RealGM Top 100 List #12

[ShaqAttack3234]

Why would you rank Oscar over Nash? Nash was a better offensive player. His teams had better offenses and team success. Nash in his prime had more offensive impact than anyone in history.

I've never thought of Nash as a dominant player similar to how Oscar was, or some of Nash's peers like Shaq, Lebron, Duncan, Kobe, KG or Dirk, Durant and Wade for that matter. I'm also pretty certain Oscar was a better defender.

Nash was very effective, but part of that was with great talents like Stoudamire and Marion who also happened to be perfect complementary players for him, the ideal system and loads of shooters surrounding him.

I can't even begin to think of Nash this early in the rankings. I've seen more than 11 players I'd say were better, and that's not including the older players like Oscar, Russell and Kareem.

[Texas Chuck]

Okay, I'm going to take a step back for a bit if I can make myself.

I'll still be voting, but I'm going to try to take a back seat and just let people convince me of things.

It makes sense partly because I honestly haven't made up my mind, but also obviously because of how prominent I was in earlier threads. Especially as a mod, it can be problematic.

converted this to a PM.

[RayBan-Sematra]

More tidbits on West

Dr. Ernie Vandeweghhe : I would take Jerry for a couple of reasons.
Jerry had two things over Kobe : speed and defense.
Kobe plays great defense, but he didn't his first few years and Kobe has speed but not like West.

Regarding West defensively.
I am thinking that West was one of the greatest help defenders ever at the guard position.
He had underrated athletic ability combined with ultra long arms and amazing timing.

Even at age 35 while only playing 30mpg he averaged nearly 3spg/1bpg.
He was probably a lock for 3+spg / 1+bpg in his actual Prime.

So far everyone I have heard speak about West's defense (former players, coaches, analysts etc...) all give him nothing but praise.

[rich316]

The project is about to get really interesting. A bunch of great players are now up for consideration. Some things I'm interested in learning about here:

1) Jerry West's defense and ability as a distributor. His scoring ability looks top-notch, like a Wade with 3-point range. His career FG% (0.474) is quite high for his era and play style and looks even better if you cut off his first and last seasons. He has excellent volume at 25.9 PPG from ages 23 through 31. He would certainly have scored more, and more effectively, in the 3 point era. When he was carrying the scoring load, he averaged 5-6 APG, but in the last few prime years that creeps up slowly, all the way to 9.5, 9.7, and 8.8 APG in his age 32, 33, and 34 seasons, without a substantial drop in his scoring volume. That suggests that he had that type of ability much earlier, but didn't have the teammates to permit that assist volume. I really like players who can adjust their play to suit their team's needs. There is evidence that he was also a perimeter defensive stopper - does his impact there also match up to Wade's, or even exceed it? If so, combined with his leadership abilities, that makes him a very tempting choice here. He does have some durability/longevity issues - only 9 seasons with more than 69 games played.

2) I'm not as high on Oscar as others. Chemistry/leadership is big for me, and that looks to be a big minus for him. Nonetheless, his all-around game suggests he would be very effective in many situations. His impact on the Bucks was big, but it's hard for me to take a guy who seems to poison team harmony. Are there any contrarian accounts of Oscar actually being a good teammate?

3) Nash is an enigma. His offensive stats are jaw-dropping, but it still feels like at least 10 spots too high. Is it possible for a player to be TOO impactful? I know this sounds bizarre, but consider this: is there any reason to believe that there was something about the SSOL offense that made the team really bad at defense? I don't believe that Nash's actual defensive play was what sunk their D - we've seen plenty of good defenses that didn't have a plus defender at PG. If everybody on your team is thinking about racing up the court and getting the next open shot, does that somehow detract from the "dig in" mentality that we often see from good defensive teams? Or does the pace also allow the opponent a lesser, but still significant amount of easy transition buckets?

4) Dirk - He has a VERY strong track record of leading teams with rotating ensemble supporting casts to great success, against tough competition. That's huge. It speaks to great versatility, dependability, and leadership. I would like to hear more from the Mavs fans here who have watched his career, specifically about his defense and shot-creation for his teammates.

Erving, Malone and Kobe have been fairly well discussed, and I'm also open to them here. Robinson doesn't have the longevity I need at this spot, quite yet, and I'm not comfortable taking a frontcourt player who is a defensive sieve like Barkley.

