RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9

[90sAllDecade]

I put it out there for others to discuss and hopefully create thier own team support comparison of GOAT level players.

Please create a full objective comparsion of the top 10-15 players all time and thier team support including coaching so we can see new perspectives.

I'm definitely open to new perspectives on comparing them and across eras objectively, which I prefer over subjective letter grades from one scout or author.

At least All star games, which can definitely have flaws to be fair, can have many sports media journalists, NBA players or fan voting combined and weighted rather than one person's subjective letter grades.

[Owly]

Other floor raisers like Hakeem almost always have top 5 defenses built around them. Maybe because it's easier to build around a rim protector. It was 2004 before Minnesota with Garnett even cracked the top 10, they were in the bottom half of the league a long time.

Given this seems to be your big ding on Garnett I'd suggest the latter half of his career he was pretty consistently making a big impact on D
https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/1244/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
and yeah even before Minny were competent
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2003-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2003-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm
https://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html

he was having an impact on D. Not always huge but then looking at the on-off number net (i.e. both ends) pretty much always pretty darned big https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/garneke01.html.


I can't see in what you say where you go Hakeem above Garnett overall. And Garnett had longevity, box composites (even pure rate version of PER, Hakeem's one advantage, go 97-13 Garnett is basically tied 23.5 to Hakeem's 23.59, with Garnett still having slight minutes edge and then the other years are an added bonus), he's got far greater evidence/confidence of impact. And some evidence of greater impact (Hakeem's 94-96 on-off stuff, whilst strong, is not at peak KG level and this covers most of Hakeem's very best years). Hakeem has the playoff productivity.

So how highly should we expect to see you putting Dikembe, Paul, and Draymond? Are Erving’s on/off numbers going to keep him out of your top twenty? I am a fan of RAPM, but it is hardly everything, and that is why holistic analyses only ever use it as a supplement (e.g. Backpicks).

First you will note that I am simply supporting a point with evidence not claiming RAPM as a perfect all in one measure.

I haven't found a methodology that I'm happy with for creating a list. But assuming you sincerely want to know Green's longevity of quality would be an issue. Mutombo's net on '97-14 RAPM is very good, but not amazing fwiw. He went 53 last time if that's any use to you. Paul given his combination of production and impact metrics would indeed rank high. I haven't fully internalized Pollack's +/- for the 76ers (though I do have a recollection Erving's aren't strong) but I'm not as high as some on Dr J due to a mixed reputation on D and a disappointing first few years on the 76ers. What one makes of the level of competition in the ABA is a further confounding fact. If I had to guess I would say outside the top 20 is plausible but without a thorough process that doesn't really mean much (and it would not be a matter of plus/minus "keeping him out" a factor within a systematic evaluation).

[Owly]

I put it out there for others to discuss and hopefully create thier own team support comparison of GOAT level players.

Please create a full objective comparsion of the top 10-15 players all time and thier team support including coaching so we can see new perspectives.

I'm definitely open to new perspectives on comparing them and across eras objectively, which I prefer over subjective letter grades from one scout or author.

At least All star games, which can definitely have flaws to be fair, can have many sports media journalists, NBA players or fan voting combined and weighted rather than one person's subjective letter grades.

Well for one the book had two authors (and a great many more cited contributors).

It is not necessary for one to create a "full objective comparison" in order to critique other methods. This was a bad method. I stand by this.

The grades are indeed subjective, which is why it is only one tool to note the awfulness of "do you have an all-star?" as a means of measuring supporting casts, there's 30-40th players is better than 24th and 440-449. I noted the many, many problems with "all-star" as a measure of ability. I could further point to better tools like impact metrics as doing a far better job of trying to disentangle team level performance and separate out the individual (implicitly leaving the rest of the cast). Alternatively I could just tell you that this method needlessly junks good, relevant data about players when they do have an all star. Further, if so desired, I could try to hunt down the best team without an all-star and tell you that they aren't the same as the '93 Mavericks. I could hunt down the best team with one all star (or two if you want to assume the notional player we're comparing is an all-star, though it doesn't matter to the principle) and note that they are not better than all teams with no all-stars (or one, if we assume the player compared is an all-star). I don't need to though. What I've already said is sufficient.

[limbo]

How much better was David Robinson's supporting casts? Because he lifted his teams to a few 55+ win seasons.

Robinson is the inverse Hakeem. Robinson dominated the RS with trash supporting casts but ran out of gas and answers when the postseason rolled up. Hakeem was barely getting 40 wins with a trash supporting cast but somehow that didn't prevent him from raising his game in the Playoffs and dominating to a bigger degree individually...

