RealGM Top 100 List #21

[ceiling raiser]

The Rick Barry Scouting Bible's gave him
'90 edition (after '89 season): AAA
'91: AAA
'92: A
'93: A
'94: B+
'95: A
'96: B+
'97: A
The most prominent (and recurring) criticisms are that he bought on too many of his mans fakes (a member of the parachute or paratrooper club) and that he fouled too much (though it is suggested he often got away with it due to star status)

Now given some of these are close to average (B - or which in their own words is "middle of the pack) these are surely going too far (and they are just opinions, though presumably informed ones), but it does give you some pause. The biting on fouls might help explain why he didn't (iirc) fare too well in head-to-heads with other elite centers.

Sorry to bother you, but I'm just wondering about a couple of things:

1) Do you have the grades on defense for Olajuwon and Robinson for that same span for comparison?
2) In which other categories are players graded?

It's always great to have more qualitative information with which to analyze players, especially since based on your note about the '90 edition being based on the '89 season, the 8 years of the Guides end right when the play-by-play era begins (96-97).

Olajuwon
'90 edition (after '89 season): AAA
'91: AAA
'92: AAA
'93: AAA
'94: AAA
'95: AAA
'96: AAA
'97: AAA

Robinson
'91 (after '90 season): AAA
'92: AAA
'93: AAA
'94: AAA
'95: AAA
'96: AAA
'97: AAA

From the start they were rated on
Scoring; Shooting; FT Shooting; Ball Handling; Passing; Defense; D Rebounding; Shotblocking; Playmaking; Intangiables; Overall

Playmaking is just for those who play the 1 (including combo guards so in the '90 version MJ has a rating in it because he'd played a little point the year prior); shot blocking is just for "bigs" (4s and 5s).

For the final three years theres a distinct offensive rebounding category (for forwards and centers).

In the written player summaries it's split into
Season summary/scoring; Defense/Defensive rebounding; The floor game [passing, screening, running the court, BBIQ here]; Intangiables and overall.
Except the final edition, which goes: Season summary; His Game; His Attitude; Needs to Work on; Where He's Headed and finally, In a Nutshell

Thanks a ton!

Two things:

1) Were there any other guys at that AAA level consistently defensively (at any position)?
2) Which categories are the most useful/important for your analysis?
3) A lot of those categories seem very interesting, but how do the three rate in shooting, scoring, and shotblocking (shooting is straightforward, but scoring and shotblocking are useful as well I'd think, since when viewed alongside the other categories, they might help us parse out post scoring from "scoring" and horizontal defense and from "defense")?

Anyhow though, these are an invaluable resource, and really give perspective. Would you be interested in putting together a Google Docs spreadsheet with the grades for notable players? Really would be a tremendous resource for the PC board.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Patrick Ewing

I have to go with Ewing here. I'm happy to talk up Pettit when people doubt him To me he's basically the earliest player we've seen who has shown enough that I can say with reasonable confidence that he could thrive today. It takes more than that though to top someone like Ewing. Bottom line is that if I were drafting in any era, I'd expect to pick Ewing first.

Heck, my whole knock on Ewing relates to him not being able to justify his volume scoring role at his position with his efficiency...but his efficiency is better than Pettit's. Yes, I'd argue Pettit's efficiency would improve further if he was around today, but the fact that it's even debatable in the one sphere where Pettit has his clearest strength tells you the advantage Ewing has overall here.

?

Year/League avg TS%/Ewing's TS%/Difference
'86/54.1%/52.6%/-1.5%
'87/53.8%/54.9%/+1.1%
'88/53.8%/59.4%/+5.6%
'89/53.7%/60.7%/+7.0%
'90/53.7%/59.9%/+6.2%
'91/53.4%/56.1%/+2.7%
'92/53.1%/56.3%/+3.2%
'93/53.6%/54.6%/+1.0%
'94/52.8%/55.1%/+2.3%
'95/54.3%/55.5%/+1.2%
'96/54.2%/51.6%/-2.6%
'97/53.6%/54.8%/+1.2%

Year/League avg TS%/Pettit's TS%/Difference
'55/45.5%/48.0%/+2.5%
'56/45.8%/50.2%/+4.4%
'57/44.9%/49.4%/+4.5%
'58/44.9%/49.2%/+4.3%
'59/45.8%/51.9%/+6.1%
'60/46.3%/51.0%/+4.7%
'61/46.9%/51.1%/+4.2%
'62/47.9%/52.2%/+4.3%
'63/49.3%/52.5%/+3.2%
'64/48.5%/53.5%/+5.0%
'65/47.9%/51.0%/+3.1%

Ewing's average vs. league avg during his prime: +2.3% (fwiw, his relation to league avg gets worse if we consider his career whole)
Pettit's average vs. league avg for his career: +4.2%

And Pettit's shooting efficiency takes less of a slide in the post-season compared to Ewing's, too. So ultimately, I just don't understand where that statement comes from. Are you going by absolute TS numbers? If so, why?

