RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #16

[dontcalltimeout]

Ok, simple-ish exercise comparing Dirk and D-Rob. Since we have RAPM for every year of Dirk's career, we can estimate his total career value to this point. We also have part of Robinson's career and what I want to get at is a guess at how strong his pre-RAPM years have to be to outweigh Dirk's longevity. I'm going to do VORP and Wins Added, because it's pretty easy to do using minutes played (the same way B-R calculates it). The ideal thing here would be to do something like Elgee's championship odds, but I'm not as familiar with that. Either way, it's an estimate.

Here's what Dirk looks like, using the late 90s RAPM, and JE's multiyear RAPM (01 is single year):



Here's D-Rob with the RAPM data we have. 97 and 01 are single year, no prior.



I used goal seek in excel to get at what RAPM D-Rob would need from 90 - 96 to have comparable career wins value to Dirk. Here's the comparison:



So to have a comparable amount of wins added, D-Rob's prime have to have an average "RAPM" of +9.9.

Obviously, this isn't a perfect analysis or anything, but it does show that Dirk's longevity advantage is sizable and he's no slouch in RAPM either. Anyway, I know D-Rob's prime is considered very strong by many, including the limited +/- data that we have. But in this analysis D-Rob would have to be on the level of LeBron's best RAPM scores to make up the longevity. Anyone have thoughts?

[Dr Positivity]

I feel a lot of people are just voting on perception of where a player should be. IMO Drza has presented some compelling evidence of the impact of Dr. J and even Kareem for that matter which makes a lot of sense. People seem to be voting guys like Dr J because they feel that is where they should be. How many have truly extensively broken down his game to see if he was in fact a better, more impactful player then a guy like Dirk or DRob?

The Sixers +/- numbers are an interesting find and may be a gateway to discussion about Erving, and I'm interested to know just how good a passer and defender he was. But for me personally I don't use raw +/- as meaningful on their own, and that includes with or without you numbers used in this project as well. I just don't think raw +/-has proven to be reliable enough in modern analysis, there's a reason RAPM had to be created as an alternative. Erving's worse numbers could be reflective of lower impact, but it could also be not his fault. For example the 2nd best Sixer of pre Moses era is probably Bobby Jones who screams that he was this critical glue guy to the Sixers working, and he came off the bench from 1980 on. How much Erving played with Jones or whether they were staggered likely had an impact on +/-. Imagine if Draymond came off the bench and how that would affect some other Warriors +/-, or Durant if he was staggered with him. In 82 Jones started and Erving is +10 that year in Pollack's numbers. Then there's the late 70s where you had this team full of star talents that didn't fit together and particularly Erving and McGinnis, it wouldn't surprise me if taking Erving off allowed other stars like McGinnis to feel more like themselves hence deflating his +/-. The other concern is that we don't even have peak Erving's +/- so completely counting out his impact as being on the level of a Dirk seems half unfair. Overall I feel Erving's success level in ABA and NBA with the talent he had passes the sniff test. Looking at his rosters from 80-82 when his team averaged 60 Ws and made the Finals twice with Jones, Cheeks, Dawkins, etc. core it doesn't suggest he's lacking impact to me, and that's before considering ABA

[Senior]

Something that stuck out to me when watching the 80-82 Sixers was that although they were a deep, talented team, their team offenses weren't particularly stellar. They were 13th, 8th, and 5th from 80-82 respectively and Toney seems to be the guy who can consistently make things happen in the HC. Philly's offense struggled in the HC against elite defenses such as 81 Boston (didn't make an FG for 4.5 mins in 4th quarter Game 7) and 82 LA's trap in the Finals gave them problems. J seemed to be a step down from your typical all-time wing in ballhandling, shooting, and creating in the HC. His AST/TO ratio looks more like an elite center's instead of an elite wing. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it lends credence to the idea that J was more of a finisher instead of a creator, and he's not really ruining defenses like Dirk is with his shooting.

