RealGM Top 100 List #10

[Doctor MJ]

Karl Malone might be the only guy who won an MVP in his non-prime according to you. Last time I checked, KG was never close to winning an MVP in his non-prime years.

Sounds to me like you have a convenient method for determining "prime". Personally I'd say neither came close to winning an MVP outside of their prime, but if you consider Malone '98-99 outside of his prime, I don't see how you define Garnett '07-08 to be in prime.

[penbeast0]

I think West and Oscar start getting some play in the next one against Erving and Garnett . . . and Pettit and Baylor start getting some traction against Wade though I would bet on Erving or Garnett and Wade winning it (possibly deservedly, I am going to have to work through them a lot more than the top 10 where I had pretty much argued it out a lot already).

Maybe, but I think anybody from the 60s or 70s is in for a pretty good fall, looking at some rankings from last time around.

11) West
12)Oscar
15)Havlicek
16)Pettit

Not only have the last two not been nominated, they've gotten a grand total of about one vote as I recall. My guess is they're dropping ten spots or better. What has happened in the past three years that changes NBA history that much?

Dirk and KG won rings, Wade and LeBron added sufficient longevity to their resumes, and we added more younger posters and have lost some of our older ones . . . it's inevitable. I'm looking forward to 5 years from now reading all the posts about how Bird and Magic were just oversized position players in an era of smaller wingmen and neither could compete against the modern athletes of 2015.

[Doctor MJ]

Not only have the last two not been nominated, they've gotten a grand total of about one vote as I recall. My guess is they're dropping ten spots or better. What has happened in the past three years that changes NBA history that much?

People learn things, and they change their opinions.

West & Robertson are only dropping about 3 spots each if the nominations hold. One of those is due to Kobe, so really 2 spots. I don't see that as a big deal.

Hondo, Pettit, and Baylor though will probably have some bigger drops. Probably not a coincidence that those are the guys whose shooting efficiency is particularly weak.

[Laimbeer]

I think West and Oscar start getting some play in the next one against Erving and Garnett . . . and Pettit and Baylor start getting some traction against Wade though I would bet on Erving or Garnett and Wade winning it (possibly deservedly, I am going to have to work through them a lot more than the top 10 where I had pretty much argued it out a lot already).

Maybe, but I think anybody from the 60s or 70s is in for a pretty good fall, looking at some rankings from last time around.

11) West
12)Oscar
15)Havlicek
16)Pettit

Not only have the last two not been nominated, they've gotten a grand total of about one vote as I recall. My guess is they're dropping ten spots or better. What has happened in the past three years that changes NBA history that much?

Dirk and KG won rings, Wade and LeBron added sufficient longevity to their resumes, and we added more younger posters and have lost some of our older ones . . . it's inevitable. I'm looking forward to 5 years from now reading all the posts about how Bird and Magic were just oversized position players in an era of smaller wingmen and neither could compete against the modern athletes of 2015.

I am absolutley at that last line. Your second reason on poster age is 80-85% of it.

[therealbig3]

Thanks but was hoping for a 3rd party checker unless you want to give me page numbers so I can check it myself, otherwise I'll only check it if it's close enough to matter.

Oh ok, fair enough.

Just in case though:

Gongxi nominates D-Rob on page 1.

Laimbeer votes for Kobe on page 5.

Fencer reregistered votes for Garnett on page 7.

Gongxi votes for Malone on page 8.

[WesWesley]

The Big O not in the top 10?

[ronnymac2]

I'll be back later tonight with a vote and nomination. The nomination will be easy. How the guy with the bitch-made game in the playoffs is winning the nomination, I have no idea, but whatever.

The vote has gotten considerably more difficult.

I originally had Kobe at 10. However, the arguments for Malone have been really awesome here. And because I always thought that KG was tied with Malone overall, KG gets carried into the conversation as well.

For me, Bryant passed Erving just a year or two ago, which means it isn't incredibly set in stone that he indeed passed him. I was starting to think Erving was overrated before this project, and was thinking about moving West and Robertson above him, but I've had to rethink that as well because of some reasonable arguments for Dr. J.

