RealGM Top 100 List #13

[Quotatious]

but he did have one of the greatest Finals performances of all time, and what is considered by some the best performance on the losing end ever, his 1998 Finals performance.

Really? I've never heard anyone mentioning '98 Malone as the best finals performance ever, on the losing team. He certainly played well in those finals, much better than he did in '97 (when Rodman was often able to guard him effectively 1 on 1, just like Sheed against Duncan in the 2005 finals), but still, Malone pretty much averaged his usual numbers in the '98 finals - 25/10.5/4 on 55% TS, with a little more turnovers than usual - that's a very good stuff, don't get me wrong, but it's nothing extraordinary. For example, it's not even close to 1966 or 1969 West or 1977 Dr. J as far as the best finals performances on the losing team. Honestly, I'd definitely take 1972 Walt Frazier over 1998 Karl, too - Clyde averaged 23/8/8 on almost 59% from the field, and locked down Jerry West at the same time.

[ceiling raiser]

What do you guys think about Dirk vs Robinson? I've seen some great posts on both guys so far, but not many direct comparisons.

[shutupandjam]

Vote: David Robinson

For reasons I went into last thread and elsewhere. Robinson's prime is the best of anyone left imo, and even though he gives you fewer years, I think he gives you the best chance to win the most titles because of his unique ability to anchor your offense and defense at high levels. He's the prototypical two way big, the easiest type of player to build around, and very few players in history played both offense and defense at the levels Robinson did during his prime (maybe Hakeem, arguably Wilt and Kareem). His impact was immediate and the effect was fairly obvious - all metrics absolutely love him. If he had had the opportunity to play with good teammates from day 1, I really doubt he would have fallen this far.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Kobe Bryant

Same as before, though I came close to voting for Karl Malone. The arguments for Dr. J have been fantastic as well.

I voted for Kobe because his longevity is good enough than Malone doesn't get a huge edge there, and I rate both Bryant's peak and long prime as a tiny bit better than Malone's peak and long prime. Extremely close though. Bryant's offensive creativity and role as scorer/playmaker are impressive. He can take a similar USG% to Malone at greater efficiency and still be the lead ball-handler/creator on a team. He can also operate anywhere within the arc, in any role (triple-threat from the baseline/elbow/top of the key, pick-n-roll/pop, post-up, etc.). Just an incredibly dynamic offensive player.

[G35]

Dr J, DRob, Kobe, Malone, Barkley, and Dirk are the best choices. I am actually hoping Kobe get's voted in so the discussion will be more focused.....

[Texas Chuck]

What do you guys think about Dirk vs Robinson? I've seen some great posts on both guys so far, but not many direct comparisons.

Yeah its a pretty difficult direct comparison for me simply because to me David Robinson is one of the most underrated defensive players of all-time. Only Bill Russell rates as a better overall defender imo. I'd take him over KG and Dream both for instance which should let you know just how highly I rate him as a defender. Dirk is the better overall offensive player for sure especially in the PS. Overall Admiral was a better player, but Dirk's been a great player for longer than David was able to.

Dirk and Admiral have met a couple times in the PS, but I'm not going to look at the 03 series because Robinson was playing a vastly reduced role by this point and Dirk gets hurt in the middle of the series.

But 2001 2nd round is interesting because its old man Admiral against young pup Dirk going through his first PS and they were matched up against each other for much of the series:

Admiral:

32 mpg 18/12 57% TS and still being a major defensive presence (high scoring Dallas broke 90 once in the whole series) and David drtg was 91(and for those who scoff at this, note that Duncan was 93 and the rest of the team was 100+ so it seems reasonably telling here)

Dirk: 37 mpg 23/9 56 TS% and did a reasonable job holding his own against the Duncan/Admiral front line. Got absolutely no help from Fin, Juwan, and Nash who were all dreadful in this series.

I'd call it close to a push. Robinson was more consistent. Dirk started the series slow and got better and better as it went on. He seemed to grow in confidence a ton as he realized he was good enough to play with Duncan and Robinson and imo as a huge Dirk and Mavs fan this series was the coming out party of Dirk moving from great young player to full-blown superstar.

Dirk did have a huge game 5 in a loss: (note: German)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WEAEzfN0kA[/youtube]

[Owly]

However, therealbig3 responds by pointing out that in each of 94, 95 and 96 Robinson's teams gave up way worse numbers than their defensive expectation. I thought this was interesting, because it's the other side of the coin from the approach that acrossthecourt seemed to take earlier in the thread. He took the approach that, on average, opposing offenses scored about what they were expected to against the Spurs. I don't know the methodology he used, but seemingly it's based on their in-season ORTG, home court advantage, playoff conditions, etc.

But if the opponent is scoring about what they'd be expected to based on their ORTGs, but the Spurs (at least in those 3 peak years) were giving up a lot more points than their defense would be expected to based on their DRTGs...isn't that an indication that the defense is underperforming?

In other words, if both the offense and the defense played well the expectation would be that they'd split the difference between what the offense usually produces and what the defense usually gives up, right? But if the offense is hitting their marks and the defense is way off from theirs, it seems to me that the defense isn't doing what their supposed to.

If we want to know if defense in playoffs performed under/over expectations, then we have to compare playoff series drtg to expected drtg (where exp drtg = (team RS drtg+opp RS ortg)/2).