Philly's defenses were always strong if a bit weak on the rebounding side (fantastic defensive personnel, long athletes everywhere) although I felt like J was a stronger help defender instead of man. They got weaker defensively when they added Moses but he was an excellent fit for that team because Philly's strong perimeter D was able to protect him and his rebounding fixed their one major weakness. Still, not sure how much of that team defense is J vs the others. He always put in effort, had great length, anticipation (plus he was one of the most devastating transition players ever so if he got a steal it was deuces)...I'd definitely take him as a defensive player over Dirk.

Dirk vs D-Rob's longevity seems to be the deciding factor, and despite all of my issues with his playoff performances (which can overrate his RS +/-s significantly) his longevity isn't a dealbreaker for me. Dirk has something like 01-11 which is 11 years and D-Rob has 90-96 + 98-99. Despite adding Tim to the Spurs it is clear that D-Rob still has significant impact, even if he's being protected from having to carry his team like he used to. Considering the lower than expected +/-s Dirk showed early in his career, it's certainly not impossible for D-Rob to close the gap in total impact so to speak. Up to 01 he's a top 5 defensive player in the league. Still, it's hard for me to ignore D-Rob's performances falling off in the playoffs and Dirk's going the opposite direction; even with the weaknesses of pre-08 Dirk he's still maintaining his strengths well and in those 08-11 years the only thing holding him back were his team defenses. Once the Mavs fixed that it was all over.

[Outside]

I feel a lot of people are just voting on perception of where a player should be. IMO Drza has presented some compelling evidence of the impact of Dr. J and even Kareem for that matter which makes a lot of sense. People seem to be voting guys like Dr J because they feel that is where they should be. How many have truly extensively broken down his game to see if he was in fact a better, more impactful player then a guy like Dirk or DRob?

The Sixers +/- numbers are an interesting find and may be a gateway to discussion about Erving, and I'm interested to know just how good a passer and defender he was. But for me personally I don't use raw +/- as meaningful on their own, and that includes with or without you numbers used in this project as well. I just don't think raw +/-has proven to be reliable enough in modern analysis, there's a reason RAPM had to be created as an alternative. Erving's worse numbers could be reflective of lower impact, but it could also be not his fault. For example the 2nd best Sixer of pre Moses era is probably Bobby Jones who screams that he was this critical glue guy to the Sixers working, and he came off the bench from 1980 on. How much Erving played with Jones or whether they were staggered likely had an impact on +/-. Imagine if Draymond came off the bench and how that would affect some other Warriors +/-, or Durant if he was staggered with him. In 82 Jones started and Erving is +10 that year in Pollack's numbers. Then there's the late 70s where you had this team full of star talents that didn't fit together and particularly Erving and McGinnis, it wouldn't surprise me if taking Erving off allowed other stars like McGinnis to feel more like themselves hence deflating his +/-. The other concern is that we don't even have peak Erving's +/- so completely counting out his impact as being on the level of a Dirk seems half unfair. Overall I feel Erving's success level in ABA and NBA with the talent he had passes the sniff test. Looking at his rosters from 80-82 when his team averaged 60 Ws and made the Finals twice with Jones, Cheeks, Dawkins, etc. core it doesn't suggest he's lacking impact to me, and that's before considering ABA

This concerns me as well. I've been skeptical of on/off +/- because of so many variables, such as whether to off numbers are skewed because the bench was so bad or the on numbers are skewed because of another player or the coach.

With incomplete information, it's really hard for me to put much into the on/off numbers presented for Erving, especially because they don't gibe with what I recall about his play. When you have teammates like George McGinnis and World B. Free, how much do they affect the assessment of Erving's impact?

On the other hand, the impression I have of Philly during Erving's years is unrealized potential. They were the superteam of their day, yet they only won one title. I put some of the blame for that on Billy Cunningham, who I never thought was a very good coach -- he relied too much on his players' individual ability rather than a cohesive team system, and that worked well enough in the RS but didn't cut it in the PS.

I'm left with the feeling that Erving was a great player who had the misfortune of being on the Sixers instead of the Celtics or Lakers. Erving, Maurice Cheeks, Bobby Jones, and (for his short tenure in Philly) Moses are the guys I respected. Doug Collins could've been a part of that, but injury derailed his career. Cunningham ran them more like a playground squad than a championship machine.

