RealGM Top 100 List #18

[ronnymac2]

The more I look at it, the more it makes sense to include Patrick Ewing with Robinson/Barkley/Malone.

If there's one player who can say "Playing in the Michael Jordan era kept me from winning titles," it's Patrick Ewing. Jordan's Bulls eliminated Patrick's Knicks in 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996. New York was beaten by the NBA champion Detroit Pistons (who also beat Jordan's Bulls) in 1990. When MJ left, New York won the East only to be met by the Apex Predator of big men, Hakeem Olajuwon, who has already been voted in.

Ewing was the defensive anchor of two of the GOAT defensive teams, the 1993 Knicks (-8.3) and the 1994 Knicks (-8.1). He was an 11-time All-Star and was a useful player up to 2000. In his 1990 season, he put up box score stats comparable to any of the players left: 28.6 points, 10.9 rebounds, 4 blocks, 55% shooting, 77 percent from the FT line.

Ewing and Barkley had a common opponent in the 1993 playoffs: the NBA champion Chicago Bulls. This is arguably the peak of both players.

Charles: 27.3 points, 13 rebounds, 5.5 assists, 1.2 steals, .5 blocks, 1.7 turnovers, 9.3 FTAs
54.4% TS, 16.4% Rebound Rate, 26.1%USG, 123 individual ORTG

Patrick: 25.8 points, 11.2 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.8 blocks, 2.3 turnovers, 8 FTAs
56.9% TS, 17.4% rebound rate, 28.5% USG, 116 individual ORTG

Ewing had to take on even more offensive responsibility than Charles did since the other Knicks sucked on offense while Barkley's PHX teammates were good, and Ewing still put up comparable offensive numbers to MVP Barkley. Ewing put up a tremendous 26/13 game in the closeout GM 6. Ewing was not the choker that he's painted to be.

Note: I'm not saying that based on the 1993 playoffs, Ewing > Barkley.

[tsherkin]

Ewing had to take on even more offensive responsibility than Charles did since the other Knicks sucked on offense while Barkley's PHX teammates were good, and Ewing still put up comparable offensive numbers to MVP Barkley. Ewing put up a tremendous 26/13 game in the closeout GM 6. Ewing was not the choker that he's painted to be.

Would you post his 94 Finals line for me, and then say he wasn't a choker again? Or his differential from RS to PS before the 2000s?

21.3 ppg on 52.1% TS and 105 ORTG from 88-99, btw.

And 18.9 ppg in 44 mpg on 39.0% TS, 85 ORTG, 36.3% TS.

He was awful in that series, totally picked apart when it counted most.

Ewing was a great defender and a more extreme version of D-Rob/Malone in terms of not performing so well come the playoffs, barring a small handful of performances. He dropped 3.7% in TS in the PS from 88-99 and 2 points od ORTG. With that 94 performance, he really sells the image of a guy who couldn't generally shoulder the load. Like D-Rob, he couldn't maintain RS scoring dominance in the PS. He was very good but doesn't belong on the list just yet.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Prime Ewing was definitely a better playoff performer than Robinson, imo, and I'd take him over Malone as well. Look at Ewing in the '90, '92 and '93 playoffs, and as for '91, that series was so lopsided it's difficult to determine anything.

[SactoKingsFan]

I was initially leaning towards Barkley because of his offensive dominance/scoring efficiency, however, the pro-Robinson arguments have been very compelling. Although Barkley and Moses were prolific scorers and great rebounders, I'm giving Robinson the overall edge due to his peak and huge defensive impact.

The Admiral’s career is often downgraded due to longevity/durability issues, however, he still managed to produce more elite/very high quality seasons than Barkley and Moses.

Seasons w/ 12+ WS, .190+ WS/48:

Robinson: 10
Barkley: 7
Moses: 4

Seasons w/ 15+ WS, .200+ WS/48:

Robinson: 5
Barkley: 3
Moses: 2

Even though Robinson had a shorter career than Barkley and Moses, his career win shares are comparable.