Results for Spurs with Robinson (negative value is good):

Code: Select all

YEAR   OPP   DRTG
1995   LAL   -9,3
1995   DEN   -4,2
1993   PTB   -2,5
1990   PTB   -2,1
1993   PHO   -0,1
1990   DEN   1,1
1996   PHO   2,4
1995   HOU   3,0
1994   UTA   4,0
1991   GSW   4,1
1996   UTA   5,7


So 11 playoffs series, 4 times Spurs defense performed better than expected, 1 time basically at expectation level (1993) and 6 times worse than expectations. Doesn't look good for Robinson. Of course we should look closely at each series (for example I wouldn't blame DRob for 1991 as it was great coaching job by Nelson, who outcoached Larry Brown), but pattern seems rather clear.

I don't know which set of Robinson defense numbers to trust, but on these ones I'd suggest that there is not a "rather clear" pattern.

Over 11 series the (unweighted) net is 2.1 over (over being bad) expectations, or 0.190909091 per (unweighted) series, which I would suggest is near enough to exactly on expectations.

IF (a not inconsiderable if) we say that SA's poor defense versus Golden State was a result of coaching (including gimmicks to keep Robinson away from the basket despite which his boxscore defense looks good) and his perimeter guys getting killed (especially games 2-4; and note the negative impact their missed shots have in forcing SA to play D live versus after a made basket) and his inability to impact opponent free throws (GS 85% for the series) and we wipe that Golden State series then that turns from a neglibile negative (that is a positive number showing slightly reduced performance) to a neglibigle positive (-2 over 10 series -2÷10= -0.2; negatives number showing positive performance).

There's also an argument that that Dennis Rodman's antics and alleged decreased focus on basketball (rumblings of Madonna stuff in '94, one man revolt in '95) in general (and perhaps defense in particular, instead chasing rebounds - though this may not have been playoff specific) in the playoffs would cause Robinson's defensive impact to be underestimated (though either (a) Robinson (and/or others) would have to have been playing exceptional D in '95 ; (b) the Rodman effect would be small/negbible if at all because their two strongest series are in '95) or (c) the Rodman effect was only felt at specific times.


With regard to Kobe versus Malone debate I'm not sure (much, not all of) the debate at present is helpful. Too much "Well that year's his peak [implied: because we're talking playoffs so I want his best playoff year] (and here imo, I don't mind that but call it his playoff peak); "Malone had a good supporting cast because when he got to the finals they shot well and he didn't" never mind that he could have gotten to the finals many other years with better casts (in '90 Stock and Malone were excellent, Eaton was Eaton (great D, liability O, unclear net) and everyone else was about or below replacement level; ’93 Corbin was a solid role player, Jeff Malone was falling way off, again the rest are around/below replacement level). Or “statistically [Karl Malone] clearly was at his best from 88-93” despite his best year, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 year metrics spans coming in the mid-to-late 90s (for cumulative stats like win shares you need to prorate the lockout season to get a level playing field but otherwise it’s unambiguous). There’s too much, “other participant is relying on narrative” (they aren’t); “it has to be player Y” (it doesn’t, again I don’t mind too much but maybe add “IMO”). I get that forums as a medium tend to generate conflict, tit-for-tat argumentation etc (hey, I’ll get drawn in though I try to keep it impersonal, try to give a full picture and try to distinguish between my opinions and points of fact) and maybe I’m being too mean here but it doesn’t feel like we’re adding knowledge or offering new perspectives.

On the “did Malone defend better in the early or later 90s?” question (one of the more relevant threads of that discussion is Malone’s defensive impact and it’s consistency or otherwise), accolades aside, the Rick Barry scouting books suggest he started well in the earlier period late 80s but slid over that span. I don’t have access to the later ones right now (and in any case the last book was after the ’95-’96 season- the ’96-’97 edition), but if you buy into them there’s a suggestion that Malone wasn’t always meeting his defensive potential during that span. Now obviously we don’t have the same thing for comparing in the late 90’s, it’s opinion/qualitative rather than quantitative, and you could perhaps argue later All-D accolades were safe “give it to a superstar” selections, but on the limited evidence there is, Malone seems to have been a better defender in the latter half of the 90s.

How was Karl's defense in younger years, how good was 80's and early 90's Malone's defense? How was his horizontal defense, like perimeter and on PnR?

Don’t have the books available to me atm, but here’s how he graded on Rick Barry and Jordan Cohn’s Scouting Bibles (scale went, D, C, B, A, AA, AAA with pluses and minuses for subtle differences, B is average, haven’t got all the grades on the computer but have most)
89-90 (written in 89): AA
90-91: A
91-92: A-
92-93: A-
93-94: B

To give you an idea of what that meant here are the other AA defenders from 89-90: Stockton, Rodney McCray, Craig Ehlo, Dan Majerle, Rick Mahorn, John “Hot Rod” Williams, Harold Pressley, Bill Hanzlik, Bobby Hansen, T.R. Dunn, Gary Grant, Elston Turner, Herb Williams, Wayne “Tree” Rollins, Larry Krystkowiak, Jon Koncak and Charles Jones (there were 19 AAA defenders). [/quote]

I’m going to tentatively vote for David Robinson. He’s the last boxscore monster left, plus-minus (and faux-plus minus variants like earlier xRAPM numbers) seem to like him including his 2nd banana/defender roles with Duncan. I think his playoff struggles are overstated, somewhat contextual (when you’re the clear, far and away first option on your team and other guys aren’t good shot creators and especially when you’re a big, good teams/coaches can plan for you. My suspicion is this is what happened with Wilt, Karl Malone and Robinson.) and I’m not sure there’s the evidence (though I could be persuaded) that they happened on the defensive end (the area where Robinson added most value, one suspects). He had a huge impact on arrival and his absence demonstrated a huge impact in ’92. I’d tend to agree with shutupandjam that had he landed in better circumstances his career might have been looked at differently.