And to think...LeBron has the best peak of all of them.

Moses Malone is getting underrated here. Moses is the Iverson of this level...you need to look at what he brings holistically. He gives you 25/15 on good efficiency with a workhorse mentality and physicality and free throws every damn night at his peak. He's the GOAT offensive rebounder, which makes him possibly the GOAT off-ball C ever. Dude also has a bunch of good prime years.

I don't like the lack of a passing game. I'm in love with great passing, as it is the key to winning imo. But still...Moses is getting underrated.

[Fencer reregistered]

I'm surprised there were no votes for Moses, West, or Oscar at #10...the majority of people that I know have Kobe at 10, but those 3 players and Dr. J (who only got 2 votes) are usually the most likely candidates selected over him.

Interesting how opinions of KG and Malone have changed big time over the years.

I'm really wondering if we're goin to see too much bias toward the more modern guys (I'm guilty too) - West, Oscar, Baylor, Pettit, etc look like they're headed to some pretty low rankings.

Bill Simmons' top 7 looked a lot like ours, although he got the Bird/Wilt order right. Then he went Kobe/West/Oscar.

I.e., we've entered the non-consensus territory ...

[Doctor MJ]

The Big O not in the top 10?

That ship sailed a while ago. Pretty hard to see him ahead of Shaq/Duncan.

[JordansBulls]

The Big O not in the top 10?

Why should he be? What has he done more than guys ahead of him?

[Dr Positivity]

It looks to me like Oscar is falling out of the top 15 (if Kobe, K Malone, M Malone, Erving, Garnett and West go ahead of him). Which is pretty shocking

[penbeast0]

Really? I watched him (toward the end of his career) and I never heard that before.

[therealbig3]

Well, the reason I picked Kobe over Malone is because I believe he had a better peak, and he is a better playoff performer, as well as being the superior offensive player. And unlike a lot of other elite big men, Malone wasn't a defensive anchor. At first glance, their playoff numbers:

Kobe: 25.4 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.8 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.7 bpg, 2.9 TOpg, .542 TS%
Malone: 24.7 ppg, 10.7, 3.2 apg, 1.3 spg, 0.7 bpg, 2.8 TOpg, .526 TS%

Here are their numbers in elimination games (I'm only using Malone's 91-03 playoff numbers, and Kobe's 99-10 playoff numbers):

Kobe: 23.6 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.7 bpg, 3.1 TOpg, .503 TS%
Malone: 24.9 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.1 spg, 0.8 bpg, 2.7 TOpg, .506 TS%

Malone looks better across the board (except for steals), but every advantage is a slight one, so I don't see why Malone's reputation is so unfounded for folding come playoff time. His overall efficiency drops big time, and his elimination game efficiency drops big time. Meanwhile, Kobe goes from someone with 56% TS to someone with 54% TS in the playoffs, and then in elimination games, yeah his efficiency drops big time. But that's more of a case of Kobe being overrated as a big time performer, rather than Malone having an unfounded reputation.

And similar to Malone being the only guy who could carry the offense, Kobe was put in that situation many times himself, namely in 06 and 07, but there were plenty of times when nobody on the Lakers could hit a shot and Kobe was the only one who could create a shot for himself.

[lorak]

This thread shows that rationale arguments aren't important in this project Look for example what ElGee (!) or drza did, but it doesn't matter. Kobe still will won and his supporters argumentation was really weak or nonexistent. Most people who vote Kobe just post vote without explanation and often if there was any explanation it used arguments which was shown as untrue before. So I wonder is there any sense in "wasting" time in research when it will not change anything in most peoples minds.

my vote: Karl Malone
nomination: Robinson

[Father Time]

I'm confused; why is it so crazy and irrational to have Kobe at 10?

[ElGee]

@DavidStern - I agree it's a little weird, but that's up to baller. He said to focus on how players played, and for people not to be drive-by voters, and yet that's what we have from a lot of guys. So that's his call as project coordinator...discussion has been plentiful and cordial.

But I do wonder who is even *reading* the threads when I see...