[90sAllDecade]

That really depends on the context of how good Pettit's competition was. If he played in a lesser league of talent, his worse TS% than Ewing would look better comparatively.

Put Ewing in the 60s (as his game translates quite well back then) and he'd dominate relative to league average on both sides of the ball imo.

[trex_8063]

I'm taking Ewing in the runoff. Defensively the man is top 5

Bill Russell
Hakeem Olajuwon
Dikembe Mutombo
David Robinson
Kevin Garnett

(not even mentioning other potentials: Tim Duncan, Dennis Rodman)

Rodman? Well anyway you cut it Ewing is high up there when it comes to defense (I have him under Deke, Russell, and Hakeem).

Ahead of DRob?

Robinson avg rs DRtg during his prime (‘90-’98): 97
Ewing avg rs DRtg during his prime (‘86-’97): 99

Robinson avg ps DRtg during his prime: 100
Ewing avg ps DRtg during his prime: 101

Robinson career rs DRtg: 96
Ewing Career rs DRtg: 99

Robinson career ps DRtg: 96
Ewing career ps DRtg: 100

Robinson’s single-season best rs DRtg: 88
Ewing’s single-season best rs DRtg: 91

Robinson’s single-season best ps DRtg: 84
Ewing’s single-season best ps DRtg: 94

wrt rim-protecting….
Robinson prime rs Per 100 BLK: 4.7
Ewing prime rs Per 100 BLK: 3.8

Robinson prime ps Per 100 BLK: 4.2
Ewing prime ps Per 100 BLK: 3.4

Robinson career rs Per 100 BLK: 4.4
Ewing career rs Per 100 BLK: 3.6

Robinson career ps Per 100 BLK: 3.9
Ewing career ps Per 100 BLK: 3.2

Robinson DRAPM: ‘98--+3.64, ‘99--+5.18, ‘00--+4.53
Ewing DRAPM: ‘98--+4.04, ‘99--+3.66, ‘00--+3.42
*don’t know if it’s fair to look beyond ‘00, as Ewing’s pretty far declined by that time.

Media narrative…..
Clearly heavily favors Robinson: Robinson’s prime pretty much entirely overlaps with Ewing’s. From the point Robinson came into the league, Ewing only received one more All-D honor (2nd team in ‘92: Robinson was the 1st team center). Meanwhile, Robinson received four 1st Team honors, four 2nd Team honors, and one DPoY.

There’s literally nothing above that indicates a defensive superiority for Ewing. Across the board it ranges from semi-neutral to clearly favoring Robinson. And fwiw, Robinson led a #1-rated defense two years in a row in the pre-Duncan era (‘91 and ‘92), with the following supporting cast in ‘91 : Sean Elliott, Rod Strickland, Willie Anderson, Terry Cummings, Paul Pressey (the one other noteworthy defender, but this was Pressey at 32 years old playing a reduced role off the bench). ‘92: Elliott, Strickland, Anderson, Cummings, and Antoine Carr were the primary help.

Really the only thing I'm not accounting for is the eye-test (which, for me, kinda favors Robinson, too).
idk…...agree to disagree, I guess.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Patrick Ewing

I have to go with Ewing here. I'm happy to talk up Pettit when people doubt him To me he's basically the earliest player we've seen who has shown enough that I can say with reasonable confidence that he could thrive today. It takes more than that though to top someone like Ewing. Bottom line is that if I were drafting in any era, I'd expect to pick Ewing first.

Heck, my whole knock on Ewing relates to him not being able to justify his volume scoring role at his position with his efficiency...but his efficiency is better than Pettit's. Yes, I'd argue Pettit's efficiency would improve further if he was around today, but the fact that it's even debatable in the one sphere where Pettit has his clearest strength tells you the advantage Ewing has overall here.

?