Career Win Shares:
Robinson (14 seasons): 98.5 OWS, 80.1 DWS, 178.7 WS, .250 WS/48
Barkley (16 seasons): 123.3 OWS, 53.9 DWS, 177.2 WS, .216 WS/48
Moses (21 seasons): 118.6 OWS, 60.5 DWS, 179.1 WS, .174 WS/48

Peak/Career Estimated Impact:

Robinson: Peak: 8.8, Career: 5.8
Barkley: Peak: 5.1, Career: 3.7
Moses: Peak: 3.8; Career: 1.8

Top 3 Scoring Seasons (Per 100):

Robinson: 39.2 (94), 36.9 (95), 34.9 (96)
Barkley: 37.1 (91), 35.7 (88), 32.8 (95)
Moses: 36.6 (82), 33.9 (87), 32.7 (81)

Top 3 Rebounding Seasons (Per 100):

Robinson:
98: 5.3 ORB, 11.8 DRB, 17.1 TRB
99: 5.2 ORB, 12.0 DRB, 17.1 TRB,
96: 5.4 ORB, 11.6 DRB, 17.0 TRB

Barkley:
97: 5.5 ORB, 13.1 DRB, 18.7 TRB
98: 5.7 ORB, 13.0 DRB, 18.7 TRB
99: 5.9 ORB, 12.4 DRB, 18.3 TRB

Moses:
78: 8.5 ORB, 11.4 DRB, 19.9 TRB
79: 8.0 ORB, 11.7 DRB, 19.7 TRB
83: 7.1 ORB, 12.0 DRB, 19.1 TRB

Top 3 Passing Seasons (Per 100):

Robinson: 6.3 (94), 4.7 93), 4.4 (98)
Barkley: 6.8 (99), 6.5 (97), 6.5 (93)
Moses: 2.8 (94), 2.4 (90), 2.3 (76)


Vote: David Robinson

[PCProductions]

Vote: David Robinson

A monster of an athlete with a nice prime that resulted in too little to vault him into the top 10. He was great in his day, but just couldn't translate his regular season impact reliably in the postseason. That said, his regular season impact was tremendous. He was an outlier when it came to "two way" dominance, and he could shoulder the load on both ends for most of his career. He carved out one meaningful championship for himself with Tim Duncan at the helms, which makes you wonder if that would have been the better role for him all along. His offensive game seems limited for the load that he had to shoulder in the early '90s, but he really should have been more of a finisher on offensive rather than a jump shooter on high volume.

But this guy was a freak defender with a decently long career, and I don't think he should fall any lower than he already has.

[drza]

Vote: David Robinson

I've been talking about him since about the 11th thread, and I've had him as one of the favorites for the last several threads. His peak was ridiculous (higher than some already voted in), and as I pointed out way back when his longevity is right on the order of Larry Bird's. He had the ability to have superstar influence with primarily defense, but he was also very strong on offense. His impact on his team's success was immediate, obvious, and transcendent and we were reminded of that every time he got injured as the team always went down the toilet. Some questions about aspects of his game have been raised and examined. There has been some excellent discussion about Robinson in this project, but right now I think it's past time for him to be on the list.

[Owly]

Others have put better arguments for him but I'll put some of my reasons for voting David Robinson

- He has the best peak of anyone left on the board. Okay an opinion, but one backed by PER, WARP and WS/48. The limited +/- variant (xRAPM, some SPM) stuff I've seen also suggests very high impact.

- A high level of team impact is corroborated by the Spurs change in fortunes when he arrived, when he was injured in '92, and when he was injured in '96-'97. In the first and last cases there was some other turnover, but together I think these things strongly suggest a high level of impact.

- I think he was unfortunate with regard to the calibre of his teammates throughout his pre-Duncan prime. In part because of the huge turnaround he affected (and resulting low picks), the Spurs struggled to provide a strong supporting cast.

- I think the degree of his playoff struggles are overstated. I'd suggest there's an over-focus on the pre-Duncan period as if anything after that doesn't count as it was "Duncan's team" (Robinson has a large advanced stat lead in the first year they were together, then the next couple of years, then were roughly equal for the next two years with Robinson playing less minutes and being slightly more productive per minute, with both gaps closing in the playoffs, PER favouring playoff Duncan in '99). It could be discussed more but from my discussion with Lorak, I got the impression the Spurs didn't particularly underachieve on D in that period anyway (they did seem to do so against good offensive teams, but what with small samples, a lack of evidence they struggled versus good teams in the RS, and the fact the analysis is team rather than individual based, this doesn't move the needle for me much right now, though I could perhaps learn more here. On offense yes there's a falloff but in context (tougher competition so almost everyone's numbers drop a bit; he was the sole focus of teams defensive planning because they didn't have another shot creator, this can also be noted for some other bigs like Wilt and Karl Malone) and can be overstated, too often he's punished by looking at a reduction from remarkable RS numbers (an RS -stats- peak seemingly comparable to top 4 guys) whilst his career playoff numbers (particularly the "advanced" stuff) suggest a high level playoff performer.