[drza]

Kobe Bryant defense: Elite or pedestrian?

One of the bigger Kobe-related debates in this project has been about the level of Kobe's defense. Accodlades-wise, Kobe is perhaps the most decorated defensive wing in NBA history with 9 1st team and three 2nd team All Defense selections. His supporters often use Kobe's defensive prowess as a reason to rank him over other players that he might be compared to.

As a second viewpoint, there has been a growing sentiment among those using the eye test that Kobe really was an elite defender early in his career, then his defense slid as his priorities shifted to purely offense post-Shaq before a brief defensive revival during the 2008 - 10 years that faded back to pedestrian levels or worse in recent years. This viewpoint says that Kobe may have deserved defensive accolades in some years, but that some of his mid-decade (06, 07) and recent ('11, '12) All Defense selections were reputation-based and not deserved.

Then, there's a third viewpoint that is supplemented by Defensive RAPM. Noting that Kobe's defensive RAPM is always between -2 and +2 for every year that we have data for, this viewpoint is that Kobe was never really an impact defender even in his younger days. This is obviously a controversial viewpoint, especially in this project where for some RAPM has become a dirty word.

Anyway, I thought I'd take a closer look at Kobe's defense here. Because honestly...I don't necessarily believe that the 3 viewpoints above REALLY disagree. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to me that Kobe was elite at certain types of defense for large swatches of his career...and that he still might not have been really moving the needle that much on his team's defense outside of special circumstances. But before I go into that, let me re-post what semi-sentient wrote about Kobe in that Dr. J vs Kobe thread from 2012. It was a strong support for Kobe's defense, including multiple videos:

There is no stat that comes close to measuring Defense accurately, I bet most of those stats didnt exist during Kobe's defensive prime.

Most people here didn't watch Kobe during his defensive prime. What they've seen is way past prime Kobe, which makes them conclude that he's always played inconsistent defense the way he has the past 2 or 3 seasons. Kobe from 99-04 was a completely different defensive player, and even past defensive prime Kobe (06-10) was very good overall and stepped it up in a major way in the playoffs.

Anyway, it's pretty laughable for people to continually talk about only Kobe's man defense in an attempt to marginalize how good he was as an overall defender. That's just a really lame argument. He wasn't just a good man defender, but he was also an exceptional help defender, and quite frankly I don't think he gets enough credit for his "doberman" defense that he used to play on the opposing teams play-makers (during the Kobe/Shaq) era. Watch his defense in the 2001 Finals. Watch how long it takes for Philly to get into their half-court sets and how their play-makers struggle to penetrate, get the the ball into the post, or generally create good looks for others. Watch him against the Kings, one of the best offenses in the league, as he shuts down their play-makers. As a side note, this is part of the reason I view 2001 as Kobe's best season -- he could dominate opponents on both ends of the floor, and at the same time.

Anyway, here's a solid 9-minute video showing highlights of Kobe's man/help defense, keeping in mind that this was from the 2008 season when he was well past his defensive prime. Now imagine a more athletic Kobe who is able to recover/move faster, leap higher, and play this type of aggressive defense much more consistently (sort of like Olympic Kobe who was owning it up on defense -- don't lie). He had just about everything you'd want from a great wing defender, and anyone who followed the Lakers back then will attest to that if they're being honest. Kobe's a very smart player and knows how to play sound defense, so it wasn't just a matter of being athletic and gambling for steals and/or trying to block every shot or falling for every pump fake.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VCVP9L25vk[/youtube]

^^^ Note that one thing I dislike about Kobe's blocks is that he generally doesn't keep the ball in play. He'd usually try to humiliate opponents by throwing it back with authority. That might be a big deal in this comparison if either player blocked a lot of shots, but since neither do it's quite irrelevant.

Here's another video showing some of Kobe's man defense. He's fast, physical, knows how to play the angles, is aware of where the help defense is, knows exactly where to funnel his man, etc. Again, this is not even Kobe in his defensive prime.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBu28UwDzps[/youtube]

Not enough? Here's a 15-minute clip:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uglEL2GLnAU[/youtube]

Don't just focus on these as highlight plays. Watch his timing on blocks, how he moves his feet, how he stays with his man and cuts off driving lanes, etc.

As for Dr. J's defense, it's honestly hard to say because I didn't watch him anywhere near as much as I've watched Kobe, but I tend to side with Kobe because I know exactly what he's capable of doing on defense. Like everyone else here I've seen games here and there of Dr. J, but nothing conclusive enough to say he was a better defensive player or even as good as Kobe at his best. I really have to wonder why he wasn't getting more recognition for his defense in terms of All-Defensive selections? He made one All-Defensive team his entire career, and regardless of whether or not the award overrates certain players currently it's generally recognized individuals that play great defense. You don't land on the All-Defensive first team multiple times without being an exceptional defensive player at some point.

Statistically? Sure, Julius gets more steals and blocks. Marcus Camby says hello.

Dr. J made exactly one All-Defensive team, and that was in his last season in the ABA. He didn't get a single selection in his NBA days. Not one. Generally speaking I think he was underrated in that regard because he was a good shot blocker and did a good job of forcing turnovers, but does that make him better overall?

