RealGM Top 100 List #8

[colts18]

Peak Kobe had very little defensive impact

2005- last place in defense
2006- 15th
2007- 24th

That's Kobe peak and his defense did nothing to move the needle. What other star can say that they led the worst defense in the league during their prime?

08-10 Kobe was a solid defender, better than Kobe in any other year of his career especially compared to the 05-07 stretch where he was at times indistinguishable from James Harden on defense.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Scoring + Defense is fairly important...isn't it? Sure Bird had more rebounds and slightly more assists, but Kobe was the better scorer and defender.

Sure it is. But Kobe's defense seemed to drop off a cliff once Shaq left. Shouldn't he be playing peak defense in his actual peak? I watched the defensive highlights video you posted, and it looks like there's very little from his 'peak'.

I'm not a Bird homer (I didn't vote for him in this thread). But in the intrests of balance, here's a clip of Bird playing defense for comparison with Kobe.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Ixy8Uttq0[/youtube]

I've seen it before, but that's a good video. Larry definitely battled guys, unfortunately he got burned alot by guys like Dominique defensively.

The first video I posted was part 1., and more about his early days. This next one covers his prime years.

Feel free to skip to around 1:35 if you want to skip over the Team USA stuff.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk9SRxMQs1k[/youtube]

[90sAllDecade]

A list of the guys who made NBA All Defensive 1st team over Bird when he reached his career defensive peak on those three all nba second teams.

82:
Def 1st team: Michael Cooper, Dennis Johnson, Bobby Jones, Caldwell Jones, Dan Roundfield (Bird 2nd team)

83:
Def 1st team: Maurice Cheeks/Dennis Johnson, Bobby Jones, Moses Malone, Sidney Moncrief, Dan Roundfield (Bird 2nd team)

84:
Def 1st team: Maurice Cheeks, Michael Cooper, Bobby Jones, Sidney Moncrief, Tree Rollins (Bird 2nd team)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awa ... fense.html

[Baller2014]

Ok, to cover these points (yet again):

Bird's rookie year record with the Celtics is misleading, he had tremendously improved team support from the previous year. I'll repost this:

"There is no doubt rookie Bird had a huge impact and was the big difference for that team’s turnaround. He was the only new player in the starting lineup, but there’s more to the story and he did have help.

That year the team had gotten a new coach after changing coaches four times in the past two years. They had a bad owner who was destroying the team and Red Auerbach was so angry with his bad moves he threatened to leave until the owner sold the team to a new owner Bird’s rookie year. (One bad move was trading Bob McAdoo after 20 games the year before.)

Ok, so already there's several weird points being used here, which are typical of the inconsistency in the anti-Bird argument:
1) The coaching argument doesn't hold up, and the way you've worded it kind of gives away the difficulty you're having explaining it. You say the Celtics "changed coaches repeatedly". And why was that? Because the team sucked, and the coaches were all unable to improve it. And so, as often happens, ownership fires the coaches for failing to perform. You don't actually claim the coaching was bad, though it's implied in what you've written, and if the coaching was good then why did the teams play so badly? You're basically suggesting the evil spectre of the owner was somehow making the team lose, in spite of good players and good coaches, which is a bizarre argument. Was Cowens a bad coach? It doesn't seem like it, because he led the Celtics to a better record than Sanders. Was Sanders also a bad coach then? That doesn't seem likely either, in the previous season he led the Celtics to a better record than Heinsohn did (and nobody thinks he was a bad coach). Sometimes a duck is just a duck. The Celtics were a bad team, that's why they played badly.
2) The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism is clear in your claim about McAdoo. When I tried to use McAdoo's 20 games in 1979 as a positive for the Celtics, which they didn't have in Bird's rookie year, I was told (not entirely fairly) that McAdoo was garbage in 1979. Now we have you invoking McAdoo being traded as an example of a bad move (it wasn't, it led to the Celtics getting McHale and Parish).

This gave Red more control over decisions and he quickly restructured the team better. Bench players aging Jojo White, Rowe were gone and he added ML Carr for leadership/intangibles and Henderson on the bench. Cedric Maxwell was also started hitting his stride as a third year player.

He did make Cowens and Tiny better, but they were still all-star talents that year and future HOFers and Maxwell was great all year and in the playoffs (compare Bird’s advanced stats RS and playoffs with Cedric ‘80), that’s talent.

Jo Jo White was aging, but still a positive player. His departure is a bad thing, not a good thing. Maxwell's stats in 1979 were better than in 1980, he appears to have been the same player. Maybe you thought he "looked better" next to Bird, most players did, but that's to Bird's credit not Maxwell's. Henderson played 14mpg, Carr played 24mpg. These guys were role players. The Celtics lost Jo Jo and Rowe to retirement, and got Carr and Henderson instead. I don't see the big difference there to be honest. A few role players on the end of the bench shifted around, but the core of the team was the same.

You call Tiny and Cowens all-stars, but they were picked because Bird had turned the team into a contender and voters usually feel like the best team should get a few all-stars, not because they were legitimate all-stars. Neither had made it the previous year, Tiny hadn't made it since 1976, and were regarded as finished until Bird came and transformed the team (please, stop looking at their career achievements to try and value them as played in 79 and 80, you tried the same ridiculous thing with the Spurs in 2003, calling D.Rob, Parker and Manu HoF team mates because of their career play). Tiny played better in 1980, but Cowens played substantially worse than the previous year (indeed, he was so washed up he retired after the season). That looks like an even trade to me.

Basically the core of the team was the same. The deck chairs on the titanic got shuffled around a bit, but she was the same sinking ship until Bird came.

[An Unbiased Fan]

What exactly is the distinction? He challenged that Kobe could have the same impact on his team as Bird because he believed Bird essentially immediately improved his team by x wins. You rebutted by, in effect, saying that Kobe did sort of have that kind of impact, citing how the 2014 Lakers fell apart without him...perhaps you were getting at something else, and if so I apologize for taking your quote out of context, but if you were it wasn't clear to me.

The distinction was that I was showing how frivolous his point was, and that using Baller logic, one could just say "look at the Lakers when Kobe was hurt".

But its cool, no harm no foul. I just wanted to make it clear that I don't agree with Baller's premise.

Peak Kobe had very little defensive impact

2005- last place in defense
2006- 15th
2007- 24th

That's Kobe peak and his defense did nothing to move the needle. What other star can say that they led the worst defense in the league during their prime?

08-10 Kobe was a solid defender, better than Kobe in any other year of his career especially compared to the 05-07 stretch where he was at times indistinguishable from James Harden on defense.

Kobe's defense in 2005 was definitely not good, but that was because he was injured with plantar all that season.

From 2006-07, his defense was quite good, and he was basically holding down a bad defensive roster with Kwame. Much like KG in Minny, who had the same DRtg issues.