There's other stuff but it's basically been covered (and in any case there's time restraints now).

This comes with the caveat that I am somewhat of a Robinson fan, but it was more a case of wow, I can't believe those numbers, than being a huge Robinson booster at the time.

[colts18]

My post on David Robinson being the best defender in history

89: Year before Robinson; 21-61, -7.45 SRS, 107.9 D rating (+0.1 relative to League average), 13th
The Spurs had the All-defensive team Alvin Robertson who won the DPOY just a few years earlier

90: Robinson Rookie; 56-26 (+35 wins), 3.58 SRS (11.03 SRS turnaround, 2nd best in history), 104.2 D rating (-3.9 LA, 4.0 turnaround relative to LA), 3rd
Robinson’s stats: 96.8 D rating (2nd), 7.2 DWS (2nd), 3.9 Blks (3rd), 5th in WS/48

The Spurs lose all-defensive team Alvin Robertson. Add Robinson, Cummings and Elliot but only Robinson is the one with a defensive reputation. This is the biggest turnaround in NBA history at the time

91: 55-27, 4.30 SRS, 103.3 D rating (-4.6 LA), 1st
DRob: 95.9 D rating (2nd), 7.6 DWS (1st), 3.9 BLK (2nd), 2nd in WS/48

His first 1st place finish

92: 47-35, 2.81 SRS, 104.1 D rating (-4.1 LA), 1st , DPOY
DRob: 94.1 D rating (1st), 6.9 DWS (3rd , would finish 1st if he was healthy), 4.5 BLK (1st), 2nd in WS/48, 2.3 Steals per game (5th)

The 1st place D rating is amazing considering Robinson missed the last 14 games and playoffs. They finished 1st despite collapsing without him. This season might be Robinson’s best GOAT defensive case.

-68 G played: 102.6 D rating, 70.4 Dreb%, .512 TS%, +4.7 MOV
-14 G missed: 111.6 D rating (-9 D rating drop), 65.6 Dreb%, .534 TS% (2.2 TS% drop), -3.3 MOV (+8 with Robinson than without)
+9 D rating difference, -4.8 Dreb%, +2.2 TS%, +8 MOV
-Playoffs w/o Drob: 119.6 D rating, 63.2 Dreb%, .578 TS%, -9 MOV

As you can see, the team collapsed massively with almost all of it due to the team’s defense. The team went from -6.6 from the league average (this year’s Bulls level) with Robinson to being +3.4 from the league average which is 2nd to last. So Robinson was the difference between a dominant #1 finish and the 2nd worst defense in the league

93: 49-33, 2.21 SRS, 106.8 D rating (-1.2 LA), 10th
DRob: 99.9 D rating (6th), 6.4 DWS (3rd), 3.2 BLK (5th), 6th in WS/48

Little bit of a down year but they had 3 coaches this season.

94: 55-27, 5.05 SRS, 104.6 D rating (-1.7 LA), 9th
DRob: 98 D rating (8th), 6.7 DWS (4th), 3.3 BLK (3rd), 1st in WS/48

95: 62-20, 5.90 SRS, 105.4 D rating (-2.9 LA), 5th
DRob: 98.6 D rating (3rd), 6.7 DWS (1st), 3.2 BLK (4th), 134 Steals (10th), 1st in WS/48

96: 59-23, 5.97 SRS, 103.5 D rating (-4.1 LA), 3rd
DRob: 96.5 D rating (1st), 7.2 DWS (1st), 3.3 BLK (5th), 2nd in WS/48

Caps off great 3 year peak

1997: 20-62 (39 win drop), -7.93 SRS (13.91 SRS drop), 112.3 D rating (+5.8 LA), 29th (last)
This is one of the biggest declines in NBA history. The team dropped 9.9 D rating points relative to the league. Robinson played only 6 games and 24.5 MPG, but when he played he did show an impact defensively.

With Robinson 6 games: -0.38 SRS
w/o Robinson 76 games: -8.52 SRS
8.14 SRS difference

Defense:
With Robinson: 109.5 D rating, .542 TS%
W/O Robinson: 112.5 D rating, .555 TS%

1998: 56-26 (36 wins turnaround), 3.30 SRS (11.23 SRS turnaround), 99.4 D rating (-5.6 LA) (+12.9 D rating turnaround), 2nd
DRob: 93.6 D rating, 6.0 DWS (2nd), 2.6 BLK (5th), 1st in WS/48

Robinson engineers arguably the greatest Defensive turnaround in NBA history. The Spurs go from 3rd to last, to 2nd in D rating. A 13 D rating impact is absolutely ridiculous. That’s like the difference between the best defense and the Raptors. Robinson’s defense gets even better after his injury. Robinson missed 9 games and his impact did show.

