RealGM Top 100 List #20

[Doctor MJ]

I think the ends are being used as a way to the means to state that good scoring offensive centers don't have an impact

I think the average offensive worth of center is lower than other positions but I'm not sure the same is true for high volume scoring center on decent to good volume.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Really? To me the main discussion along these lines involved Ewing who I showed had basically neutral offensive impact while scoring 30+ points per 100 possessions on 55-ish TS%. I would have thought that that meant the area you think we haven't proven is basically THE area proven.

If you want to kick it up a tier beyond that I'm with you to a degree. Obviously there comes a point where bigs become an offensive force. I think Shaq at his best was the best offensive player in the game at the time. It's crucial to understand though that that doesn't make the negative factors disappear. The negatives that bring all-star looking bigs down near neutrality on offense are still there for any big who is dependent on others to get him the ball and can't shoot from range (including often free throws), it's just that those negatives aren't enough to keep the best guys from being great. They are however still things that hold those guys back to some degree.

[Doctor MJ]

I still haven't seen a reason to convince me to vote Barkley, or Pettit, over Wade. Appreciably I could get labelled a homer/fanboy, but you will note from my other posts I'm a big advocate for players who have fantastic playoff runs, Hakeem and Dirk being two particular favourites of mine in that regards.

I just think, that for all Barkley's strengths, he never had an absolutely dominant streak in him that meant his teams won a title. Wade stepped up a gear in 06 and just dominated the conference finals and finals. Hakeem stepped up and dominated two seasons in a row. Dirk stepped up in 2011. Even Pettit, who I'd be more convinced of here, stepped up and lead Atlanta to a title with phenomenal performances. It's why I shied away from voting for (Karl) Malone for so long.

The knocks on Wade are clear, but somewhat circumstantial too. Yes, he's had injuries, but he still won either side of those injuries and if anything it just cost him more titles. And yes, his physical prime (07-09) was wasted on bad teams. But despite these, he's been a very successful player, instrumental in one title and the second most important player for a further two. Unlike Barkley and Pettit, he's also been a very good defensive player - quite a clutch one, too, though that's difficult to measure (but I can certainly remember a lot of key moments). Like many stars, he does sometimes lack effort at that end, but even his raw statistical output outshines most guards - he's got a phenomenal blocking record, always racked up a lot of steals and has been one of the best rebounding guards over the past decade.

VOTE: Dwyane 'my mum spelled my name wrong' Wade

Frankly the big issues with Wade, I have trouble understanding how you don't understand.

You say "yes he's had injuries" like it's not a big thing. Dude, here's the number of years the 3 guys you mention had 10 Win Shares or more:

Pettit 10
Barkley 10
Wade 5

Not trying to say Win Shares are some be-all end-all stat or anything, but they were a star Wade did great with and when he missed the 10 threshold it was because something was seriously off about him. So 5 seasons plus at most with Wade you can add one more "good" season based on '11-12 where he came back from injury and did great through the playoffs, but still that's indicative of a rather serious longevity problem.

As I often say, peak vs longevity is something that for me mostly goes into the category of personal philosophy. I see people voted Wade here, it doesn't particularly bother me, but the way you said it here it was like you were picking Wade because you saw Wade's injuries were some small thing. They aren't. If Wade had a normal aging curve, LeBron wouldn't have left Miami this off-season.

[ceiling raiser]

Really digging the last few posts debating the merits of a volume scorer (big men and in general). Hoping that conversation continues.

Couple of things I'm wondering...

1) Is the actualization of volume scoring necessary? Or just the ability to create shots for yourself when your team is struggling or in high leverage possessions?

2) How valuable is an elite shot creator, if you already have a player who is elite at creating opportunities for teammates up as your offensive anchor?

[Texas Chuck]

Great questions (as usual) fpliii

1. I think I mostly agree with penbeast on this one. If you have a great system or lots of good options(like the recent Spurs) then volume scoring without great efficiency is almost certainly a negative and even with above average efficiency it could be detrimental if it ruins the flow and ball movement--how guys like Dantley and Melo might have less value than some of their numbers suggest. But if you are a team that really struggles to score(Iverson's Sixers, Lakers between Shaq and Pau) then having that guy who scores at great volume even without great efficiency is very valuable. One of the reasons I think Kobe gets undervalued at times.