Then there's the whole 1995 head-to-head, where Hakeem had the better series as well, despite the supporting casts performing at a similar level.

Part of me thinks Robinson would've done better in a more sophisticated/finesse era like now, with more average offensive talent per team. Robinson wasn't someone that liked to bump and grind in the crowded post. He would operate better with more space, imo, where he could use his GOAT-level explosion at the C position to take advantage of said space and he would have players set him up better as well.

[SHAQ32]

When it comes to Hakeem and the Rockets, it's always interesting to me what fans choose to remember about them. We're familiar with the 'they were lucky Jordan was retired' narrative, but rarely see the 'they were lucky the Sonics were upset in 94 and 95'. We're familiar with the infamous series vs Spurs in 95, but rarely see the series vs Seattle in 96 mentioned. How Kemp outplayed Hakeem in a sweep. Edit: Dream averaged 18 points on 44% for the series (down from 27 on 51% in rs)

[limbo]

When it comes to Hakeem and the Rockets, it's always interesting to me what fans choose to remember about them. We're familiar with the 'they were lucky Jordan was retired' narrative, but rarely see the 'they were lucky the Sonics were upset in 94 and 95'. We're familiar with the infamous series vs Spurs in 95, but rarely see the series vs Seattle in 96 mentioned. How Kemp outplayed Hakeem in a sweep.

Kemp outplayed both Stockton and Malone and almost outplayed MJ in the Finals too

Maybe we should have Kemp higher on the all-time list. How many people can say they've outplayed prime Hakeem, Malone, Stockton and Jordan in a couple of weeks. Bill Russell certainly didn't!

[SHAQ32]

When it comes to Hakeem and the Rockets, it's always interesting to me what fans choose to remember about them. We're familiar with the 'they were lucky Jordan was retired' narrative, but rarely see the 'they were lucky the Sonics were upset in 94 and 95'. We're familiar with the infamous series vs Spurs in 95, but rarely see the series vs Seattle in 96 mentioned. How Kemp outplayed Hakeem in a sweep.

Kemp outplayed Malone

Oh, yeah? When did this happen?

[90sAllDecade]

I put it out there for others to discuss and hopefully create thier own team support comparison of GOAT level players.

Please create a full objective comparsion of the top 10-15 players all time and thier team support including coaching so we can see new perspectives.

I'm definitely open to new perspectives on comparing them and across eras objectively, which I prefer over subjective letter grades from one scout or author.

At least All star games, which can definitely have flaws to be fair, can have many sports media journalists, NBA players or fan voting combined and weighted rather than one person's subjective letter grades.

Well for one the book had two authors (and a great many more cited contributors).

It is not necessary for one to create a "full objective comparison" in order to critique other methods. This was a bad method. I stand by this.

The grades are indeed subjective, which is why it is only one tool to note the awfulness of "do you have an all-star?" as a means of measuring supporting casts, there's 30-40th players is better than 24th and 440-449. I noted the many, many problems with "all-star" as a measure of ability. I could further point to better tools like impact metrics as doing a far better job of trying to disentangle team level performance and separate out the individual (implicitly leaving the rest of the cast). Alternatively I could just tell you that this method needlessly junks good, relevant data about players when they do have an all star. Further, if so desired, I could try to hunt down the best team without an all-star and tell you that they aren't the same as the '93 Mavericks. I could hunt down the best team with one all star (or two if you want to assume the notional player we're comparing is an all-star, though it doesn't matter to the principle) and note that they are not better than all teams with no all-stars (or one, if we assume the player compared is an all-star). I don't need to though. What I've already said is sufficient.

Two authors with others cited with subjective letter grades, while although has issues, isn't necessarily better than many sports media journalists, NBA players and fans voting and weighted imo. That is awful imo, but we can agree to disagree here.

Also when comparing across eras all star selections are relative to competition. If I took an All star from the 60s with less teams vs a top player in a given modern year of course that wouldn't be the same and we shouldn't ignore context, but in that year in the 60s relative to competition that player was likely better than others up for that same spot, although that will definitely be debateable of course with exceptions and controversial picks at times.

Joe Johnson isn't playing Wilt and all star Paul Arizin in the 1960 playoffs. Relative to comptition that year Arizin was likely better than other 1960 players up for the same spot that year who didn't make it or weren't even close when he played other 1960 teams, again which is of couse debatable.

So cross era comparisons are difficult for a given year, as no one said they were the same or ignore other context. But that all star player was indicative of a given amount of talent relative to competition. If it's not to your liking as it can't be fully quantified, then please create a better system across eras per year and bring up the team support of other role players.