Year/League avg TS%/Ewing's TS%/Difference
'86/54.1%/52.6%/-1.5%
'87/53.8%/54.9%/+1.1%
'88/53.8%/59.4%/+5.6%
'89/53.7%/60.7%/+7.0%
'90/53.7%/59.9%/+6.2%
'91/53.4%/56.1%/+2.7%
'92/53.1%/56.3%/+3.2%
'93/53.6%/54.6%/+1.0%
'94/52.8%/55.1%/+2.3%
'95/54.3%/55.5%/+1.2%
'96/54.2%/51.6%/-2.6%
'97/53.6%/54.8%/+1.2%

Year/League avg TS%/Pettit's TS%/Difference
'55/45.5%/48.0%/+2.5%
'56/45.8%/50.2%/+4.4%
'57/44.9%/49.4%/+4.5%
'58/44.9%/49.2%/+4.3%
'59/45.8%/51.9%/+6.1%
'60/46.3%/51.0%/+4.7%
'61/46.9%/51.1%/+4.2%
'62/47.9%/52.2%/+4.3%
'63/49.3%/52.5%/+3.2%
'64/48.5%/53.5%/+5.0%
'65/47.9%/51.0%/+3.1%

Ewing's average vs. league avg during his prime: +2.3% (fwiw, his relation to league avg gets worse if we consider his career whole)
Pettit's average vs. league avg for his career: +4.2%

And Pettit's shooting efficiency takes less of a slide in the post-season compared to Ewing's, too. So ultimately, I just don't understand where that statement comes from. Are you going by absolute TS numbers? If so, why?

Read the next sentence after the one you bolded - the one I now put in red. To me that made clear what I was referring to if it wasn't already clear.

I suppose this pertains to what I was saying with regards to Baylor too: Efficiency isn't something to just blindly adjust for with the era. West & Oscar shot at modern efficiency levels from early in their career, the league kept on improving, and they largely plateaued at a certain point. You probably remember that I'm a proponent of both of those guys, but I don't go into conversations like this giving them a massive efficiency edge on guys today based on what average efficiency was in their era. In the end how I tend to look at it is about being smart. Guys like West & Oscar were smart enough to figure things out on their own early on, the rest of the league learned gradually with the help of coaches.

So yeah, I believe that Pettit was the better scorer over Ewing, but the fact that I have to use some kind of era adjustment to give him the efficiency edge in his primary area of strength is not exactly a great sign in a debate against a guy who is a vastly superior defender.

[Doctor MJ]

That really depends on the context of how good Pettit's competition was. If he played in a lesser league of talent, his worse TS% than Ewing would look better comparatively.

Put Ewing in the 60s (as his game translates quite well back then) and he'd dominate relative to league average on both sides of the ball imo.

Right this gets in to some of what I'm talking about. It's nothing like a given that we should give Pettit extra credit in his scoring numbers because he played a half century ago. I personally am one over by Pettit on this front when I way in all the pros and cons, but the fact that I have to think about it before I give Pettit and edge basically anywhere over Ewing makes it tough to side with Pettit overall.

[Basketballefan]

I'm not buying that Ewing is as good defensively as some are claiming..

[colts18]

Vote Patrick Ewing

Ewing played in a tougher era with much more black players than Pettit. Ewing's era wasn't filled with awful players in the bottom half of the roster.

When Pettit entered the league, the league had no black players. That is a black mark on his game because he wasn't facing the best athletes in the world. by the time he retired, the league still wasn't fully integrated. When he faced Russell in the title game, his team was all-white. The Celtics were all-white with the exception of Russell. Could you imagine how good someone like Gordon Hayward or Chandler Parsons would look if you took out 90% of the players in the league including every single top star in the league, then faced only the other 10% of the league? They would look like superstars and people would mistakenly think that they are good players.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Bob Pettit

He was the best player in the league in the 50s when Mkan retired from the league. He is definitely one of the best scorers in NBA History. He was great shooter and was good at drawing fouls. He is also one of the best offensive rebounders ever. He was the first player to score 20,000 points ever. He was a average to good defender as well.

On the rebounding side of things, I think it's important for people to understand the effects of pace. TrueLAfan has a thread stickied on the Stats board where he gives a method for doing this with rebounding, and if you scroll down you'l see that fpliii went through and did this all the way to start of the shot clock era.

viewtopic.php?f=344&t=955514

Here are Pettit's best TRB% years by this method:
1955 - 19.04
1961 - 18.65
1957 - 18.51

That is better than Ewing who peaked just over 18 and tended to be more in the 17-18 range, but it might not be as big of a gap as some might think, and if you're inclined to believe that rebounding is tougher today than it was back then, it's not really clear that Pettit should get the edge there.

