 3 of 1962 Finals:

Spoiler:

West 3 Blocks vs Warriors - 1964:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

West 2-on-1 Transition Block into Steal (Lakers Coach Fred Schaus Commentating) - 1965:

Spoiler:

West Back-to-Back Steals at End of Game 7 of the 1966 Finals:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

West Steal and Block vs 76ers - 1969:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

West Pressuring and Deflecting - 1969 Western Conference Finals:

Spoiler:

West Blocks Sam Jones Twice and Steals Pass - Game 1 of 1969 Finals:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

West Disrupts Celtics in Transition for Steal and Reads Pass for Steal - Game 4 of 1969 Finals:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

West Uses Length to Strip Connie Hawkins - Game 7 of 1970 Western Division Semifinals:

Spoiler:

West Pokes Ball Away for Steal - 1970:

Spoiler:

West's threat level on defense could help negate the transition game of teams like the Celtics. In Game 7 of the 1962 NBA Finals, Jerry West falls back off missed shots to ensure he's there to disrupt the Celtics' fast break. Not only does he block this Sam Jones drive:

Spoiler:

But his presence alone was making it more difficult to pass or get open looks:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Much like the written sources, this is but a tiny glimpse of West's defense, but he consistently displays this high-impact defense that is mentioned from people of the time period. I believe West is one of the greatest defenders of his era, and among the greatest stealers and off-ball defenders to ever play the game.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

One of the key reasons I have Dirk/Oscar ahead of West/Robinson/Durant is because of the role of an offensive catalyst.

I like to think of an offensive catalyst as a player who stirs the drink offensively. He is the nucleus to the offense, he causes [precipitates] the offense. LeBron James is an easy example of this to picture with LeBron Ball, where LeBron uses up 30+% of possessions and produces an astronomically efficient offense with simply some shooters and a rim finisher. Magic, Curry and Nash are three others who can easily be pictured in the role of an offensive catalyst [as you can see, they come in different shapes and sizes and affect the game differently]. I can very easily see Oscar and Dirk in this mold as well.

However, when it comes to players like Jordan, Kobe, Durant and to a lesser-extent West, they are like an Enzyme in that they can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of an offense [or reaction] but aren't the reason for the offense itself.

To me, this differentiation isn't easy but it is important when comparing and identifying players at the highest level.

Oscar as 'an offensive catalyst' powered the Royals to an average of 42 wins a year over his 10 years there. I'll take D.Rob's floor raising thanks.

Now in fairness to Oscar, the Royals were not very good. Over those 10 years they were 12-42 in games without him. That's a noisy sample because it's spread out over so many years, but it looks like his floor raising is good, but not D.Rob/Dr J type of level.

Then of course Oscar suffers from playing in a weak era, where plenty of garden variety all-stars today would like like GOAT contenders.

I mean, Oscar was the focal point of offenses that were consistently at the top of the league in terms of rORtg:

CIN
1961: +3.5(#1)
1962: +4.7(#1)
1963: +3.5(#1)
1964: +4.3(#1)
1965: +4.4(#1)
1966: +2.6(#3)
1967: +2.3(#2)
1968: +4.3(#2)
1969: +4.7(#1)
1970: -1.0(#10)
MIL
1971: +6.6(#1)
1972: +4.7(#2)
1973: +1.8(#5)
1974: +3.5(#1)

That's eight #1 finishes, eleven top-2 finishes, and thirteen top-5 finishes. I'm not sure what happened in 1970 but I think it was generally a mess of a season with Bob Cousy coaching. Granted Milwaukee was already a good offense before he got there, but still.

This looks like an offensive catalyst to me.

It seems obvious the problem with those Cincinnati teams was defense. Their rDRtgs:

1961: +6.3(8 of 8)
1962: +3.6(8 of 9)
1963: +2.4(7 of 9)
1964: -0.1(4 of 9)
1965: +2.4(7 of 9)
1966: +1.6(7 of 9)
1967: +2.5(8 of 10)
1968: +5.0(12 of 12)
1969: +5.6(14 of 14)
1970: +1.4(10 of 14)

[One_and_Done]

Looks like this will be a close race.

Vote is D.Rob 4, West 4, Oscar 2, Mikan 2, Dirk 1.

Nominations are KD 3, K.Malone 3, Dr J 3, Moses 2, Jokic 2.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Looks like this will be a close race.

Vote is D.Rob 4, West 4, Oscar 2, Mikan 2, Dirk 1.

Nominations are KD 3, K.Malone 3, Dr J 3, Moses 2, Jokic 2.