It's one thing to critique, it's another to actually create, so what is your analysis of other GOAT level players team support and coaching in comparision for careers?
How does Bird's team support for his career compare to Hakeems?
When Garnett and Hakeem had poor team support how did they fare in comparision?

You don't have to answer, if you feel what you shared is enough and we can agree to disagree that's fine as well. I'll be moving forward also.

[limbo]

When it comes to Hakeem and the Rockets, it's always interesting to me what fans choose to remember about them. We're familiar with the 'they were lucky Jordan was retired' narrative, but rarely see the 'they were lucky the Sonics were upset in 94 and 95'. We're familiar with the infamous series vs Spurs in 95, but rarely see the series vs Seattle in 96 mentioned. How Kemp outplayed Hakeem in a sweep.

Kemp outplayed Malone

Oh, yeah? When did this happen?

Same year we're talking about... The year where Kemp needed 71 shots to make 49 FG's while Malone needed 158 shots to make 75 FG's.

[SHAQ32]

Kemp outplayed Malone

Oh, yeah? When did this happen?

Same year we're talking about... The year where Kemp needed 71 shots to make 49 FG's while Malone needed 158 shots to make 75 FG's.

Uhh one of these things is not like the other.

[Doctor MJ]

So how highly should we expect to see you putting Dikembe, Paul, and Draymond? Are Erving’s on/off numbers going to keep him out of your top twenty? I am a fan of RAPM, but it is hardly everything, and that is why holistic analyses only ever use it as a supplement (e.g. Backpicks).

I'll take this bait.

I'm not looking to wear any kind of "I'm going by RAPM" dunce hat, but data like this absolutely is something I think about.

Just to give a few thoughts:

On Mutombo, I'm good with crediting him with being about as good on defense as anyone other than Russell, but I struggle to put him ahead of big men that were also elite on defense but considerably stronger offensively. I'm just not confident enough in Deke's outlier +/- numbers to switch away from my established assessment beyond a certain point. The classic comparison is Zo. I'd say I have Deke higher than most, but I don't think I've ever put him above Zo. On the other hand I've got him way above guys like Chris Webber or Elton Brand who were seen as bigger stars at their apex and had decent longevity.

By Paul I assume you mean Chris Paul? I'm definitely higher on him than some. ESPN came out with their all-time list recently and I was stunned by how low he was. They had him below Harden and I certainly think that's premature. The two comparisons I've spent the most time thinking about relating to Paul are Steve Nash and Kevin Durant. I can dive into those if asked, but I think the more critical point on Paul's +/- is if there's a reason to think he's not quite the player +/- indicates. And there I'd say the answer is.

+/- is a measure of how the team does when you are literally off-the-court-but-your-presence-never-leaves. When the team is built around you, if they don't have a plan that works without you they look terrible without you. This is not the same as being unable to function without you.

If you're thinking: Isn't this true about other guys, like Nash? It is. And most certainly LeBron as well. You can very much argue for many high primacy guys that +/- is to be expected to overrate their actual impact.

Now I voted LeBron at 1 and everybody here knows I'm a Nash guy, so I'm clearly not too harsh on this point, but it is a thing.

On Draymond. I'm really glad to get conversation going on him. I think he frankly had a case back in 2017, and I do think he's proven more since. I expect he will be in my Top 100, though I may not get a chance to vote for him in this project depending on how the order goes.

I will say that I do think +/- could be said to overrate his perceived goodness due to fortuitousness of context. When shooting/scoring are common enough around you to be replaceable, as it has been in Splash Brothers Land, it is entirely possible that a DPOY level point forward can be your most unreplaceable player. This does not mean you can expect to achieve a similar degree of impact in most settings.

What Draymond has achieved is real - as is the stuff he's f-ed up - but I do also try to think about how fertile the ground was for you to blossom upon.

So for example, in 2017 I'd have ranked Draymond as the highest achieving member of the 2012 draft class, but it would have been a tough battle with both Anthony Davis and Damian Lillard. At this point, I expect to champion both Davis and Lillard before Draymond. Again, Draymond is higher on my list than 3 years ago, so I'm not dropping him. But other guys are achieving impressive stuff too, and while these will still be debates in my mind in the time to come, for now, those guys have done enough to get the nod from me.

[DQuinn1575]

Other floor raisers like Hakeem almost always have top 5 defenses built around them. Maybe because it's easier to build around a rim protector. It was 2004 before Minnesota with Garnett even cracked the top 10, they were in the bottom half of the league a long time.