Are we seeing some revisionist history here? I believe so. Feel free to prove me wrong.

This makes a great case for Kobe's defensive capabilities. An Unbiased Fan has also posted several of Kobe's defensive highlight videos in this project. And what semi-sentient said about Kobe's defensive abilities is true...his size, speed, athletic ability, hand-eye coordination, anticipation and aggressiveness are all tools that serve Kobe excellently in on-ball situations (whether guarding a man 1-on-1, or on-ball help defense).

However, this re-brings up the question of why Kobe NEVER had a good defensive RAPM score. The best you could say about Kobe's best defensive RAPM scores is that they were slightly above zero (just like the worst you could say about his worst scores is that they were slightly below zero). And again, remember what RAPM is actually saying...these scores do NOT say that Kobe is a bad defender. What they say is that his presence doesn't (to the degree of specificity that RAPM can measure) correlate to big changes in the Lakers team defensive scoring margins. That over the course of the last 15 years or so, Kobe has averaged out to a net neutral team defender with some instances of slightly above replacement and other periods of slightly below replacement.

On-ball defense vs off-ball defense

Pretty much all of the viewpoints on Kobe's defense agree that when he is locked onto a ball-handler he can be a defensive bull-dog (or "Doberman", as semi-sentient refers to it). All of the physical and mental talents that I mentioned in Kobe's favor earlier play a part in this. An Unbiased Fan have referred to Synergy defensive numbers that speak to Kobe doing well in on-ball defensive situations. And I'll go ahead and say that if I were fielding an all-time team and needed someone to guard Michael Jordan in crunchtime, I would absolutely choose Kobe because I think he would be completely locked in and stick to Jordan like glue.

However, where the opinions on Kobe's D seem to diverge is that his defensive critics point out how Kobe's defensive effort wanes when he ISN'T defending the ball. While he's great at making it difficult on a man with the ball to operate off the dribble, there's a sense (and growing amount of evidence, especially in recent years) that if his man DOESN'T have the ball that Kobe's attention follows the ball and not the man. That Kobe doesn't have the energy or focus to chase a man without the ball around a bunch of screens and be in position to prevent the shot. And that (perhaps most importantly) Kobe isn't making the type of defensive rotations off-the-ball to help on others that also don't have the ball that make a team unit work well. There's a blog post from 2013 that traces a couple of visual examples of Kobe doing these things late in his career, so you'd have to decide whether you believe that he was doing similar things earlier in his career on a regular basis as well: http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2013 ... ric-season .

People often reference how well Kobe does when put on players like Rondo or Westbrook. If the above paragraph is true, the results would fit both narratives exactly. Kobe could be locked in when Rondo or Westbrook have the ball, which is when they could do the most damage. Then, when they don't have the ball neither are big threats to move without the ball and end up with high percentage looks. Similarly, specifically with regards to when he defended Rondo in the 2008 FInals, I know that defending him allowed Kobe to help down onto Garnett and double-him before the entry pass which hindered his ability to receive the ball in the post.

The question, then, is if Kobe IS an excellent on-ball (his man or help) Doberman, but that he also has the tendency to lose his man off the ball and not properly rotate defensively which can break the team defense...what does that mean for his overall defensive impact?

Bottom line:

I wanted to go further here, but I just really don't have time to do it justice and by the time I get the time this thread might be over. So I'll just sum up my thoughts. At the moment, I am believing both sides of the narrative to certain extents. I believe that Kobe has the ability to make outstanding on-ball defensive plays, especially when locked in. I also believe that he isn't locked in that often while putting more of his energy elsewhere, so that could help explain his meh defensive RAPM when compared to perimeter defenders that DO maintain their defensive focus and energy level to much more consistent degrees.

Someone recently mentioned Iguodala...he can match Kobe as a 1-on-1/ball-defender, but he also contributes to the team defense on a nightly basis which is why his DRAPM is much larger than Kobe's. And obviously this is also true of the more purely defensive types like a Bowen, Battier or Christie.

I tend to feel like Kobe's ability to play Doberman defense is a clear positive that can be used in certain situations to team advantage. However, I also feel that because he doesn't regularly do the types of things to move the team defense needle the way that others of his contemporaries on the perimeter/wings do, that he shouldn't be considered one of the best defensive wings of his generation. I think he had great defensive potential, that he used it at times when the situation warranted it, and that he was more valuable defensively than others that have DRAPM scores similar to his because he did have the ability to have more impact in certain situations. But I don't think that makes him defensively elite, or thus that his defense should be used to elevate him all that much with respect to others. Definitely over someone like Steve Nash, but I'm not sure with respect to folks like West or Erving.

[Jim Naismith]

Vote: David Robinson

For reasons I went into last thread and elsewhere. Robinson's prime is the best of anyone left imo, and even though he gives you fewer years, I think he gives you the best chance to win the most titles because of his unique ability to anchor your offense and defense at high levels.

Playoffs: David Robinson 1994-96 vs Moses Malone 1981-83

Code: Select all

         ORB     DRB     TRB      AST     STL     BLK     TOV      PTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRob     3.7     7.4     11.1     2.9     1.4     2.6     3.1     24.0
Moses    6.0     9.2     15.2     1.8     0.9     1.6     2.8     26.0

Even during their 3-year peaks, Moses seems comparable to, if not better than, David Robinson.

[ceiling raiser]

Thanks a ton Chuck, great post!