With Robinson: 98.8 D rating, .480 TS%, 4.37 MOV
W/O Robinson: 103.9 D rating, .509 TS%, 0.89 MOV
Difference: +5.1 D rating, +2.9 TS%, +3.48 MOV

1999: 37-13, 7.12 SRS, 95 D rating (-7.2 LA), 1st
DRob: 87.9 D rating (1st), 4.4 DWS (2nd), 2.4 BLK (9th), 1st in WS/48

Robinson’s ridiculous D rating that season is 3rd best in NBA history behind Ben Wallace and Elvin Hayes. This is one of the best defenses in history and Robinson is the architect of it.

2000: 53-29, 5.92 SRS, 98.6 D rating (-5.5 LA), 2nd
DRob: 92.2 D Rating (1st), 6.4 DWS (2nd), 2.3 BLK (6th), 3rd in WS/48

Duncan misses the playoffs this season and the Spurs finish with the best D rating in the playoffs with a 91.4 (-12.8 Playoff average).

2001: 58-24, 7.92 SRS, 98.0 D rating (-5.0 LA), 1st
DRob: 92.1 D rating (2nd), 5.7 DWS (4th), 2.5 BLK (8th), 2nd in WS/48

2002: 58-24, 6.27 SRS, 99.7 D rating (-4.7 LA), 2nd
DRob: 94.9 D rating (2nd), 5.1 DWS (7th), 1.8 BLK

2003: 60-22, 5.65 SRS, 99.7 D rating (-3.9 LA), 2nd
DRob: 94.9 D rating (3rd), 3.6 DWS, 1.7 BLK

The Spurs allow a ridiculous 84 points per 48 minutes this season when Robinson is on the court.

Career: 95.7 D rating (5th all-time), 80.1 DWS (10th), 3.0 BLK (4th). For his career, Robinson played on average for the # 3.2 Defense. He's played for 10 top 3 defenses in 13 seasons, 8 top 2 defenses, and 3 top 1 defenses.


Playoffs:
Robinson gets a bad rap for his playoff performances, but he has had a few pretty good defensive playoffs despite a few clunkers (ex: 95 vs Hakeem)

90: 106.1 D rating (-3.1 playoff LA)
DRob: 100.2 D rating (3rd), 4.8 BLK (2nd )

91:
DRob: 3.8 BLK (1st), 31.3 Dreb% (1st),

92: Spurs collapse without Robinson as I outlined above.

93: 107.0 D rating (-0.9 LA)
DRob: 100.8 D rating (4th), 3.6 BLK (2nd), 25.4 Dreb% (3rd)

94:
DRob: 2.5 BLK (4th)

95: 103.1 D rating (-7.5 LA), 2nd
DRob: 97.5 D rating (1st), 2.6 BLK (4th), 1.6 DWS (1st)

David Robinson and the Spurs get bashed so much based on this playoff series but the Spurs actually played elite defense and Robinson did too (1st in D rating)

96:
DRob: 2.5 BLK (2nd)

98: 101.4 D rating (-4.2), 2nd
DRob: 93.4 D rating (1st), 3.3 BLK (1st), 27.2 DReb% (4th)

99: 95.1 D rating (-6.7 LA), 1st
DRob: 87.3 D rating (1st), 1.7 DWS (1st)

Arguably the best postseason defense of all-time and Robinson’s 87.3 D rating is 2nd best in NBA history behind Ben Wallace’s masterful 2004 playoffs.

00: 91.4 D rating (-12.8 LA),1st
DRob: 84 D rating (1st), 3.0 BLK (2nd), 24.5 DReb% (4th)

Robinson’s D rating would have been the best in playoff history if he had enough games to qualify. It’s the best D rating in NBA history for anyone who played 150 minutes or more in a playoff.

01: 102.6 D rating (-1.9 LA), 6th
DRob: 92.4 D rating (1st), 2.4 BLK (5th), 28.7 DReb% (1st)

Another 1st place D rating finish for Robinson

02: 102.7 D rating (-0.6 LA), 8th
The Spurs finish mediocrely most likely due to the fact that Robinson only played in 4 playoff games, but Robinson did have a nice 97 D rating

03: 97.7 D rating (-7.4 LA), 1st
DRob: 93.8 D rating (3rd), 31 blocks (5th)

This is another case for best postseason defense in history.

