HeartBreakKid wrote:I think Hakeem is the best player here. I think a lot of the stats posted here have probably shown that Olajuwon is pretty underrated during the earlier portions of his career. The argument that "it is revisionist history to say this guy was good, when people thought he wasn't back then" is a very poor argument, especially when you are considering an age where information and press were severely limited to now.
I emphasis heavily on prime and peak, more so quality than quantity, so longevity doesn't matter much to me (but Olajuwon is very good here too). My vote goes to Hakeem Olajuwon
The RealGM Player of the Year project is recent and takes into account playoff performance, so it should be more pro-Hakeem.
The actual result: Hakeem moves up from #17 on the MVP-shares list all the way to . . . #15 on the RealGM POY list.
I'm at the airport now, leaving Vegas (side note: summer league was great this year. Saw a lot of interesting talent concentrated over just a few days). This trip was every bit the rabbit hole I worried that it might be, so I'm sorry I dropped off the grid. We're boarding in a few minutes so I don't know that I have the time for a long post. Like Doc MJ I have a long post in the can that I wrote about Garnett, but it doesn't really make sense to bring it in now since we appear to be headed for a Magic vs LeBron runoff.
I think this is one of the more interesting comps out there. Some may remember that I did a "this is my opinion" estimate of what I'd expect Magic's RAPM numbers might look like today. To make that comparison I used the 2 highest rated offensive players of the lat 15 years according to the stat...Nash and LeBron, as the base. Neither are great stylistic comps, but in some ways Magic combines Nash's special floor generalship with LeBrons physical mismatch capability. I think it perfectly reasonable that Magic in this generation would still be the best offensive player in the NBA.
The next question for me is, how would defense factor into this? LeBron is a plus wing defender. Magics reputation is not defense based, and while his size is a huge offensive advantage at the point guard slot he doesn't have the foot speed to defend super quick point guards. However, in this instance I don't know that this would hurt him so much in the no hand check era...because hardly any point guards can consistently stay in front of their man anyway...
I had Magic above him before starting this project, but the more I read about Lebron and the more I looked at him it just became more and more difficult for me to maintain that viewpoint despite my personal feelings for both guys(big Magic fan, kinda neutral on Lebron).
There are a bunch of reasons I could give in support of my Lebron vote, but I'm just going to touch on a couple things that stand out to me. And again I'm not going to post a bunch of stats because that's been done and will continue to be done, by guys far more qualified than me. Also, please note this is not a post advocating for Lebron, but simply explaining in part why I am voting for him at #7.
We've talked about guys in this project who can put teams on their back and carry them to high levels of success seemingly single-handedly and Lebron is clearly the best of those guys left imo. We saw it in Cleveland and we even started to see it in Miami as time went on.
Lebron has both the ability, and willingness(and don't underrate the importance of this) to provide his team with whatever it is needing to win. Need a bunch of points? Lebron does that. Need someone to run the offense and distubute the ball? Lebron does this. Need him to guard a PG? Check. Need him to guard a PF? Check.
He has his playoff failures to be sure. The 2011 Finals was epically bad. But for every series he has like that, he has 5 or 6 brilliant ones.
I don't think Lebron is the basketball genius that Magic was. But when you take his physical gifts and his elite feel for the game and again willingness to take any role that benefits the team I have to move him ahead of Magic.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
drza wrote:I'm at the airport now, leaving Vegas (side note: summer league was great this year. Saw a lot of interesting talent concentrated over just a few days). This trip was every bit the rabbit hole I worried that it might be, so I'm sorry I dropped off the grid. We're boarding in a few minutes so I don't know that I have the time for a long post. r
I've always wanted to go to summer league, but could never justify it. Just hit me the other day that I do have a few friends who are into gambling, so I could probably coordinate a trip with them next summer. How many days did you stay? How much did it cost (just for summer league)? The atmosphere just seems awesome for die hard bball fans. Obviously this was the year to go with such a great draft class.