Given this seems to be your big ding on Garnett I'd suggest the latter half of his career he was pretty consistently making a big impact on D
https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/1244/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
and yeah even before Minny were competent
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2003-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2003-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm
https://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html

he was having an impact on D. Not always huge but then looking at the on-off number net (i.e. both ends) pretty much always pretty darned big https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/garneke01.html.


I can't see in what you say where you go Hakeem above Garnett overall. And Garnett had longevity, box composites (even pure rate version of PER, Hakeem's one advantage, go 97-13 Garnett is basically tied 23.5 to Hakeem's 23.59, with Garnett still having slight minutes edge and then the other years are an added bonus), he's got far greater evidence/confidence of impact. And some evidence of greater impact (Hakeem's 94-96 on-off stuff, whilst strong, is not at peak KG level and this covers most of Hakeem's very best years). Hakeem has the playoff productivity.

So I click on the links (thanks for them) and look at the 91-14 leaders, and Garnett ranks real high. But the name I see a lot on the on/off numbers is David Robinson. I'm just not sold on Garnett being Top 10, and I guess one of the reasons is that where he looks good the other guy up there is Robinson - really try to learn here, and not starting an argument - can you or another KG help me with the case of KG Top 9 and why he is way better than Robinson, who I'm guessing is around 20 - or do you have Robinson ranked a lot higher? THanks

[DQuinn1575]

When comparing players and looking at team success for thier career, it's important to look at thier team support, coaching and competition. Bird was gifted with some of the best supporting casts in comparision for his career vs Hakeem or even Garnett.

And a Mt. Rushmore coach can be regarded as one of arguably the for GOAT coaches of all time: Jackson, Auerbach, Riley and Pops. Some can argue Larry Brown, but I may add him later.

Team Support Comparison: Bird vs Hakeem

Larry Bird:
13 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x13
Two All Star player: x10

Hakeem:
17 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x7
Two All Star player: x1

Hakeem had clutch role players that consistently stepped up in big moments. Mario Elie, Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell. For example, those guys were key difference-makers in the sweep of the Magic in 95. Well, that and Nick Anderson choking, Dennis Scott disappearing. But anyway that's something the relatively simplistic "x years with all-star" argument fails to include. Otis Thorpe was one of the most consistent PF's of the era and only made 1 asg.

I clicked and was amazed that Dave Cowens was named an all-star in 1980 -

[Jordan Syndrome]

When comparing players and looking at team success for thier career, it's important to look at thier team support, coaching and competition. Bird was gifted with some of the best supporting casts in comparision for his career vs Hakeem or even Garnett.

And a Mt. Rushmore coach can be regarded as one of arguably the for GOAT coaches of all time: Jackson, Auerbach, Riley and Pops. Some can argue Larry Brown, but I may add him later.

Team Support Comparison: Bird vs Hakeem

Larry Bird:
13 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x13
Two All Star player: x10

Hakeem:
17 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x7
Two All Star player: x1

Hakeem had clutch role players that consistently stepped up in big moments. Mario Elie, Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell. For example, those guys were key difference-makers in the sweep of the Magic in 95. Well, that and Nick Anderson choking, Dennis Scott disappearing. But anyway that's something the relatively simplistic "x years with all-star" argument fails to include. Otis Thorpe was one of the most consistent PF's of the era and only made 1 asg.

I clicked and was amazed that Dave Cowens was named an all-star in 1980 -

The strength of the NBA Eastern Conference in 1980. 3 teams above .500.

[Tim Lehrbach]

With the top eight off the board, there isn't a player left I'd rather have anchor my franchise than Dirk Nowitzki. Consistently elite individual and team performance, model teammate and citizen, one of the most impressive championship runs in recent history, and the primary force elevating the laughingstock Mavericks to a top organization. In the seven years before Dirk's arrival, seven different players led the woeful Mavs in win shares. Over those seven seasons, they averaged 22 wins, including 11 and 13 in consecutive years. Beginning with their playoff breakthrough in 2001, they rattled off an 11-year run of serious contention (occasionally stumbling, but never out of the playoffs), culminating in the 2011 title. How many teams have been that consistently good over such a long span with the same leading star? We've recognized Russell, Duncan, and Magic already. Jerry West and Karl Malone will follow soon. I don't know if Dirk deserves to be #9, but I just wanted to voice my support for thoroughly evaluating him sooner rather than later.

The other names I'd love to see start getting some consideration are Jerry West and Steph Curry.