[trex_8063]

First off he is being criticized that's why he isn't in yet.

No. He isn't in yet because vs. Robinson, for instance, he was a lesser performer both offensively and defensively in both the regular season and the playoffs. While I won't deny Robinson's production and efficiency took a larger slide during the ps from his regular season standard, it was STILL better than Ewing's overall ps performance (highlighted in blue the leader for each item for emphasis):

Prime Robinson in Playoffs
Per 100: 31.0 pts, 16.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 1.7 stl, 4.2 blk, 3.8 tov on .549 TS%
24.1 PER, .188 WS/48, 112 ORtg/100 DRtg in 39.3 mpg

Prime Ewing in Playoffs
Per 100: 30.6 pts, 14.8 reb, 3.3 ast, 1.2 stl, 3.4 blk, 3.8 tov on .528 TS%
20.4 PER, .138 WS/48, 106 ORtg/101 DRtg in 39.6 mpg

Much greater disparity in the rs comparison (again: Ewing really not even in the same league for rs performance). Based on these things, the gap between them is pretty obviously (to me) large (i.e. more than three places). And Ewing doesn't have much of a longevity argument over Robinson to make up the gap. He's got 17 seasons to Robinson's 14, but his final two seasons were somewhat faded/ineffectual (whereas Robinson didn't really have any years like that).

Secondly I agree with Karl who was below average but not bad in the postseason but I disagree with Robinson. I made this post after the #18 thread was finished:

People asked about Robinson vs Ewing:

To be honest the debate confuses me. Every one knows that if we went simply by regular season Robinson tops not only Ewing but Olajuwon, so the argument against Robinson is the playoffs. And people then take that, link that with Robinson's style, and seem to come to conclusions that he's not a "true" big.

But if you look at playoff stats, Robinson still has a pretty big edge in the playoffs. .

Ewing had a playoff PER north of 22 once, Robinson did it 9 times.

Well that's offensively and it doesn't account for Robinson killing bad teams while underperforming against good teams. In 90 and 91 he was great in elimination. In 92 he missed the playoffs. In 93 he was fine but immediately after that you have 94 (19/9, 41%), 95 (24/11, 44%, killed by Hakeem), 96 (19/9, 47%), and 98 (19/13, 39%). He never played great defenses in the playoffs before these defenses were making him look very bad (he also had a better offensive supporting cast).

Again, I won't deny that Robinson took a slide in the playoffs (and a longer slide than Ewing did). But as outlined above: still fairly clearly better than Ewing. Is it the length of the slide that matters? That hardly seems fair, as that's essentially punishing Robinson for being so amazing in the rs.

Also, to pick a few nits with the numbers you cite in the above paragraph.......
Robinson didn't avg 19/9 in the '94 playoffs; he avg 20/10 (and maybe worth noting that was with 3.5 ast and only 2.25 turnovers).
And citing only the FG% (like that 41% for '94) is a little misleading when comparing to Patrick Ewing. Consider their respective styles of play: Robinson was about getting to the rim; Ewing loved the jump-shot. Who do you think gets to the line more? Well, it ain't the jump-shooter. In fact, Ewing's prime ps Per 100 FTA was 8.5.....Robinson's was 13.3. So showing Ewing with a slim margin in FG% many years can be a bit misleading, because Robinson's TS% was often equal or better due to all the additional FT's.

[DQuinn1575]

That really depends on the context of how good Pettit's competition was. If he played in a lesser league of talent, his worse TS% than Ewing would look better comparatively.

Put Ewing in the 60s (as his game translates quite well back then) and he'd dominate relative to league average on both sides of the ball imo.

Right this gets in to some of what I'm talking about. It's nothing like a given that we should give Pettit extra credit in his scoring numbers because he played a half century ago. I personally am one over by Pettit on this front when I way in all the pros and cons, but the fact that I have to think about it before I give Pettit and edge basically anywhere over Ewing makes it tough to side with Pettit overall.

Pettit's career TS% is .511
That would rank him 121 out of 140 in Ewing's era

http://bkref.com/tiny/Slls5


You have to decide if you want/need to adjust -

[DQuinn1575]

Vote Patrick Ewing

Ewing played in a tougher era with much more black players than Pettit. Ewing's era wasn't filled with awful players in the bottom half of the roster.