Thankyou for posting this. MVP Shares seems to go a pretty good job of ranking these players in a historically great order. It passes the sniff test anyway, even if the results aren't exactly in accordance with how voting is playing out here.
My decision came down to LeBron vs. Hakeem. But before I get to comparing those two I wanted to explain how I got to this point....
Two-way BIGS Hakeem (I will make a Hakeem over Garnett post in a future thread) Garnett
WINGS LeBron Magic Bird (closer to a wing than a traditional big imo, especially on offense) Kobe
LeBron vs. Kobe:LeBron's peak play is too clear of an edge This was the first comparison I made because they are the most recent wing players in the mix for this spot in my mind. LeBron is currently in his prime and Kobe was recently in his, so these two guys are the players most vivid in my mind among those competing for this spot. We also have the most data for these 2 players which allows us to get even more in-depth when comparing these two. Kobe has the clear edge in longevity, so before I compare them in terms of peak I wanted to see exactly how big of an edge it was.
Kobe's had 14 major impact seasons in his career ('00-'13) LeBron's had 10 major impact seasons in his career ('05-'14)
I guess you could count Kobe in '99 and maybe even LeBron in '04, but those seasons were clearly not a part of their true prime as a players. But whether it's 15 vs. 11 or it's 14 vs. 10, Kobe has had 4 more major impact seasons than LeBron has had.
MJ had 11 major impact seasons ('85, '87-'93, '96-'98) Kareem had 17 major impact seasons ('70-86)
I voted MJ over Kareem despite this massive edge in longevity, an edge that is even greater than Kobe's edge over LeBron. So even though I definitely place value on longevity, I do not believe it is strong enough to be the main aspect of a player's case. Otherwise we would be talking about Stockton over Magic since he had so many more productive seasons. I believe Kobe is much closer to LeBron than Stockton was to Magic, but my point is that longevity won't be the deciding factor for me although it is something I value.
So Kobe gets the edge in longevity which gives him a lead over LeBron at this point. So let's compare these player's prime seasons and compare the best 10 year spans of their careers...
LeBron pretty much has the edge across the board outside of Kobe's edge in titles. In terms of regular season performance, playoff performance, regular season accolades (4 MVPs vs. 1 MVP), and my personal eye test... LeBron's prime has clearly been more impressive. LeBron's '09 and '10 seasons trump anything Kobe has ever done in his career, and after a brief hiccup in '11 LeBron has followed it up with 3 seasons ('12-'14) that trump the best season we've seen from Kobe ('01 or '03 or '06 or '07 or '09... whichever you feel was his best). It's tough for me to rank Kobe above LeBron when I believe that LeBron has 5 seasons as good or better than Kobe's best.
Kobe had many great seasons but LeBron was simply capable of hitting another level that Kobe just couldn't consistently reach. I think the best example of this is the fact that the best 5 year stretch of Kobe's career was in 2006-10. LeBron has the edge in basic stats much like the edge he has in the 10yr runs comparison above, so I decided to go a different route and use RAPM. This is how Kobe's '06-'10 stretch compares to LeBron's '06-'10 stretch in terms of advanced RAPM data...
Season Averages by RAPM (using Doc MJ's spreadsheet once again)... Player ---- Years ---- RAPM --- oRAPM --- dRAPM ---- *GP% LeBron --- '06-'10 --- 10.02 ----- 8.04 ----- 1.98------ 94.9% Kobe ------ '06-'10 --- 7.52 ------ 7.38 ----- 0.14 ------ 96.1% *GP% = Player GP / Team GP *figures are slightly off because I'm valuing each season the same despite different minutes
During the best 5 year run of Kobe's career, LeBron was clearly a better player according to RAPM. And only 2 of those 5 years from LeBron are considered to be a part of his true peak ('09 and '10). According to RAPM, the main difference between Kobe and LeBron comes from the defensive side of the ball. LeBron was an absolutely tremendous defender and the RAPM data only backs up what my eyes have always told me. I'm not using the RAPM data to prove LeBron was a great defender, I'm just using it to add support to my eye test and all the accolades and respect his D has received. And while I believe LeBron's edge over Kobe in Defense is closer than RAPM suggests, I also believe LeBron's edge over Kobe in Offense is larger than RAPM suggests.