For Robinson’s playoff career he has a 96.2 D rating (8th) and is 13th in DWS. He has 5 1st place D rating finishes (NBA record), 7 top 4’s, 9 top 10’s.

[colts18]

David Robinson's man defense vs great centers of his era

vs. Hakeem, 32 games:
Robinson: 21.8 PPG, 47.8 FG%, .545 TS%, 11.9 Reb, 3.3 AST, 5.72 STL/BLK
Olajuwon: 24.4 PPG, 44.9 FG%, .498 TS%, 12.1 Reb, 3.3 AST, 5.50 STL/BLK


Performance away from 90-96 average:
Robinson: -3.8 PPG, -4.8 FG%, -4.7 TS%, +0.1 Reb, +0.2 AST
Olajuwon: -0.8 PPG, -6.6 FG%, -6.1 TS%, -0.2 Reb, +0.2 AST

vs. Ewing, 13 games:
DRob: 25.8 PPG, 53.2 FG%, .576 TS%, 9.9 Reb, 3.2 AST, 5.00 STL/BLK
Ewing: 22.4 PPG, 43.3 FG%, .463 TS%, 11.1 Reb, 2.9 AST, 4.23 STL/BLK

Performance away from 90-96 average:
DRob: +0.2 PPG, +0.6 FG%, -1.8 TS%, -1.9 Reb, +0.1 AST
Ewing: -2.5 PPG, -7.6 FG%, -9.4 TS%, -0.1 Reb, +0.6 AST

During this period, Shaq's PPG dropped 1.9 PPG, FG% dropped 7.0%, TS% dropped by -4.7 TS%.

So if you look at the average drop for those 3 players, it's -1.7 PPG, -7.1 FG%, and -6.7 TS%. I think it's safe to say that Prime Robinson might not only be the best Shaq stopper, but the best man defensive big men ever.

Here is more on Robinson vs. Shaq. This is a 93-01 analysis based on Shaq's expected output:

Shaq's numbers Regular season:
Expected: 25.5 PPG, 57.8 FG%
Actual: 24.2 PPG, 55.3 FG%

Shaq's numbers playoffs:
Expected: 25.4 PPG, 57.4 FG%
Actual: 23.4 PPG, 51.2 FG%

In the postseason, Shaq's FG% dropped 6.2%, and 2.0 PPG vs Robinson. In the regular season it was 1.3 PPG drop and 2.5 FG% drop. In the 2003 playoffs after Robinson's prime, Shaq's numbers dropped 1.3 PPG and 1.5 FG%. In 2002, Robinson was injured in a few games, but in the games he did play, Shaq dropped 7.6 PPG and 11.5 FG%. So we can probably say that Robinson is the best Shaq defender ever. In the regular season he held Shaq 4.6 FG% below his career average and 4.0 FG% from his career playoff average.

[Doctor MJ]

I could have told you all that without having to use BRB but you aren't capable of having a conversation without having to use some form of quantification to back you up. .

Dude the issue isn't that you used data in your argument, it's that you used it poorly.
Ain't got nothing to do with me.

I'm not debating you whether or not Magic should/could have the ball in his hands more. I'm saying that just because the ball was not in his hands was not a detriment to the Lakers. You are so fixated on "more offense equals better results!" and can't see anything beyond. I see that as "If I pour more water on this rock it will get wetter!"; when the Lakers won the titles in 1980 and 1982 they were going up against a team without equal firepower. The Sixers could not match Kareem, so they went and got Moses and swept the league as well as the Lakers. The Lakers did not need more offense, this is you looking at a result and making a conclusion on what should happen.

When we ask whether the team should put the ball in Magic's hands more, we're talking about offensive strategy not defensive strategy. It makes no sense to ignore Offensive Rating when judging this...

...and of course you didn't ignore it. You went and listed out Offensive Ratings year by year. Yet now you focus on something out after I show the problems with what you showed before. It's disingenuous and transparently so. I don't know man, I always feel like I know where you're coming from and it's not that out there, but then in your arguments you can't resist going for the kill and in doing so you end up making arguments that are strange and flawed.

Re: "Lakers did not need more offense". Such as this because you absolutely insist that it's a flaw in the Phoenix Suns offense that they didn't win, and when I point to actual scoring capability, you point to the Ws and Ls. Yet here you jump out in the opposite direction.