@realbig3 - Did you read everything I posted about Malone? I already provided playoff numbers, adjusted for competition and weighted for change, and elimination games in MVP-quality prime seasons. I'm not sure why you've selected what looks to me to be the most randomly arbitrary range of dates I've ever seen for those 2 players, nor why you'd opt for a more vague usage of career stats (Kobe doesn't have back end years like Malone does anyway) and I'm not sure how you can say Malone's rep isn't unfounded when I've combed through his career on more than one occasion and demonstrated how well he often played with his back against the wall. (Not to mention I've also addressed why his drop in TS% is somewhat misleading as an indicator of his overall PS value).

On the flip side, Bryant -- who I find to be a perfectly good PS player -- does seem to fall apart when his back is against the wall, hasn't been great in those pivotal "big" games, struggles as a whole in the Finals, in the 4th quarter of recent Finals, and has a significant longevity disadvantage against Malone...so it's a weird argument to hold against one and not the other.

Also, when you say he had a better peak, INCLUDED in that is his playoff performance and offense. The over-emphasis on certain things seems like such a fault in logic, not player analysis, which is a real disservice to the project. It's like saying "I'm not taking Kobe here because of his decision making, and lack of passing at times, and the way he really shoots too much when he shouldn't."

Also, Malone's a good defender. He's not on the elite line, but you pair him with a defensive-oriented big and you get an elite defense and an elite offense. If he *were* a defensive anchor, we'd be talking about a sacred peak and a top-5 player.

[shawngoat23]

I'm confused; why is it so crazy and irrational to have Kobe at 10?

It's reasonable; I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. (Although I personally have Erving and the nine other players who were already voted in above him.)

[ThaRegul8r]

I do wonder who is even *reading* the threads

If no one else is, I am. I'm mulling over everything that's been presented.

This thread shows that rationale arguments aren't important in this project Look for example what ElGee (!) or drza did, but it doesn't matter. Kobe still will won and his supporters argumentation was really weak or nonexistent. Most people who vote Kobe just post vote without explanation and often if there was any explanation it used arguments which was shown as untrue before. So I wonder is there any sense in "wasting" time in research when it will not change anything in most peoples minds.

Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will change the mind of someone whose mind is already made up. But I disagree with the notion that there's no point in presenting research. I've been doing so for decades, and if at least one person gets something out of it, I feel it was worth it.

[therealbig3]

@DavidStern - I agree it's a little weird, but that's up to baller. He said to focus on how players played, and for people not to be drive-by voters, and yet that's what we have from a lot of guys. So that's his call as project coordinator...discussion has been plentiful and cordial.

But I do wonder who is even *reading* the threads when I see...

@realbig3 - Did you read everything I posted about Malone? I already provided playoff numbers, adjusted for competition and weighted for change, and elimination games in MVP-quality prime seasons. I'm not sure why you've selected what looks to me to be the most randomly arbitrary range of dates I've ever seen for those 2 players, nor why you'd opt for a more vague usage of career stats (Kobe doesn't have back end years like Malone does anyway) and I'm not sure how you can say Malone's rep isn't unfounded when I've combed through his career on more than one occasion and demonstrated how well he often played with his back against the wall. (Not to mention I've also addressed why his drop in TS% is somewhat misleading as an indicator of his overall PS value).

On the flip side, Bryant -- who I find to be a perfectly good PS player -- does seem to fall apart when his back is against the wall, hasn't been great in those pivotal "big" games, struggles as a whole in the Finals, in the 4th quarter of recent Finals, and has a significant longevity disadvantage against Malone...so it's a weird argument to hold against one and not the other.

Also, when you say he had a better peak, INCLUDED in that is his playoff performance and offense. The over-emphasis on certain things seems like such a fault in logic, not player analysis, which is a real disservice to the project. It's like saying "I'm not taking Kobe here because of his decision making, and lack of passing at times, and the way he really shoots too much when he shouldn't."

Also, Malone's a good defender. He's not on the elite line, but you pair him with a defensive-oriented big and you get an elite defense and an elite offense. If he *were* a defensive anchor, we'd be talking about a sacred peak and a top-5 player.