How was Karl's defense in younger years, how good was 80's and early 90's Malone's defense? How was his horizontal defense, like perimeter and on PnR?

Don’t have the books available to me atm, but here’s how he graded on Rick Barry and Jordan Cohn’s Scouting Bibles (scale went, D, C, B, A, AA, AAA with pluses and minuses for subtle differences, B is average, haven’t got all the grades on the computer but have most)
89-90 (written in 89): AA
90-91: A
91-92: A-
92-93: A-
93-94: B

To give you an idea of what that meant here are the other AA defenders from 89-90: Stockton, Rodney McCray, Craig Ehlo, Dan Majerle, Rick Mahorn, John “Hot Rod” Williams, Harold Pressley, Bill Hanzlik, Bobby Hansen, T.R. Dunn, Gary Grant, Elston Turner, Herb Williams, Wayne “Tree” Rollins, Larry Krystkowiak, Jon Koncak and Charles Jones (there were 19 AAA defenders).

Very interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. Have you considered putting a spreadsheet with all of his ratings together for different categories? I'm considering buying some of his books (I think 96-97 was the final published edition?) so if you're missing some years, I can try and pick those up and help you out if it's something you're interested in doing (and if you think it's worth the effort).

[Notanoob]

My official vote is for Kobe Bryant.

Vote: Kobe Bryant

Just some food for thought, but you've really made me second-guess my pick here. I certainly didn't want to be too shallow, but also didn't want to overanalyze who I should vote for, as like I've said before, I see a really good case for a few players here, not just West or Dirk (Kobe, Dr. J, Karl Malone or D-Rob all seem to have some pretty obvious things going for them), but West's case seems strong enough that I may seriously reconsider my vote.

Alright, Kobe voters, I'm going to try and make a more extensive comparison to Jerry West here.

Let's start with their basic stats- for West it's from 1962-1973, for Kobe it's from 2000-2010, so Prime for Prime.

Per game Regular season
West 28.2ppg 6.9apg 5.6rpg 55.7TS%, .47FTr
Kobe 28.1ppg 5.2apg 5.8rpg 55.7TS%, .396FTr

Per game Playoffs
West 30.1ppg 6.5apg 5.4rpg 54TS%, .431FTr
Kobe 27.8ppg 5.2apg 5.5rpg 54.5TS%, .361FTr

Looks pretty close. However, we all know that we have to adjust these stats to make a meaningful comparison.

Easiest one is rebounds. West played at a much higher pace with more rebounds available for him to grab due to league-wide lower FG%s. Kobe clearly has the edge here by a good margin.

Next, let's look at points. Pace adjusted, West's scoring volume goes down. However, I don't think that's all that there is to it. West spent almost the entirety of his prime playing along side Elgin Baylor, who despite scoring on inferior efficiency, always got more shots than West. When Baylor was out with injury, West was able to step up as a scorer and volume score with little issue. I complied these numbers by going through their game logs on BBref, so there may be errors in the data. I only go from 64 to 70 because 64 is when we get game logs, and after 70 Baylor fell off a cliff.

Year Record PPG in games w/o Baylor PPG for season
64- 2-0 37.5ppg, 28.7ppg
65- 0-4 28.7ppg, 31ppg
66- 6-7 35.8ppg, 31.3ppg
67- 4-3 32.6ppg, 28.7ppg
68- 1-1 22.5ppg, 26.3ppg
69- 4-2 29.2ppg, 25.9ppg
70- 16-10 36ppg, 31.2ppg
Total- 33-27 34ppg, 29.3ppg

PPG splits win/loss, starting in 1964
32/24.3
33.3/26.9
32.3/30.1
31.9/25.6
26.7/25.7
26.6/24.2
33.3/28.2
29/23.3
25.6/26.8
22.9/22.5

Generally, it appears to me that Jerry didn't appear to have an issue scoring more, and Jerry volume scoring more was a good thing for the Lakers.

I'd ask, "what makes you think that West couldn't volume score like Kobe?" You might say "maybe he could, but his efficiency would go down, and it's already even with Kobe, so he'd be an inferior volume scorer". Logical! But we have not adjusted his efficiency for era yet either!

All evidence suggests to me that West would have been even more efficient if he were so lucky as to play today.
First, you should adjust his TS% to reflect the different rules regarding free throws that existed up until 67 season (viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1277741).
Second you have to take into account that West had no 3 point line to take advantage of. Turning some of those long 2s into 3s would have certainly boosted his efficiency.
Third you have to take into account how the lack of a 3 point line lead to a significantly more cluttered lane. It was simply harder to get to the rim with so many bodies in the way.
Fourth, you have to take into account that players could get away with being a bit more physical than they were today, Kobe didn't see defenses that rough outside of when he was spanked in the Finals by the Pistons.
Also consider

I also mentioned a number of pages ago, excuse me if it's already been addressed, but can anyone comment on West's dribbling abilities.

Here's a good video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGlryGCKtTo

In general when you look at handles back then guys are going to look relatively weak. 2 main reasons:

1) They were much stricter about carry over rules back then which takes the sexiest moves out of play. The Timmy's killer crossover that was my go to move as a kid would be illegal back in West's day.

2) The drive as a weapon is a relative late blooming thing in basketball. We've all played with a flat ball before, or played on some driveway that has cracks in it. The worse these things are the more you have to rely on passing...which is why the Harlem Globetrotters had amazing skills even by todays standard well over a half century ago despite playing in an era where guys don't seem very confident in their dribbles.