For the record, while I wouldn't "blame" the early Laker offenses for what happened - I'd absolutely praise them as great - there's really no such thing as not needing more offense. Adding 1 more ORtg point is always as good as subtracting 1 DRrtg. It's true that diminishing returns is a legitimate concern, but that's a reason to think you can't add the point rather than a reason to claim that point wouldn't be a nice thing to have. And so yeah, it was very, very nice that the Lakers were able to keep adding to their ORtg as they handed more control over to the Lakers.

That's what allowed them to become an even more dominant team as the '80s progressed even though they no longer had a Prime Kareem.

Also I said the Lakers led the league in offense in 1980 with Nixon being the lead PG. You also cherry pick by only using the playoff's...when did you start doing that? Because that leads into the question of you cherry picking 1983 as a down year but not mentioning in the playoffs that Worthy broke his leg the last week of the regular season and missed the entire playoff's. All of this is besides my point that when the Lakers had Nixon and Magic running the show they did not miss a beat on offense and they won two titles......

Ah, point taken about Worthy, I'd forgotten about that.

Why playoffs? It's where my mind happened to go. You mentioned the regular season, I looked at the regular season and saw Magic's injury, so I wanted to look more at the playoffs too, and then the glaring superiority of the Laker playoff performances in offense in the subsequent years just seemed compelling.

It's not like the regular season doesn't tell a similar story though. If I had listed out regular season ORtg and gone forward into Magic's best years, we'd see how they leapt forward. The truly dominant Laker offenses happened in the mid- to late-'80s, not in the Nixon years.

Re: But they won titles with Nixon. And? As we've talked about before, the fact a team won a title doesn't mean that everything associated with the team is unassailably golden. The early Laker titles came with much more dominant Kareem than what they had later on. No one at the time would have assumed they'd have even more dominance once Kareem faded. They did because of Magic, and the team's strategic shift to let Magic be more in control of things.

[Warspite]

I'm baffled at how someone with 3 mvps and FMVP can not even be top 17.

I understad the impact over accolades notion, but the fact is you have to have a really large impact to achieve such accolades. I don't think it should so easily be brushed aside.

Look at the guys 1-17. That's how. Moses Malone was a great player and belongs in the top 20 imo and maybe higher, but every guy already in plus David Robinson all have really strong cases to be above him. No one is brushing aside Moses' MVPs.

I hope this doesnt become another Kobe deal where people are all wrapped up in where a particular guy goes.

Thats simply not true. He is a victim of style/era bias. The fact that he is a one of a kind outlier that doesnt fit into the stat geeks style in which they grew up watching is what is holding him back.

If we had a draft he would be a top 10 pick. He would win MVPs in any era he played.

I still dont understand the whole logic of "Moses was a bad passer." That has to be one of the strangest things ever written on RealGM. Why would you want the best player in the world to pass up a 5ft layup so a teammate can brick a 20fter? Those Rockets teams didnt have anyone that could make LBJs Cavs teams yet he still got to the Finals.

Moses had a good midrange jumper. He loved to take his man outside and drive by him. He would love to play today with no hand checking or arm bars he would set up at the elbow/baseline and go right by his man and get fouled/dunk all of the time. I dont think he would have to pass to himself because the lane would be open all night. So take 4 orpg away from Moses and give him 4 more FTs and 2 more dunks per game. Guess what he is now more dominate than Shaq, Duncan and rivals Wilt.

Moses would put up great geek stats in todays game simply because thats what will be asked of him.

He didnt put up great geek stats in 79-84 because his coaches asked him to do what he did.

I think of an interview with Mike Fratello who said this about Nique

" We worked hard to get Nique the ball in the low post.... We dont want him to pass out of it.... In most cases Nique taking a 5ft shot over a double team was better than someone taking an open 18ft shot.... I told Dominque that his #1 job on defense was to not get a 2nd foul in the 1st half. If he played great defense and got into foul trouble we lose because we cant replace his offense."

One of the things I love most about basketball is that you can win playing many different styles.

Princton
Loyola Maramount
UCLA
Syracuce
Bob Knights motion offense
Fratellos hold the ball for 22 secs
Triangle
Don nelson/Auerbachs mismatch run and gun
Dean Smiths mass substitution offense

They all work and all produce wins but they dont all produce the same stats for the same players. Moses would have won MVPs in any of those systems in any era but he wouldnt have the same stats so therefore the stat voters judge him based on what coach he had, era he played in and style of the era.

IMHO thats why accolades are more important than TS% or some stat that only goes back to 1998 (as if MJ played in the era with peach baskets)

How can you tell me that player A has a great RAPAM when 98% of all players arent eligible for the stat? How do I debate the value of a player based on a stat that doesnt exist? Not to mention that the stat keepers are all subjective and never operated on a uniform set of rules. We have evidence of Russell being given an extra 10 rebs in a game in which he was dominated by Wilt in Boston to save face and an extra 10 assists were given to Frazier in the Willis Reed game.