[Doctor MJ]

So I click on the links (thanks for them) and look at the 91-14 leaders, and Garnett ranks real high. But the name I see a lot on the on/off numbers is David Robinson. I'm just not sold on Garnett being Top 10, and I guess one of the reasons is that where he looks good the other guy up there is Robinson - really try to learn here, and not starting an argument - can you or another KG help me with the case of KG Top 9 and why he is way better than Robinson, who I'm guessing is around 20 - or do you have Robinson ranked a lot higher? THanks

I'm quite high on Robinson as well, but longevity is an issue to a guy like Garnett just as it is next to Duncan.

Robinson is a lock to be Top 20 for me, and I do debate him against Top 15-type guys. Robinson vs Dr. J is a serious comparison for me and he's part of my namesake.

[DQuinn1575]

Hakeem did have trash teams from 1987 to 1993,though. I mean, the 1993 squad was alright, i guess, but got matched up against a more talented/deeper Seattle team in the Playoffs and pushed them to 7 games with Hakeem being the best player in that series and having a good Game 7.

Bird never had a trash team in his prime, while Hakeem had 6 trash teams back-to-back... That's a lot of years of his prime wasted. It sucks even more because Hakeem had some massive performances in the Playoffs during those years but it didn't matter. Really the only bad series Hakeem had was in 1990 against the Lakers, and even then he was easily the best defender in that series, his just didn't show up on offense. Outside of that Hakeem was really doing the most with the least about as well as any player up to that point in NBA history.

Bird joined a 29 win team where 4 of the top 6 guys played were 31 or older, and another was replacement level - Jeff Judkins. He didn't have a trash team because he made them better.

[LA Bird]

How do people view Bird's offense compared to Garnett's, before his game took the next leap in the 84 playoffs?

Regular season (per 100)
80-84 Bird: 28.1 points, 7.0 assists, +1.1 rTS%, 13.5 TOV%, +4.2 OBPM, +190.5 TS Add total
02-06 Garnett: 30.6 points, 7.1 assists, +3.3 rTS%, 11.7 TOV%, +6.0 OBPM, +549.8 TS Add total

Playoffs (per 100)
80-83 Bird: 24.2 points, 6.8 assists, -1.7 rTS%, 14.5 TOV%, +4.5 OBPM
01-04 Garnett: 29.6 points, 6.1 assists, +0.8 rTS%, 13.3 TOV%, +4.4 OBPM

Without a consistent 3pt shot yet, is early Bird's skillset good enough to put him ahead of Garnett on offense despite the weaker numbers? And if not, how does that affect Bird's career ranking considering this period covers half of Bird's prime?

[limbo]

Bird wasn't that good of a player as a rookie to single-handedly be responsible for a 32-win swing. That's cap a lot of Bird supporters use to inflate his impact by being too lazy too look at the situation properly.

The 1979 Celtics was an assortment of characters that played like 20,30,40, 50 games each... There was no continuity on that team it was random who was going to show up playing at various stages of the season. Tiny Archibald came into 1979 after missing the whole previous season due to an achilles injury. He came back rusty and overweight and needed most of the season to catch up to speed.

The 1980 clean house and got rid of massive trash like Curtis Rowe, JoJo White, Billy Knight and Marvin Barnes. Tiny came back better. Carr was added, who was a solid starter piece. The team had some structure that they could build on, and didn't need to fire their coach after 13 games and try random players every couple of games.

Bird was great for a rookie, don't get me wrong, but the dude isn't a magician. He averaged 21.5 ppg on 54%TS... No amount of intangibles would make him be the sole difference between 30+ wins... He was the biggest difference, sure, but far from the sole one.

[SHAQ32]

How do people view Bird's offense compared to Garnett's, before his game took the next leap in the 84 playoffs?

Regular season (per 100)
80-84 Bird: 28.1 points, 7.0 assists, +1.1 rTS%, 13.5 TOV%, +4.2 OBPM, +190.5 TS Add total
02-06 Garnett: 30.6 points, 7.1 assists, +3.3 rTS%, 11.7 TOV%, +6.0 OBPM, +549.8 TS Add total

Playoffs (per 100)
80-83 Bird: 24.2 points, 6.8 assists, -1.7 rTS%, 14.5 TOV%, +4.5 OBPM
01-04 Garnett: 29.6 points, 6.1 assists, +0.8 rTS%, 13.3 TOV%, +4.4 OBPM

Without a consistent 3pt shot yet, is early Bird's skillset good enough to put him ahead of Garnett on offense despite the weaker numbers? And if not, how does that affect Bird's career ranking considering this period covers half of Bird's prime?

Generally speaking, hasn't the western conference historically been the more offense-friendly conference? If so, shouldn't that be considered when comparing numbers? The last east team to lead league in offense was the 2000 Pacers (http://paceandspacehoops.com/the-greatest-offensive-teams-in-nba-history/).