2. This question is much tougher. Steve Nash and Dirk suggest its the guy creating for others more than himself and that's the way I tend to lean. Tho with Dirk his shot creation abilities as a 7-footer has a lot to do with why he's able to generate so many good opportunities for teammates.

I'd love more insight on those questions myself.

[90sAllDecade]

I can understand a center's offense being less valuable than defense, but I don't understand that a high volume scoring center isn't highly valuable.

I think RAPM is likely being overly weighed here again as the primary evidence, but I could be wrong.

I also think the main culprit is Wilt, who I think was just bad in the playoffs and not as good as people think in comparison to other great centers.

For example, here's a list of volume scoring centers after Wilt who lead the league in scoring and their team's Ortg that year:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... early.html

2000: Shaq - 29.7 ppg
Lakers: 5th of 29 Ortg, Won Championship

1995: Shaq - 29.3 ppg
Orlando - 1st of 27 Ortg, went to finals and lost to Hakeem's Rockets (another high volume scoring center)

1994: David Robinson - 29.8 ppg
Spurs - 1st of 27 Ortg, went to WCF and lost to Hakeem's Rockets (who would win the championship with a scoring center)

1975: Bob McAdoo - 34.5 pph
Buffalo Braves (Clippers): 4th of 18 Ortg, Lost in 1st round to Elvin Hayes, Unsled and Chenier's Bullets

1974: Bob McAdoo - 30.6 ppg
Buffalo Braves (Clippers): 4th of 17 Ortg, Lost in 1st round to Havilcek and Cowens (a center and #2 scorer) Celtics.

1972: Kareem - 34.8 ppg
Bucks: 2nd of 17 Ortg, went to WCF and lost to the Lakers with West and Wilt.

1971: Kareem - 31.7 ppg
Bucks: 1st of 17 Ortg, Won championship

1971 (ABA): Dan Issel - 29.9 ppg
Kentucky Colonels: 4th of 11 Ortg, Went to ABA finals losing to Wille Wise and Zelmo Betty's (a center, #2 scorer RS and #1 in playoffs) Utah Stars.


This is only when they lead the league, but every team is either elite or above average in Ortg, with usually successful playoff runs, winning championships or sometimes losing to a team with the rare scoring center.

I think volume scoring centers are rare, but still very valuable if they can maintain that in the playoffs as well as have supporting casts good enough to succeed postseason.

I also wonder if their value increases in the playoffs versus wing players when the game becomes more half court oriented? I haven't researched it, but this might be the case.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I'd like mor of an explanation of why people think a volume scorer isn't of value period. I think people underrate the ability to score in volume even on just average efficiency. Im not sure you can easily move 10-15 shots or more to the other players on most teams and do better. I hear this a lot around here and while I agree that its better to sacrifice maybe a little volume for efficiency, you can go too far in the other direction as well.

I don't think anybody says that a 30ppg scorer with avg efficiency has no value, most likely you'll find people insisting that:
- it's better a 20 ppg scorer with high efficiency
- a 30 ppg scorer with below avergae efficiency has little value
- 30 ppg with avg efficiency is ok, but not superimpressive
I think the point is that to score 30 ppg you need a lot of shots, no matter what. That means that you have an offense designed to feed you the ball and let you shoot, and that first option is not producing a signicant advantage, so most likley the team is not going to have a great offense.
Of course, that's super simplicistic, we should look at how the offense is designed, how many shots come out of broken plays or at the end of the shotclock (to me efficiency should be weighted on when you shoot. A bad schot after 5 seconds is not necessarely so bad after 22).
But I think what you'll most likely find here are people that are not super impressed to the high scoring numbers per se, so when that's actually the only real plus for a player it can lead low opinions about him.

[Clyde Frazier]

Well said. NY's DRTG rank from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

8 straight seasons as a top 5 defense, and 3 years in a row at #1? While most recognize the 90s knicks as very strong defensively, I think this may be getting glossed over. That's really impressive.