With preferences, West is ahead with 7, and in the nomination race K.Malone has 5, Dr. J 4, KD, Jokic, and Giannis 3, Moses 2, and Barkley and CP3 at 1.

[70sFan]

OK, Mikan dominated more in the 6 foot key years before there was enough data for rate stats because he was the tallest player in the league and he could just go stand next to the basket and stay there. Not impressed by that at all.

No, he dominated more in 12 foot key years as well, that's the whole point. Your analysis ends at at PER without even realizing that PER is completely different stat for 1950s player and 1990s player, which means you can't really compare it.

Of course even with that in mind, you ignore playoffs where Mikan crushes Robinson even in "PER". You have a really strange definition of domination if you think Robinson dominated his league more than Mikan.

And using "padded his numbers" and David Robinson in the same sentence is absurd. His impact on winning outpaces his box score output more than almost anyone in history. The years we have playoff on/off numbers, he beats pretty much anyone in history except Curry even though it was all post-prime.

I didn't mean that his numbers were empty, but his overall production in 1996 postseason was massively influenced by the first round series against horrible defense:

1st round: 30/12/3 on 62 TS%
2nd round: 19/9/2 on 53 TS%

Is it really absurd to say that overall averages don't tell the whole story in this case?

Robinson played great defense against Utah. He just didn't really have a chance.

Have you watched the series? I mean, Jazz dominated Spurs offensively, which doesn't mean Robinson played badly, but I wouldn't just assume a great defense because Admiral is a great defender.

I mean Game 1, he scores 29 points on .728 TS%, blocks 5 shots, and they still lose by 20. What are you gonna do about that? It has to be discouraging getting so little support.

... and yet this little support won two games with Robinson scoring 24 points on 49 TS% and 24 points on 43 TS%. Maybe game 1 was discouraging, but game 2 win should be encouraging.

Instead, Robinson in the next two games averaged 11/7/2 on 51 TS% and the Spurs got blown out in both games.

I don't have anything against the loss, Jazz were a good team but you should expect a valiant effort against good team in a loss. Robinson played really bad in that series, cherry picking first game won't work with people who watched the series.

[OhayoKD]

Vote

1. George Mikan
-> best winner left
-> most dominant player left
-> probably most career value left

2. Oscar Robertson
-> 2nd most impactful player left
-> 2nd most career value left
-> Case as the greatest era-relative offensive player

Will note I think West's case seems a bit superficial.

-> A highlight reel and excerpts have moved people on his defense even though a Kobe-fan could pretty easily find better versions of both with Kobe(yet his defense was cited as a negative by some in the #12 thread)
-> Finals appearances were listed as an advantage over Oscar as if he is a better player because his team was in a separate conference from Bill's
-> Impact numbers which also indicate he was left with one-ring not because of weaker help, but because he was simply a less valuable player than the guy who kept beating him
-> "he was 10 points away from 4 championships" but no commentary on how he was outscored in the conference finals for the ring he did win(despite clearly having better support than Kareem)
-> The same mythology of "iq" and "genius" we see with Bird(even on defense where it really doesn't apply)

Russell's 11 rings were not enough to get him a top 3 spot with many actively questioning whether he was even worthy of top 4. Yet the guy he always beats(simply by being better) is being placed this high because...he scored a bunch in an era where that really didn't matter?

Yeah not seeing it.

As for nomination...

For Jokic, I do think longevity is a bit of an issue. I said before the project began that while I don't put a lot of weight on longevity, less than ten years would give me pause. It's why, even as someone sympathetic to era-relativity, I only started championing Mikan a few threads ago rather than at the very beginning, because he only has, what, eight years(and two of them technically pre-date the NBA). Jokic is at eight years right now. He's at the beginning of a five-year contract right now. If he keeps playing at the level he's been for the duration of that contract and adds another ring or two, then I think he'll have a legit argument for Top 15 status.

For Giannis, it's not just the lack of longevity. I just think he's had some concerning playoff failures. The Bucks blew a 2-0

Yeah, I think this might be a good time to refresh everyone's memories of what each of these players "failures" looked like.