Kobe had a tremendous career and he might sneak in my Top 10, but he does not deserve to be ranked ahead of LeBron imo. I just wanted to compare LeBron to Kobe because I wanted to show how significant an edge that LeBron has over the next best "wing scorer" type on this list of the post-'80 3pt line era. MJ is the best of this kind and Kobe is the 3rd best. I feel as if LeBron is clearly closer to MJ than he was to Kobe in terms of pure impact in his prime.
LeBron vs. Magic and Bird:LeBron's defensive edge is too strong to overcome I hate to combine Magic and Bird into one vs. post about Lebron, but at the end of the day the same thing was going to give LeBron the edge in both comps so why not just kill two birds with one stone?
In the above comparison between LeBron and Kobe, you saw just how much respect the advanced metrics have for LeBron's defense. They have him rated as a truly elite perimeter defender who makes a clear and significant difference on defense. But it wasn't just the advanced metrics that respected LeBron's D, it was the coaches and scouts and fans who simply watched him play.
His rare blend of size and quickness allows him the ability to guard every PG in the game and about 80% of PFs. That kind of 1-4 versatility is extremely rare but it wasn't even his best asset as a defender. His size/speed ratio allowed him to cover an insane amount of ground on the court and made him into an elite help defender from the wings. LeBron was consistently one of the best non-Big DPOY candidates in the NBA from '09-'13 and his defense in his other seasons were all clearly above-average as well.
And while he was making this elite defensive impact, he just so happened to be an annual OPOY candidate and generally the best offensive player in the game. Magic and Bird were both very limited defenders. Both Magic and Bird were capable team defenders but they struggled to play man defense against quicker players. Magic was a PG who couldn't guard quick-small PGs and Bird was a SF/PF who needed McHale to take the tougher matchups because of his limited defensive ability. So both guys were below-average man defenders at their position and probably above-average team defenders.
So for me to rank Bird and/or Magic ahead of LeBron, they need to have an edge in offense. Not a tiny edge, a clear and significant enough an edge to make up for their defensive shortcomings. Let's get longevity out of the way first...
Bird had 11 major impact seasons ('80-'88, '90-'91) Magic had 11 major impact seasons ('80, '82-'91) LeBron had 10 major impact seasons ('05-'14)
So Bird and Magic's edge in longevity is basically non-existent. This is why I separated Kobe from these guys, because Kobe's argument over LeBron was based more around longevity. But LeBron has essentially matched Bird and Magic in terms of prime impact performance before hitting the age of 30. So Bird/Magic will need to trump LeBron's offensive peak/prime to be considered the superior player in my eyes...
Player ---- Years ---- Rel-tmOrtg LeBron --- '05-'14 ------ +2.43 Magic ----- '82-'91 ------ +5.32 Bird ------- '80-'88 ------ +4.17
Now this is where things got interesting for me. LeBron has the more impressive individual stats, but Magic and Bird both led better offensive teams in their prime. Magic had more impressive individual numbers than Bird but I believe that Bird's ability to play off-ball gave him more "value outside the numbers" than either Magic or LeBron. But Magic did lead better offenses than Bird, and both had the edge over LeBron.
So that led me to wonder if LeBron's offensive game was less conducive to creating a GOAT-level team offense than Bird and Magic.
I do believe that Magic and Bird had a slightly greater offensive impact than LeBron on a global scale. Their styles allowed their teammates to thrive slightly more than LeBron's style imo. Magic's edge as a floor general and willingness as a passer really kept the entire offense involved for his team and his vision and decision-making definitely had a positive impact on his teammates' efficiency. Bird's ability to score in so many different ways while also being such a tremendous passer gave his teams a historically unique level of offensive versatility. In our All-Time Draft/League Project that I participated in earlier in the year, the best team in the tournament was ThunderDan9's team whose strength was an offense designed around Bird. Bird's offensive game gives his team so many options and this is why I think his individual stats underrate him.