[Outside]

Vote: Moses Malone
Alternate: Julius Erving

Others have done a better job on presenting their stats, but Moses stands out to me here based on excellent longevity -- 21 years, 18 of which he had excellent or very good production. Three MVPs puts him in very select company.

Restricted on time, will post more later if I can.

[2klegend]

Wow looks like I been away for a bit and some random surprised like Oscar/West got ahead. I'm fine with those two but they are a bit overrated.

For this #16, it's between D-Rob and Dirk. D-Rob had a stronger peak and prime than Dirk, especially in the regular season. D-rob is a much better defensive player, top 5 in GOAT level defender while Dirk is not even top 5 in GOAT offensive player. But Dirk was very good in his own right.

D-Rob may be the 2nd best ever to carry his team, only behind Lebron. He is a floor raiser and perhaps the GOAT at it. That got to mean something when we discuss a guy who is so good at being a floor raiser that realistically, from my formula, he would be at #14. But #16 is acceptable too if people think his playoff woe prevent him from being Top 15. Like I said, D-Rob is a better player than Oscar/West and I wouldn't hesitated to draft him over those two. Neither of those two guys really accomplish more than D-Rob in their career anyway.

1st Pick: D-Rob
2nd Pick: Dirk

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: David Robinson
Alt: Dirk Nowitzki

So, I feel a bit sheepish for dropping Dirk again. My esteem of Dirk honestly keeps rising the more I analyze him, but not everyone else is sinking.

The Admiral ain't sinking.

I think that I, like most people, have been penalizing Robinson to some degree out of being "punked". By Hakeem, by Shaq, and really, by Duncan as well. Analyses of Robinson tend to focus a lot on those who topped him, and while that doesn't sound unreasonable, the reality is that Robinson's "un-Jordanian" attributes took place in high profile, memorable ways.

But no one we're discussing right now is up there with Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan.

Take away those moments and the only way to really knock him against his actual legacy rivalries is for longevity, but then as others have shown in this thread, Robinson is so, so good by all our statistical standards that you can argue even if you don't prioritize prime impact you can argue Robinson deserves the nod.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention how much my opinion of Robinson's change of role with the arrival of Duncan has changed. Now, when I talk about Robinson getting knocked for this end to his career many may object. In their mind they are impressed with it, but just not as impressed as they'd be if Robinson had still been the team's first scoring option. And to be honest, while I'd prefer better longevity of course, I don't think I could be more impressed with Robinson's play and action those first couple years with Duncan.

First thing to note is that +/- stats tell us that Robinson was actually the more valuable player on their first championship team.

Second thing to note is that that actually makes a ton of sense given what we now understand of where big man impact comes from. For both Robinson and Duncan, their largest impact came on defense, and early on, Robinson was unquestionably the defensive alpha in addition to being about the best mentor you could ever have in any context.

Third thing is to remember on top of that is that it allowed Duncan to develop more easily making use of his existing habits which would also be central to what his franchise role would be. Most stars wouldn't do that for a rookie, and their franchise is hurt by it.

So yeah, apologies to Dirk, but I can't justify picking anyone other than Robinson right now.

Last note: Dr. J.

drza and are in remarkably analogous places with regards to Julius. We love him, we named ourselves in part because of him, but the more we analyze him, he doesn't seem quite as good as he looks. Don't get me wrong, he's great. He's someone I would vote in soon, but he's slipped some in my mind and it's given me pause for thought (apologies for the pretense, I'll keep my bloviation succinct). Ahem...

What is the relationship between beauty and impact in sports?

A) Nothing, two different things.

B) Beauty facilitates optimality. A fluid elegance more impactful than rigid proficiency.

C) Beauty biases perception. We overestimate the impact of that which capture's our gaze.

I think all of these happen in sports depending on the precise nature of the beauty in question, and they all happen in basketball.

The more I analyze the game, as much as I want to slot the Doctor primarily in B, the evidence is telling me it's C.

[Outside]

drza and are in remarkably analogous places with regards to Julius. We love him, we named ourselves in part because of him, but the more we analyze him, he doesn't seem quite as good as he looks. Don't get me wrong, he's great. He's someone I would vote in soon, but he's slipped some in my mind and it's given me pause for thought (apologies for the pretense, I'll keep my bloviation succinct). Ahem...