Keeping in mind Giannis has made 8 post-seasons to Jokic's 5

Giannis and the Bucks in the playoffs
2015: lose to the bulls as a role-player

2017: Giannis becomes a fringe superstar, team sees +3 srs improvement and plays a razor-close series(<1 ppg, 6 games) vs the +3.65 srs opponent(Giannis puts up strong offensive production)

2018: Giannis is a fringe MVP candidate, team mantains in the rs, and then playes an even closer series vs +3.2 srs Boston who nearly make the finals after beating the near +4.5 srs Sixers

2019: Giannis gets a not bad coach for the first time in his career and breaks out as a historically strong MVP winner as the Bucks jump by 8 points to post a historically remarkable +8 srs team(almost never happens in non-expansion periods) despite a cast that plays at .500 without him form 19-20(and marginally above from 21-23. That team improves to +13.75 in the playoffs on the back of a big defensive improvement. They are merely +7 in that oh so bad 6-game(1 ppg) loss to a coasting Toronto side which saw a cast capable of 60-win basketball add Kawhi Leonard, aka, clutch Durant, aka "resiliency king". In the conference finals Giannis's offensive production falters against one of the best defenses ever but he also puts up one of the best defensive performances ever to push a toronto side about as good as anyone Jokic has ever faced and far better than any team Jokic has ever beat to the brink(double-overtime and giannis fouling out prevented a 3-0 defecit).

2020: Giannis has one of the very best regular seasons ever(arguably better than any regular season from certain players who have already been voted in) and the Bucks post a +9.41 SRS(basically unheard of in non-expansion periods) with a team that plays average basketball without Antetokounmpo. Team collapses defensively in the bubble and are upset by the eventual finalists despite Giannis's offensive production improving from last year as their defense is torched by Miami. There is injury context with Giannis eventually missing a game and 3 quarters.

2021: Giannis coasts as merely a top 3 regular season player in the regular season and the Bucks post a +5.6 SRS(4th in the league) with a team that is a bit above .500 without him. The Bucks again get significantly better in the playoffs on the back of their defense and Giannis is good to great on both ends throughout as Giannis becomes one of the few players to win a championship...
-> without a 2nd superstar
-> without perennial all-star
-> without "help" that is significantly > .500 without him
-> without a strong playoff coach

The competition is fairly weak, but so was the support, and ultimately it's topped off with Giannis posting one of the greatest performances ever against a very good team on both ends of the floor

2022: Giannis is again, merely a top 3 regular season player, and the Bucks regress to +3(7th best) with the big-three missing a significant number of games. Bucks are(opponent-adjusted) more than +12 against the Bulls with Middleton and take a near-champion to 7 without a middleton in a not that close series(+8 point differential). Overall Bucks improve dramatically. again, on the back of their defense.

2023: Every contender is coasting and Giannis is again merely a top 3 regular season player as the Bucks post a 3rd best +3.61 SRS despite Middleton missing a bunch of games. Against Miami, Giannis misses almost half the series and is injured throughout. Consequently, the Bucks defense collapses as they lose to the eventual finalists(again)

8 postseasons total, 7 as a superstar, and the Bucks underperform twice and overperform 5 times despite a deeply flawed postseason coach, a cast who generally falls off in the playoffs(shooting especially). Both underperformances have injury context and when they lose, they are mostly losing to champions or finalists,

Now let's do Jokic:

Jokic and the Nuggets in the playoffs

2019 Jokic is a fringe MVP candidate and Nuggets see a 2.5 SRS improvement to post a strong +4.13(7th best). They win a razor-close series against the +1.8 Spurs(7 games, 1 ppg) and then lose a razor-close series(7 games, actually outscore by 1 ppg) against the +4.4 SRS Nuggets who proceed to get destroyed in a sweep against a losing-finalist. You may recall the champion that year was that Raptors side that just about survived Giannis.

2020 Jokic is again a fringe MVP candidate and the Nuggets regress to +2.5 thanks to injuries to Jokic's best teammates. In the playoffs they get lucky against the +2.5 Jazz winning in 7 despite getting outscored by 3-points a game. They then upset the +6.6 Clippers in a close series(7 games, <1ppg) before getting thumped by the eventual champs(5 games, 4 ppg). You may recall the Heat, without their leading scorer and with their defensive anchor hobbled, were the only team all playoffs to take the Lakers to a 6th game.

2021 MVP Jokic leads a +4.8 Nuggets side(6th best) despite a team that is outright bad without him. They proceed to win a razor-close series against the +1.8 Trailblazers(6 games, actually outscored) and are then obliterated in a sweep against the +5.5 eventual finalist Suns(15! ppg). Those suns would lose to...checks notes...Giannis's Bucks. Nuggets are bad without Jokic

2022 B2B MVP Jokic leads a +2.15 Nuggets team(injuries play a big-factor) and then is thumped in 5 by the +5.15 eventual champs(8 ppg).