Not sure why you would expect a guard to be a defensive anchor anyway.

[Basketballefan]

I don't see why, even without taking into account RAPM, Kevin Garnett still seems like a better player than Kobe Bryant, the fact that KG dominates that stat is a gigantic feather in his cap, but it's not like there aren't other tangible reasons for him being a dominant player, his boxscore stats aren't exactly common either.


Regardless, I don't have either player going at this spot, no reason in talking about Bryant if no one wants Bryant here.

I disagree but you're right I'm not gonna really argue about that until the time comes.

[trex_8063]

Fascinating (if a touch side-tracking) discussion so far: 10 pages of posts, yet I think only about a half dozen or so actually votes cast from what I’ve read.

Vote: Kevin Garnett

--snip--

You’ve persuaded me into moving KG up on my list, though not to the degree that I’m considering casting my vote for #8 in his favor.

I have some questions for you regarding what exactly you consider in your ATL rankings, particularly as it pertains to Garnett, but also Bill Russell (more on that later). I’ll be sort of working along a logical line of thought tangentially back to Russell, but starting with KG……

I’ve been trying to figure out how you came to rank him #4 all-time, and as a starting point I figured some of it has to do with how you rank his peak, which I believe you said you rank #3 all-time, big gap ‘till Duncan at #4…….BOTH ahead of MJ!, and apparently a very sizable gap between KG and MJ. How exactly did you reach this conclusion where MJ’s peak is not even in your top 4 (or perhaps 5? 6??), yet KG is #3?

If we look collectively at everything (everything on paper, that is) EXCEPT RAPM, Jordan’s peak is by all measures at least a top 3-4 (the only ones who potentially have a case over his are Shaq, Lebron, Wilt, and perhaps Kareem.

If one were to look at per 100 numbers (which I did in support of Lebron in last voting thread):

Let's use a simplistic method that ignores shooting efficiency: just per 100 stats, pts+reb+ast+stl+blk-to`s……

Lebron's best season by this method is '09: 61.8.

Comparing a few other top tier stars by this method…..
*Shaquille O'Neal's best ('00) is just shy at 61.4
*Kevin Garnett's best ('04) is 60.5.
*Michael Jordan's best ('93) is 60.2 (he also had three seasons----`87, `90 and `91---at 60.1 each).
*Karl Malone's best ('97) is 59.7.
*Dwyane Wade's best ('09) is 59.2.
*Hakeem Olajuwon's ('93) is 58.6.
*Tim Duncan's best ('05, surprisingly; though should be noted this was the first year he began playing somewhat reduced minutes) is 57.5.
*Tracy McGrady's best ('03) is 57.5
*Kobe Bryant's best ('06) is 57.1
*Kevin Durant's best ('14) is 56.7.
*Kareem's best (pre-1973 data unavailable) is perhaps '77 at 59.6 (NOT counting TO`s, though, which were not yet recorded).
*Charles Barkley's best ('91) is 55.2
*Larry Bird's best ('85) is 54.5.
*Magic's best ('87) is 53.1.

…….KG is neck-n’-neck with Jordan (just marginally ahead). Depending on whether or not you’d choose to weight components differently (than just everything being worth 1 pt), he could even have a slightly bigger margin over MJ…...of course, this is before you 1) factor shooting efficiency into it (KG’s shooting efficiency in ‘04 was at least marginally worse than any one of the potential peak seasons for MJ), and 2) factor playoff performance into it: KG was pretty good in the playoffs in ‘04, but not as strong as Jordan in any one of ‘90, ‘91, or ‘93 (the best candidates for MJ’s best season); and whereas KG’s performance took a slight dip from rs standards, MJ’s went UP during the post-season in each of those years.

So KG appears marginally behind by any sort of pace-adjusted measure of raw numbers. So we could take a look at advanced stat metrics (I’m referring to the “Advanced Stat” bracket on BBR, most principally PER, WS/48, ORtg, DRtg). Again, KG’s ‘04 season would appear to take a back-seat to any one of ‘90, ‘91, or ‘93 of MJ’s seasons (and that’s just looking a rs…..the gap gets bigger if we consider a comparison of their post-season advanced stats).

So is it based on a study of his RAPM stats? You mentioned how in the RAPM era there are three guys who have separated themselves from the crowd: Shaq, Lebron, and Garnett. But to pick a nit, I don't see that that is entirely true. Here’s a look:

Shaquille O’Neal
NPI RAPM (data for ‘98-’12)
Prime Shaq (‘98-’05): avg. +5.67
Overall Shaq (‘98-’11): avg. +3.80
PI RAPM (data for ‘98-’00, ‘02-’14)
Prime Shaq (‘98-’00, ‘02-’05): avg. +6.09
Overall Shaq: avg. +3.89

Lebron James
NPI RAPM (data thru ’12; so couple of Bron’s best seasons missing)
Prime Lebron (‘05-’12): avg. +5.07
Overall Lebron: avg. +4.35
PI RAPM
Prime Lebron: avg +6.81
Overall Lebron: avg. +6.34

Kevin Garnett
NPI RAPM (I have data ‘98 thru ‘12)
Prime KG (‘01-’08): avg +3.69
Overall KG (‘98-’12): avg. +3.50
PI RAPM (data for ‘98-’00, ‘02 thru ‘14)
Prime KG (‘02-’08): avg. +5.69
Overall KG: avg. +5.96

But how about Tim Duncan?…..
NPI RAPM
Prime TD (‘99-’05): avg + 5.19
Overall TD (‘98-‘12): avg. +4.33
PI RAPM (‘98-00, ‘02-’14)
Prime TD (‘99-’00, ‘02-’05): avg. +4.82
Overall TD: avg. +5.00

I feel that PI is probably the more trustworthy of the two, though not to the degree that NPI should be disregarded. And that being the case, Duncan certainly appears to be right there in the mix with those 3 guys (he compares pretty well to Shaq even in prior informed only). For that matter, Manu Ginobili’s avg RAPM hang right there with these guys, too (though obv he’s out of his league in this company, and also played smaller minutes/fewer possessions; but jsia….).

KG is very likely among the top 3-4 “ever” wrt RAPM data (“” marks because we don’t have this data for everyone), not denying that. Just saying statements affecting that he, Shaq, and Lebron have so distanced themselves from everyone else is simply not true.

Looking at PEAK RAPM’s…..
Lebron has the highest ever single season PI RAPM at +9.6 (‘10).
Second is Tim Duncan at +8.8…...though was in ‘07, rather than the year conventionally thought of as his best (‘03).
Garnett has the 3rd-highest ever with +8.6, and it did indeed occur in the year that is by nearly all other measures his best (‘04).
Shaq is right there with +8.52, which occurred on what is deemed his best year (‘00).
KG, Lebron, and Duncan all have at least one or two other seasons with a PI RAPM in the 8-8.5 range, fwiw.

