RealGM Top 100 List #13

[Baller2014]

They both had good teams, but they both had good results too, so comparing team results is difficult (and I've largely avoided doing so). I agree Karl almost always had good teams in terms of depth and talent, but the 5 times Kobe won a ring he had better support casts too (just by virtue of having prime Shaq you've got a superior support cast in the star powered NBA). On the other hand, the team results Kobe had with bad teams (his 38 win pace without Shaq playing from 99-04, his 34-45 win seasons from 05-07) really don't stack up to what Karl Malone was doing either, so it's not a like for like comparison at all.

[RayBan-Sematra]

I think 13 would be a nice spot for Kobe however currently I don't feel he belongs over West.

Scoring -
West is more efficient and scores at equal or higher volume.
I realize some will use pace to lower Jerry's volume but given his elite efficiency, his excellent shot creation ability and his ability to drop huge numbers on a GOAT defensive team (Boston) I don't necessarily feel that is warranted.
West holds the NBA record for the highest points per game average in a playoff series with 46.3.

Also in the last thread charts were posted which showed that Kobe tended to struggle against better defensive teams while roasting weaker ones.
This is I think a point against Bryant and maybe one in West's favor given his ability to at times roast the Russell led C's who were the best defensive team of his era.

Passing -
Edge to West.
He was able to really excel at the PG role late in his career which is a role I am not convinced Kobe could handle.

Defense -
Edge to West (probably).
West is probably on the short list of candidates for the GOAT help defender at the guard positions.
At the age of 35 while only playing 30mpg he averaged nearly 3spg / 1bpg.

Last but not least longevity -
West = 12 elite years (61-73 minus 67 due to injury)
Kobe = 11 elite years (00-10 minus 13 due to injury)

Kobe also has 11 & 12 but I felt he was a very low impact guy and not elite those two years.
Kinda like a +2 on offense while being a -1 on defense.

Either way even if I was to give him those years that only gives him a negligible 1 year edge in total longevity.

Him having one extra low value season is certainly not enough for me to give him the edge if West was as I currently believe the better player during their Prime/Elite years.

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

West's Career
Regular-season = 27ppg
Post-season = 29.1ppg
NBA Finals = 30.5ppg

The Playoff Performer
2 year Peak : (25.1 PER) --- 31 / 5 / 7apg on 57%TS -- .277 WSP48
5 year Peak : (25.3 PER) --- 33 / 5 / 6apg on 56%TS --- .247 WSP48
11 year Prime : (23.1 PER) - 29 / 6 / 6.4apg on 54%TS --- .204 WSP48

Highest Scoring Average in NBA Finals (min 10 games)
(10 games) Rick Barry : 36.3ppg
(20 games) Shaq : 34.2ppg (out of date stat)
(35 games) Jordan : 33.6ppg
(55 games) Jerry West : 30.5ppg

West averaged 31ppg in the Finals over his career without the benefit of the 3pt shot.
Jordan made almost 42 treys in his 35 NBA Finals games. West had at least Jordan's range.
It is reasonable to say that West would have approached Jordan's 33ppg in the Finals if he had the 3pt shot.

He scored 53 points in Game 1 of the 1969 Finals and had a 45-point game in both the 1965 Finals and the 1966 Finals.

Chick Hearn called Jerry "Mr. Clutch," and the name was appropriate.

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 for now I am leaning strongly towards West.

[Jim Naismith]

Moses Malone



Awards
3 MVP's (more than any other player left)
1 Finals MVP (no centers under consideration have won this)
won MVPs against Bird, Dr. J, Magic, Kareem
4x First Team, 4x Second Team
1x Defensive 1st Team, 1x Defensive 2nd Team

Rebounding and Scoring
Chairman of the Boards: Top rebounder for 6 years
Elite offensive rebounder:

#1 in Career ORB
had 5 of the top 10 ORB seasons, including #1, #2, and #3 seasons

Great scorer: Top 5 scorer for 5 years, Top 10 scorer for 8 years

Strong Peak and Prime, Long Career
5-year peak: 26.8 ppg /15.4 rpg
13-year prime: 23.8 ppg /13.4 rpg
21-year career: 20.3 ppg /12.3 rpg


Major Impact
Led sub-.500 team (1981 Rockets) to NBA finals

eliminated Kareem-Magic Lakers (reigning champs)

Moses-less Houston, after trading him away in 1982, won 32 fewer games

Led 1983 Sixers to championship:

Fo-Fo-Fo: Lost only one game during playoffs
Swept Kareem-Magic Lakers (reigning champs who had beaten 1982 Sixers 4-2)

[Clyde Frazier]

Barkley

Any reason you're choosing not to vote?

[magicmerl]

For me this pick is going to come down to Kobe vs Karl. DrJ and the admiral are also options, but David's career is so short in comparison to the others that it's hard not to penalise him for his relative lack of longevity. And DrJ has a similar problem, in that he had two mini-primes in his career, which just seems less sustained and less impressive than a solid contiguous prime of 6-8 years.

[DQuinn1575]

Moses Malone



Awards
3 MVP's (more than any other player left)
1 Finals MVP (no centers under consideration have won this)
won MVPs against Bird, Dr. J, Magic, Kareem
4x First Team, 4x Second Team
1x Defensive 1st Team, 1x Defensive 2nd Team

Rebounding and Scoring
Chairman of the Boards: Top rebounder for 6 years
Elite offensive rebounder:

#1 in Career ORB
had 5 of the top 10 ORB seasons, including #1, #2, and #3 seasons

Great scorer: Top 5 scorer for 5 years, Top 10 scorer for 8 years

Strong Peak and Prime, Great Career
5-year peak: 26.8 ppg /15.4 rpg
13-year prime: 23.8 ppg /13.4 rpg
21-year career: 20.3 ppg /12.3 rpg


Major Impact
Led sub-.500 team (1981 Rockets) to NBA finals

eliminated Kareem-Magic Lakers (reigning champs)

Moses-less Houston, after trading him away in 1982, won 32 fewer games

Led 1983 Sixers to championship:

Fo-Fo-Fo: Lost only one game during playoffs
Swept Kareem-Magic Lakers (reigning champs who had beaten 1982 Sixers 4-2)

I think Moses is great and the 3 time mvp to me supports my belief that he probably has best 5-6 year stretch.