2023 Should have been B2B2B MVP Jokic, with a team that is still bad without him in 13 games, leads the Nuggets to a +3 srs(6th best in the league). Against a relatively weak field(though everyone coasting undersells the competition) they are dominant in the postseason going 16-6 with a m.o.v of +8. This is an all-time dominant run, but it also coincides with dramatic cast elevation and unusually favorable injury context(like Milwaukee's 2021 Run). Nonetheless as a singular note it has a decent case against anything Giannis has done considering
-> team is bad without him(in the regular-season anyway)
-> unusually dominant
-> One-superstar(Murray is close)

5 postseasons total, I think it's fair to say the Nuggets overperformed in 2 and underperformed in 2. A weaker trackrecord than Giannis's Bucks despite
-> a better playoff coach
-> teammates generally elevating(Murray arguably outplayed Jokic in 2020)

The Nuggets are also flatly a far worse regular-season and postseason team getting destroyed when they face eventual finalists and champions which Milwaukee only really do if Giannis gets hurt. When the Nuggets faced a 2019 Raptors-calibre opponent, they were crushed despite Murray playing like a superstar. The Bucks have never suffered a defeat like the Nuggets did against the suns despite running into an eventual or defending finalist each of the last 5 playoffs.

Giannis's Bucks have also posted 2 regular-seasons where their srs nearly doubled any of the suns and one of those regular-seasons was followed by post-season improvement and a tough fight against the type of team the nuggets tend to get dominated by.

All considered, saying Giannis has "Playoff issues" and Jokic doesn't seems like you're applying a gigantic double-standard because Jokic id a one-way player while Giannis is a two-way one. Just like when we act like Jordan was "perfect" any-run he posts sub-2009 Lebron box-aggregates or when we act like Shaq is more "unstoppable" than two-way bigs because defense doesn't matter.

Excepting their championship years, Giannis has led far better regular season and playoff teams, and has also has a significant longetivity advantage, while elevating more often. And while Jokic's regular-season impact looks great(like Giannis)...

So, I'm very convinced by the Jokic > Giannis arguments. Time to change my nomination as well as my all-time list.

[/quote][/quote]
Since you've used playoff on/off as justification before...



And yet Giannis is the one with "issues" apparently

Nominate: Chris Paul

Alternate: Giannis
Do not plan on voting him soon as my criteria is era-relative and values longetvity but at this point I am nominating based on who I think has the most viable arguments and for Giannis

-> arguably top 15 resume with 2 mvps and a lone-superstar championship with an FMVP to boot to go with multiple all-time regular season teams
-> better longetivity than another top 15 resumes
-> arguably best player in the most talented version of the nba
-> all-time peak/prime, era-relative or absolute
-> one of the most versatile players ever and one of a handful who has carried a contender as his team's best defender, best playmaker, and best scorer.



It may feel weird I'm not nominating a 4x MVP in Julius but
-> played in the weaker of the two leagues in the 70's and did not look all that when he went to the stronger one
-> was probably not the best player on his own team when he finally conquered the mountain top

[70sFan]

-> A highlight reel and excerpts have moved people on his defense even though a Kobe-fan could pretty easily find better versions of both with Kobe(yet his defense was cited as a negative by some in the #12 thread)

I am not sure what you mean by "better version of both", but you can't really make a case that Kobe was comparable ballhawk or shotblocker to West, so I would be glad if you elaborate on that...

The same mythology of "iq" and "genius" we see with Bird(even on defense where it really doesn't apply)

... and on that as well.

[OhayoKD]

-> A highlight reel and excerpts have moved people on his defense even though a Kobe-fan could pretty easily find better versions of both with Kobe(yet his defense was cited as a negative by some in the #12 thread)

I am not sure what you mean by "better version of both", but you can't really make a case that Kobe was comparable ballhawk or shotblocker to West, so I would be glad if you elaborate on that.

I'm pretty sure I can find more impressive highlights as well as better "hype from peers/contemporary observers" for the all-time leader in all-defensive teams.

[70sFan]

-> A highlight reel and excerpts have moved people on his defense even though a Kobe-fan could pretty easily find better versions of both with Kobe(yet his defense was cited as a negative by some in the #12 thread)

I am not sure what you mean by "better version of both", but you can't really make a case that Kobe was comparable ballhawk or shotblocker to West, so I would be glad if you elaborate on that.

I'm pretty sure I can find more impressive highlights as well as better "hype from peers/contemporary observers" for the all-time leader in all-defensive teams.

Yeah, except that these "highlights" come from incomplete ~20 games sample and some random documentary footage. We know that West in his last season posted higher steal and block rates than Kobe at his absolute best. We know that Kobe wasn't a big time shotblocker.