Just wondering (and again, I wasn't watching in the late 80s/beginning of the 90s so I can't comment), but is the Riley-Ewing pairing comparable to the Rivers/Thibs-KG pairing when he was traded to Boston, in terms of changes in roles/quality of team defense? They're not exactly the same I guess since the Knicks had more continuity of supporting cast, just a thought though.

Well, I'd look at riley as more of just one of those great basketball minds who knew how to get the most out of his teams and steer them in the right direction. He obviously led offensive minded teams in LA to championships, so when he came to NY, he had to change his method of thinking to stress defense.

It's no doubt cliche, but he helped form a team around ewing made up of guys who "had his back", and they weren't going to back down to anyone, really. Those knicks teams were full of the Bill Simmons-coined "irrational confidence guys", and Riley knew how to keep it running as smoothly as possible.

I would say that van gundy coming in as an assistant is more analogous to the rivers / thibodeau / garnett connection, as he was really a defensive specialist. Interestingly, thibodeau would was an assistant under van gundy, and knicks fans have always knocked management for not making him a head coach. On the whole, riley coming in was a game changer because ewing had been through many coaches in his first few years, and they all had their issues.

[Doctor MJ]

I'd like mor of an explanation of why people think a volume scorer isn't of value period. I think people underrate the ability to score in volume even on just average efficiency. Im not sure you can easily move 10-15 shots or more to the other players on most teams and do better. I hear this a lot around here and while I agree that its better to sacrifice maybe a little volume for efficiency, you can go too far in the other direction as well.

I think it's most helpful to think on volume scoring as a symptom of other things, some of which are good, and some may be bad.

Clearly if you can score at volume on solid efficiency this says something about your ability to get into scoring position even when the defense expects it. That's a good attribute undoubtedly, and it's one reason why you can't just look at Tyson Chandler's efficiency and use it to compare him with someone who scores more.

I think though it's telling to look at a player like Reggie Miller. Here you have a guy who showed again and again that he could score at higher volume as needed, and yet normally he didn't. Should his normal tendencies be seen as a weakness?

I say no. Scoring at volume is never the goal, and hence if a player plays in a different way when it suits the team he's actually achieving more than a player who insisted on high primacy. In general it makes sense to be skeptical as to whether a non-volume guy could do the volume thing of course, but as a matter of principle, scoring 25 instead of 20 doesn't necessarily mean you're accomplishing somthing.

[Doctor MJ]

1. The Lakers are getting clearly less dominant as Mikan's career progressed.

?
The most dominant Lakers team until '72 was '50 squad - right when Mikan was at his peak. And post '51 Lakers were worse, as Mikan was worse, co seems like pretty good correlation between Mikan and Lakers dominance.

4. Ai I say that last part you might be impressed because you realize that a defense 4 points better than average back then was extremely dominant compared to norms. Consider though that that has everything to do with why these teams couldn't win 50 games. There was extreme parity...among a bunch of players who basically just got off the bust and had nowhere near the professional skill that guys would have a few years later. Mikan was standing out relative to that novice-induced parity, and all signs were that that was going away pretty quickly as the league improved.

What sings exactly? Because all I see is that players from '54 were doing just fine (remember about adjusting for age) with shot clock, so if players inferior to Mikan were still productive in allegedly superior era, there's no reason to think Mikan also wouldn't be close to his '54 level. Hell, Mikan's backup from '54 team was 22-10-2.5 player in '61.

Focusing on these two points as that's what seem productive.

You acknowledge that MIkan peaked in '50 at age 25 yet you object to me talking about the league catching up to Mikan in '54. Okay, so that's a contradiction unless you're willing to say that MIkan's longevity was crap, because even back then it was not normal to peak so early. Do you agree with that?

[trex_8063]

I'd like mor of an explanation of why people think a volume scorer isn't of value period. I think people underrate the ability to score in volume even on just average efficiency. Im not sure you can easily move 10-15 shots or more to the other players on most teams and do better. I hear this a lot around here and while I agree that its better to sacrifice maybe a little volume for efficiency, you can go too far in the other direction as well.