I think to pick moses I need to be convinced that he was close to Karl and Kobe in their 6-12 best years


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[drza]

As I mentioned last thread, it seems like analysis is often deeper and more relevant when two players are compared as opposed to just focusing on any one player. So, I'm all for making 1-on-1 cases for different players under consideration in this area. Last thread I started off with Kobe vs Dirk. I'll re-post that here, then in my next post I've got a big Karl Malone vs David Robinson comp. Next I'm hoping to do either Mo Malone vs Barkley, or Dr. J vs West.

Dirk vs Kobe

In the vein of the 1-on-1 matchups I described , I decided to start with the two best current/modern day players still on the board: Dirk Nowitzki and Kobe Bryant. This is a very interesting, potentially epic comparison, that in my experience pretty much never gets made (not including this project, of course, where Reservoir Dogs has taken a crack at it). But outside of here, there are a million Kobe threads and Dirk is pretty popular on this board too, but rarely (if ever) do I see Dirk vs. Kobe. I think part of that is due to perception...before 2011 it was considered ridiculous around here to put Dirk on Kobe's level (I remember ranking 2003 Dirk over 2003 Kobe in the 2010 RPoY project, and it was NOT well received). After 2011 people felt better about giving Dirk his due, but he generally gets compared with great frontcourt players. When in reality, I think he and Kobe make one heck of a match-up. So, let's start digging in and see where it goes.

The boxscores

Spoiler:

Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions
Kobe Bryant (2001 - 2010): 37.5 pts (55.9% TS), 7.6 reb, 6.9 ast, 4.1 TO
Dirk Nowitzki (2002 - 2011): 34.5 pts (58.4% TS), 12.3 reb, 4 ast, 2.8 TO

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions
Kobe Bryant (2001 - 2010): 35.8 pts (54.8%), 7.1 reb, 6.7 ast, 4.0 TO
Dirk Nowitzki (2002 - 2011): 33.4 pts (58.5%), 13.5 reb, 3.5 ast, 3.0 TO

I often like to start with the box score stats (regular and postseason) just to get some baseline information out there to look at. Most of us watched both of these careers play out, so we all have images in our heads of what these two can do. But the numbers help to firm up the impressions, and really quantify those contributions. The per-100 numbers aren't so necessary for two players in the modern era, but for this project I like to use per 100 for everyone for a bit of cross-era normalization.

Anyway, the story is similar in both the regular and postseason. Kobe scores on slightly more volume, with Dirk at better efficiency (but both look really impressive in both). Kobe is more of a playmaker, while Dirk is stronger on the glass as you'd expect for a big (though again, it's clear that each contributes in the opposite category as well, for their position). From these numbers I don't think anyone could really get a feel for who was better, but both look extremely elite for a long period.

"The style makes the fight"

Spoiler:

Both Kobe and Dirk evolved stylistically over time, going from extremely raw (Kobe entered the NBA as a teenager out of high school, Dirk entered the NBA as a teenager from Europe) to extraordinarily polished. Very good arguments can be made that Dirk and Kobe are the two most skilled offensive players of this generation, mixing technique and precision in with physical attributes that already made them mismatches.

They are also two of the most unique talents that the NBA has seen. I think people recognize the uniqueness of Dirk, but maybe don't always see it in Kobe because he (seemingly deliberately) reminds people so much of Jordan. But ironically, despite his resemblance to his Airness, Kobe is still extremely rare. People forget that before Jordan a shooting guard that was 6-6 or 6-7 and uber athletic was extremely rare. After Jordan it became more of the goal (because everyone wanted to be the next Jordan), but for the most part these bigger 2s handled the ball more like 3s. Kobe, on the other hand, could control his dribble and direct the offense almost like a combo guard...only most combo guards are 3 or 4 inches shorter. Then, while Jordan was always a slasher first-and-foremost (and then later in his career became more of a post threat as his athleticism waned), Kobe always seemed more comfortable operating from the outside-in. He had the high-flying athleticism (and later the strength/footwork to be a great post threat on offense), but his long-range was always more natural than Jordan's and it was a larger staple of his scoring. This played a part in what has been both a boon and a bane for Kobe...he could always get a shot that he was comfortable with from the perimeter, no matter how he was defended. As such, he is one of the best difficult-shot-makers that I've ever seen. That sometimes tempts him to take a lower percentage shot when a higher percentage look (for himself or a teammate) was available, but on the flip-side it makes him a higher-than-expected percentage threat when the offense breaks down and he has to make something happen alone.

And then there's Dirk. No one has ever seen a 7-footer that is such a natural, effortless, pure scorer from the perimeter. He has the jumper of an elite shooting guard, and the ball-handling and court vision of a reasonable small forward. Put those things together, and it is extremely difficult to match up with him. Up through his MVP season the conventional wisdom used to be that he was too good on the perimeter to be defended by a big man, but that he was too tall to be defended by a wing. For the most part this was true, which is why he was receiving All NBA nods early in the decade and rose to MVP status by 2007. However, he had the misfortune in his MVP season of running into the one coach that knew his tendencies well enough (former coach Nelson) and also had a long wing that could play 1-on-1 defense (in Stephen Jackson) that, in conjunction with other factors, allowed a #8 seed to defeat Dirk's #1 Mavs. That series played a big part in Dirk's perception as a so-called "failure" for a long time...but it seemingly had the hidden benefit of getting Dirk to focus more on his post-game. Once he mastered that and added it to his other offensive talents, Dirk became nigh unguardable 1-on-1. Which is why many consider 2011 his absolute peak, despite his MVP and most impressive box score exploits coming 4 or 5 years earlier. Plus, because Dirk IS 7-0 tall, he brings a dimension of spacing/defensive warpage that even exceeds his own scoring. This is part of why his impact shows up so well in +/- studies, even better than his boxscore numbers might suggest. Having a 7-footer that can dominate a game from the perimeter, demanding not only a big man to leave the paint (weakening opposing defenses) but often a double if he stepped inside the arc, is arguably the biggest warping effect you can have (which is why I tend to believe his offensive impact might be pretty close to what a modern Bird would have been, despite Bird's much better passing, because Bird is 3 inches shorter and height really matters for this effect).