Still though, West looks pretty solid. The whole "he can't use his left hand" thing is really overblown.

You need to remember the style of play was very different then. If you used a crossover dribble, you'd be whistled for carrying. Fans today, who really never watched basketball back then within the context of that time, criticize ballhandlers back then without realizing that the rules were different. Dribbling just was harder under those rules, which also meant that it was easier to steal the ball from them back then. Likewise, while there were certainly players capable of pulling off rim-racking dunks, dunking was not "the cool thing to do" back then. The norm was just to lay the ball in softly - and it was generally easier to block a layup than a dunk.

Adjusting for era, I am sure that West would be a more efficient scorer than Kobe.

The next thing to adjust are assists. When pace adjusted, I'm sure that West's numbers look worse than Kobe's, but considering that scorekeepers were very stingy about how they recorded assists back then compared to now, and considering that West actually played PG for his team, and considering that West has a better reputation as an unselfish player, I believe that West is outproduced Kobe in terms of assists.

Now finally, onto defense. I've already noted that a basically washed-up West was posting a higher steals rate than Kobe ever did (3.6 to Kobe's career high 2.8) and a higher block% than Kobe's posted since 05, but let's take it from someone who watched him live:

I was the one who posted about West's ability to sense what pass was coming, but I was just stating what Bill Russell said about West being the best defensive player in basketball. (yes, I must humbly concede that Russell knows more about defense than I do ). And I understand that some are questioning if just because West posted incredible steal/block numbers in his last year, they are unwilling to accept that West would post even higher numbers in his physical peak. I saw a lot of West, both in person when the Lakers came to town as well as on TV. I can say that I have never seen any player, in any era, who stole the ball more than West. He also blocked a lot of shots, primarily against people driving to the basket. West's 6-9 wingspan, along with his jumping ability, caught a lot of shooters off guard.

According to the Lakeland Ledger, it was after a Lakers/Sonics game in which West had 3 baskets, 3 assists, 6 steals, and a blocked shot (by Spencer Hayward!) as the Lakers increased their halftime lead of 4 to a third quarter lead of 16, that prompted Sonics coach Bucky Buckwalter to say that "when West dies, they ought to cut off his hands and bronze them". He was referring to West having the quickest hands in the NBA.

But yet the perception of West today is that he was "unathletic". He had excellent jumping ability (he was able to reach within an inch or so of the top of the square on the backboard; he also jumped center before turning pro) and had one of the quickest first steps ever. There were players, then and now, who could beat West in a footrace from endline to endline, but his first step was as quick as anyone. So someone with the quickest hands and first step along with very good jumping ability is not athletic?

I will also add this. If steals/blocks were recorded throughout West's career, I am convinced that West would post steal numbers that would dwarf the totals posted by league leaders in later eras.

So yes, I firmly believe West would post astronomical steal numbers (and Russell astronomical block numbers), but I don't think it would be right to just compare those numbers at face value to totals from different eras and make pronouncements. They would have to be adjusted somehow - just as is commonly done to account for different pace - to make comparisons across different eras.

I can't provide any stats to convince anyone who never really saw West play how good he was defensively. But I do know that in this case, I am not telling Bill Russell that he was wrong!

And then there are some defensive highlights here, starting at 9:30:
[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_626211&feature=iv&src_vid=rGlryGCKtTo&v=OEzwR1a8KuA[/YouTube]

From all of this I'm getting the feeling that West was a more efficient scorer than Kobe, passed the ball more than Kobe, rebounded less but had much greater impact as a help defender.

How about their postseason performance?

Something that I think gets forgotten here is West's 1965 postseason run. Baylor was out, and West was basically alone on that team for the playoffs-there isn't a single recognizable name on that roster after West and Baylor. Yet West went on an epic postseason run, taking down the Bullets in 6 and losing to the Celtics dynasty in 5 scoring an absurd 40.6ppg, including a 52 point showing against the Bullets in Game 2, and scoring 43 points in the Laker's only victory over the Celtics. Insane.

...A heck of a lot more impressive than say, Kobe's 04 Finals series, where going up against a similar caliber defense, he chucked his team out of the game shooting a cool 38% from the floor on 22.6FGA per game, while prime Shaq was getting single covered.


Finally, I'd love it if someone could post some WOWY data on West, and perhaps some anecdotes from the time about West, particularly concerning his defense. Dipper13, are you there?

[Texas Chuck]

Vote: David Robinson

For reasons I went into last thread and elsewhere. Robinson's prime is the best of anyone left imo, and even though he gives you fewer years, I think he gives you the best chance to win the most titles because of his unique ability to anchor your offense and defense at high levels.

Playoffs: David Robinson 1994-96 vs Moses Malone 1981-83

Code: Select all

         ORB     DRB     TRB      AST     STL     BLK     TOV      PTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRob     3.7     7.4     11.1     2.9     1.4     2.6     3.1     24.0
Moses    6.0     9.2     15.2     1.8     0.9     1.6     2.8     26.0

Even during their 3-year peaks, Moses seems comparable to, if not better than, David Robinson.

But Jim, you really have to take into account that Admiral was perhaps the best defensive player in the league during this time and Moses....well wasn't. Like Russell, Dream, and KG before him defense is a huge part of his value.

[MistyMountain20]

Nice post drza, lots of solid points made. If you're going to look up further video on Kobe's defense, I'd pay attention to his ball denial defense. That is an off the ball defense skill that I happen to think Kobe excels at and doesn't get too much play.