Um, ok, as to your first 2 paragraphs directed towards me, I used those years, because BR doesn't have the boxscores pre-1991, and I didn't want to use Malone's 04 season, as he did not have the same responsibilities during the rest of his career...Malone's "back end years" are all 20+ ppg seasons anyway, and he was still the primary offensive option. As for Kobe, I simply started with when he became a starter, and I simply haven't accounted for this past season yet. It's really not a completely random range of dates. And I'm deciding to use career stats in elimination games, because it's easy to cherry pick great games from one guy or the other...using their career numbers when both of them were asked to be the primary scorer is a valid comparison imo, because it shows, on average, what both guys brought to the table with their backs against the wall. And Malone was slightly better, but didn't hold too much of an advantage anywhere.

And I've also addressed your point about Malone's efficiency dropping...Kobe's been in the same situation himself numerous times. So it seems weird to me that you're willing to use one standard for Malone, and excuse him for not being up to par as the only scoring option, when Kobe was also on many occasions the only guy consistently capable of creating a shot for himself, and you don't seem to excuse him for that.

With Kobe's back against the wall, it's a mixed bag, as the career stats in elimination games show. And similar to how Malone played well in games 5 and 6 against Seattle, but then didn't play well in game 7, people rip Kobe for "quitting" in game 7 against Phoenix in 06, but then they fail to mention that he dropped 50 points in game 6, and they were one box-out away from upsetting the #2 seed. And for the first 5 games of that series, Kobe was scoring and distributing very well, and was the primary reason why his team was in a position to win, whether the stats showed it or not.

My point is, neither Malone nor Kobe are good in elimination situations...for every great game they may have, they also have stinkers. And I'm not really willing to look past Malone's scoring efficiency dropping that much, just because he was the only legitimate scorer...how many times has that been the case for Duncan? For Hakeem? For KG? For Robinson, who you don't have anywhere close to Malone? Robinson's scoring efficiency in the playoffs drops by 3-4 points. Malone's drops by over 5 points. That's one of Robinson's biggest criticisms, and I believe you hold that against him, yet he was often in the same boat as Malone, in terms of being the only legitimate scorer for the Spurs. If Malone is supposed to be greater than KG and Robinson, and he's supposed to be in the same boat as Hakeem and Duncan, why does Malone's scoring efficiency drop the most, even though they were all in very similar situations for much of their careers? And scoring is Malone's calling card, possibly more than any of these other big men, so his dropoff may be even more inexcusable.

Kobe, on the other hand, drops by less than 2%, and (this says nothing for Malone, just something I've noticed about Kobe) when faced with anything less than a great defense, he seems to rip it apart. So you can rely on him to go off when you expect him to. And against great defenses, I thought he played quite well in 08 and 10 against Boston. He had the 6-24 game in 2010 in game 7, but for the sake of argument, let's look at how he did through the first 6 games:

29.5 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 4.2 apg, .557 TS%

Now we're looking at, considering the strength of the defense, what looks like one of the all-time great Finals performances. Maybe not top 5, maybe not top 10, but it's great. Then he throws up the 6-24 game, and people think Kobe generally doesn't do well against great defenses. It's a valid point to notice that nobody on both sides of the court seemed to be shooting well, and it's also a valid point that his 2nd best player, Gasol, was also having a terrible night scoring the ball. But even so, that last game skews his overall numbers for the series, people see the 40% shooting, and they say Kobe is a bad Finals performer. But that's not true. 2001, 2002, 2008, 2009, 2010...hard to say they were bad Finals. And even in 2000, he was struggling with an injury, and even then, he carried the Lakers to a win with Shaq on the bench. 2004 is really his only legitimately bad Finals, which I think still biases people when they hear "Kobe" and "Finals".

[lorak]

I do wonder who is even *reading* the threads

If no one else is, I am.

Me too. Some post I even save on my hard drive

Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will change the mind of someone whose mind is already made up. But I disagree with the notion that there's no point in presenting research. I've been doing so for decades, and if at least one person gets something out of it, I feel it was worth it.

Let me clear, there's always point in doing research and finding out new thing - that's why projects like this are great. But it seems that even these new things and rational arguments will not change minds of most people - and that's sad.