For NPI RAPM…..
The best ever single season is actually ‘09 Lamar Odom at +7.5.
2nd is a tie between ‘02 Shaquille O’Neal and ‘05 Manu Ginobili with +7.1.
4th is a tie between ‘04 Shaq, ‘07 Duncan, and ‘09 Lebron with +6.9.
7th is a tie ‘10 Lebron, ‘01 and ‘05 versions of Duncan, and ‘12 Dirk Nowitzki with +6.7.
11th is ‘01 Shaq with +6.5.
12th is a tie between ‘08 Garnett and ‘12 Matt Bonner with +6.2.
‘99 David Robinson is right there, btw, with +6.13.

But (swinging back to our comparison to Jordan) all of this omits the peak/primes of Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Olajuwon, among others for whom we just don’t have the data.

The only RAPM data we have on Jordan’s Bulls years is ‘98 (which is somewhat of a stretch to even call that part of his prime; I’d lean toward classifying it post-prime). And even there his PI RAPM was +6.15 (better than the average prime PI RAPM of everyone except Lebron), NPI RAPM was +4.59 (better than the average prime NPI RAPM of everyone). And again: this early post-prime MJ. I suspect we can safely assume that among the some 7-8 better seasons he had compared to ‘98 (including THREE potential peak season candidates), that at least one or two of them had RAPM scores that were right there in contention with the best of Lebron, Duncan, Shaq, and Garnett.

This is conjecture, obviously, but it’s not conjecture formed without good reason. And if I’m correct in this, then there is basically NOTHING/no relevant comparative study that definitively places KG’s peak ahead of Jordan’s (much less by a significant margin).

So anyway, that’s my long-winded way of saying I’m still very much scratching my head over that one.

But anyway…...so you have KG’s peak at #3…...I note that you don’t rank Bill Russell’s peak anywhere in your top 4, at least. Yet he was your vote for GOAT. So maybe peak isn’t a big consideration in where you place people all-time???

Longevity/durability/consistency…….KG could certainly be top 5-6 in this regard. Certainly he’d still fall a little behind Kareem and Parish, as well as probably K.Malone and perhaps Stockton. After that, it’s probably got to be either him or Moses Malone (not really considering Kevin Willis ). But back to Russell: Russell has a small to near-negligible longevity/durability/consistency case over Bird, Magic, and Lebron. But his longevity kinda pales in comparison to everyone else that has been voted in or who is in the discussion at this point. Yet he was still your pick for GOAT. So perhaps longevity isn’t a huge consideration either???

Is it statistical footprint stuff? Garnett is maybe top 10-12 there, but not top 5. And Russell too might be top 5-ish (at least when considering playoff numbers as well), but not GOAT.

Maybe your picking Russell GOAT has to do with measures of team success (‘cause he is the GOAT in that regard). But that doesn’t jive at all with Garnett being #4. ALL things considered (titles, finals appearances, playoff appearances and deep playoff runs, cumulative rs record, SRS considerations, etc)......Garnett’s probably got the worst overall resume of team success of anybody mentioned so far on this project, with the exception of Barkley and perhaps Robertson. So I’m not seeing a consistent correlation there either.

But there's no question Garnett spent many years with sub-par supporting casts, and perhaps you're choosing to NOT penalize him for that. But if so, then the flip-side of that coin must also be scrutinized. Because it could pretty accurately be said that Russell NEVER had a sub-par supporting cast. In fact, I doubt it could be said that Russell ever had a merely "slightly above average" supporting cast.

Either way, there's little consistency under the "team success relative to supporting cast" umbrella between ranking Russell #1 and Garnett #4.

So is the biggest reason for Garnett being at #4 on your ATL coming down to the RAPM data you’ve been advocating and defending quite extensively (because he IS a top 4 all-time overall as far as that data is concerned)? And if so, how are you justifying Russell as GOAT?

Even if RAPM data were available for that era, I doubt Russell would be much of a + offensively. Maybe as much as +1 or so, just in that he helped them get out and run. Otherwise, are you expecting his defensive +/- to be around +7 to +9 year after year, thus giving him GOAT status?

And even if that is your belief, what about strength of era considerations? I don’t agree with this “Russell as mythic figure” ideology, wherein Russell is thought to be near super-human on defense. Even if his defensive “impact” (don’t want to get into semantics of that word, and think you know what I mean anyway) was +7.0 to +9.0 back then, do people really believe that could be the case today, in an era where NOBODY (not even KG) has ever had a DRAPM as high as 7.0 (even KG never had one higher than 5.2 when he was playing actually “star-level minutes”.....and even that’s a bit of a stretch calling 32.8 mpg “star-level”).

I addressed this in the Vote for #1 thread: the thing about Russell’s immense defensive impact in his own time had a lot to do with being able to cover a lot of ground both vertically AND horizontally, and do it very very quickly. Here were some era peers quotes I cited:

---

"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam, “Big E For Elvin's Two Big Efforts: His coach didn't let him go head-to-head with Chamberlain and Russell on successive nights, but Hayes wowed 'em anyway.” Sports Illustrated. Nov. 25, 1968. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm)

“Bill’s great mobility enabled him to block jump shots all over the court.”
— Pete Newell

“Russell would chase you everywhere. I’ve taken 20-footers that were blocked by Russell.”
— Johnny Kerr

“Bill Russell used to be able to go out and block shots. You’ve got to differentiate that from Wilt Chamberlain, who would block the shots coming to the basket, but Russell would go out and deter you from shooting.”
— Marty Blake, NBA Director of Scouting Services

“He was a unique defensive player because he could literally come out and play a guard or forward. Most centers can’t do that. Even today, there is no way that they can play guards, but he could do that.”
— Jerry West

“[H]e could go out and defend out on the perimeter, which seems to be a lost art today.”
— Marty Blake

“I’ve seen him come out and pick up players like Neil Johnston and Bob Pettit. He doesn’t stand in one spot.”
— Jacko Collins, supervisor of NBA officials

“He was so […] quick off the ball that he could double-team and trap you at a moment’s notice or jump out to help a defender on a pick and roll.”
— Oscar Robertson, The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game, p. 142

Notice how almost all these quotes refer to Russell’s ability to cover ground, how he could be 15-20 feet away from the play, and then recover to deny a shot at the rim or some such. And I’m not saying that Russell wasn’t a great athlete, or that he wouldn’t still be considered an amazing athlete by today’s standards. What I’m saying is that his level of athleticism is less of an outlier by today’s standard.