EDIT: I was actually looking at West's Points per 36 when I did those scoring stats. His PPG is, obviously, much higher, at 28.5 PPG from ages 23 to 33. Really thinking about him here. He would probably be a lock for my vote, but there are too many other great players who were able to play more games in their primes for it to be open-and-shut.

[drza]

I saw a suggestion in the main top 100 thread suggesting that 1on 1 comparisons between contemporaries brings a higher level of analysis to the table. That sounds logical to me. So I'm proposing some 1-on-1s that I'd love to see discussed here as we decide who's up next:

Oscar vs West (obvious, but a classic)

Dr J vs Moses

Karl Malone vs David Robinson ( and/or Barkley if you think he belongs)

Kobe vs Dirk (I don't have Nash up for a bit, but if you do include him too)

I'm hoping to try my hand at some of these comps as I can, but it'd be great to see the conversations take off before I get there

[Baller2014]

A lot of Oscar voters are using Oscar's results in games he missed with the Royals as their key argument. Just to give some perspective to that:
1) The evidence suggested Oscar was making the Royals 26 wins better. In contrast, Nash was making the Suns 30 wins better in games he missed v.s games he played from 05-11. Nash was doing even better if we exclude the 2009 disaster season, where coach Porter arrived and tried to run the offense through Shaq instead of Nash (the equivalent of Spo saying to Lebron this year: "you did well last year Lebron, but we're going to mix it up next season and try running the offense through Wade, and playing you off-ball more").
2) Oscar's sample size is highly problematic. Almost all the games missed come from 3 seasons out of 10, and those seasons are right at the beginning and end of his time with the Royals (and, of course, those are the seasons he tended to have the least help). In the other 7 seasons Oscar missed between 0 and 5 games, so we have no idea if those were just end of season games where the coach rested all the best players against the Celtics or what (in which case, of course they'd lose, but it wouldn't be because of Oscar's absence). It's interesting to note that a guy who was supposed to have a 26 win impact did not improve the Royals anything like 26 wins when he joined the team. Looking at the team record before and after his first season with the Royals, the win pace difference is significantly less (even if we factor in win pace in games Oscar played). Nash on the other hand certainly improved the Suns consistently with his with/without results (the Suns were not in the playoffs before he arrived, and became a juggernaut with him, then when Nash left the Suns they collapsed completely, even though he was no longer in his prime at the time).
3) Oscar played in a pretty weak era, and doesn't seem to have made his teams good in the way Nash did with the Suns in a tougher era.

[90sAllDecade]

I haven't discussed at all, so I can't/won't vote, but I would be voting Oscar. That said, I know Kobe's up for discussion, but I feel Baller brought up a very relevant point: what's the argument for Kobe over Karl besides "Count the rings" and "clutch"? Most of the things which people use to accredit Kobe - his ridiculous volume, his All-Star and All-NBA selections and the like - apply to Malone as well. Only Malone did it for even longer than Kobe, he has two MVPs ( one undeserved, but well Kobe didn't deserve his either), and he's probably the better defender.

Good to have you here Sasaki.

You make interesting points. According to Penbeast, you just have to contribute points to the discussion (like now) a few times and you'll be eligible to vote next thread, if I recall correctly.

It would be good to have yourself and someone like Shaqattack contributing and voting.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Oscar vs West (obvious, but a classic)

Elliot Kalb on West VS Oscar

West played his final season in 1974.
It is very rare to have two superstars playing the same position who came into the league and left the same seasons.
Robertson and West both played the same 14 seasons.
Oscar was a more accurate shooter. He was a better rebounder. He had many more assists.

West played on teams that won more games. He played in the Finals nine times.
Robertson played in the Finals twice. Both won one NBA Championship at the tail end of their careers.
West was an All-NBA First Team 10 times to Robertsons nine.

Nate Archibald :
Jerry West you have to understand. When I was growing up, there were only six channels on television.
You only saw three teams play. Boston, Philly, Los Angeles.
Jerry was the ultimate ambassador of the game, before Julius Erving. He never said a word on the court.
I had the ultimate respect for him.
Oscar was a better rebounder----what do they say the best pound-for-pound player ever.
I only played Oscar one season.
I played Jerry a few years although it seemed like he never got old.