[shutupandjam]

I've seen lots and lots of assertions on here that wing defense isn't as important as big defense. A study I did a while ago suggests this is not the case. Specifically, while I found that bigs are better on average on defense and worse on average on offense, the spread on each side of the ball is consistent for each position. That is, a bad wing defender hurts you just as much as a bad big man defender. And the same goes for the other side of the ball.

http://shutupandjam.net/2013/03/27/the-importance-of-positions-on-offense-and-defense/

I'm struggling to understand this.

You're judging based on where 95% of players fall, but why wouldn't you also use actual variance? I look at the defensive graph, and it just seems clear that the variance of centers is greater than the variance of other positions.

There's a second issue for me as well, one which I won't say rebuts your findings but I struggle to reconcile it with your graphs:

If we're in an ideal basketball analysis for this type of analysis, only 5's play the 5, 4's the 4, etc. If that is the case then everything we say about a player's impact is what he can do relative to his position, and a position's importance whether measured by the top stars separation from 0 or by variance should be the same whichever approach you use. Or am I wrong?

Clearly in this real world data, you sometimes play a 4 at the 5, and that would mess with the data some, but I feel like there's more going on here.

What I'll say though regardless is this: I just don't think it makes sense to say that a +4 small forward on defense is as important as a +8 center.

Ok, you've inspired me to look into this a little further. These results are from JE's 14 year RAPM dataset:





The results are similar to the study I did before, but here we have more information than I previously published.

A few observations given the data (I definitely welcome more observations as well as criticisms of the methodology):

1. It can be argued that centers are slightly more important on defense and less important on offense than the other positions.

2. Power forwards are more important on defense than expected, but take out Garnett and Duncan and this effect diminishes a bit.

3. The variance among positions seems to be less than what is generally accepted. In fact, aside from the center position, there isn't much variance among positions at all. Given that, I still don't buy arguments that give players a "pass" on one side of the ball because of their position.


I actually think this is a very interesting topic and welcome any suggestions on ways to explore it more (you're right, by the way, that it's not a perfect world and so there are flaws with lumping players into "positions").

The major point that gets lost a lot is that what really matters is overall impact. We often focus so much on offense or defense that we lose sight of the big picture.

[magicmerl]

I've seen lots and lots of assertions on here that wing defense isn't as important as big defense. A study I did a while ago suggests this is not the case. Specifically, while I found that bigs are better on average on defense and worse on average on offense, the spread on each side of the ball is consistent for each position. That is, a bad wing defender hurts you just as much as a bad big man defender. And the same goes for the other side of the ball.

http://shutupandjam.net/2013/03/27/the-importance-of-positions-on-offense-and-defense/

I'm struggling to understand this.

You're judging based on where 95% of players fall, but why wouldn't you also use actual variance? I look at the defensive graph, and it just seems clear that the variance of centers is greater than the variance of other positions.

There's a second issue for me as well, one which I won't say rebuts your findings but I struggle to reconcile it with your graphs:

If we're in an ideal basketball analysis for this type of analysis, only 5's play the 5, 4's the 4, etc. If that is the case then everything we say about a player's impact is what he can do relative to his position, and a position's importance whether measured by the top stars separation from 0 or by variance should be the same whichever approach you use. Or am I wrong?

Clearly in this real world data, you sometimes play a 4 at the 5, and that would mess with the data some, but I feel like there's more going on here.

What I'll say though regardless is this: I just don't think it makes sense to say that a +4 small forward on defense is as important as a +8 center.

Yeah, given the context of a GOAT list, we're much more likely to be discussing players who are extreme outliers in those bell curves, not joe average.

And David Robinson is clearly an outlier in terms of his defensive prowess, playing a position that is an outlier for defensive prowess.

[magicmerl]

I'm baffled at how someone with 3 mvps and FMVP can not even be top 17.

Thats simply not true. He is a victim of style/era bias. The fact that he is a one of a kind outlier that doesnt fit into the stat geeks style in which they grew up watching is what is holding him back.

That's not the case for me.

Part of the reason I'm not voting Moses as highly as I might have 10 years ago is because I have a different appreciation of the value of offensive rebounds, which is Moses signature skill.