When Pettit entered the league, the league had no black players. That is a black mark on his game because he wasn't facing the best athletes in the world. by the time he retired, the league still wasn't fully integrated. When he faced Russell in the title game, his team was all-white. The Celtics were all-white with the exception of Russell. Could you imagine how good someone like Gordon Hayward or Chandler Parsons would look if you took out 90% of the players in the league including every single top star in the league, then faced only the other 10% of the league? They would look like superstars and people would mistakenly think that they are good players.

So do you rate Hayward and Parsons even with Pettit?
At what approximate spot do you put him?

(note Actually, there were a (very) few black players when Pettit entered the league. Actually in 1958, when the Hawks won, Sam Jones was also on the Celtics.)

[Doctor MJ]

And for the record, here's how other guys from the era look at their best:

Russell - peak 21.92 (1957), prime results in the '60s was in the 20-21 range
Wilt - peak 21.28 (1967), prime results also typically in the 20-21 range
Baylor - peak 17.35 (1961), only 2 results north of 15. Frankly, this is so low it makes me wonder about the method, but just playing it as it lies here.

And here's a list of top TRB% seasons for later eras by b-r for comparisons:

http://bkref.com/tiny/3nmZ2

[Doctor MJ]

That really depends on the context of how good Pettit's competition was. If he played in a lesser league of talent, his worse TS% than Ewing would look better comparatively.

Put Ewing in the 60s (as his game translates quite well back then) and he'd dominate relative to league average on both sides of the ball imo.

Right this gets in to some of what I'm talking about. It's nothing like a given that we should give Pettit extra credit in his scoring numbers because he played a half century ago. I personally am one over by Pettit on this front when I way in all the pros and cons, but the fact that I have to think about it before I give Pettit and edge basically anywhere over Ewing makes it tough to side with Pettit overall.

Pettit's career TS% is .511
That would rank him 121 out of 140 in Ewing's era

http://bkref.com/tiny/Slls5


You have to decide if you want/need to adjust -

Not really sure why you're telling me this as I'm clearly not talking about "if" but "how". Pettit loses unless your means of adjustment helps him enough, and your means of adjustment should be more than just subtracting league averages.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Patrick Ewing

I have to go with Ewing here. I'm happy to talk up Pettit when people doubt him To me he's basically the earliest player we've seen who has shown enough that I can say with reasonable confidence that he could thrive today. It takes more than that though to top someone like Ewing. Bottom line is that if I were drafting in any era, I'd expect to pick Ewing first.

Heck, my whole knock on Ewing relates to him not being able to justify his volume scoring role at his position with his efficiency...but his efficiency is better than Pettit's. Yes, I'd argue Pettit's efficiency would improve further if he was around today, but the fact that it's even debatable in the one sphere where Pettit has his clearest strength tells you the advantage Ewing has overall here.

?

Year/League avg TS%/Ewing's TS%/Difference
'86/54.1%/52.6%/-1.5%
'87/53.8%/54.9%/+1.1%
'88/53.8%/59.4%/+5.6%
'89/53.7%/60.7%/+7.0%
'90/53.7%/59.9%/+6.2%
'91/53.4%/56.1%/+2.7%
'92/53.1%/56.3%/+3.2%
'93/53.6%/54.6%/+1.0%
'94/52.8%/55.1%/+2.3%
'95/54.3%/55.5%/+1.2%
'96/54.2%/51.6%/-2.6%
'97/53.6%/54.8%/+1.2%

Year/League avg TS%/Pettit's TS%/Difference
'55/45.5%/48.0%/+2.5%
'56/45.8%/50.2%/+4.4%
'57/44.9%/49.4%/+4.5%
'58/44.9%/49.2%/+4.3%
'59/45.8%/51.9%/+6.1%
'60/46.3%/51.0%/+4.7%
'61/46.9%/51.1%/+4.2%
'62/47.9%/52.2%/+4.3%
'63/49.3%/52.5%/+3.2%
'64/48.5%/53.5%/+5.0%
'65/47.9%/51.0%/+3.1%

Ewing's average vs. league avg during his prime: +2.3% (fwiw, his relation to league avg gets worse if we consider his career whole)
Pettit's average vs. league avg for his career: +4.2%

And Pettit's shooting efficiency takes less of a slide in the post-season compared to Ewing's, too. So ultimately, I just don't understand where that statement comes from. Are you going by absolute TS numbers? If so, why?