What is the relationship between beauty and impact in sports?

A) Nothing, two different things.

B) Beauty facilitates optimality. A fluid elegance more impactful than rigid proficiency.

C) Beauty biases perception. We overestimate the impact of that which capture's our gaze.

I think all of these happen in sports depending on the precise nature of the beauty in question, and they all happen in basketball.

The more I analyze the game, as much as I want to slot the Doctor primarily in B, the evidence is telling me it's C.

Fascinating observation. Thank you.

[rebirthoftheM]

Is there info available which separates Dr J.'s on/off in terms offense and defense?

[eminence]

Is there info available which separates Dr J.'s on/off in terms offense and defense?

From Lorak:

Thank you fpliii! Here's my take on several players based on the data you provided:

• Dr J

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1976-77   2940   4,1   -1,9   6,0
1977-78   2429   1,1   0,5   0,6
1978-79   2802   0,6   0,7   -0,1
1979-80   2812   0,9   -2,0   3,0
1980-81   2874   -0,5   6,2   -6,7
1981-82   2789   9,2   -0,8   10,0
1982-83   2421   7,2   -3,1   10,3
1983-84   2683   7,0   2,6   4,4
1984-85   2535   -1,3   1,9   -3,2
1985-86   2474   4,9   0,3   4,6
1986-87   1918   0,4   4,2   -3,8


I don’t like what I see here ;] Late 70s numbers might be explained by bad team fit or knees, but ’80 and – especially - ’81 (WTF happened here?) seasons also don’t look good. Around +10 net in his two best years is very good result, but is that enough to be considered top 15 player of all time?

Erving also doesn’t look that impressive on defense as I thought. Definitely wasn’t liability on that end of the floor, but also nothing special here (whathis STL and BLK numbers might suggest), he looks more like around average defender.

Overall I’m very disappointed with Doc’s numbers and I would have to reconsider my opinion about him and rank him lower.

• Barkley

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1984-85   2347   0,7   -1,2   1,9
1985-86   2952   8,2   -2,3   10,6
1986-87   2740   3,2   -4,7   7,9
1987-88   3170   4,2   1,4   2,7
1988-89   3088   10,6   -0,4   11,0
1989-90   3085   8,9   0,6   8,3
1990-91   2498   11,9   3,1   8,8
1991-92   2881   14,3   8,3   6,0
            
1993-94   2298   ?   ?   6,8
1994-95   2382   ?   ?   6,8
1995-96   2632   ?   ?   7,8
1996-97   2065   ?   ?   6,4
1997-98   2245   ?   ?   6,8
1998-99   1522   ?   ?   5,9
1999-00   620   ?   ?   0,5



(note: for the sake of consistency from ’97 to ’14 on/off net is calculated the same way as for seasons prior to ’97, so using team pace from basketball-reference, team and player minutes, team and opponents points and player raw +/-)

That’s basically whole Barkley’s career except of ’93 – what probably was his the best season, but I think not that much better than his peak in Phily.

What we see here is that at the beginning of his career Barkley had positive influence on defense. He regressed later, when was demotivated with bad team situation and gained weight. Injuries also are important factor here, especially in mid/early 90s.

Offensively it’s exactly what was expected: Sir Charles was amazing on that end of the floor, but most of his career he wasn’t that great overall player, because of his defense. I think talent was definitely there to consistently play at least ok defense, but his attitude was his biggest enemy. He and Shaq are IMO two the most wasted talents in last 30 years. With better work ethic O’Neal would have been arguably GOAT and Barkley easily top10 player ever.

• Bobby Jones

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1978-79   2304   0,7   -2,7   3,4
1979-80   2125   5,3   -3,1   8,4
1980-81   2046   3,8   -7,0   10,8
1981-82   2181   1,1   -3,1   4,2
1982-83   1749   9,7   -1,3   11,0
1983-84   1761   5,5   -2,1   7,6
1984-85   1633   8,4   -2,0   10,4
1985-86   1519   1,1   -2,7   3,8


I considered Jones as a little bit overrated player, but these numbers will definitely change may opinion about him. He basically looks like Manu, but with better balance between offense and defense. Really nothing bad I can tell here about Jones. Rosters and team strategy changed but his impact was still there on BOTH ends of the floor until very last season of his career. VERY impressive.