I don't think anybody says that a 30ppg scorer with avg efficiency has no value, most likely you'll find people insisting that:
- it's better a 20 ppg scorer with high efficiency
- a 30 ppg scorer with below avergae efficiency has little value
- 30 ppg with avg efficiency is ok, but not superimpressive

These are generalizations stated as absolutes; but within certain contexts (stuff I attempted to imply, which penbeast expanded nicely on above) these assertions could be flat wrong.

If---outside of the team's star player---a team is completely impotent offensively (I mean awful: like when trying to subsist without the star their ORtg is 6-10 points below league average, team TS% is ~4-5% below league average, etc), if they have a guy who can drop 30 a night on league average (or even if only marginally below average) efficiency......that is to the benefit of that particular team.
And further, that this star is able to do while soaking up essentially ALL of the defense's focus is a pretty considerable achievement.

[90sAllDecade]

I think there is a balance in need imo.

Your team needs balance in scoring to remain unpredictable and keep the defense honest and off balance, but you also need an elite shot creator who can score in high volume if the defense stays put on the role players to shut them down.

You have to have the guy who can get you a basket one on one in a tight situation.

I think what often happens is that a team with bad role players needs someone to take over because the supporting cast can't create offense without the shot creator carrying a heavier burden to help set them up. For example Kobe without Shaq and Pau and other high volume scorers at times.

I think their efficiency is decreased because they have to carry a heavier load and defenses focus on them more. A high volume scorer with great efficiency (center or otherwise) is ideal, but I think that is usually created with a certain amount of offensive teammate talent (of coaching system) to take off defensive pressure and open up spacing for the volume scorer.

[tsherkin]

But if you are a team that really struggles to score(Iverson's Sixers, Lakers between Shaq and Pau) then having that guy who scores at great volume even without great efficiency is very valuable.

... To moving towards or slightly above .500, sure. ElGee had a good piece about the diminishing returns of inefficient volume scoring as you try to post good offensive numbers, but how it proved valuable on properly crap offensive teams.

One of the reasons I think Kobe gets undervalued at times.

No one rational does this, because Kobe was not an average-efficiency player. Until Wade/Durant/Lebron, he was the best post-Jordan perimeter scorer in the league, regularly posting deviations from league average of +2 to over +3.5% TS and rocking ORTGs of 110+ from 00 through 09, with a very high peak of three straight seasons at 115 preceded by a season of 114.

He was never inefficient during his prime, that was mostly just narrative railing against his shot selection and a response to his abysmal 04 Finals performance, so I don't think that's a properly accurate way to frame Kobe's situation. Anyway who is interested in legitimate debate would know that Kobe has never actually been inefficient as an offensive focal point (or even as Shaq's second) while taking on the role of a volume scorer. He's nothing like, say, Allen Iverson, or even McGrady in all years besides 03.

[DQuinn1575]

Okay, we have Mikan, Pettit, Wade, and Barkley. Nash's overall stats are well below these 4.


Mikan 1952-1954 ws/48 is .264m which is only about 10% higher than Johnston (.238), Schayes (.238), and Macauley (.247).

Unfortunately our time frame starts in 1950, giving Mikan only 2 dominant years, and then 3 years where he is a little ahead
of 3 guys who look to be second 50 guys.


Also, we have the era adjustment - Pettit is .213 ws/48 1957 to 1963 - better than Russell, similar to Oscar 1961-1963 of .218 -
if he was in segregated league, Pettit would stand out like Mikan.

With longevity an issue, I give Pettit the edge over Mikan,




Wade is .192 ws/48 versus Barkley .216/48 - with Barkley having about 50% more minutes, and a better overall playoff set of stats.
Wade has some great years, but Barkley's overall stats match him.


Barkley over Wade.


So, Barkley versus Pettit - ws/48 pretty close, but Charles has 28% more minutes. Also, like Wade, despite some great performances, Pettit's overall
playoff record is below Charles.


Vote for Charles Barkley at 20

[90sAllDecade]

Quick question, has anyone done a study between the relationship of a higher relative pace increasing team Ortg?

I'm wondering if this is also true for less efficient high volume scorers and/or PGs?