Chronology and the story outside of the box scores: the infamous RAPM

Spoiler:

RAPM has gotten a lot of attention thus far in the project (understatement alert), but here the RAPM scores over time help to really tell the story of how Dirk's and Kobe's impacts have changed over time as their roles have changed and their games have developed. It's unfortunate that we don't have RAPM data for 2001 and that 2002 is only partial season data as well, because that was an important time period, but we have enough data to work with that I feel like I have a handle on what the missing/partial data may have said anyway. Again, the RAPM numbers reported are from Doc MJ's normalized PI RAPM spreadsheet from 1998 - 2012.

Late 90s Kobe and Dirk didn't really move the needle much (RAPM values right around 0). Dirk scored a slight positive RAPM in 2000 (+2.3), and in the partial 2002 his RAPM was still at a similar place (+2.6). Kobe, on the other hand, went from a mark of +0.7 in 2000 to a +4.9 in the partial 2002, then he just about replicated that score in 2003 (+5.5). It is pretty universally agreed upon that Kobe took a major step forward in impact in 2001, so I'd guess that his 2001 score probably looks similar to/better than his 2002 and 2003 scorers. So, much as the impressions of the time would have suggested, Kobe took the leap towards stardom a bit before Dirk.

However, in 2003 Dirk's RAPM scores surpassed Kobe's to date (Dirk's score jumped to +7.3 in 2003, an elite amount of team lift) and he maintained that mark like a metronome for the next six years (RAPM between +7.2 and +8.0 every year between 2003 and 2008). What's really interesting about Dirk's flat-line major impact is that so much was changing around him. 2003 was the peak of Nellie-ball (where the Mavs had a legit title shot if Dirk doesn't go down to injury against the Spurs) with Nash and Finley as side-kicks, while by 2008 Dirk had won an MVP and come within a breath of another possible championship in a team with a more defensive philosophy with Coach Avery Johnson and side-kicks Josh Howard and Jason Terry. The situations were dramatically different, the team philosophy at the opposite end of the spectrum, but Dirk's impact remained rock solid at a level worthy of a reasonable MVP.

Kobe, meanwhile, was entering the most volatile period of his career both on- and off- the court. For the 2004 season the Lakers brought in the aged Karl Malone and Gary Payton to supplement Kobe and Shaq in a posited super-team, and of course Kobe had his incident in Colorado that had to deal with over the course of that season. This was also the peak of the unfortunately public Shaq and Kobe feud, and after the 2004 season we saw Shaq (and Phil Jackson, and Malone, and Payton) leave town. The Lakers (and Kobe) both had their worst season of the decade to date. With all of this going on, it doesn't surprise me that Kobe's RAPM values reached the lowest point of the decade in these two years (average of about +1.5).

However, in 2006 Kobe returned renewed (after his first major injury and the Lakers missing the playoffs in 2005), and Coach Jackson also came back to town. Kobe was soon to turn in an offensive season for the ages in 2006, and this touched off his own metronomic high-impact stretch in which he registered RAPM values between +6.4 and +8.1 every year between 2006 and 2010. This time period, of course, saw Kobe win his only career MVP as well as his first two Finals MVPs. For those that had questions as to whether Kobe could really be a megastar and lead a team to the promised land without Shaq, all of those questions were answered emphatically 'yes!' during this stretch.

Back to Dirk. After 2008 coach Johnson was out, to be replaced by Rick Carlisle. Carlisle was a defensive coach like Johnson, but by all accounts he was a better tactician and planner. While the Mavs continued to have 50+ win seasons in '09 and '10, they weren't really championship contenders. And while Dirk continued to measure out with really good RAPM scores (+5.3 and +4.9), it was a step down from his Groundhog Day-like +7.5s through the middle of the decade. Seemingly it took those couple of years for Dirk to perfect the post-game that I mentioned above, for the Mavs to build a team that complimented him fully while also fitting Carlisle's schemes, and for Carlisle to perfect the way that he wanted to use him. But it all came together in 2011, when the Mavs put on the floor a defensive-minded squad with tough, battle-tested vets at every position that were really strong and their complemntary roles. But a squad that would have been awful without an offensive engine...and it just so happens that the Mavs had one of the best offensive engines of all-time on their squad. Everyone knows that Dirk led the Mavs to the title in one of the more storied "superstar without big name help" runs that we've seen. But RAPM also recognized the incredible lift that Dirk was providing to those teams, as his +11.5 normalized RAPM in 2011 marked a career-high for Dirk and entered him into the pantheon of the top-10 highest RAPM scores measured since 1998.

The playoffs

Dirk and Kobe both have reputations for performing on the big stage. There have been box score numerical analyses done in this project to either argue for or against Kobe's performance based on scoring efficiency, and those arguments are worth absorbing and filtering. Kobe apparently did have some efficiency blips through the years against good defenses, which we didn't see with Dirk (who maintains an absurd volume/efficiency ratio from the regular season right into the postseason). I don't really think that individual scoring efficiency is nearly as important as many make it out to be, but for players that are primarily offensive and more specifically primarily scorers, scoring efficiency has to at least be considered. On the other hand, Kobe has also faced off against some of the best defenses in history throughout his time, and that can certainly affect the old true shooting percentage.