• Cheeks

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1978-79   2409   -3,1   -2,6   -0,5
1979-80   2623   -3,0   -6,8   3,8
1980-81   2415   1,0   -2,9   3,8
1981-82   2498   1,6   -4,5   6,1
1982-83   2465   2,9   -11,2   14,1
1983-84   2494   5,6   0,1   5,5
1984-85   2616   10,4   -3,6   14,1
1985-86   3270   13,8   -6,5   20,3
1986-87   2624   0,9   -1,7   2,6
1987-88   2871   0,5   2,0   -1,4
1988-89   2298   5,0   7,1   -2,1


You were thinking that Blaylock’s numbers were impressive? Then look at Cheeks’! Great defensive point guard who also was good (and sometimes VERY good) on offense. And his ’86 on/off net is one of the best results among all players with +/- data available. That’s basically peak KG or LeBron territory and seems like it wasn’a a fluke, because in ’85 or ’83 Cheeks’ net was also great.

• Caldwell Jones

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1976-77   2023   -7,9   -9,4   1,5
1977-78   1636   -2,6   -0,3   -2,3
1978-79   2171   -2,5   -5,8   3,3
1979-80   2771   -10,5   -5,4   -5,1
1980-81   2639   -9,8   -1,1   -8,7
1981-82   2446   -1,0   -1,8   0,8


Probably one of the worst offensive players ever and sometimes even his good/very good defense wasn’t enough to make him player with overall positive impact.

• Moses

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1982-83   2922   8,2   -7,4   15,6
1983-84   2613   10,4   7,1   3,3
1984-85   2957   18,8   -2,8   21,7
1985-86   2706   8,9   1,8   7,2
1993-94   618   -7,1   -2,1   -5,0


Very inconsistent results year by year, so I’m not sure what to think about them. But no doubt Moses was great on offense and his +18.8 ortg and net +21.7 in ’85 is GOAT level stuff. But defensively there’s a lot of noise. In one year he looks like all defensive level center, while very next one like the worst defender in the NBA. Any thoughts?

[2klegend]

Here is some comparison between D-Rob, Dirk, Barkley, Dr.J, and Mose on their best 7-years season (Reg) average in statistical categories of PER, TS, WS48, OBPM, DBPM.

Code: Select all

           7yrs Prime                    PER       TS       WS48     OBPM     DBPM
D-Rob      90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96    27.80     0.59     0.26     4.01     4.57
Dirk       02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 11    25.64     0.59     0.24     4.54     0.79
Barkley    87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93    26.59     0.64     0.24     7.43     1.63
Mose       79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85    24.16     0.58     0.20     3.33     (0.41)
Dr. J      77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83    23.17     0.56     0.20     4.09     1.97


So basically, in
PER
1. Drob
2. Barkley
3. Dirk
4. Mose
5. Dr. J

TS%
1. Barkley
2. D-Rob
3. Dirk
4. Mose
5. Dr. J

WS48
1. D-Rob
2. Dirk
3. Barkley
4. Mose
5. Dr. J

OBPM
1. Barkley
2. Dirk
3. Dr. J
4. D-Rob
5. Mose

DBPM
1. D-Rob
2. Dr.J
3. Barkley
4. Dirk
5. Mose

From this, we can tell D-Rob dominates the two most important stat in PER and WS48. He was very productive and his performance lead to his team having the best chance of winning (WS48). This validates to me that D-Rob is the best player among them if all were given equal chance and team throughout their career.

[eminence]

He was very productive and his performance lead to his team having the best chance of winning (WS48).

That's not necessarily what WS and WS/48 say though. They say he was very productive and his team did well, but not necessarily that his production is what caused them to do well. An example of the two (production/cause of success) not correlating might be Amare on the Suns. Not that I'm saying Robinson wasn't the primary driver of the Spurs, just that such a small difference between players in different situations in terms of box-score production measures doesn't really say all that much about him vs the other guys.