This part below doesn't mean much to me since it ignores pace and other factors but I decided to include it for fun.

First Five Season in NBA
Oscar : 44mpg --- 30.3 / 10.4 / 10.6
Bird : 38mpg ----- 22.6 / 10.7 / 5.6
Magic : 37mpg --- 18.2 / 8.4 / 9.8
Jordan : 39mpg -- 32.6 / 6.2 / 5.9
Iverson : 42mpg -- 26.2 / 4.0 / 5.6

Only Iverson comes close to Robertston in minutes played.
Only Jordan (who scored more) is in Oscar's ballpark in points per game.
Only Larry Bird could rebound as well as Robertson.
Only Johnson came close to matching Robertson in assists per game.

If you took the best category from each player, this is what it would look like.

Bird / Magic / Jordan / Iverson : 32.6 / 10.7 / 9.8apg
------------------------------Oscar : 30.3 / 10.4 / 10.6apg

[Texas Chuck]

. I would like to hear more from the Mavs fans here who have watched his career, specifically about his defense and shot-creation for his teammates.

.

I'll briefly give you my scouting report on Dirk's defense. (Will touch on shot-creation in a future post--its a huge part of Dirk's value imo)

First understand that since Avery showed up Dirk has taken the easiest defensive assignment possible for most of his minutes. Nellie believed in getting his 5 best offensive players on the floor a lot which often left young Dirk as the best Mavs defender on the court. But I'm not going to spend much time on Nellie-Dirk. The team was terrible defensively and Dirk wasnt any kind of significant factor to correct this.

But Dirk takes the easy big assignment every time. Damp or Diop or Haywood or Tyson or KVH or Croshure(sp?) or whomever is out there with Dirk gets the tougher matchup even when Dirk is probably the more effective choice. So that's got to be factored in when talking about Dirk's defense. And the reason is simple: Since Nash left Dallas the offense lives with Dirk and dies without him. The Mavs have just fallen apart offensively with Dirk off the court(something to think about when people suggest he had great supporting casts--they were above average defensively post-Nash, but decidely below-average offensively for most to all of this time)

Dirk is good at post defense. He holds position well. he doesnt fall for many fakes and he's long and stronger than you might think.

Dirk is good at challenging shooters. He's long and diligent about flying out at shooters.

Dirk has great hands and learned from Karl Malone the art of the strip on the way up rather than trying to block shots at the apex. Really good at this.

Dirk is good at defensive rebounding. Really really good in the playoffs.

Dirk gets back on defense religiously(part of why his offensive rebounding is so anemic in comparison to his defensive rebounding). Even when he's frequently complaining about a missed call he's doing it while running back on defense.

Dirk isnt very good at perimeter defense. His amazing footwork on offense somehow disappears at the other end. He looks slow and has a difficult time keeping guys in front of him.

He's a decent PNR defender as he's really smart about his angles but again he's not good when he has to switch and he's dependent on his team rotating smartly because he's slow getting back to his man after showing

And finally the Ole Ole Ole (World Cup tie-in) issue. Dirk concedes buckets without resistance early in games. He avoids early fouls at all costs(Again team has to have him offensively). While this is the correct strategy for the team, it must be factored in when talking about his defense. He only really defends 100% in the 2nd half. Note: this changes a good bit in the playoffs where Dirk's competitive nature gets the better of him and he contests some shots he never would in the RS. Helps his defense, but he's dealt with some foul trouble as a result.

Bottom line: Dirk is capable of being a good, solid, man post defender. But like we've been talking about with Kobe, he doesnt do it full time for strategic reasons. He's a little slow and below average imo as a help defender. And overall I would say Dirk is probably a slightly positive factor on the defensive end. This based mostly on his rebounding, and some of the advantages of being 7 feet tall (and his good hands).

Plus/Minus shows Dirk in a very favorable light so take that for what its worth.

[The Infamous1]

Why would you rank Oscar over Nash? Nash was a better offensive player. His teams had better offenses and team success. Nash in his prime had more offensive impact than anyone in history.

I've never thought of Nash as a dominant player similar to how Oscar was, or some of Nash's peers like Shaq, Lebron, Duncan, Kobe, KG or Dirk, Durant and Wade for that matter. I'm also pretty certain Oscar was a better defender.