(Aside on playoff on/off +/-)

Spoiler:

One thing that I like to look at when available (but which is considered controversial as a quantitative tool) is the postseason on/off +/- scorers. There was a time (not that long ago) when on/off +/- was the state of the art for "impact" studies, before APM came into being. There are obvious issues with on/off +/- that led to developing APM, such as the potential for big teammate effects, level of competition effects (e.g. there's no correction for playing against a starting unit or back-ups), and skews due to back-up quality or even rotations (shout out to Unbiased Fan). These issues are exacerbated in the postseason, as many stars rarely leave the court and the sample sizes can get vanishingly small.

I'm aware of these issues, but I'm also convinced that in long playoff runs in a given season (e.g. conference finals or beyond) or multi-year samples we can get large enough samples to be able to get some useful information. I tend to find that really high on/off +/- values over runs or periods help indicate heavy lifting, whereas really negative marks over extended periods don't indicate negatives so much as a lack of a positive drive. Also, I'm less impressed with entire units having high on/off scores (usually indicates a strong unit more-so than a strong individual) but I note when a star puts up a huge number on an island. Reminder: B-R only has this data from 2001 to present.

Examples of some of the best single-season postseason on/off +/- championship runs:
LeBron '12: +24.3 per 100 possessions (he also went +24.2 in his 2007 Finals run)
Duncan '03: ++23.1 per 100 possessions
Shaq 2002: +22.9 per 100 (also went +25.3 during 2004 Finals run)
Wade 2006: +22.2 per 100

Famous counter-intuitive counter-examples:
LeBron '11: -14.7 per 100
Dwight '09: -12.7
Duncan '05: -5.3

Examples of some of the best 3 - 4 year stretches of postseason on/off +/-
Duncan 01 - 03: +27.4
Manu 03 - 06: +21.6 (caveat: came off bench in 44/70 games)
Shaq 02 - 04: +21.5
LeBron 07 - 10: +20.4

Examples of some of the best career +/- scores (from 2001 - 2014)
Manu Ginobili +11.2 (caveat: 128/180 games off the bench)
Jason Kidd +10.2 (+10.2 in Jersey, +14.9 in Dallas, negative else)
Duncan +8.9
Shaq +8.6 (+16.3 in LA, -6.4 in Miamii, negative else)
LeBron +8.1 (+12.3 in Cleveland, +4.6 in Miami)

Interestingly, for those that give any credence at all to playoff on/off +/-, it's Kobe (even with his lower scoring efficiencies) that tends to look more impressive than Dirk. Dirk's best postseason mark of his career (obviously) came in 2011 with an impressive +16.8 per 100 possessions, and this capped off a run of three positive double-digit marks in four years (thought the first two were for relatively short runs and thus I give them next-to-no weight as single seasons). However, outside of that period his playoff on/offs are pretty pedestrian compared to the other greats of this generation. He was +6.9 in the 2006 run, but pretty meh else for a career playoff on/off mark (from 2001 - 2014) of +1.8.

Kobe measured out with a positive playoff on/off +/- in every playoff run of his career (at least since 2001) in which his team made at least the 2nd round. His best career mark came in 2003 (+17.4), but he was also really strong in 2001 (+14.2 vs. Shaq's -0.3, lending credence to those that say that Kobe was driving the bus for that postseason run) and 2009 (+12.4 vs Pau's +6.8, though Odom measured out best at +16.7). Kobe was also +8.9 in 2008 and +7.6 in 2010, and sports a career-mark of +8.3 that's right in line with Shaq, Duncan and LeBron.

Bottom line:

As I figured before I got started, this is an epic comparison. It's almost a toss-up, a "what do you like"? Stylistically, in the box scores, and in the +/- stats for both the regular and postseason it's hard to find a consistent advantage for either of them. I hope and expect that their placements on this list should reflect that similarity, regardless of which goes in first.

[BallerTed]

So is Kobe is the first player yet to lose in multiple run-offs? Interesting.

Anyway I think David Robinson deserves some consideration.

He has the greatest impact defensively of anyone left on the board and is also the best two-way player left.

Robinson joined a Spurs 21 win Spurs team for the '89-'90 season and they improved by 25 wins from the previous one. One of the best 2-way bigs of all-time. 2nd All-Time in WS Per 48 behind only Michael Jordan and the 4th all-time leader in PER behind only Jordan, Lebron and Shaq.

In comparison to a player like Karl Malone who is currently in the discussion for #13

Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob ---- '90-'98 ---- 34.0 -----15.8 ---- 4.1 -----.525 -----.590 ---- 118 ---- 97 -----.261 ---- 27.8
Malone ----- '90-'98 ---- 36.9 ---- 14.6 ---- 4.9 ---- .536 ----.594 ----117 ----102 ----.234 ---- 26.0

D-Rob leads in most categories and where Malone wins out it's relatively close. Offensively I give Malone the overall edge with more points and greater efficiency, but not by a whole lot. Keep in mind D-Rob didn't have the privilege of having a Stockton type player to feed him buckets. On the other side of the ball it's Robinson by a good margin as Malone simply didn't have that type of impact defensively. Malone obviously wins out in longevity and durability, having a longer prime. Peak wise I go with D-Rob as few players in history have had the two-way impact that he had at his apex.

Playoff Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%--- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob ---- '90-'98 --- 31.0 ---- 16.1 ---- 3.8 -----481 ----- .549 ---- 112 ---- 100 -----.188 ---- 24.1
Malone---- '90-'98 ---- 35.5 ---- 14.9 ---- 4.2 ---- .466 ----.532 ---- 109 ---- 103 -----.168 ---- 23.2

Both players have reputations of performing below their normal standards in the playoffs and by looking at the stats you can clearly see why. Malone's has the greater drop-off in efficiency and D-Rob has the bigger drop-off in points. Overall in the playoffs Robinson wins in all categories except assists (0.4 difference) and scoring with Malone's 4ppg lead coming on noticeably less efficiency, not enough imo to make up for the defensive and rebounding advantages that D-Rob enjoys.

[RayBan-Sematra]

So is Kobe is the first player yet to lose in multiple run-offs? Interesting.

No. Shaq lost in run-offs to both Wilt & Duncan.