[andrewww]

Vote: Dirk Nowitzki
Alternate: David Robinson

DIrk is the most accomplished player of the serious candidates remaining, and was the best go-to scorer when it mattered. Admiral is in contention because he is the best two-way player remaining, though his dip in efficiency in the playoffs concerns me in this regard. Chuck was an offensive juggernaut, but questionable defensively. Again, Dr. J and Moses weren't as impactful imo. KD actually has the body of work to be in the discussion, and is a better version of Dirk imo. But currently Dirk trumps him in his overall body of work, but I see KD eventually surpassing a player whose game is comparable.

[oldschooled]

Here is some comparison between D-Rob, Dirk, Barkley, Dr.J, and Mose on their best 7-years season (Reg) average in statistical categories of PER, TS, WS48, OBPM, DBPM.

Code: Select all

           7yrs Prime                    PER       TS       WS48     OBPM     DBPM
D-Rob      90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96    27.80     0.59     0.26     4.01     4.57
Dirk       02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 11    25.64     0.59     0.24     4.54     0.79
Barkley    87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93    26.59     0.64     0.24     7.43     1.63
Mose       79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85    24.16     0.58     0.20     3.33     (0.41)
Dr. J      77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83    23.17     0.56     0.20     4.09     1.97


So basically, in
PER
1. Drob
2. Barkley
3. Dirk
4. Mose
5. Dr. J

TS%
1. Barkley
2. D-Rob
3. Dirk
4. Mose
5. Dr. J

WS48
1. D-Rob
2. Dirk
3. Barkley
4. Mose
5. Dr. J

OBPM
1. Barkley
2. Dirk
3. Dr. J
4. D-Rob
5. Mose

DBPM
1. D-Rob
2. Dr.J
3. Barkley
4. Dirk
5. Mose

From this, we can tell D-Rob dominates the two most important stat in PER and WS48. He was very productive and his performance lead to his team having the best chance of winning (WS48). This validates to me that D-Rob is the best player among them if all were given equal chance and team throughout their career.

Just look at Sir Charles in here. He performed well regular season and playoffs wise. He just played his prime years with that weak supporting cast and when finally given with great teammates showed he can carry that team to promised land. He just went against a brick wall Bulls team peaking at the right time.

[Dr Positivity]

Between Dirk and Robinson I lean pretty strongly towards Dirk as the longevity advantage looks hard to ignore, in addition to a more clutch playoff career. Robinson is a friendly advanced stats player but so is Dirk of course in both RAPM and boxscore. Robinson probably has higher regular season peak but being more valuable than Dirk in playoffs is in doubt

[trex_8063]

So, as for what I'm looking for in a push-back argument for J? Maybe something like an argument that he really was a dominant defensive player, with maybe evidence of playoff match-ups where he shut his guy down or a study showing that his team's defensive rating appears to be tied to him. Or, evidence that he was a more dominant playmaker. I know in the ABA he could put up solid assist numbers and lead his team...did he show that skill on any level in the NBA, or did that go away with the "bad fit" of the team? And speaking of the bad fit...maybe proof that he was able to modify his game to push his team towards elite in a tangible way that isn't immediately obvious. Something. Something besides just a list of his accolades, basic box score stuff, or broad-strokes descriptions of the positives of his skillset. I know the basics on him, and I can go to B-R for the other general info. Teach me something I don't know.

Well, there seems like a big defensive impact in the ABA at times, though there's a lot of mud in the water, too....

The '73 Nets were +3.2 rDRTG team (8th of 10), and went 30-54. In '74 they get Dr. J and improve to an elite -4.6 rDRTG (1st of 10) and 55-29 record (win title, too).
The mud in the water is that he wasn't the only roster shake-up. Really the only principle players consistent between the two teams were Billy Paultz at C, Bill Melchionni at PG, and SG (and defensive specialist) Brian Taylor. They lost Trooper Washington, leading scorer SG/SF George Carter, and C Jim Chones. They obtained Erving, but also got rookies Larry Kenon and Super John Williamson, and back-up C Willard Sojourner (few other minor changes, too). So it's hard to say how much he's responsible for that dramatic improvement.
They're an even better -5.8 rDRTG in '75.