Nash was very effective, but part of that was with great talents like Stoudamire and Marion who also happened to be perfect complementary players for him, the ideal system and loads of shooters surrounding him.

I can't even begin to think of Nash this early in the rankings. I've seen more than 11 players I'd say were better, and that's not including the older players like Oscar, Russell and Kareem.

If Nash is going to be brought up this early than IMO Paul has to be as well. I don't have either at this level though

[JordansBulls]

VOTE: Kobe Bryant

2nd all time in 30+ point games in the playoffs, 3rd all time in points in the playoffs. Best record with HCA among those remaining and really only 2 other players all time even have a better record with HCA as the man.

[trex_8063]

OK, so here’s the deal:....

For #11 I truly couldn’t decide between Kobe, Garnett, and K.Malone. So as the clock was about to run out on the initial vote I slipped in a vote for Kobe Bryant, because it was tight for 2nd place, and I figured if the run-off was going to be either KG vs. Oscar or KG vs. Kobe, I at least wanted Kobe to get his shot. The reasoning I gave for voting Kobe over Garnett or Mailman was as flimsy as wet tissue (or at least it felt so to me, again: because truly I hadn’t really decided between them).

Then after the runoff started ronnymac2 made this epic post (which I’ve intentionally NOT contained in a spoiler):

I want to talk about the Mailman because he hasn't quite gotten the amount of representation that other players on this level have received. I voted for KG in this thread, so this isn't exactly my argument for Malone, but it's information and a perspective. I invite you to receive it and then do what you feel.

Early Years

Malone emerged as a 20-10 threat in his 2nd year in the league, but it was his 3rd year in 1988 where you can see the quantum leap to being a legit star player. Utah was the best defense in the NBA (their strength being eFG% Against) thanks to Mark Eaton's dominant defense.

Malone certainly helped though. He led the team in defensive rebound rate (10th in the NBA that year) and was named All-Defense Second Team. He also averaged 27 points on 52 percent shooting and got to the free throw line almost 10 times per game (56.8 percent True Shooting..Got his FT shooting up to 70 percent this year).

Then in the playoffs, Utah faces the defending champion LA Lakers (#3 in SRS at 4.81) and loses in 7 games, with Malone dropping 28.7 points and 11.7 rebounds on 53.5% TS. Malone seemed able to handle LA's defense better as the series wore on, putting up 27/11 (10/20 FG, 7/7 FT) in a Game 6 Elimination Game victory, and 31/15 (14/21 FG, 3/9 FT) in a Game 7 Loss.

Early-years Malone...from say 1987-1991...looks like prime Amar'e Stoudemire with slightly less offense but MUCH better defense and rebounding. Amar'e was built like a SF; Malone was built like a mack truck and actually pursued defensive rebounds. Early Malone turned the ball over more than prime Amar'e and didn't score quite as efficiently, but Amar'e got to play C and had a ton of shooters next to him while Malone had a giant negative at C (Eaton was a horrendous offensive player and clogged the paint) and did not have as much shooting around him. The only constant is Nash and Stockton were great at feeding the bigs.

Around '91-'93, Malone's passing from the mid-post, off the pick-n-roll, and with his back-to-the-basket improved to the point that it made his offensive utility greatly outstrip anything Amar'e has ever been capable of providing on that end. Mind you, Malone remained a strong defensive rebounder and defensive player.

RAPM

I've seen questions regarding Malone's longevity based on his RAPM scores post-1998. I get the impression that the skepticism is not extreme by any means, but more along the lines of "Malone does indeed have excellent longevity, but the boxscore stats saying he's a 20+ PPG player post-98 hide the fact that he most certainly is not a strong fulcrum for a successful team in a 20+ PPG role, and that he cannot provide significant lift in this role, which seems to be the only way Malone can be utilized."

Compared to somebody like KG, Malone does indeed look like he ages far less gracefully based on RAPM.

The way I see it, however, is that as Malone's body and raw talent declined, his role did not change. His coach did not change. His minutes and games played did not change. His USG remained high when on the court.

Here is KG's and KM's scoring average, MPG, and USG relative to other's on their respective teams from 1996-2003 and 2006-2013. I chose these years because we get to see when each was a prime-time MPG/USG/Scorer and see how they get to decline from that level.