[lorak]

If we want to know if defense in playoffs performed under/over expectations, then we have to compare playoff series drtg to expected drtg (where exp drtg = (team RS drtg+opp RS ortg)/2).

Results for Spurs with Robinson (negative value is good):

Code: Select all

YEAR   OPP   DRTG
1995   LAL   -9,3
1995   DEN   -4,2
1993   PTB   -2,5
1990   PTB   -2,1
1993   PHO   -0,1
1990   DEN   1,1
1996   PHO   2,4
1995   HOU   3,0
1994   UTA   4,0
1991   GSW   4,1
1996   UTA   5,7


So 11 playoffs series, 4 times Spurs defense performed better than expected, 1 time basically at expectation level (1993) and 6 times worse than expectations. Doesn't look good for Robinson. Of course we should look closely at each series (for example I wouldn't blame DRob for 1991 as it was great coaching job by Nelson, who outcoached Larry Brown), but pattern seems rather clear.

I don't know which set of Robinson defense numbers to trust, but on these ones I'd suggest that there is not a "rather clear" pattern.

So I will elaborate (and if you don't trust my numbers, then check it by yourself ). The same data as above, but with opponents regular season ortg relatively to league average:

Code: Select all

YEAR   OPP   DRTG   opp ORTG
1996   UTA   5,7   5,7
1993   PHO   -0,1   5,3
1991   GSW   4,1   4
1992   PHO   12,6   3,9
1996   PHO   2,4   2,7
1990   PTB   -2,1   2,4
1994   UTA   4,0   2,3
1995   HOU   3,0   1,4
1995   LAL   -9,3   0,8
1995   DEN   -4,2   0,8
1993   PTB   -2,5   0,3
1990   DEN   1,1   -0,1


So Spurs defense usually played above expectations only vs barely average offensive teams - with one exception in 1990 (PTB). Other than that their defense was awful against teams with offenses with at least 1 ortg point above league average. And that's that clear pattern I'm talking about, because Robinson's consistent failures against good teams is something what many people hold against him. Sure, we can say that in 1991 it was Brown's lack of adjusments or in 1995 it was Rodman's bad influence, but it still leaves us with other series and I honestly doubt we can use excuses for every one of them. That was just essential flaw in DRob's game - both on offense and defense - that he wasn't able to perform constantly at good level vs better opponents and his game was exposed in the playoffs.

[Jim Naismith]

Vote: David Robinson

For reasons I went into last thread and elsewhere. Robinson's prime is the best of anyone left imo, and even though he gives you fewer years, I think he gives you the best chance to win the most titles because of his unique ability to anchor your offense and defense at high levels.

Playoffs: David Robinson 1994-96 vs Moses Malone 1981-83

Code: Select all

         ORB     DRB     TRB      AST     STL     BLK     TOV      PTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRob     3.7     7.4     11.1     2.9     1.4     2.6     3.1     24.0
Moses    6.0     9.2     15.2     1.8     0.9     1.6     2.8     26.0

Even during their 3-year peaks, Moses seems comparable to, if not better than, David Robinson.

But Jim, you really have to take into account that Admiral was perhaps the best defensive player in the league during this time and Moses....well wasn't. Like Russell, Dream, and KG before him defense is a huge part of his value.

Is that defensive edge readily convertible to playoff success?

I would think as a whole, Moses had more playoff success during his peak than Robinson.

Addendum: I'm not sure if Defensive Win Shares is especially relevant. For their 3-year peaks in the playoffs, Robinson had 2.2 DWS, and Moses had 2.4 DWS.

[trex_8063]

Malone's hyperbolic comments, like those of all players, should be taken well salted. I daresay if we asked Karl (or Kobe) each year of their careers, they'd tell people they were "better than they'd ever been! The NBA better watch out, I'm ready to rip it up!" I never heard anyone at the time claim Malone improved defensively later, and you provide no evidence for this claim. It seems to just be your opinion.

Karl Malone's numbers look better from 88-93 (regular season and playoffs). If someone wants to provide a pace analysis they're welcome to, and I'll revisit the issue, but I don't see it.

OK.

Malone '88-'93 rs Per 100 Possessions:
36.6 PTS/14.5 REB/3.8 AST/1.8 STL/1.0 BLK/4.3 TOV on .599 TS%
Malone '93-'98 rs Per 100 Possessions
36.3 PTS/14.5 REB/5.4 AST/2.0 STL/1.3 BLK/3.9 TOV on .587 TS%

So -0.3 pts per 100 poss and -.012 TS%......but +1.6 ast, +0.2 stl, +0.3 blk, and -0.4 turnovers. Not that it isn't close, but pace adjusted per 100 stats I think fairly clearly show '93-'98 to be a little better for the rs.

Malone '88-'93 playoff Per 100 Possessions:
34.1 PTS/14.2 REB/2.8 AST/1.6 STL/1.1 BLK/3.8 TOV on .560 TS%
Malone '93-'98 playoff Per 100 Possessions:
35.7 PTS/15.2 REB/4.6 AST/1.9 STL/1.0 BLK/3.6 TOV on .518 TS%

The only significant decline of the later period relative to '88-'93 is the moderate dip in TS% (-.042); otherwise just -0.1 blk. Everything else improves: '93-'98 is +1.6 pts, +1.0 reb, +1.8 ast, +0.3 stl, and -0.2 turnovers. Overall, it's again pretty close, but all those "+"'s (and "-" for turnovers) are probably more than enough to offset the dip in TS%; so for post-season comparison the slight edge again goes to '93-98.