But I think LeBron is a hell of an offensive player himself and I believe the difference between him and Bird/Magic as offensive anchors is much closer than the relative team ratings suggest. For example...
Player ---- Years ---- Rel-tmDrtg Duncan --- '98-'07 ----- -6.13 Hakeem -- '85-'94 ----- -2.67
Duncan's edge over Hakeem in team DRtg over their primes is far superior to Magic's edge over LeBron in terms of ORtg. But does anyone think Duncan was really THAT much better of a defensive anchor than Hakeem? Duncan may have been the better anchor but the different situations they were in need to be taken into account. I think Hakeem was capable of leading historic defenses the same way Duncan did, and I think LeBron was capable of leading historic offenses the same way Magic and Bird did.
Despite me saying that I think Bird and Magic were both slightly better offensive players than LeBron, I firmly believe LeBron is a historic offensive player that is absolutely on the same tier as Bird/Magic offensively even if he slightly trails them. This is a guy with a 37/10/9 on .590 TS% line per 100 possessions over the past 10 regular seasons. This is a guy who is one of the GOAT finishers at the rim, a guy who has developed an extremely good post-game, a guy who has developed into a great catch-and-shoot player, a guy who is a tremendous passer, a guy who we've seen dominate offensively in the playoffs.
Tier 1 Offensive Wings: Perennial OPOY candidates with historic peaks Oscar West Magic Bird Jordan ---- elite defensive impact among wings Kobe Nash LeBron ---- elite defensive impact among wings
I think those are the guys who belong on this list, guys who were always in the convo for best offensive player in the league for a sustained stretch of time. A guy like Stockton might have the longevity and a guy like Wade might have the peak, but I don't think they belong on this list.
Among this group of the GOAT offensive wings, Jordan and LeBron stand out as BY FAR as the best defenders on the list. Oscar, West, and Kobe were all pretty good defenders (Kobe's D is hard to rate, it was elite at times and below-average at others... plus Kobe's peak O-impact is probably the lowest of the group). Magic and Bird were mediocre defenders but not terrible. Nash was a terrible defender. MJ and LeBron were All-World defenders.
The reason I ranked MJ #1 over all of the great Bigs voted in from #2-#6 is because of MJ's two-way dominance. He was the only consistent OPOY-caliber wing who was also a tremendous defensive player. That was before LeBron joined MJ in that exclusive club. LeBron's D from '09-'13 was absurdly good and his defense from '04-'08 and'14 have been clearly above average imo. He may not have been as consistently good on D as someone like Battier, Artest, or Iggy... but he was always an extremely valuable defender who was arguably just as good as those 3 players when he turned it up a notch (his offensive responsibility kept him from consistently playing at that Battier/Artest/Iggy level). LeBron's a special two-way player and that two-way ability is why I believe he is a greater player than Magic or Bird despite possibly being a slightly worse offensive player than Magic and maybe Bird.
LeBron vs. Hakeem:LeBron's edge in offensive consistency is too clear Hakeem is my favorite player that will be named in the Top 50. So trust me, I think the guy is just fantastic. I think he's one of the most aesthetically pleasing players in NBA history due to his athletic grace and low-post skillset, and he definitely had an x-factor about him when it came to performing in the big moments. Clutch, graceful, productive, Champion.
He's a special player in NBA history and has such a unique argument when it comes to ranking him vs. other GOAT candidates because of the emphasis that is often placed on his peak performance that only last 3 years ('93-'95). You take away the best 3 years from all of these Top 10 candidates, and the player who drops the furthest in these rankings would be Hakeem by far. And Hakeem's argument also tends to be heavily based on playoff performance and his supporters rarely go in-depth about why his regular season performance was so lacking. Some posters have argued that Hakeem's offensive performance from '85-'92 is comparable to '93-'95 but I simply don't buy it. I made a detailed post in the #5 RealGM Top 100 thread comparing Ewing and Hakeem from '85-'92 where they are almost identical in terms of production and I also compared Robinson to Hakeem and showed how significant an edge Robinson had in terms of regular season production from '90-'96.