Kevin Garnett

2006: 21.8 points (1st), 38.9 minutes (2nd) 25.5 USG% (1st)
2007: 22.4 points (1st), 39.4 minutes (1st), 27.4 USG% (1st)
2008: 18.8 points (2nd), 32.8 minutes (3rd), 25.5 USG% (1st)
2009: 15.8 points (3rd), 31.1 minutes (4th), 23.4 USG% (2nd)
2010: 14.3 points (3rd), 29.9 minutes (4th), 22.1 USG% (2nd)
2011: 14.9 points (3rd), 31.3 minutes (4th), 22.3 USG% (2nd)
2012: 15.8 points (2nd), 31.1 minutes (5th), 24.9 USG% (2nd)
2013: 14.8 points (2nd), 29.7 minutes (3rd), 24.5 USG% (2nd)

**Garnett missed 92 games over this timespan.

Karl Malone

1996: 25.7 points (1st), 38 minutes (1st), 29.8 USG% (1st)
1997: 27.4 points(1st), 36.6 minutes (1st), 32.7 USG% (1st)
1998: 27 points(1st), 37.4 minutes (1st), 31.8 USG% (1st)
1999: 23.8 points (1st), 37.4 minutes (1st), 30.5 USG% (1st)
2000: 25.5 points (1st), 35.9 minutes (1st), 31.9 USG% (1st)
2001: 23.2 points (1st), 35.7 minutes (1st), 30 USG% (1st)
2002: 22.4 points (1st), 38 minutes (1st), 28.8 USG% (1st)
2003: 20.6 points (1st), 36.2 minutes (1st), 27.8 USG% (1st)

**Malone missed 6 games over this timespan.

Malone is giving superstar PPG, USG, and MPG, but not superstar impact for the Utah Jazz. It's fair to question why Malone's role/minutes did not change if he wasn't capable of providing significant lift after 1998. My response to this would be:

1. Malone was healthy. No reason to manage minutes any differently based on injury concerns.
2. The team clearly did not have a Plan B. Malone certainly wasn't holding a burgeoning star back. This clearly wasn't a team in any of these years where Sloan could pull a Pop and platoon guys and find equal or superior success. Whatever lift Malone was capable of providing for 35+ minutes was necessary to make the playoffs, in reality and in the eyes of Coach Sloan.
3. Stockton/Malone worked in Sloan's system in the REG SEA for over a decade. Changing things up would have been a huge adjustment for all parties involved and quite risky (likely not successful either in my opinion).

This should not be read as an indictment on Kevin Garnett. KG's focus was (correctly) pushed to the defensive side in his later years, and he excelled in a way that Malone wouldn't have defensively even if Malone were put in an optimal setting. This is actually part of the reason why I vote KG in this thread.

This should be read as an explanation for why Malone's decline might look more precipitous as measured by RAPM than it actually was. Malone didn't get to specialize or decrease his role/minutes the way KG and David Robinson and his teammate John Stockton did in their decline years.

Of course the counter to this is that Malone's skillset doesn't allow him to specialize in anything but volume scoring. To that, I must emphatically disagree. Cut his skillset down to the bone and he's very much a Horace Grant type...a mini-Kevin Garnett actually. KG/Horace/older Malone connect the goodness/impact of the players around them because of their spacing effect, passing, screens, off-ball movement, ability to run the floor, and IQ.

Despite being 40, and despite being oft-injured, I'd argue that Karl Malone, like Horace Grant in 1995, was the most valuable player on the 2004 Los Angeles Lakers. HoGrant and Malone were the third-best players, but the most valuable based on the team construction (Though Penny could be argued for Orlando because the Magic had no PG). Malone gave Kobe his first great pick-n-roll partner and gave Shaq the best or second-best entry-passing big man he ever played next to. And Malone's man defense in the 2004 playoffs was amazing, as he stifled Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, and Rasheed Wallace by shoving them 20 feet away from the basket, beating up on them, and stripping them cleanly of the ball or making them take tough shots. Even at age 40 and injured for half the season, 2004 Malone proved to me that 1999-2003 Malone could have shifted his role from volume scorer to role playing big man and been extremely impactful and great on a contending team.

imo, this is just a fantastic interpretive narrative, the likes of which I could never construct (which is why I generally just fall back on numbers), and I am citing this as the “straw that broke the camel’s back”. Particularly the bit about his final season with the Lakers and it’s implications, as well as some potential explanation regarding his late prime/early post-prime RAPM’s. Incidentally, the latter also illustrates one of the reasons I don’t want to put all my eggs in the RAPM basket, which I’d alluded to something similar in my post about “eliminating career luck from the equation”:

.........Put them into what appear to be more favorable or fortunate circumstances, there are still things that could foul up the expected outcome.