Consider who the perimeter players he was doing most of the stuffing on back in the day. There were a couple of pretty athletic ones, mostly notably Oscar Robertson, but also Jerry West and perhap Lenny Wilkens were pretty quick/athletic, too. Otherwise we’re talking about guys like Guy Rodgers, Richie Guerin, Cliff Hagan, Gene Shue, Slater Martin, Dick McGuire, Paul Arizin, Larry Costello, Don Ohl…...these were all guys who would be considered---by today’s standards---if not slow, at least “not very fast”. And they all played decidedly BELOW the rim, too.

Compare that to guys like Russell Westbrook, Kevin Durant, Tony Parker, Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Vince Carter, Derrick Rose, etc. I sincerely doubt Russell would be able to recover and stuff guys like this with same degree of “ease”.
EDIT: Also, wrt to blocking jump-shots--->I think Russell likely had a bit more "peace of mind" in gambling on jump-shooters in that era, because offenses very nearly LIVED on mid-range shots in that era; and also he likely wasn't particularly afraid of the relative speed of many players in that day ("if he gets me on the shot-fake, I still have time to recover..."). Today, I don't think he could feel so comfortably leaving the floor to contest mid-range jumpers.

It’s like I said to Albert Einstein once, I said, “Al…..everything’s relative, baby.”

Quite simply, the gap in athleticism between Russell and the rest of the league has closed substantially in the last 50+ years. There’s a much higher proportion of athletes that are roughly “of Russell’s caliber” in the league today. And more importantly, the athletic difference between him and the league’s “mediocre” athletes is smaller than it was 50 years ago. Sure he’d still have the psychological edge and the great defensive IQ; but the other big thing that made him such a remarkably impactful defender (his near-ridiculously superior athleticism) would no longer be as big of a factor.

He’d still probably be one of the most impactful defenders ever, even in the modern context. I just don’t necessarily think it would be any bigger than what guys like Garnett or DRob have done. I don’t think it would be the +7.0 to +9.0 necessary to make him GOAT-like in impact in the modern league.

Now one might ask Why should that matter? Why do we need to consider era equivalency and era portability? Well, I suppose we don’t. Though if we’re not, then it’s like penbeast keeps asking: when are we going to give Mikan his day in court? Because if we’re saying era equivalency and portability don’t matter, than Mikan absolutely needs to be getting consideration very very soon; and Robertson and West should be getting consideration NOW. We can’t just make it a consideration for some, but give others (like Russell) a pass.

Anyway, all that brings me back to my original ponderings: what goes into your considerations for ATL ranking? Because I just can’t find the colinearity between Russell at #1 and Garnett at #4. It seems as though you must be placing high emphasis on factors A, B, and C for one guy, but placing primary emphasis on factors D, E, and F for the other. Which, if you're not being consistent in how you rank players, isn't that by definition bias?

[acrossthecourt]

To expand on t-rex's point above, I pointed out in another thread that the variation in WS/48 was really high in the early 60's and 50's. When there's less competition, there's a greater variety in performances.

Kobe's 06-10 peak had him at 39.2 ppg, 6.6 apg, 7.3 rpg, 2.1 spg, 4.0 tpg per 100. How does Bird "blow that away"? Nevermind the defensive end where Kobe has a clear edge.

Bird was better than Kobe2010 for the first 9 years of his career. Do you really think 10 is part of Kobe's peak?

Anyway, here's a side by side comparison of Kobe and Bird over their putative primes using per100 stats:
Kobe06-10 .565TS% 39.2PTS 7.3REB 6.6AST 2.1STL 0.5BLK 4.0TOV 3.5PF
Bird.85-88 .596TS% 34.4PTS 11.9REB 8.3AST 2.2STL 1.1BLK 3.8TOV 3.5PF

Kobe's only advantage is volume scoring at a lower efficiency. Bird was a better rebounder and passer.

Scoring + Defense is fairly important...isn't it? Sure Bird had more rebounds and slightly more assists, but Kobe was the better scorer and defender.

I don't think it's correct to use defense in Kobe's favor here. He's wildly inconsistent and has some terrible years like 2014.

For instance in 2005 the Lakers had the worst defense in the league and they got better when Kobe wasn't on the court.

edit: More evidence:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/an-op ... s-defense/

http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2013 ... ric-season

Who is he guarding?
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2001273/kbb1_5.JPG

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... -and-more/

http://hoopspeak.com/2013/01/did-kobe-b ... ly-matter/

Just throwing out some links so people don't brand me as a Kobe-hating-stat-lover. It's been talked about a lot. His lazy help defense has been a problem off and on for a while now.

[An Unbiased Fan]

To expand on t-rex's point above, I pointed out in another thread that the variation in WS/48 was really high in the early 60's and 50's. When there's less competition, there's a greater variety in performances.

Bird was better than Kobe2010 for the first 9 years of his career. Do you really think 10 is part of Kobe's peak?

Anyway, here's a side by side comparison of Kobe and Bird over their putative primes using per100 stats:
Kobe06-10 .565TS% 39.2PTS 7.3REB 6.6AST 2.1STL 0.5BLK 4.0TOV 3.5PF
Bird.85-88 .596TS% 34.4PTS 11.9REB 8.3AST 2.2STL 1.1BLK 3.8TOV 3.5PF

Kobe's only advantage is volume scoring at a lower efficiency. Bird was a better rebounder and passer.

Scoring + Defense is fairly important...isn't it? Sure Bird had more rebounds and slightly more assists, but Kobe was the better scorer and defender.

I don't think it's correct to use defense in Kobe's favor here. He's wildly inconsistent and has some terrible years like 2014.

For instance in 2005 the Lakers had the worst defense in the league and they got better when Kobe wasn't on the court.

Kobe was injured in both 2005 & 2014. That still leaves 90% of his career.

My point is that he was a better defender than Larry. Are we really gonna debate that? I'm a Bird fan too, but seriously, do you really think he's on par with Kobe defensively?

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #8 - Magic

Click spoiler to see my first 2 posts in favor of magic (includes some videos):

Spoiler:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... sma02.html

12x all star
10x all NBA (9 1st, 1 2nd)
3x reg season MVP (6 other top 3 finishes)
3x Finals MVP
5 championships
Career leader in APG

Not many players started their career off with a bang the way magic did. He led the lakers to 60 wins and a famous finals clinching performance against the sixers with 42 pts, 15 rebounds, and 7 assists. This came against a sixers team who ranked 1st in DRTG that season. To have that kind of impact out the gate as a rookie is almost unfathomable (yes, i'm aware russell had a similar impact).

His marked consistency throughout his career from a statistical as well as team standpoint (lakers made the finals 9 times from 80-91) was remarkable. For a guy who never really developed a 3 pt shot and did play guard regardless of size, posting a TS% of 60+ for the majority of his career was more than impressive.