[BallerTed]

So is Kobe is the first player yet to lose in multiple run-offs? Interesting.

No. Shaq lost in run-offs to both Wilt & Duncan.

Ok, gotcha.

[drza]

David Robinson vs Karl Malone

I don't know if I'll be able to get to all of the contemporary 1-on-1 matchups I mentioned, but here is part 2. Earlier I did Dirk vs Kobe, and they essentially fought each other to a draw. Now I want to look closer at the Admiral vs the Mailman.

Background thoughts

Spoiler:

My evaluations of these two have evolved over time. Live action, there was no question to me that Robinson was better. I've said it before, but Robinson was one of the most electric players that I've ever seen. I remember when he was at Navy, watching him burst onto the national scene in that tournament run was kind of like how Barry Sanders came out of nowhere at Oklahoma State in football. I was planning to see the greatness of Danny Manning (or Aikman/Peete in football), and instead this phenom exploded all over the place and stole the show. I impatiently waited for Robinson to serve his Naval duties, and when the time came for him to make his NBA debut I was watching avidly. And he didn't disappoint, building even upon the promise he showed in college to quickly become one of the best players in the NBA. He came in right as the best of my childhood (Magic and Bird) were on the way out, and it wasn't long before Jordan was leaving as well to go swing at baseballs. I was sure that it wouldn't be long before Robinson was the acknowledged best in the NBA.

On the flip side, Malone had been in the NBA pretty almost as long as I could remember. I was watching the NBA before he came in, but I was really young and I really wasn't paying attention to Utah at that time. By the time I started, Stockton and Malone were already becoming household names. I always knew they were good, but neither one of them ever struck me as the best. I thought that Barkley was better than Malone in general (even though when they matched up 1-on-1 it seemed like Malone was just too big for him), and there was just never a time through the 80s and into the early 90s when I saw Malone on that level.

By the mid-90s I was in college and not watching the NBA as closely. Maybe that's part of why my opinions of these two didn't evolve that much even as Malone started having more success. I remember being stunned at how badly Hakeem outplayed Robinson in that fateful series. I remember how meh I felt when the Jazz and Bulls faced off back-to-back (I was never a fan of either squad, and wanted them both to lose). Actually, I was pretty bummed that the Rockets weren't the ones making the FInals from the West because I really wanted to see old Hakeem/Barkley against Jordan and Pip. But no, the daggone Jazz had to get in the way. I think the biggest disappointment was that I was positive that the Jazz couldn't beat the Bulls, because I was sure that Malone didn't have that extra gear. I thought Hakeem and/or Chuck might be able to find something inside, but I never believed that Malone would. And when they made it close, only to have Jordan strip Malone and then immortalize Byron Russell that just put the taste of ashes in my mouth.

Anyway, by the time we did the RPoY project in 2010, I still had Robinson as the better of the two in my mind. I thought that his legacy had been overly tarnished by that one series against Hakeem, and that by going through year-by-year as we were it would be clear that Robinson was a beast. Instead, a poster named Kaima brought up the 1994 and 1996 playoffs (in addition to the expected 1995 Hakeem match-up) in which Robinson really didn't look good against Malone and the Jazz. He shifted the argument from "Robinson just got outplayed by a transcendant Hakeem" to "Robinson consistently got outplayed in the postseason" to "Robinson just wasn't a good postseason performer". At the time I wasn't expecting that line or argument, and in going year-by-year and playoff series by playoff series, the argument that the Admiral couldn't perform in the postseason sounded plausible.

Then, the next year we did the 2011 Top 100 and by then it was accepted dogma among many of the voters that Robinson's offensive style simply wasn't suited for the postseaosn. That his offense took too much advantage of fast breaks and face-up opportunities that weren't there in the postseason, and thus that he could never be a championship team's #1 option. Meanwhile, ElGee also led the charge for Malone, pointing out his ridiculous longevity and arguing that his playoff downfalls weren't as bad as advertised. Before I knew it, Malone was voted in at #12, a full 10 spots before Robinson.

But it's never really set well with me. I keep finding myself re-considering the evidence and arguments made in those projects. And the more I look, the more hollow they seem. So today I want to start over with a clean slate and see what conclusions my analysis leads to.

Longevity

Spoiler:

The absolute first thing that has to be mentioned in a Malone vs. Robinson comparison, even before we get to the numbers, is the difference in prime longevity. Malone is the iron man of NBA history, never really missing a game over 20 years and with a graceful decline in his box score numbers. As I pointed out when I first posted the 10-year prime box score data (seen below for Malone and Robinson), Malone has about four more seasons at this exact same level while I had to add an extra year (to make up for the missed '97) and include some years when Robinson was "playing 2nd fiddle" to Duncan in order for the Admiral to get his 10 year prime. And even in one of those seasons (1992), Robinson got hurt and missed the playoffs. When looked at that way, the longevity gap seems insurmountable. And maybe it is. But.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Robinson was actually significantly better than Malone. Suppose, in fact, that Robinson at his best was as good as Larry Bird. If Robinson were that good, would longevity still be an obstacle that couldn't be overcome? Seemingly not, right, since Bird was voted in at #10 and longevity king Malone is still waiting on the call. So before go any further, let's stop for a moment and compare Robinson's longevity to Bird's.

Bird: 9 prime years from 1980 - 1988, one full missed season (1989), 2 lesser but productive seasons (1990 and 91) and a final season when his body broke down and he couldn't finish the season.

Robinson: 7 prime years from 1990 - 1996, one full missed season (1997), four more "side kick" seasons (1998 - 2001), one productive but lesser season where his body broke down and he couldn't finish the season (2002) and a final season in which he was physically limited but still a strong role player in limited minutes.