Maybe there are chemistry issues that limit performance (Dwight in LA comes to mind).
Maybe external factors affect the player's motivation/dedication/work ethic (Spencer Haywood when he went to NY).
Maybe surrounded by other star-level players, the player in question simply falls off in production and/or impact; in which case while his career team success may be drastically improved, all other parameters for evaluating his career take a dip (Bosh in Miami comes to mind).
Maybe coaching misuses his talents, thus undermining his expected impact or value.
Heck, maybe a freak SERIOUS injury occurs early in this alternate reality (which, if so, would obviously dramatically lower their all-time standing).......

So…..
My vote for #12: Karl Malone.

[Clyde Frazier]

I think we're a long way from Ewing still. I thought Colts was being bold throwing out Nash's name at #12, but not half as bold as Fplii mentioning Ewing. Ewing really lacked that team carrying ability that even guys like Dwight and Nash clearly had. He couldn't lead the Knicks anywhere until he had a fantastic team around him, and he's the guy they named the Ewing Effect after for a reason. The team often didn't miss him. I think people would do better to think of Ewing as a kind of super role player, rather than a star. I'm not sure I'd take him over Pippen tbh, but it's close, because those 2 are the same sort of star role players who should get a look in around #25.

This is fairly inaccurate. He never had a "fantastic team" around him, and certainly nothing substantially better than what Dwight had in his 09 finals run. You make it seem like he had no playoff success beyond 94, where in reality they routinely lost to a bulls team that essentially no one beat in a span of 8 years.

The Ewing theory was based on a 36 year old semi-healthy Ewing, nothing close to prime Ewing, and he still played in part of that finals run, and had a positive impact.

I won't even comment on the super role player statement. That was just bizarre.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[The Infamous1]

I think we're a long way from Ewing still. I thought Colts was being bold throwing out Nash's name at #12, but not half as bold as Fplii mentioning Ewing. Ewing really lacked that team carrying ability that even guys like Dwight and Nash clearly had. He couldn't lead the Knicks anywhere until he had a fantastic team around him, and he's the guy they named the Ewing Effect after for a reason. The team often didn't miss him. I think people would do better to think of Ewing as a kind of super role player, rather than a star. I'm not sure I'd take him over Pippen tbh, but it's close, because those 2 are the same sort of star role players who should get a look in around #25.

This is fairly inaccurate. He never had a "fantastic team" around him, and certainly nothing substantially better than what Dwight had in his 09 finals run. You make it seem like he had no playoff success beyond 94, where in reality they routinely lost to a bulls team that essentially no one beat in a span of 8 years.

The Ewing theory was based on a 36 year old semi-healthy Ewing, nothing close to prime Ewing, and he still played in part of that finals run, and had a positive impact.

I won't even comment on the super role player statement. That was just bizarre.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Hes been trying to push this idea that Ewing played on "stacked" teams with 4+5 all stars in the 90's

[colts18]

Comparison between Nash and Kobe:

xRAPM (Best stat we have available):
05: Nash 4.8, Kobe 4.2
06: Nash 5.3, Kobe 5.7
07: Nash 6.0, Kobe 5.8
08: Nash 5.5, Kobe 6.6
09: Nash 3.8, Kobe 5.5
10: Nash 4.6, Kobe 4.2
11: Nash 5.0, Kobe 2.8
12: Nash 4.2, Kobe 2.0

Kobe and Nash peaked from 05-07. It's interesting that based on peer review, people thought that Nash was better than Kobe during Kobe's peak.

06-11 RAPM:
Nash: +7.7 (4th overall)
Kobe: +4.6 (13th overall)

08-11 4 year RAPM:
Nash: +7.8 (2nd overall), +7.7 offense, +0.1 defense
Kobe: +4.8 (15th overall), +4.7 offense, +0.1 defense

Very close comparison. Nash was the better offensive player. It comes down to how you rate Kobe and Nash's defense. Nash usually a -0.5 to -1 defense. Was Kobe's neutral impact defense enough to overcome the offensive gap between the two?