No doubt he had plenty of talent around him over the years, but he was the key to navigating that team to their success throughout the 80s (queue the "tragic johnson" stories...) He had a truly unique impact on the court due to decision making that was only rivaled by a select few in the history of the league.

Haven't been able to find any RAPM data from the 80s, but this chart from the 90s indicates that even late in his career, magic was at the top of the list:

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/90s.html

We need to consider the fact that magic was forced to retire at 31 due to illness, and not a basketball related injury. It makes me wonder how productive and successful he would've been up to say age 35. I know it's discussed, but not nearly as much as I would expect. In his last season he played in 79 games, averaging the following:

19 PPG, 7 RPG, 12.5 APG, 1 SPG

~47% FG, 38% 3PT, 86% FT, 62% TS

117/107 OFF/DEF rating, .18 WS/48

His playoff production taking the lakers to the finals that year didn't drop off much at all, scoring more PPG on only a slightly lower TS%. Considering he still put up respectable #s at 36 after being out of the league for 5 years, I could see his production only dipping slightly each season from 31 to 35.

I can't help but think about how Walton's short prime is valued so highly when the majority of his career was derailed by injuries. I'm not saying he isn't deserving, but a guy like ralph sampson (who yes, wasn't as good as walton) for example doesn't really get the same treatment.

*EDIT* - Long story short, it's just something to think about. My ranking magic #3 is still based on his NBA career as a whole only.

I'd like to clarify 1 other thing about wondering how magic's career would progress if he never got HIV: there's a significant and consistent sample size upon which we could extrapolate. That isn't the case for guys like sabonis who came into the league post prime or walton who in his very short prime only played in 60+ games in 1 season.

Again, not part of my ranking. Just think he's more of a unique case than others.

Some game footage of note:

85 Playoffs G5 vs. Blazers - 34 PTS, 9 REB, 19 AST (closeout game)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 70LAL.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWm93xi3x8U[/youtube]

88-99 vs. Sixers - 32 PTS, 11 REB, 20 AST

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 80PHI.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LoELfNFZaQ[/youtube]

88 Playoffs G7 vs. Jazz - 23 PTS, 9 REB, 16 AST

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 10LAL.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa6GJo2fCYQ[/youtube]

87 Finals G4 vs. Celtics - 29 PTS, 8 REB, 5 AST (famous game winning hook shot down the middle)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 90BOS.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n1-KIcoIzU[/youtube]

80 Finals G6 vs. Sixers - 42 PTS, 15 REB, 7 AST (closeout game without kareem)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 60PHI.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au7WJbus5BM[/youtube]

A few other thoughts on Magic:

When he couldn't lead his team all the way to a championship, he still played at an elite level in elimination losses.

STATS IN ELIMINATION LOSSES (thanks to fpliii and http://nbastats.net for the stats dating back to 1980!)

22.7 PPG, 8 RPG, 12.8 APG, 41% FG, 83% FT

I left out 82, 89 and 96 as they're not as relevant (82 injured most of the season, 89 played 5 min in elim game against DET, 96 is like jordan on the wizards -- it was… bizarre)

In one way or another, he put his team on his back, doing all he could to help them win. Can't win em all, though.

A few more impressive playoff games of note:

89 vs. POR - 35 PTS, 8 REB, 12 AST, 5 STL, 3 TO, 6/11 FG, 4/8 3PT, 11/11 FT, 73% TS, 155/108 OFF/DEF RTG - http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 00LAL.html

87 vs. BOS - 29 PTS, 8 REB, 13 AST, 2 STL, 1 BLK, 0 TO, 13/25 FG, 3/3 FT, 55% TS, 141/110 OFF/DEF RTG - http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 20LAL.html

86 vs. HOU - 26 PTS, 7 REB, 18 AST, 3 STL, 4 TO, 9/15 FG, 8/13 FT, 63% TS, 127/101 OFF/DEF RTG- http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 00LAL.html

I'd also argue that he was a top 3 basketball mind of all time, and if you want to be conservative he was very clearly top 5. His on the fly decision making was incredible, and he followed that up with consistent play overall. If magic didn't live up to expectations, his truly unique skill set wouldn't have been as impressive. The fact that his level of play paralleled that skill set puts him in very small company.

Also, per ronnymac2:

We get essentially 4 different Magic Johnsons:

1. We get swiss army knife Magic, the triple-double machine with his best defense.
2. Then when Nixon leaves, we get Super PG Magic.
3. Then he gets the keys and we see 24 point, 12 assist, super post game PEAK Magic.
4. Finally we get unstoppable efficiency monster Magic with a 3-point shot and a perfect post game.

I'm not a huge fan of the term "portability" being thrown around these days (it gives me this negative feeling as it seems to go hand in hand with people who over-emphasize "the right way to play"). That said, I think ronnymac2's post really exemplifies how magic was able to change his game several times throughout his career and still remain a consistent force production-wise as well as leading his team to success. No, he doesn't have duncan's longevity, but when he retired 12 years into his career, he was still an elite NBA player who finished 2nd in MVP voting.

Lastly, some info regarding Magic and Paul Westhead:

viewtopic.php?p=40649485#p40649485

Lakers went in the right direction promoting riley to head coach, and the rest is history.

While there are certainly legit cases for the guys who made it ahead of magic, i'm still surprised he's standing here at 8th. My gut feeling is he's getting pushed down because people may now feel we romanticized his career too much. He was a truly special player, and i'm not sure he's getting appreciated enough.

As for magic and bird, I almost look at them as 1A and 1B in comparison to each other. I'd give magic the edge in that he was a slightly more impacting player statistically, and accomplished more over the course of his career.

[90sAllDecade]

Ok, to cover these points (yet again):

Bird's rookie year record with the Celtics is misleading, he had tremendously improved team support from the previous year. I'll repost this:

"There is no doubt rookie Bird had a huge impact and was the big difference for that team’s turnaround. He was the only new player in the starting lineup, but there’s more to the story and he did have help.

That year the team had gotten a new coach after changing coaches four times in the past two years. They had a bad owner who was destroying the team and Red Auerbach was so angry with his bad moves he threatened to leave until the owner sold the team to a new owner Bird’s rookie year. (One bad move was trading Bob McAdoo after 20 games the year before.)