Read the next sentence after the one you bolded - the one I now put in red. To me that made clear what I was referring to if it wasn't already clear.

I'd already read the highlighted line, but tbh I still wasn't clear. I thought you were implying that his relative efficiency could be even better in the modern context (as there has been some discussion/speculation that he'd make a nice stretch-four, and would thus benefit from the presence of a 3pt line).

I suppose this pertains to what I was saying with regards to Baylor too: Efficiency isn't something to just blindly adjust for with the era. West & Oscar shot at modern efficiency levels from early in their career, the league kept on improving, and they largely plateaued at a certain point. You probably remember that I'm a proponent of both of those guys, but I don't go into conversations like this giving them a massive efficiency edge on guys today based on what average efficiency was in their era. In the end how I tend to look at it is about being smart. Guys like West & Oscar were smart enough to figure things out on their own early on, the rest of the league learned gradually with the help of coaches.

So yeah, I believe that Pettit was the better scorer over Ewing, but the fact that I have to use some kind of era adjustment to give him the efficiency edge in his primary area of strength is not exactly a great sign in a debate against a guy who is a vastly superior defender.

I see. Although I don't think it entirely fair to automatically assume a guy couldn't adapt to the new league standard (especially given what was mentioned earlier about Pettit's potential as fitting well into a stretch-four kind of role). Within the short context of Pettit's career, as integration was just getting rolling and stylistic changes were occurring (the big changes in basketball between the early 50's and the mid-60's---which Pettit's career essentially spans, and which have been discussed in other locations on the PC board), we seem to see an indication that Pettit "rolls with it". We see the avg league shooting efficiency of his first few years rise around 3% higher by his last few years.....and we see Pettit's individual efficiency rise ~3% along with it.

idk, I'm just a touch uncomfortable with too much speculation. Comparing Ewing to Mikan in this way makes Mikan look like hot dog-s*** offensively by comparison. But quite obv that's not the case.

[Owly]

Sorry to bother you, but I'm just wondering about a couple of things:

1) Do you have the grades on defense for Olajuwon and Robinson for that same span for comparison?
2) In which other categories are players graded?

It's always great to have more qualitative information with which to analyze players, especially since based on your note about the '90 edition being based on the '89 season, the 8 years of the Guides end right when the play-by-play era begins (96-97).

Olajuwon
'90 edition (after '89 season): AAA
'91: AAA
'92: AAA
'93: AAA
'94: AAA
'95: AAA
'96: AAA
'97: AAA

Robinson
'91 (after '90 season): AAA
'92: AAA
'93: AAA
'94: AAA
'95: AAA
'96: AAA
'97: AAA

From the start they were rated on
Scoring; Shooting; FT Shooting; Ball Handling; Passing; Defense; D Rebounding; Shotblocking; Playmaking; Intangiables; Overall

Playmaking is just for those who play the 1 (including combo guards so in the '90 version MJ has a rating in it because he'd played a little point the year prior); shot blocking is just for "bigs" (4s and 5s).

For the final three years theres a distinct offensive rebounding category (for forwards and centers).

In the written player summaries it's split into
Season summary/scoring; Defense/Defensive rebounding; The floor game [passing, screening, running the court, BBIQ here]; Intangiables and overall.
Except the final edition, which goes: Season summary; His Game; His Attitude; Needs to Work on; Where He's Headed and finally, In a Nutshell

Thanks a ton!

Two things:

1) Were there any other guys at that AAA level consistently defensively (at any position)?
2) Which categories are the most useful/important for your analysis?
3) A lot of those categories seem very interesting, but how do the three rate in shooting, scoring, and shotblocking (shooting is straightforward, but scoring and shotblocking are useful as well I'd think, since when viewed alongside the other categories, they might help us parse out post scoring from "scoring" and horizontal defense and from "defense")?

Anyhow though, these are an invaluable resource, and really give perspective. Would you be interested in putting together a Google Docs spreadsheet with the grades for notable players? Really would be a tremendous resource for the PC board.