[Baller2014]

I think we're a long way from Ewing still. I thought Colts was being bold throwing out Nash's name at #12, but not half as bold as Fplii mentioning Ewing. Ewing really lacked that team carrying ability that even guys like Dwight and Nash clearly had. He couldn't lead the Knicks anywhere until he had a fantastic team around him, and he's the guy they named the Ewing Effect after for a reason. The team often didn't miss him. I think people would do better to think of Ewing as a kind of super role player, rather than a star. I'm not sure I'd take him over Pippen tbh, but it's close, because those 2 are the same sort of star role players who should get a look in around #25.

This is fairly inaccurate. He never had a "fantastic team" around him, and certainly nothing substantially better than what Dwight had in his 09 finals run. You make it seem like he had no playoff success beyond 94, where in reality they routinely lost to a bulls team that essentially no one beat in a span of 8 years.

The Ewing theory was based on a 36 year old semi-healthy Ewing, nothing close to prime Ewing, and he still played in part of that finals run, and had a positive impact.

I won't even comment on the super role player statement. That was just bizarre.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

On plenty of occasions Ewing had teams with multiple all-stars, and they still weren't contenders until they got even more stacked under Riley's coaching. Multiple all-stars is certainly a good support cast relative to the guys he is being compared to in the next 10-15 slots. Ewing is a good comparison to Dwight IMO. Not sure who I'd prefer.

[90sAllDecade]

Okay, I want to give Karl a fair shake as the more I research I think I'm sleeping on him.

The main issue seperating these players for me is defense to better assess combined two way impact. Thank you Ronny Mac and Chuck Texas for sharing some insight I likely wouldn't have found in this short time frame.

I would greatly appreciate someone breaking down Oscar's D if someone would like to share. Jerry West's strength on that end is what keeps him above Oscar imo.

Dirk looks solid and I'll analyze him more later, but Karl looks very good in his post defense here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ezVqa2Z8o[/youtube]

My question is, it seems maybe Karl peaked defensively a few years according to (admittingly flawed) All Def. accolades. Is this correct or just bad media voting perception?

How was Karl's defense in younger years, how good was 80's and early 90's Malone's defense? How was his horizontal defense, like perimeter and on PnR?

If he only peaked defensively for a few years I wouldn't want to overrate him there, or underrate him if longer.

[therealbig3]

My mind is instantly on Malone vs Dirk vs Kobe at this point. I'm leaning Malone right now...that level of play for that long, with insane durability. It's really hard to overlook.

Dirk vs Kobe is a fantastic debate. I think as offensive players, these guys are pretty similar. Kobe was better at breaking down the defense from the perimeter and getting to the rim, as well as obviously being a superior ball-handler and thus capable of playing as a lead guard, which Dirk was not able to do.

However, Dirk Nowitzki is a far superior shooting threat, and as a PF and kind of being the pioneer of the modern stretch 4, he has a huge impact in terms of spacing. His ability to PnP at PF, as well as being a guy quite capable of getting to the line due to his face-up game (and being damn near automatic from the line), is a huge asset to any offense. Super portable offensive player, because he plays so well off-ball. Efficiency as a scorer favors Dirk, although volume favors Kobe. I've got these guys on the same level as offensive players, but they do it in two different ways.

Defensively, I see them around the same level, but maybe with an edge to Dirk, simply because of the nature of his position: he's a better defensive rebounder (in fact, Dirk is straight up elite at defensive rebounding for most of his prime, including in the PS), and I've never seen him as a liability. As Chuck Texas has pointed out, his team defense isn't quite that strong, and he doesn't contest as much as he should, but his post defense is good, and his defensive rebounding is great. He's also usually the first guy back on defense, because he chooses not to attack the offensive glass (which is why maybe his offensive rebounding and overall rebounding is weak, not because of an inability on his part, but because it's sound defensive principles). Kobe is similar, in that his individual defense is good, but his team defense isn't quite that strong. But as a PF, Dirk is able to affect more plays than Kobe can as a SG, and since Dirk has a positive impact on defense imo, he inherently has more of an impact defensively than a similarly positive impact defender at SG.

I mean, I COULD point to RAPM, as well as other variations of +/-, to help support my eye-test, but why bother? I feel like a bunch of posters have already dropped out of the project because of their disdain for RAPM.