Ok, so already there's several weird points being used here, which are typical of the inconsistency in the anti-Bird argument:
1) The coaching argument doesn't hold up, and the way you've worded it kind of gives away the difficulty you're having explaining it. You say the Celtics "changed coaches repeatedly". And why was that? Because the team sucked, and the coaches were all unable to improve it. And so, as often happens, ownership fires the coaches for failing to perform. You don't actually claim the coaching was bad, though it's implied in what you've written, and if the coaching was good then why did the teams play so badly? You're basically suggesting the evil spectre of the owner was somehow making the team lose, in spite of good players and good coaches, which is a bizarre argument. Was Cowens a bad coach? It doesn't seem like it, because he led the Celtics to a better record than Sanders. Was Sanders also a bad coach then? That doesn't seem likely either, in the previous season he led the Celtics to a better record than Heinsohn did (and nobody thinks he was a bad coach). Sometimes a duck is just a duck. The Celtics were a bad team, that's why they played badly.
2) The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism is clear in your claim about McAdoo. When I tried to use McAdoo's 20 games in 1979 as a positive for the Celtics, which they didn't have in Bird's rookie year, I was told (not entirely fairly) that McAdoo was garbage in 1979. Now we have you invoking McAdoo being traded as an example of a bad move (it wasn't, it led to the Celtics getting McHale and Parish).

This gave Red more control over decisions and he quickly restructured the team better. Bench players aging Jojo White, Rowe were gone and he added ML Carr for leadership/intangibles and Henderson on the bench. Cedric Maxwell was also started hitting his stride as a third year player.

He did make Cowens and Tiny better, but they were still all-star talents that year and future HOFers and Maxwell was great all year and in the playoffs (compare Bird’s advanced stats RS and playoffs with Cedric ‘80), that’s talent.

Jo Jo White was aging, but still a positive player. His departure is a bad thing, not a good thing. Maxwell's stats in 1979 were better than in 1980, he appears to have been the same player. Maybe you thought he "looked better" next to Bird, most players did, but that's to Bird's credit not Maxwell's. Henderson played 14mpg, Carr played 24mpg. These guys were role players. The Celtics lost Jo Jo and Rowe to retirement, and got Carr and Henderson instead. I don't see the big difference there to be honest. A few role players on the end of the bench shifted around, but the core of the team was the same.

You call Tiny and Cowens all-stars, but they were picked because Bird had turned the team into a contender, not because they were legitimate all-stars. Neither had made it the previous year, and were regarded as finished until Bird came and transformed the team (please, stop looking at their career achievements to try and value them as played in 79 and 80, you tried the same ridiculous thing with the Spurs in 2003, calling D.Rob, Parker and Manu HoF team mates because of their career play). Tiny played better in 1980, but Cowens played substantially worse than the previous year. That looks like an even trade to me.

Basically the core of the team was the same. The deck chairs on the titanic got shuffled around a bit, but she was the same sinking ship until Bird came.

Your argument is largely your opinion, The sports illustrated article gave credit to Bird as the major factor and described all the changes the team experienced, if you want to spin that with your opinion fine.

Fitch joined Bird's rookie year and was a better coach than those four. Tiny and Cowens were HOFers, MVP and had won rings before Bird. Tiny was finally healthy and made the all star team like he did numerous times before Bird. Cowens also made the team as he did numerous times before Bird as well.

Maxwell had much more turmoil in the coaching carosel, injuries,18 players getting shuttled in and out, bad ownership (which immediately changed hands Bird's rookie year) and a weaker bench. Bird was the catalyst, but to ignore the all star, HOF and contributions Maxwell, Coach fitch and the bench gave and giving the team success singularly to Bird is not using full context imo.

Other than Don Chaney and Roby who played only 36 games, the entire Celtics bench had changed when Bird arrived (6 out of 12 players), a new better coach in Fitch, a new owner, Red Auerbach with more control as GM, 3rd year Cedric Maxwell, a finally healthy Archibald and he had a 31 year old Cowens both of which were all stars, HOFer, NBA champs and one MVP prior to Bird's arrival.

(I also wasn't the person who spoke with you about McAdoo before this? Red Auerbach didn't like the move initially and it describes why he didn't like the owner and felt he was incompetent in the article. His words not mine.)

We can agree to disagree, at the end of the day Hakeem had a higher peak, longevity and two way prime with much less team support to win a championship than Bird imo.

[penbeast0]

I am counting votes and have just reached page 5.

As a sidelight I also looked at posts with significant analysis.

POSTS WITH SIGNIFICANT ANALYSIS (your count may differ slightly) 28
Posts comparing 2 or more of the 4 players who have received support 5
Posts comparing players who have received no support or who are already voted in 20
Posts talking about how useful RAPM is 8

CAN WE PLEASE POST DISCUSSION AT LEAST RELATED TO THE FRIGGIN TOPIC WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING;
IT IS GETTING RIDICULOUS.

I know you want to talk about players who haven't been brought up but can we wait until you are actually considering voting for them. Phil Chenier was one of my favorite players but I'm not discussing how his defense compares to that of other players of his time. It just makes the thread confusing and not helpful to the project.

Magic 8 -- GC Pantalones, magicmer1, basketballefan, JordansBulls, Chuck Texas, penbeast0, Clyde Frazier, trex 8063
Bird 6 -- DQuinn 1575, Baller 2014, Warspite, DannyNoonan 1221, rich 316, RSCD3
Hakeem 3 -- Heartbreak Kid, threalbig3, Gregoire
KG 1 -- Doctor MJ

[trex_8063]

OK, time to rock the vote.

btw, I'm really quite satisfied with the top 7. Not exactly the order I have, but those are the 7 guys I have filling those 7 spots, and I've come to feel pretty strongly that they're the 7 guys who belong. Not that there's any sizable gap after them, but jsia....

For #8....My vote: Magic Johnson.

Arguably the most impactful offensive player ever. Obv it's very debatable, but he's at least got to be right up there with Jordan, Nash, Lebron.
Career ORtg of 121, once as high as 126 (FOUR seasons with 124+ rating!); I know ORtg's leaned a little higher in that era, but d***! that's still pretty impressive. From '86 until he was forced into retirement, he had AST% >45% EVERY YEAR, while only ONCE having a TOV% >20%; also had a TS% >.600 for all but one of those years. All-time leader in apg, 5th all-time in career assists; 1st all-time in career playoff assists, which happens to be one of those marks that I don't think will be touched in my lifetime.
Obviously he had a lot of help, but during his 12 relevant years in LA, the Lakers were:
#1 rated offense SEVEN TIMES.
#2 rated offense TWICE.
#5 rated offense TWICE.
#7 rated offense once (and that one time was the year Magic missed 45 games with injury).

And although he's perhaps not in the + column defensively, I don't think he's a defensive liability like Nash was. And he offered you a certain versatility that could come in handy in times of crisis (like it did in the finals his rookie season).

I could go one with more numbers or some highlight reels, but really that's all been done already on prior threads. Magic is my pick unless I get convinced otherwise (Bird is the only other one I'm giving serious consideration to, fwiw).

[Baller2014]

Fitch joined Bird's rookie year and was a better coach than those four.