You act like someone cherrypicked plays to make West look good, but that's like saying someone cherrypicked Wade blocks to make him look like a better shotblocker than Kobe - no, it's a matter of pattern visible on film, in stats and contemporary reports.

[Owly]

I didn't mean that his numbers were empty, but his overall production in 1996 postseason was massively influenced by the first round series against horrible defense ...

I would quibble with the phrasing here.

If you wanted to call the Suns a "horrible defense" ... yeah okay.

But is Robinson playing against horrible defense ... well I would understand his primary defender to be Hot Rod Williams. And I think I've got a couple of sources [Barry handbook and I think the impression from Breaking the Rules, stating or suggesting that Williams did a good job on Robinson ... and it just didn't matter.

Now basketball isn't a series of 1-on-1s, team defense is important. Still I'd push back on statement that Robinson specifically faced "horrible defense".

At the margins "massively influenced" ... it'll be in proportion to the minutes about 40:60 so obviously more massively by the Jazz series.

And looking at BPM because we have a game by game number for that ... he's better in the Suns series. But not minutes weighted he's 7.975 in an average game versus the Suns versus 5.033333333 versus the Jazz. And I think proper minute weighting will take the Jazz series up as his two best games are the ones he's on court longest for (north of 40 minutes) whilst his clear fewest minutes (24) is his second weakest. Other metrics mileage may vary. By that measure at least I don't think +6.7 BPM overall seems overly influenced by a weak opponent as
1) Robinson drove the Spurs to a good seed by dominant impact
2) Whilst he faced a weak defensive team, he didn't necessarily face a weak primary defender himself (and fwiw, I'd imagine Williams missing RS time and the defensive level of his replacements hurt their on paper season average defense levels).
3) The impact of the numbers will be proportional to the samples
4) The production gap (I think more so adjusting for minutes), by BPM at least ... it's there but given the adjustment, not so large.
5) I think the difference looks significantly smaller if you adjust his free throw luck (not defense affected) either the other way (so now .833 versus Jazz; .580 versus Suns) or just put both those numbers towards his 96 RS or 94-96 RS norms (both .761). The former percentage, rounded to the nearest whole made ft would give Robinson an extra 17 points [this was a round down], the latter an extra 13 points [a round up].

[Jaivl]

I don’t know, West is more of a playoff riser than Jordan was per f4p’s BBRef postseason change calculation, and he was a better defender, shooter, passer, and playmaker relative to his era. Problem was more that he played in a league with better teams and usually a better player waiting for him in the Finals. None of that was in his control.

On the other hand, West played on an era much less conductive to outlier shooting, passing or playmaking being impactful.

[Owly]

-> A highlight reel and excerpts have moved people on his defense even though a Kobe-fan could pretty easily find better versions of both with Kobe(yet his defense was cited as a negative by some in the #12 thread)

I am not sure what you mean by "better version of both", but you can't really make a case that Kobe was comparable ballhawk or shotblocker to West, so I would be glad if you elaborate on that.

I'm pretty sure I can find more impressive highlights as well as better "hype from peers/contemporary observers" for the all-time leader in all-defensive teams.

I'm not sure what the case is here.

- That people are wrong to have moved (I think hard to know, because you don't know where their baseline was, how much they have moved and how much that affects their net assessment). It could have moved people too much.

- That these are crude tools - yes and you wouldn't use them so much if at all on modern players because we've got better tools covering the same thing (seen much more of his defense for most participants, I'd guess) and much better numbers. I haven't read closely and I figure they are crude tools. I think the net impact matters more anyhow and we have evidence for that. And fwiw I wouldn't push/vote for West here. I haven't looked much at it, I don't know how it's been edited so you bear edits and limitations in mind but it's more reasonable that this is a least-worst or some net value add tools.

-That it's inconsistent to not boost Kobe ... well. I mean consistency across eras is really, really hard. But if you limit yourself to what you had in 1947 (to be fair on everyone in the "major league" era) then you can't do much of anything. Up to individuals but I think there's evidence that supersedes the accolades for Kobe and in some cases says ... "No, this is significantly inaccurate, pay it no heed". Whilst noting my caveats, depending on prior knowledge ... I think some could more reasonably take some small value in comments on West's perception at the time. Regarding noting Kobe's "all-time" lead, and again eras complicate things, but versus West it's not really a fair point of comparison [granting comparison on these terms isn't explicitly made] as West made them every semi-complete year he played that they existed.

It's not something I'd look at closely but not something I'd consider a problem either.