Is there really a difference there? The key, for me, is how to characterize those 1998 - 2001 years for Robinson. Because he was only playing 32 mpg over that stretch and Duncan was acknowledged as the star, most (including me) considered these to be post-prime years for Robinson. But while we're here, let's compare Robinson's 1998 - 2001 stretch to the late prime of one player that's already been voted in, and to the early prime of Bird himself:

Regular Season
1998 - 2001 Robinson: 32 mpg, 17.5 ppg (57% TS), 9.7 rpg, 2 apg, 2.1 TO; 25.3 PER, 47 WS
2005 - 2008 Duncan: 34 mpg, 19.5 ppg (55% TS), 11 rpg, 3 apg, 2.4 TO, 25 PER, 46.2 WS
1980 - 1983 Bird: 38 mpg, 22.2 ppg (55% TS), 10.8 rpg, 5.4 apg, 3.3 TO, 21.7 PER, 48.4 WS

Playoffs
1998 - 2001 Robinson: 35 mpg, 17.4 ppg (53% TS), 11.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 2.3 TO, 24 PER, 6.9 WS (43 games)
2005 - 2008 Duncan: 38 mpg, 22.4 ppg (54% TS), 12.3 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.7 TO, 25.8 PER, 11.1 WS (73 games)
1980 - 1983 Bird: 42 mpg, 20.5 ppg (51% TS), 12.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 3.5 TO, 19.9 PER, 6.4 WS (44 games)

Now, the point of this isn't to make this a Robinson vs Duncan or Bird thread. But just take a look at those statlines again. Robinson was only playing a few minutes less than Duncan, and outside of scoring volume (Duncan by a bit) he was contributing very similarly in the box scores in both regular and postseason to Duncan during years universally included in his prime. Bird was playing much heavier minutes than Robinson, and was also the player most helped by pace here (for example, Robinson's rebound rate is higher despite Bird's higher raw boards due to pace). But even with that, Robinson had almost as many win shares (used as a cumulative catch-all stat, as opposed to a rate one) as Bird in the regular season and more in the playoffs with a much higher PER and WS/48. Again, these are years universally included in Bird's "productive prime" years tallies.

Plus, because we have RAPM studies starting in 1998, we know that Robinson's RAPM from 1998 - 2000 (using Doc MJ's normalized PI RAPM method) was +7.4, +8.9, and +8.3 (with a heavy defensive influence, notching DRAPM's that match the best that we ever saw from Duncan in his career). Those overall RAPMs in the ~8.2 range couldn't quite keep up with the best-of-the-best in the study, but they were right there on average with the average of the highest three career RAPM scores of Nash (+8.2 3-year average) or Kobe (+8.0) and just below 2005 - 08 Duncan (4-year average 9.3 RAPM). Robinson wasn't playing as many minutes as any of them, so they would have had higher volume impacts on game than these years of Robinson, but the point is that Robinson appeared to be still having huge impact on games from 98 - 2001 according to both the box scores AND the +/- data.

Thus, if we return to our Bird longevity comparison, I now see it:

Bird: 9 prime years from 1980 - 1988, one full missed season (1989), 2 lesser but productive seasons (1990 and 91) and a final season when his body broke down and he couldn't finish the season

Robinson: 7 prime years from 1990 - 1996, one full missed season (1997), four more almost prime seasons on the order of 1980 - 1983 Bird (1998 - 2001), one lesser but productive season when his body broke down and he couldn't finish the season (2002) and a final season in which he was physically limited but still a strong role player.

Suddenly, Robinson's longevity looks EXACTLY like Bird's to me. And if Bird's career length is the gate-keeper for being ranked this high, suddenly Robinson is eligible. If his prime is strong enough. So let's get away from quantity, and look at quality.

Who's best at their best?
Box Score Statistics

Spoiler:

Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 14.5 reb, 5 ast, 4 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 15.9 reb, 4 ast, 3.9 TO

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 15 reb, 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 16.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO

One thing that jumps out at me when I look at these numbers is that Robinson was a MUCH better player than Malone, both regular season and post-season. The numbers itself don't tell me that, of course. Numerically, you'd be hard pressed to find any space at all between the general box score stats displayed above. But that, of course, is the problem (for Malone). Because if he couldn't create any space between he and Robinson with his offense, then of course he's going to get left behind because Robinson smokes him on defense. Malone was a rugged post defender who earned an air of intimidation with his hatchet man tendencies. And ironically, he limited Robinson in the 1994 postseason with those same strong 1-on-1 defensive skills. But Robinson is one of the best team defenders that ever lived, a true defensive anchor. And more and more I've come to appreciate that the game isn't neatly broken down into a box score battle with a small tie-breaker for defense and everything else. No, an elite defender can have defensive impact that rivals the best offensive impacts. And Robinson was definitely that.

Available +/- data

Spoiler:

Obviously, since the first available play-by-play data doesn't start till '97, we missed the majority of both players' primes. However, '98 is widely considered by many (including Malone) as potentially his peak season and he was the MVP in '99. Thus, I think it's reasonable to see what types of impacts he was having in those seasons. We've already touched briefly on Robinson's available +/- results, but I'd like to put them in some context as well.

Malone
98: 9.0 (+8.8 ORAPM; 0.2 DRAPM)
99: 5.8 (+6.4 ORAPM; -.6 DRAPM)
00: 5.5 (+6.9 ORAPM; -1.4 DRAPM)

Robinson
98:7.4 (+1.2 ORAPM; +6.2 DRAPM)
99: 8.9 (+2.3 ORAPM; +6.6 DRAPM)
00: 8.3 (+2.7 ORAPM; +5.6 DRAPM)

For those that don't know, this data came from Doc MJ's normalized PI RAPM spreadsheet from 1998 - 2012. I only did 1998 - 2000 for both players, because we don't have +/- data in 2001 and only partial for 2002, and by 2003 both were on their last legs. I found these numbers revealing for a few reasons. Malone's value in these years was almost all offense, while Robinson's value was primarily defense. Here are a few thoughts that come to mind:

1) Malone's offense aged gracefully. There's been some speculation that Malone may have made a mistake later in his career by continuing to play the same offensive role for the Jazz as his physical tools eroded. I've seen this idea put forth by (I believe) Doc MJ, and I know that Ronnie Mac addressed this potential concern in one of his big Malone posts. However, when we break the RAPM numbers into offensive and defensive components, it doesn't appear at all that Malone's offense was struggling by the turn of the century. He was still putting up offensive numbers over 6, which compare very favorably with the best career ORAPM numbers that we saw from Dirk, KG or Duncan.