In '76, they're still #1 defensively (though only -2.4 rDRTG), and this while Brian Taylor missed 30 games. That season does appear remarkable in that he leads the team [sometimes handily] in ppg, rpg, apg, spg, bpg, and *TS% (*for all players with at least 500 minutes played). Erving was their everything: primary scorer, playmaker, rebounder, and defensive anchor.......and that team won the ABA title.

I know this accomplishment is called into question based on the assumption that the ABA [and NBA] were watered down at this stage.

otoh, I'll use an argument similar to one that has been presented for Bill Russell when faced with the declaration that he fairly consistently had fantastic supporting casts......and it went something like this: "What would you expect a GOAT-level player to accomplish with good/great supporting casts? You'd expect him to dominate the league and win (or contend for) the title year after year......which is exactly what Russell did."
How a similar argument applies to Erving?: "What would you expect an all-time great player to do to a water-down league? You'd expect him to crush it to a degree rarely seen, and potentially even carry a mediocre cast to a title......which is exactly what Erving did in '76."


But I don't have a great answer for wrt his prime in the NBA. You've got me wavering on my 2nd vote here, enough so that I think I may switch it to Robinson (who does look amazing on all my studies, and I don't want to be guilty of deciding hairline choices based on where players "should be" [conventionally]).

[penbeast0]

...

It's only been recently that I've moved Cousy up this high; to third best PG ever. But after Magic & the Big "O", he had the most era-dominant career (as exemplified by his continual ALL-NBA 1st-Team selections). I used to have Stockton as GOAT #3 PG; but he had the misfortune to go year-by-year against Magic; so his ALL-NBA 1st-Team selections are few - if you can't dominate your own position during your career; I can't put you in my top 15; and can't put you ahead of the Houdini of the Hardwood.

I got to see both Cooz and Dr J LIVE a few times each.

I have Jerry West and Oscar Robertson in some order as the 2nd and 3rd best PGs ever. Cousy's poor playoff showings during the championship years and weak defense (called out by Red Auerbach on it) drop him below others for me.

I have Stockton, Frazier, Paul, Curry, and Nash in some order as the next five with Payton and Kidd over Cousy as well despite his offensive separation from his PG peers in the 50s.

[oldschooled]

In '76, they're still #1 defensively (though only -2.4 rDRTG), and this while Brian Taylor missed 30 games. That season does appear remarkable in that he leads the team [sometimes handily] in ppg, rpg, apg, spg, bpg, and *TS% (*for all players with at least 500 minutes played). Erving was their everything: primary scorer, playmaker, rebounder, and defensive anchor.......and that team won the ABA title.

I know this accomplishment is called into question based on the assumption that the ABA [and NBA] were watered down at this stage.

And this is why I'm having a hard time ranking Doc. His 76 season in the ABA can be argued the same breath as MJ's and Shaq's peak. Its just done in the time before the merger w/c most of the people are penalizing him because of the competition.

[janmagn]

Vote: George Mikan
2nd vote: Dirk Nowitzki

Mikan was the first real star the league saw. He dominated his peers, and was very effiecent scorer for his era and was a great rebounder. Without him there is no Hakeem, Kareem or Shaq

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[Joao Saraiva]

1st vote - Dirk Nowitzki

Some people say Dirk is only a great scorer. Quite honestly, I don't care if that's true. It's all about impact, and with his scoring and great shooting Dirk always made tremendous impact. His teams constantly won 50+ and worked really well on offense.

Also Dirk is a better rebounder than given credit for. And just like in every area of his game, he usually does it better when it counts the most, in the playoffs. That's also something special.

He was very efficient with his scoring and also had a very low TOV%. That makes him efficient. All the production he brings is a plus for his team.

I believe Dirk vs Kobe vs Bird is a great debate, and I'm voting for him last among the 3 but I feel he certainly has a case to go into this spot.

On defense he's average, but definitely not a negative.

2nd vote - Dr. J