Quick version answers

1) Yes to a degree, a listing of multiple time AAA defenders (through to '94 edition, all following year references are to editions so will be based on the year before)
MJ every year
Dumars '90-'93
Cheeks '90-'91
Fat Lever '90-'92 ('92 listings after the '91 season are probably a relisting of the previous years based on assuming a full health return)
Nance: '90, '93, '94
Derrick McKey: '90-'93
Derek Harper: '90-'91
Dennis Rodman: every year (note: He would slip to AA in the '96 edition, with both post Spur season reviews noting decreased effort/focus/concentration on D, with more on rebounds)
Darrell Walker: '90-'91
Mark Eaton: every year
Manute Bol: every year
Paul Pressey: '90-'91
John Salley: '90-'92
Sam Perkins: '90-'92
Buck Williams: every year
John Stockton: '91-'93
Rodney McCray: '91-'92
Dan Majerle: '91-'94
Bill Hanzlik: '91-'92
Vernon Maxwell: '91-'92
Scottie Pippen:'92-'94
Sean Elliott: '92-'93
Nate McMillan: '92-'94
Dikembe Mutombo:'93-'94
Horace Grant: '93-'94
Mookie Blaylock: '93-'94
Chris Dudley: '93-'94
Gary Payton: '93-'94

2) They aren't particularly central they're just nice for reference, particularly as here when they tell a different story to either common thinking or numbers.

3) 1=D, 2=C, 3=B, 4=A, 5=AA, 6=AAA (+ or - adds or takes 0.333333, though they initially didn't have plus and minus grades except in the overall category, not sure when this changed)
Scoring; Shooting; FT Shooting; Ball Handling; Passing; Defense; D Rebounding; Shotblocking; Intangiables; Overall and Average (mine based on the numbers)

'90 Ewing then Olajuwon
6 6 2 3 4 6 3 6 6 6 4.666666667
6 6 1 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 4.555555556

'91 Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson
6 6 3 3 3.666666667 6 5 6 6 6 4.962962963
6 4 2 3 2.333333333 6 6 6 6 6 4.592592593
6 3 2 3.333333333 3 6 6 6 6 6 4.592592593

'92 (players will remain in the same order)
6 6 2 3 3 4 6 6 4 6 4.444444444
6 4 3 3 2.666666667 6 6 6 6 6 4.740740741
6 3 3 3.333333333 2.666666667 6 6 6 4 6 4.444444444

'93
6 6 2 2.666666667 3 4 6 6 5 6 4.518518519
6 4 3 3 2.666666667 6 6 6 2 6 4.296296296
6 3.333333333 4 3 3 6 6 6 4 5 6 4.633333333 Robinson here (for some reason) rated on all stats (inc passing, where he gets a 4 (or A) - passing is between blocking and intangiables)

'94 different order this time sorry, and just grades rather than numbers
Scoring Shooting FT Shooting Defense D Rebounding Passing Ball Handling Shotblocking Playmaking Intangiables Overall (no average this time)

Still Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson
aaa aaa c b+ aaa b- c a aaa aaa
aaa a b aaa aaa a- b aaa aaa aaa
aa b c aaa aaa b- b aaa aaa aaa

for '93 technichally Ewing's AA (5) is next to playmaking, but it's a typo it should read intangiables.
(if anyone wants to colour or format the number tables so they're more easily readable, I'd probably confirm them ie that they've done all the categories right)

For just scoring, shooting, shot blocking the remaining years
Ewing 95: AAA; AA; AAA
Olajuwon '95: AAA; AAA; AAA
Robinson '95: AAA; A; AAA

E '96: AAA; AAA; A
O '96: AAA; AAA; AAA
R '96: AAA; AA; AAA

E '97: AAA; A+; AA
O '97: AAA; AAA; AAA
R '97: AAA; A; AAA

Some notes: I have a vague recollection that they're sometimes generous with superstars and in some areas perhaps don't withhold/ration AAA's sufficiently that it perhaps skews the top end of the curve (basically it probably doesn't give itself enough room to play with, and distinguish super-elite). But that's from memory.

Will consider some role in putting these out there (some already done), though inputting is pretty labour intensive, will pm for more info.

[90sAllDecade]

Is there a statistically analysis of player besides the few players like Wilt, Pettit etc. who lifted weights back then?

Being one of only a handful of players to lift weights is a tremendous advantage in rebounding numbers and TRB%.

Ewing had to compete for rebounds against a much even and tougher playing field against top flight center competition. Who was the 2nd best PF back then competing against Pettit?