2) Robinson's defense was elite till the end. Robinson obviously became the subordinate to Tim Duncan in an overall sense, but defensively Robinson appears to be the anchor through at least 2000. Robinson's average DRAPM from 98 - 2000 (+6.1) was almost double the DRAPM of young Duncan (+3.2). Duncan's impact on those teams was bigger due to offense and minutes played, and his impact grew over time while Robinson's waned, but defensively in the first few years of their union Robinson was the man. Plus, Robinson maintained a DRAPM up around +6 all the way until he retired in 2003, indicating that even as his body broke down and limited his minutes, he was still a defensive beast for every moment that he could spend on the court.

3) Mailman's defensive impact was surprisingly low. Or maybe it wasn't. Malone's rep is as a strong 1-on-1 post defender, not as a team anchor. However, one theme we see repeatedly is that team defenders make a much bigger mark than individual defenders. Malone's DRAPM scores here look remarkably like Kobe's DRAPM scores during the parts of his career when he was gaining recognition for his 1-on-1 defense.

We have to be careful about extrapolating the conclusions from this RAPM info over their entire careers, because again this is just three years near the end for each. However, as mentioned, these were three years where both were still having star impact and I think we can do some qualitative projections backwards. Namely:

1) I believe that these years represented Malone's offensive peak (or at least the end of it). Early Malone put up better scoring numbers, but he was almost purely a finisher. Late Malone was a better passer and much better initiator, plus he had a better mid-range game. These are all things that generally lead to better offensive impact.

2) I believe that these years represented Robinson's defensive peak as well (as far as measurable impact). Robinson, in the Duncan years, played a similar role to Garnett after the championship year in Boston. At this point in their careers, both were focusing more on their defense and ceding more offensive responsibility to teammates. It is to both of their immense credits that they could maintain overall impacts just a step down from the elite (+ 8 range) primarily with defense, because it indicates the versatility of their impact. But, like Garnett, this also means that during the years when Robinson was having to carry both the offense and defense his DRAPM scores likely weren't quite as high.

Playoffs

Spoiler:

I'll finish off with a discussion on Malone and Robinson in the playoffs, as this is the big criticism that both face. As has been pointed out many times, both saw a drop in both volume and scoring efficiency in the postseason when compared to their regular season numbers (Malone -1.8 pts, -6.4% across 10-years displayed here, Robinson -3.3 points and -4.2% TS drop).

ElGee and AcrossTheCourt have done a lot of great work normalizing their production in the face of defensive quality. ElGee that both Robinson and Malone did a lot of feasting on poor defenses in the regular season, that their scoring (volume and efficiency) dropped quite a bit in either the regular season against good defenses or the postseason against "bad" defenses, and that they dropped the most in the postseason against good defenses. It appears that Malone's drops may have been larger than Robinson's.

The resulting narrative is that both Robinson and Malone have offensive styles too predicated on things like easy buckets, face-up mismatches and/or getting set up by teammates that are more limited by good defenses than other offensive skills. Thus, that it isn't a fluke that their scoring was attenuated, that it was a result of the flaws in their games that could only be exposed in the crucible of the post-season.

I'm on record in this project (and really, for awhile now) as believing that scoring efficiency is (way) over-used as a mechanism for determining individual offensive contributions. The fact that all of the most commonly referenced individual box score metrics (PER, win shares, offensive rating, TS%) all are strongly dependent on scoring efficiency tends to, IMO, cause us to double- and triple- count scoring efficiency either for or against players to the degree that it skews the results. This is especially true for players that have large parts of their impacts in areas besides scoring (e.g. Larry Bird' or Garnett).

This thought process makes me want to give Robinson the benefit of the doubt, because his all-world defense might not be fully captured by postseason box score stats. If that's true, and he's still having mega impact on games when his scoring was off due to his defense then I would be inclined not to be as worried by his scoring drop. However, this leniency is tempered because his three peak playoffs (1994 - 96) all ended with him out-right losing a perceived 1-on-1 match-up against a similar caliber big man on teams that seemingly were well-matched. Plus, unlike Bird or Garnett, Robinson didn't have the offense initiation/distribution skills to have a positive team impact on offense when his shot was off. So he would really need to demonstrate a strong team defensive trend in the postseason for me to feel comfortable overlooking the scoring issues, and I haven't had the time to do any type of team defensive analysis for Robinson's Spurs. I'd love to see a breakdown of the Spurs' playoff opponents' regular season/expected offensive ratings vs. their actual offensive ratings against Robinson's 90 - 96 Spurs defenses. If anyone has the time to do that, I'd be appreciative.

With Malone, on the other hand, I have a really hard time seeing how his drop-off in scoring shouldn't be a big deal. Not only is scoring his primary role, but we saw in the 98 - 2000 RAPM data that at (what I consider to be) his peak his value was almost ENTIRELY on offense. His defense, though solid 1-on-1, didn't seem to move the needle much on a team level. Older Malone was a better passer than young Malone, so perhaps later in his career he was able to help mitigate the scoring a bit by setting up teammates. But on the whole, it seems hard to credit Malone with much non-scoring impact and thus the more than 6% drop in TS% could be significant. But he has the opposite caveat as Robinson, because my perception is that in 94 and 96 his individual defense DID have an impact on how Robinson played and thus the results of the series. So, just like with Robinson, if a more thorough examination of the Jazz's defensive results through the years suggests a previously unexpected strength and that strength can be traced to Malone, then that might change how I see him in the postseason for the better.

Bottom line

Robinson and Malone are two of the best big men left on the board. Malone was an awesome offensive threat in the regular season for a lot of years, and a still strong presence in the postseason. His 1-on-1 defense was rugged, but at least late in his career did not appear to be moving the needle as much as I'd have thought in terms of defensive impact. Robinson was an awesome 2-way threat early in his career in the regular season, and a ridiculous defensive player who was strong as a secondary scorer in both the regular and postseason at the end of his career.