Malone '88-'93 rs---a few Advanced Stats:
24.8 PER, .221 WS/48, 116 ORtg, 102 DRtg on 38.7 mpg
Malone '93-'98 rs---a few Advanced Stats:
26.1 PER, .233 WS/48, 116 ORtg, 102 DRtg on nearly identical 38.1 mpg

Again, slight edge to '93-'98.

Malone '88-'93 playoffs---Adv Stats:
21.3 PER, .149 WS/48, 112 ORtg, 107 DRtg on 43.3 mpg
Malone '93-'98 playoffs---Adv Stats:
23.3 PER, .163 WS/48, 107 ORtg, 101 DRtg on 41.3 mpg

So his PER is +2.0, WS/48 +.014, though on marginally fewer minutes. ORtg takes a 5-pt slide, but DRtg improves by 6 pts. So this one is pretty close. I'd more or less call this a wash. I guess if (gun to your head) you had to declare one of these the best, I think you'd be obliged to take '93-'98 based on the significantly better PER.


It's obviously not by huge margin, but I would say the balance of all of the above fairly clearly favors '93-'98 as the better of the two scrutinized periods.

fwiw (since you guys were debating it), he did have a slight + DRAPM for '98.

[colts18]

Why do the Robinson critics conveniently leave out anything that happened after 96 for Robinson? Why not focus on his 99 postseason which is arguably the greatest postseason defensive performance. He held Shaq to one of his worst playoff series and allowed just a 81 D rating when facing the Lakers. What about his 98, 00, or 03 playoffs?

[ronnymac2]

If we want to know if defense in playoffs performed under/over expectations, then we have to compare playoff series drtg to expected drtg (where exp drtg = (team RS drtg+opp RS ortg)/2).

Results for Spurs with Robinson (negative value is good):

Code: Select all

YEAR   OPP   DRTG
1995   LAL   -9,3
1995   DEN   -4,2
1993   PTB   -2,5
1990   PTB   -2,1
1993   PHO   -0,1
1990   DEN   1,1
1996   PHO   2,4
1995   HOU   3,0
1994   UTA   4,0
1991   GSW   4,1
1996   UTA   5,7


So 11 playoffs series, 4 times Spurs defense performed better than expected, 1 time basically at expectation level (1993) and 6 times worse than expectations. Doesn't look good for Robinson. Of course we should look closely at each series (for example I wouldn't blame DRob for 1991 as it was great coaching job by Nelson, who outcoached Larry Brown), but pattern seems rather clear.

I don't know which set of Robinson defense numbers to trust, but on these ones I'd suggest that there is not a "rather clear" pattern.

So I will elaborate (and if you don't trust my numbers, then check it by yourself ). The same data as above, but with opponents regular season ortg relatively to league average:

Code: Select all

YEAR   OPP   DRTG   opp ORTG
1996   UTA   5,7   5,7
1993   PHO   -0,1   5,3
1991   GSW   4,1   4
1992   PHO   12,6   3,9
1996   PHO   2,4   2,7
1990   PTB   -2,1   2,4
1994   UTA   4,0   2,3
1995   HOU   3,0   1,4
1995   LAL   -9,3   0,8
1995   DEN   -4,2   0,8
1993   PTB   -2,5   0,3
1990   DEN   1,1   -0,1


So Spurs defense usually played above expectations only vs barely average offensive teams - with one exception in 1990 (PTB). Other than that their defense was awful against teams with offenses with at least 1 ortg point above league average. And that's that clear pattern I'm talking about, because Robinson's consistent failures against good teams is something what many people hold against him. Sure, we can say that in 1991 it was Brown's lack of adjusments or in 1995 it was Rodman's bad influence, but it still leaves us with other series and I honestly doubt we can use excuses for every one of them. That was just essential flaw in DRob's game - both on offense and defense - that he wasn't able to perform constantly at good level vs better opponents and his game was exposed in the playoffs.

Why do you think that is though? What flaw in Robinson's defensive game caused his defensive impact to decline against strong offensive teams in the playoffs?

[Jim Naismith]

Why do the Robinson critics conveniently leave out anything that happened after 96 for Robinson? Why not focus on his 99 postseason which is arguably the greatest postseason defensive performance. He held Shaq to one of his worst playoff series and allowed just a 81 D rating when facing the Lakers. What about his 98, 00, or 03 playoffs?

I was just trying to contest the claim that Robinson's peak is the best of the current candidates.

[Quotatious]

I was just trying to contest the claim that Robinson's peak is the best of the current candidates.

As far as peaks, I'd lean towards Dr. J over D-Rob (it's certainly close, but 1976 Erving was an elite two way player and unlike Robinson, he was dominant in the playoffs as well, particularly in the finals against an apparently superior team). I know he played in the ABA, but it's not like he had control over that situation (that is, he could've gone to the NBA, but the argument about the talent level being divided between the two leagues, each very similar, but each overall a lot weaker than if there was just one league). 76 Doc was a pretty Jordan-esque season, if you ask me. The league that Doc played in being much weaker than the mid 80s NBA is the only reason why for example I'm not 100% comfortable putting peak Erving over Magic or Bird (frankly, I think he was a more impactful player).

I definitely wouldn't take peak Moses over the Admiral though. Like Chuck said, they were in a different galaxy defensively, and Robinson even had certain advantages offensively (better passer).