I look forward to your vigorous support of Fitch when you bring up Hakeem being held back by his coaches.

And come on, Fitch was better than Heinsohn? The line about the Celtics coaches during Bird's time there is this: unlike all the other great title teams nobody remembers who the coaches were on the Celtics, because Bird really coached the team. The coaches with Bird were good, they knew to get out of the way of Bird and let the team play, but basically Bird was the coach and when the coaches went in and out during that period, there was no real change in the on the court play. Chuck Texas had a good quote that basically captured this attitude, where in a timeout Bird just overruled the coach and said "how about you give me the ball and everyone gets out of my way?"

Tiny and Cowens were HOFers, MVP and had won rings before Bird. Tiny was finally healthy and made the all star team like he did numerous times before Bird. Cowens also made the team as he did numerous times before Bird as well.

Again, you continue with a clearly disingenuous argument; trying to give Cowens and Tiny credit in 1979 and 1980 for stuff they had done many years earlier. They were indeed HoFers, bit not for anything they did in 1979 or 1980. Tiny was not healthy, Tiny never recovered from his injuries (nobody recovered from Achilles injuries like that back then, and even today you rarely do), all he did was gradually come back as a shell of his former self. He was playing better in 1980 than 1979, having Bird to take the weight off no doubt helped, but Cowens was playing the worst he'd ever played. So it balances out.

I don't understand how you can still make these arguments, you've been called out on this repeatedly by many posters. You did the same thing with the Spurs, trying to give their 03 support cast credit for stuff they'd done earlier/later in their careers, even though they were plainly not the same players.

Maxwell had much more turmoil in the coaching carosel, injuries,18 players getting shuttled in and out, bad ownership (which immediately changed hands Bird's rookie year) and a weaker bench.

His numbers were better in 79 than 80. Your assertion he was a worse player in 1979 is just that, an assertion, and not a very logical one. You again reference this spectre of ownership, which somehow (apparently) made a team of good players and good coaches perform badly (or so you imply, and if that isn't what you're implying your argument makes no sense).

Bird had the higher peak. Not just because, as a mere rookie, he turned a 29 win Celtics team into a contender with 61 win, but because the same media you tried to rely on in your previous post all thought so. Bird won 3 straight MVP's in the golden age of basketball, and was consistently regarded as the better player than Hakeem (who got comparatively little MVP or all-nba team consideration from the media). Nobody thought Hakeem was a better play than Bird in the 80's, your own argument that we should rely on what the media thought hurts the argument you're putting forward.

[ceiling raiser]

My point is that he was a better defender than Larry. Are we really gonna debate that? I'm a Bird fan too, but seriously, do you really think he's on par with Kobe defensively?

Well, I can't comment on Bird's defense, since I've seen the entirety of Kobe's career, but only a tiny portion of Bird's, and after the fact. So I don't know how debatable it is. Bird did look very active in his first few playoffs, and we can't ignore the position advantage (in terms of size/strength and rebounding), especially for those of us (including myself) who are interested in projecting players into the present league (Bird was by and large a SF in his day, but in today's league, you'd think he'd be a perfect stretch 4, and wouldn't be a liability on defense if he's not facing quicker, smaller guys).

I don't think it's something we can take for granted, by any means though. If we're going to justify bringing up Kobe this early (which I don't necessarily have a problem with), we have to be pretty clear and precise in our comparisons. Especially with something like defense, which is very fuzzy in the pre-RAPM era. But if we intend to try and use defense as a reason to make the comparison, we have to be damn sure about our analysis.

I'd be very interested in a scouting report style breakdown of both of their defenses, from someone who isn't a fan of either fanbase (ruling both of us out unfortunately though my scouting needs a ton of work, tbh). drza set the standard earlier in the project with his Garnett breakdown (which mixed qualitative with quantitative; in case you're reading drza, I'd love a similar breakdown of Hakeem, who I didn't get to watch pre-peak though ronnymac, fatal9, 90salldecade, and a couple of others have done a great job fleshing those years out), even if abridged, it would be great to have someone breakdown both Kobe and Bird defensively over their careers.

[ceiling raiser]

BTW, for those considering Bird, I posted these scans from his book "Drive" a few threads ago:

http://www2.zippyshare.com/v/12642344/file.html

Bird discusses the three in this selection, pretty fun read IMO.

[DQuinn1575]

Bird's rookie year record with the Celtics is misleading, he had tremendously improved team support from the previous year. ,,,,,,
Tiny and Cowens both made the all star game that year. All these factors aided Bird’s team success imo, so he benefited from better help his rookie year too versus what Hakeem succeeded with."

Cowens played 360 less minutes in 80 vs 79 - per 100 poss

79 - 48.3% fg 11.7 reb 20.2 pts 4.3 asst
80 - 45.3% fg 11.6 reb 20.4 pts 4.5 asst
retired in 81 even though team was contender (and won) title

So he played less, shot worse, rebounded and passed the same. I think that a former mvp made 2nd team all-defense and all-star on name and 60 win season.

So I really can't give any improvement to Cowens

Archibald - yes a big plus- but he wasn't the superstar he was before the injury, and he was always noted as a poor defender. But a top notch point guard - top 20 player in league - worth some wins

Maxwell - reduced minutes - went from leading league in FG% to leading league in FG% but up 58.4% to 60.9% - scored and rebounded pretty similar 79 to 80. 2.5% on 9.4 fga = .23 pts per game - so he really didn't play a lot better, some of that can be attributed to better passing with Nate and Larry, and he played less.

So, not that much of an impact

M.L. Carr was a starter on a 30 win Piston team in 79- great guy to have around, but really??

Chris Ford got an uptick with the introduction of the 3 point shot - but his minutes went down too, and he didn't help win a lot more games.

So, other than Nate I really don't see anybody who improved that much to advance the team. Ford, Maxwell, and Cowens all played less, and their stats aren't a lot better.



Three starters played less minutes, the one who played more was known as a minus defender -

Bird took the minutes of Marvin Barnes and Curtis Rowe

The team in 80 assisted more, turned the ball over less, and rebounded better than 79. Bird was an improvement in all these areas over Barnes/Rowe.

[drza]

Magic vs Larry

Whether I vote for eith of them in this thread or not, I'd be remiss not to give at least a small take on one of the greatest rivalries in sports history. I see those arguing that Bird got off to the faster start, and that he was relied upon more heavily than Magic to start their careers. And I can respect that. But I don't think that tells ultimately who was better.