So anyway, I'm leaning Dirk over Kobe personally. And K. Malone over both, whose longevity just beats out Dirk quite handily (although I'd take Dirk for peak). ronnymac2 made a few great posts about Malone as well, and ElGee has posted on Malone previously when it came to his perceived failures as a playoff performer and why Malone gets underrated.

Vote: Karl Malone

[BallerTed]

Chris Paul deserves some traction.

The NBA's all-time leader in offensive rating. The sixth all-time leader in PER and fourth all-time leader in WS/48 behind only Jordan, D-Rob and Wilt.

In comparison to a player like Kobe who is currently in the discussion for #12

Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
Paul --- '08-'14 ---- 28.0 -----6.2. ---- 15.1 -----.521 -----.585 ---- 124 ---- 104 -----.267 ---- 26.6
Kobe----- '01-'07 ---- 37.8 ---- 7.6 ----- 6.9 ----- .486 ----- .557 ---- 113 ---- 105 ----- .199 ---- 25.1

As you can see Paul pretty much has a convincing advantage in all categories except two with Kobe's only coming in the form of volume scoring on less efficiency and rebounding. Paul's obviously wins in playmaking and his efficiency is much better than Bryant's. Defense is probably the closest category as both are good in this regard so I think it's pretty much a pick em depending on what you value most.

Playoff Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
Paul --- '08-'14 ---- 28.5 -----6.7 ---- 13.4 -----.521 -----.575 ---- 117 ---- 109 -----.189 ---- 25.0
Kobe----- '01-'07 ---- 33.6 ---- 6.9 ----- 6.3 ----- .471 ----- .531 ---- 108 ---- 105 ----- .160 ---- 21.9

Playoffs wise Paul continues to enjoy a big lead across all categories except scoring with rebounding this time around being pretty much a wash. Kobe's scoring has dipped as well as assists for Paul. Both players efficiency have dipped but Paul still has a big lead in this regard. Bryant's defensive rating is a little higher than Chris' but Paul has a much bigger lead on the offensive side of the ball.

[Clyde Frazier]

I think we're a long way from Ewing still. I thought Colts was being bold throwing out Nash's name at #12, but not half as bold as Fplii mentioning Ewing. Ewing really lacked that team carrying ability that even guys like Dwight and Nash clearly had. He couldn't lead the Knicks anywhere until he had a fantastic team around him, and he's the guy they named the Ewing Effect after for a reason. The team often didn't miss him. I think people would do better to think of Ewing as a kind of super role player, rather than a star. I'm not sure I'd take him over Pippen tbh, but it's close, because those 2 are the same sort of star role players who should get a look in around #25.

This is fairly inaccurate. He never had a "fantastic team" around him, and certainly nothing substantially better than what Dwight had in his 09 finals run. You make it seem like he had no playoff success beyond 94, where in reality they routinely lost to a bulls team that essentially no one beat in a span of 8 years.

The Ewing theory was based on a 36 year old semi-healthy Ewing, nothing close to prime Ewing, and he still played in part of that finals run, and had a positive impact.

I won't even comment on the super role player statement. That was just bizarre.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

On plenty of occasions Ewing had teams with multiple all-stars, and they still weren't contenders until they got even more stacked under Riley's coaching. Multiple all-stars is certainly a good support cast relative to the guys he is being compared to in the next 10-15 slots. Ewing is a good comparison to Dwight IMO. Not sure who I'd prefer.

If you're going to call starks and oakley legitimate all stars because they made 1 team each in careers that spanned 13 and 19 seasons respectively, there's nothing further to discuss.

It's a fact, yes, a fact that ewing never had a consistent 2nd option in his prime. Starks was a fan favorite and played with as much effort as you could ask for, but he easily flew off the handle and was prone to shot happy scoring droughts. From 92-95, starks had his 4 best seasons as a knick. During that span, he had 60 games where he scored 10 pts or less and shot 40% or less from the field:

http://bkref.com/tiny/EZjDD

The knicks still won more than half of those games during that span with him playing that poorly. This happened 16 times in the playoffs, and they still went 9-7:

http://bkref.com/tiny/Y3Yak

::waits for the counter of "like i said they were so stacked, they won in spite of starks playing that poorly"::