I used to think that offensive rebounds were a true signal of the rebounding ability of a player, and thus should be valued more highly than defensive rebounds (which have a definite team positional component to them). But over time I've become more aware of players like Duncan who are essentially eschewing offensive rebounding opportunities in order to play better transition defense. I don't know the exact numbers on the value of offensive rebounding vs transition defense, but I'm prepared to take on faith that if the Spurs consistently do something different from the rest of the league, it's because of information asymmetry (they are right.

So, back to Moses. His signature skill that makes him great (offensive rebounding) is not as important as we thought it was at the time. Plus, he pursued this skill at the cost of team defense, which is already a knock. That to me *really* takes the gloss of his 3x MVPs.

[Texas Chuck]

Warspite,

Im assuming you directed that reply to me because you quoted me, but that's so far from the position and approach I take that I don't really even know how to respond. Im the furthest thing from a "Stat-geek" or a slave to RAPM.

[FJS]

My vote goes to Moses malone.
3 mvp in a era of prime kareem it's pretty valuable. Great rebounder great scorer and the piece sixers needed to win a chip.

[Warspite]

Warspite,

Im assuming you directed that reply to me because you quoted me, but that's so far from the position and approach I take that I don't really even know how to respond. Im the furthest thing from a "Stat-geek" or a slave to RAPM.

Its a general rant. If the shoe fits.... if not discard it. Moses like every player is less appreciated as time goes on. Everything said about Bob Cousey today will be said about MJ in 25 yrs and Kobe 15 yrs after that.

The eye test is the ultimate judge and any stat that doesnt support the eye test is suspect.

[magicmerl]

12 David Robinson -- penbeast0, Doctor MJ, Chuck Texas, trex_8063, ardee, magicmer1, shutupandjam, SactoKingsFan, PCProductions, drza, Owly, colts18
9 Moses Malone -- Jim Naismith, Ryoga Hibiki, batmana, JordansBulls, GCPantalones, DannyNoonan1221, DQuinn1575, Warspite, FJS
4 Charles Barkley -- ShaqAttack3234, Ray-Ban Sematra, tsherkin, Narigo

through #117

[PaulieWal]

The eye test is the ultimate judge and any stat that doesnt support the eye test is suspect.

I completely disagree. The "eye test" is quite important but to bring up the eye test is kinda pointless anyway. It's not like "stat geeks" don't watch games and only work on their spreadsheets to analyze raw data. That's all I will say though since I don't want to derail this thread but that's not an observation that makes much sense to me.

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

I've seen lots and lots of assertions on here that wing defense isn't as important as big defense. A study I did a while ago suggests this is not the case. Specifically, while I found that bigs are better on average on defense and worse on average on offense, the spread on each side of the ball is consistent for each position. That is, a bad wing defender hurts you just as much as a bad big man defender. And the same goes for the other side of the ball.

http://shutupandjam.net/2013/03/27/the-importance-of-positions-on-offense-and-defense/

I'm struggling to understand this.

You're judging based on where 95% of players fall, but why wouldn't you also use actual variance? I look at the defensive graph, and it just seems clear that the variance of centers is greater than the variance of other positions.

There's a second issue for me as well, one which I won't say rebuts your findings but I struggle to reconcile it with your graphs:

If we're in an ideal basketball analysis for this type of analysis, only 5's play the 5, 4's the 4, etc. If that is the case then everything we say about a player's impact is what he can do relative to his position, and a position's importance whether measured by the top stars separation from 0 or by variance should be the same whichever approach you use. Or am I wrong?

Clearly in this real world data, you sometimes play a 4 at the 5, and that would mess with the data some, but I feel like there's more going on here.

What I'll say though regardless is this: I just don't think it makes sense to say that a +4 small forward on defense is as important as a +8 center.

Ok, you've inspired me to look into this a little further. These results are from JE's 14 year RAPM dataset:





The results are similar to the study I did before, but here we have more information than I previously published.

A few observations given the data (I definitely welcome more observations as well as criticisms of the methodology):

1. It can be argued that centers are slightly more important on defense and less important on offense than the other positions.

2. Power forwards are more important on defense than expected, but take out Garnett and Duncan and this effect diminishes a bit.

3. The variance among positions seems to be less than what is generally accepted. In fact, aside from the center position, there isn't much variance among positions at all. Given that, I still don't buy arguments that give players a "pass" on one side of the ball because of their position.


I actually think this is a very interesting topic and welcome any suggestions on ways to explore it more (you're right, by the way, that it's not a perfect world and so there are flaws with lumping players into "positions").

The major point that gets lost a lot is that what really matters is overall impact. We often focus so much on offense or defense that we lose sight of the big picture.