I think that they had a lot in common. Both had offensive genius. Both had unique, un replicable skill sets. I agree with those that say that Bird's skill set might be even more effective today than it was in his time due to the emphasis on the 3 point shot. It's hard to envision Bird using modern players...perhaps a funky combo of LeBron James and Dirk Nowitzki...LeBrons height, Dirk's build and athletic ability, LeBrons passing ability, Dirk's shot. I don't think he could play point forward, but he could definitely play a version of the point power forward role where he could receive the first pass and be the primary decision maker. And he'd be deadly off the ball, forcing defenses to adjust to the threat of his shot whether he had the ball or not. I see him as more of a SF (where he'd be a great rebounder), but he would also be a great 4, especially in small ball lineups. Bird was a beast in his time and would have still been massive impact if transported to this time period.

But one area in which Magic separates himself from Bird is that he is arguably the biggest non-center physical positional mismatch in ZnBA history. This was true in the 80s, and it would be true now. On offense, he was simply taller and bigger than anyone who could check a perimeter ball handler. While I could imagine putting LeBron on Garnett on Magic, this would hurt their team defenses because that would force a guard to defend a front court player. Magic was one of the most efficient scorers in NBA history, which is crazy for a point guard. But more than that, he was also one of the most efficient players ever at creating shots for teammates. Magic would see Bird's spacing and creation impact, and raise it with his own offensive engine effect (most analogous, IMO, to Steve Nash). And Magics rebounding was positionally GOAT level with the real ability to impact what lineups could be built around him.

Ultimately, I think that Magic peaked a bit higher and ened up as the better of the two. Slightly.

[ElGee]

If you truly think KMalone and Barkely are legitimate candidates here and would vote for one of them at this spot, then I have no problem. I think the RAPM enthusiasts are making real arguments for Kevin Garnett at this point and would support him being this high; I don't agree but think that's different from what you are doing.

I wonder, am I an RAPM enthusiast? Because I've made a lot of KG arguments -- have thought higher than the guy than most for a long time -- and I don't believe I've cited anything regarding RAPM. In a long time, actually. The last RAPM discussion regarding KG I had, I was arguing against Doc MJ's conclusions based on his wonderful spreadsheet. And I have KG 7th (I use a "career value" criteria).

If you don't use RAPM, you certainly can't use on/off. And based on the criticisms I've seen, you can't use PPG or TS% or any other box derivative either because those are dependent on your teammates and *sigh* we have no way of perfectly controlling for them, so you can't really use any stats...really, I won't be dogmatic on conclusions but I'm telling you that you are doing some horrible scientific analysis if you throw out RAPM or this incredibly valuable family of stats.

And I COMPLETELY disagree with the tenor of this thread that RAPM should not be discussed. The value of these projects is in the information. It's like saying in the RPOY we shouldn't have discussed WOWY or estimated pace. Or in other projects, the Spacing Effect, concepts of Global Offense, etc...The. Best. Reason. to have these projects is the discussion of the theory, analysis and heavy connection of those things to information. The results don't really matter. The reasons do.

[90sAllDecade]

Fitch joined Bird's rookie year and was a better coach than those four.

I look forward to your vigorous support of Fitch when you bring up Hakeem being held back by his coaches.

I never said Fitch was a bad coach and you're ignoring all the other team support issues the Rockets had that has been presented numerous times.

And come on, Fitch was better than Heinsohn? The line about the Celtics coaches during Bird's time there is this: unlike all the other great title teams nobody remembers who the coaches were on the Celtics, because Bird really coached the team. The coaches with Bird were good, they knew to get out of the way of Bird and let the team play, but basically Bird was the coach and when the coaches went in and out during that period, there was no real change in the on the court play. Chuck Texas had a good quote that basically captured this attitude, where in a timeout Bird just overruled the coach and said "how about you give me the ball and everyone gets out of my way?"

Fitch is arguably a better coach, Heinsohn got inducted in the HOF as a player, Fitch got in as a coach. But lets say Heinshon is better and I agree with that, him getting fired, Sanders having a losing record and getting replaced and Cowens getting replaced all during midseason won't have an effect on the team? Could it be the owners were making incompetent decisions with these coaches?

Tiny and Cowens were HOFers, MVP and had won rings before Bird. Tiny was finally healthy and made the all star team like he did numerous times before Bird. Cowens also made the team as he did numerous times before Bird as well.

Again, you continue with a clearly disingenuous argument; trying to give Cowens and Tiny credit in 1979 and 1980 for stuff they had done many years earlier. They were indeed HoFers, bit not for anything they did in 1979 or 1980. Tiny was not healthy, Tiny never recovered from his injuries (nobody recovered from Achilles injuries like that back then, and even today you rarely do), all he did was gradually come back as a shell of his former self. He was playing better in 1980 than 1979, having Bird to take the weight off no doubt helped, but Cowens was playing the worst he'd ever played. So it balances out.

This is your opinon, they made the all star team. Bird made them better but they were still talented players who did it many times before. We can agree to disagree.

I don't understand how you can still make these arguments, you've been called out on this repeatedly by many posters. You did the same thing with the Spurs, trying to give their 03 support cast credit for stuff they'd done earlier/later in their careers, even though they were plainly not the same players.

Spin, without using context, the pot calling the kettle black and being disingenuous imo. Duncan has already been voted in as well, what does that debate have to do with this one?

Maxwell had much more turmoil in the coaching carosel, injuries,18 players getting shuttled in and out, bad ownership (which immediately changed hands Bird's rookie year) and a weaker bench.

His numbers were better in 79 than 80. Your assertion he was a worse player in 1979 is just that, an assertion, and not a very logical one. You again reference this spectre of ownership, which somehow (apparently) made a team of good players and good coaches perform badly (or so you imply, and if that isn't what you're implying your argument makes no sense).

Bird had the higher peak. Not just because, as a mere rookie, he turned a 29 win Celtics team into a contender with 61 win, but because the same media you tried to rely on in your previous post all thought so. Bird won 3 straight MVP's in the golden age of basketball, and was consistently regarded as the better player than Hakeem (who got comparatively little MVP or all-nba team consideration from the media). Nobody thought Hakeem was a better play than Bird in the 80's, your own argument that we should rely on what the media thought hurts the argument you're putting forward.

You really think Bird had a higher peak? Well again, that is your opinion.

MVP is a team based accolade that is given to the best player on the team with the best or near best regular season record. Bird's stacked teams are a huge advantage over Hakeem's team support.

I used the Sports Illustrated article to document the reported changes the Celtics experienced. Those roster, ownership and coaching changes are objective facts that happened in the team's history Bird's rookie year.

When Jordan got a coach and a team Bird wasn't regarded as the top player. Jordan, the consensus #1 player ever played in his prime during Hakeem's prime, people don't consider Bird better than Jordan or almost anyone else better than Jordan for that matter besides arguably our top 3.

Accolades are also a poor way to measure players imo, because the all time greats weren't competing for them with that player with the same team support, prime years, etc.

Even the defensive teams I shared are flawed, that's why I posted names so people could compare.