[Jim Naismith]

I see. Although I don't think it entirely fair to automatically assume a guy couldn't adapt to the new league standard (especially given what was mentioned earlier about Pettit's potential as fitting well into a stretch-four kind of role). Within the short context of Pettit's career, as integration was just getting rolling and stylistic changes were occurring (the big changes in basketball between the early 50's and the mid-60's---which Pettit's career essentially spans, and which have been discussed in other locations on the PC board), we seem to see an indication that Pettit "rolls with it". We see the avg league shooting efficiency of his first few years rise around 3% higher by his last few years.....and we see Pettit's individual efficiency rise ~3% along with it. .

This was pretty striking: Pettit kept his individual advantage in the face of rising efficiency of the league.

[E-Balla]

First off he is being criticized that's why he isn't in yet.

No. He isn't in yet because vs. Robinson, for instance, he was a lesser performer both offensively and defensively in both the regular season and the playoffs. While I won't deny Robinson's production and efficiency took a larger slide during the ps from his regular season standard, it was STILL better than Ewing's overall ps performance (highlighted in blue the leader for each item for emphasis):

Prime Robinson in Playoffs
Per 100: 31.0 pts, 16.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 1.7 stl, 4.2 blk, 3.8 tov on .549 TS%
24.1 PER, .188 WS/48, 112 ORtg/100 DRtg in 39.3 mpg

Prime Ewing in Playoffs
Per 100: 30.6 pts, 14.8 reb, 3.3 ast, 1.2 stl, 3.4 blk, 3.8 tov on .528 TS%
20.4 PER, .138 WS/48, 106 ORtg/101 DRtg in 39.6 mpg

Much greater disparity in the rs comparison (again: Ewing really not even in the same league for rs performance). Based on these things, the gap between them is pretty obviously (to me) large (i.e. more than three places). And Ewing doesn't have much of a longevity argument over Robinson to make up the gap. He's got 17 seasons to Robinson's 14, but his final two seasons were somewhat faded/ineffectual (whereas Robinson didn't really have any years like that).

I don't see how he was a lesser performer defensively. I mean Pat led the second best defensive dynasty ever. And again Robinson usually played cupcake defenses in the playoffs and still couldn't perform against good teams. I don't care about him showing up against 45 win teams I want him to show up against the 50 win teams and top 10 defenses. Pat did that but David in his 3 shots against top 10 defenses in the playoffs only played well once (he was crappy the two other times).

Secondly I agree with Karl who was below average but not bad in the postseason but I disagree with Robinson. I made this post after the #18 thread was finished:

Well that's offensively and it doesn't account for Robinson killing bad teams while underperforming against good teams. In 90 and 91 he was great in elimination. In 92 he missed the playoffs. In 93 he was fine but immediately after that you have 94 (19/9, 41%), 95 (24/11, 44%, killed by Hakeem), 96 (19/9, 47%), and 98 (19/13, 39%). He never played great defenses in the playoffs before these defenses were making him look very bad (he also had a better offensive supporting cast).

Again, I won't deny that Robinson took a slide in the playoffs (and a longer slide than Ewing did). But as outlined above: still fairly clearly better than Ewing. Is it the length of the slide that matters? That hardly seems fair, as that's essentially punishing Robinson for being so amazing in the rs.

Also, to pick a few nits with the numbers you cite in the above paragraph.......
Robinson didn't avg 19/9 in the '94 playoffs; he avg 20/10 (and maybe worth noting that was with 3.5 ast and only 2.25 turnovers).
And citing only the FG% (like that 41% for '94) is a little misleading when comparing to Patrick Ewing. Consider their respective styles of play: Robinson was about getting to the rim; Ewing loved the jump-shot. Who do you think gets to the line more? Well, it ain't the jump-shooter. In fact, Ewing's prime ps Per 100 FTA was 8.5.....Robinson's was 13.3. So showing Ewing with a slim margin in FG% many years can be a bit misleading, because Robinson's TS% was often equal or better due to all the additional FT's.

[/quote]
I took his numbers in series that he lost and personally I think he needs to be able to make field goals to win. He didn't average 19/9 in the 94 payoffs but he averaged that against the top 10 Jazz defense.

Pat doesn't just have a slim margin in playoff performance against top 10 defenses but he has a large margin where he's outperformed Robinson.

[90sAllDecade]

Pettit isn't close to Ewing or Robinson defensively, so I don't really understand the comparison.

Considering playoffs, is Pettit even better than Elgin Baylor who played in his era and is being ranked lower than Robinson in this list (and also played longer)?

Playoffs: Baylor vs Pettit

Baylor



Pettit