[colts18]

What sings exactly? Because all I see is that players from '54 were doing just fine (remember about adjusting for age) with shot clock, so if players inferior to Mikan were still productive in allegedly superior era, there's no reason to think Mikan also wouldn't be close to his '54 level.

Of course the players from 54 would look fine the next season. Why would their stats look different the next year when around 80-90% of the league comes back? It's not like new players just started coming into the league the season the shot clock was implemented. So even if the shot clock made those players worse, you wouldn't see it in WS/48 because it compares to the league average (a league average that still includes those 80-90% of players).

The league in the pre shot clock era was still weak because black players weren't apart of it. Black players are the best basketball players in the world so a league with no black players is going to be inferior because you are ignoring around 75% of the best basketball players in the world. Mikan never had to face the best athletes (black players) so his numbers are inflated. He never had to face Russell, Mutombo, Wilt, Robinson, Ewing, Howard, Kareem, etc. Notice how all the great defensive bigs in history are black with the exception of Mark Eaton? Mikan didn't have to face them.

[Texas Chuck]

I think we have enough great white defenders that we don't need to make this a racial issue:

Bobby Jones
Kevin McHale
Bill Walton
John Stockton
Sloan
West
DeBusschere
Hondo

Even guys like Ehlo, Marc Gasol, Bogut, Bradley, Thunder Dan, AK47 etc.

[90sAllDecade]

I find it strange that guys like Garnett a defensive anchor who got worse offensively in the playoffs, and Malone who also got worse in the playoffs but wasn't a defensive anchor received more consideration than Ewing has received.

Neither Garnett (in his Minnesota prime) or Malone won a ring and all lost to superior teams/players in Jordan, Hakeem or Shaq.

Barkley is clearly above the rest offensively, but Ewing is head and shoulders above Barkley, Wade and Pettit on defense.

Ewing also played great competition and had less team support. He also seems to be more impactful than Moses Malone without talent surrounding him as well. Wade's teams seem to be worse without talent around him too.

For Barkley, Pettit and Wade supporters what is the argument against him besides a traditional pick or personal fan base favorite?

[Jim Naismith]

Notice how all the great defensive bigs in history are black with the exception of Mark Eaton? Mikan didn't have to face them.

William Theodore Walton III

[Jim Naismith]

For Barkley, Pettit and Wade supporters what is the argument against him besides a traditional pick or personal fan base favorite?

Pettit dominated his era to a greater degree.

He led his team to a championship (and 3 other Finals appearances).

He was the best player in the league, winning the MVP twice and leading the league in PER 4 times.

He was a top-5 player for 10 years, essentially his entire career.

[penbeast0]

Just a curious question Doc, you've said a lot recently that you don't think a volume scoring big is a good way to build an offense. You said it with Moses, with Ewing, I think with DRobinson . . . why is it a good thing with Barkley?

I'm assuming it's efficiency but that hasn't been the narrative I've been understanding (to be fair, I don't always understand things correctly).

The issue with the typical "big" is that he must live by the basket because he can't handle the ball. Barkley is not one of those bigs. It's not hard to find highlights of a young Barkley going coast to coast doing a Magic impression with fancy dribbles and a behind the back pass, and he shot from range.

Frankly it's rather astonishing to consider the efficiency you mention on top of that: Barkley lacked that crippling aspect of being an offensive big, and yet he still destroyed all the other bigs when it came to efficiency. I voted Malone over Barkley because of the other issues involved, but it's rather amazing that despite the fact Malone had Stockton feeding him he couldn't touch Barkley's efficiency numbers.

Were we making a GOAT offesnive "big" list that included all 4s and 5s, it's hard for me to imagine picking anyone over Barkley.

How high do you rate Amare Stoudamire? Similar defensive rep, lesser rebounder, slightly higher scoring volume per 38 or per 100 possession for career, slightly lower efficiency but in the playoffs, Amare maintains his volume scoring edge and closes the efficiency to a virtual tie. Barkley passes better but turns it over a lot more as well. Barkley shoots more 3's but generally scores much closer to the basket. Offensively, I'd say their numbers were very close (Barkley owns him on the boards and seems to have a stronger team impact so higher overall).