Karl Malone played forever at a really high level. But I tend to feel that Robinson was the better player during his prime, and upon further examination I'm seeing that productive prime stretch for Robinson at closer to 10 years than the 6.5 I previously credited him with. In theory, Robinson should have also been a better postseason performer than Malone because his defense should translate better, but I'd like to look into that further before finalizing that conclusion.

On the whole, at the moment, I'm leaning Robinson over Malone (just like I had them pre- RPoY project). But, just like with those projects, I'm still willing to listen and learn and could be talked into changing my mind.

[Clyde Frazier]

Moses

Any reason you're choosing not to vote?

[Baller2014]

I'm a huge Spurs fan, and I love D.Rob to death, and find Karl Malone to be an awful human being. That said, Karl Malone's longevity advantage is just too large for D.Rob to be fairly ranked over him. Even some of D.Rob's "sidekick" years are pretty dubious. I have seen a lot of people credit him for helping the Spurs take down the Lakers and win the 99 title. In the 99 playoff series v.s the Lakers D.Rob was averaging 13-6 in 28mpg. Pretty bad looking for a sidekick. He was the 3rd best player on those teams, even behind young Kobe. It was Duncan's huge impact that led to the title that year, not D.Rob.

Now peak to peak D.Rob is one of the highest remaining guys, right up there with Walton and Dr J.

[Jim Naismith]

Moses

Any reason you're choosing not to vote?

I'm not sure if I have the time (and knowledge) to read all the posts.

[shutupandjam]

Who's best at their best?
Box Score Statistics

Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 14.5 reb, 5 ast, 4 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 15.9 reb, 4 ast, 3.9 TO

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 15 reb, 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 16.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO

Curious why you're leaving out blocks and steals, Robinson's primary advantages in the box score...

[Clyde Frazier]

Oscar has already been voted in, and I know we don't have a ton of information on him defensively, but I don't see how claiming he only had a "slight defensive lead" over nash is accurate. The suns defensively were merely average to slightly below average during nash's prime, but he's always been a weak defender. I don't think there's any question about that.

Oscar's teams were consistently among the worst defensively of that era. Nash's teams were average defensively during his peak years (05-07)

They were slightly below average for 2 of those 3 seasons (team DRTG rank below):

05 -- 17th
06 -- 16th
07 -- 13th

As for oscar, when there are 8-10 teams in the NBA for the majority of his tenure in cinci as opposed to 30, ranking below average is far less significant. The drastic difference in sample size should be noted. Not to mention the fact that very few perimeter players can impact an overall team's ability defensively.

[shutupandjam]

David Robinson is by all accounts one of the best defensive players in league history. With his combination of elite rim protection and elite big man quickness that enabled him to cover ground as well as anyone, he has a legitimate argument for top 2 ever imo. He was also clearly a great offensive big - way above average at the very least. Given that, where do the remaining players make up the difference?

If it's longevity we're worried about, why was Bird voted in? Or do we believe he has a large peak advantage on Robinson (and if so where)? Robinson has 12 quality years - he didn't score a lot in the later years, but he was still very productive, particularly on defense, and played the role he was asked to play (i.e., he took a backseat in scoring to the guy who's number 5 on this list) in order to achieve greater team success.

Regarding Robinson's playoff struggles, which I think we've established are overblown, how much of this can we attribute to a) coaching, and b) teammates. He didn't have great coaching during his absolute peak - was Bob Hill unable to properly adjust during the playoffs? His teammates were poor for his entire career before Duncan (something that Robinson seems to get less of a pass for than guys like Hakeem and Garnett). How much did this enable other teams to zero in on him during the playoffs without sacrificing his production elsewhere?

[therealbig3]

I'm sticking with Karl Malone. I really can't say that he's a better player than Dirk or Kobe at their best, because he's really not...I see a clear separation offensively, even if Malone holds the defensive advantage.

However, you can't argue with not just the longevity, but the durability as well.

Dirk has an 11-year prime (01-11), and then 2 years where he's still a star, but not on the same level he was during his prime (12 and 14). So that's 13 years of being a very relevant player imo.

Kobe has a 10-year prime (01-10), and then 5 years where he's still a star, but not on the same level he was during his prime (99, 00, 11-13). So that's 15 years of being a very relevant player imo.

Malone has an 11-year prime (88-98), and then 6 years where he's still a star, but not on the same level he was during his prime (87, 99-03). So that's 17 years of being a very relevant player imo.

And personally, I don't really give Kobe much credit for 13, since he completely missed the playoffs.

Vote: Karl Malone

[Jim Naismith]

I think Moses is great and the 3 time mvp to me supports my belief that he probably has best 5-6 year stretch.

I think to pick moses I need to be convinced that he was close to Karl and Kobe in their 6-12 best years

I think of Moses as a forerunner of Shaq in several respects. Perhaps Shaq at a 15% discount.

They have great 5-6 year peaks. They have over 10 years of prime. It might not have been as consistent as Karl Malone, but they were still very good. (Shaq was on the All-NBA 1st or 2nd team 10 times, Moses was 8 times.)

They're known for their unstoppable offense and sometimes faulted for their defense. Yet both were good defenders in their peak (and were on the All-NBA Defensive Team).

Much regard for Shaq comes from his peak physical dominance.

I believe Moses is worthy of a similar regard.

[90sAllDecade]

Honestly these David Robinson arguments are moving the needle for me.

I know DRob has the better peak, but if someone would like to breakdown if the gap is huge or smaller in comparison I'd appreciate it. Or even if Karl had a better peak.

I hold peak and longevity equally and of course I'm a big individual two way impact person, particularly defense at the interior positions.

Another thing for DRob advocates, I think approaching him like others did successfully for Garnett would help.

His offense got worse in the playoffs, but if folks could prove his defense got better postseason it would help him imo.