Spoiler:
O_6 wrote:I am a big Hakeem fan. My very first posts on his board were pro-Hakeem, talking about what a brilliant 2-way player he was especially at this prime. Among all the potential Top 10 candidates on this list, he is easily my personal favorite. His combination of stylistic grace and clutch production is just fantastic. And his peak from '93-'95 was one of the most impressive in league history. You could argue that no one in NBA history has been better at both offense and defense than peak Hakeem. That's certainly a wonderful argument to make in a discussion like this.
I know his playoff scoring was always impressive, but can someone please explain to me why his epic playoff scoring never translated into epic regular season offensive impact?
I've heard people claim that Hakeem's offensive impact before '93 was underrated. But was that really the case? Can someone explain to me why Patrick Ewing put up almost identical offensive stats to Hakeem through 1992 despite having worse offensive support? Hell, Ewing's scoring numbers are actually CLEARLY ahead of Hakeem's during this period. In terms of both volume and efficiency.
Ewing is almost never considered a great offensive big outside of his '90 season. Most people actually think that Ewing would be forced to change his offensive game and be less of a volume scorer in the modern era. But if that's the case, than why did he have better scoring numbers than Hakeem through 1992? Isn't volume scoring supposed to be a key aspect of Hakeem's argument? I know people will bring up the fact that Hakeem did better in the playoffs which is true, but why did that not translate into the regular season? Did Hakeem only play up to his competition?
Everyone always brings up the '95 beatdown that Hakeem put on Robinson. It is arguably the single greatest playoff series by an individual in NBA history. Trust me, I understand what a defining moment that series was in both players' careers. Like I said, I'm a big Hakeem fan and that series was his magnum opus.
But during the 7 years where both players were in their prime, David Robinson was a significantly more productive offensive player in the regular season. He scored on slightly higher volume and was a far more efficient scorer because he consistently attacked the rim more often with his face-up game which led to more free throws.
I know that playoffs matter more than the regular season, but the REGULAR SEASON STILL MATTERS! Especially when we're talking about a 7 year span that covers 574 games. If Prime Hakeem was supposed to be a Shaq-level offensive threat, than why did his regular season offensive production trail David Robinson's by such an insane degree? It's not like Robinson had a much stronger offensive supporting cast, I'd say that his casts were pretty equal to Hakeem's through '96. And yet, his team's offenses were consistently better and his individual statistics were consistently superior by a clear margin.
I love Hakeem. He rose his level of play consistently in the playoffs and his '93/'94 seasons were arguably the most impressive 2-way seasons in NBA history. In terms of pure peak, I think I'd rank Hakeem clearly above Duncan and a right there with Shaq. But this RealGM Top 100 GOAT list is not just about Peak performance, it's about Career performance. And I have some major concerns about Hakeem's offensive performance in the regular season over his career, especially before he hit his offensive prime in '93. He's nowhere near the consistently dominant offensive threat a player like Shaq was.
I haven't really seen those questions I've had about Hakeem's offense answered yet by his supporters? Why was Patrick Ewing a more effective offensive player from '85-'92 in the regular season? Why was David Robinson a MUCH more effective offensive player from '90-'96 in the regular season? Are those individual stats lying? Are those team offensive ratings lying? Do you really think Ewing and Robinson had much better offensive casts than Hakeem? Whatever the reason, Hakeem never translated his epic offensive playoff runs into epic offensive regular seasons until '93. And although the playoffs matter more, you can't just ignore Hakeem's shortcomings in the regular season.
And because he didn't reach his offensive peak until '93 under Rudy T., Hakeem never dominated the league as consistently as LeBron has. Using the RealGM POY shares and NBA MVP shares...
Hakeem's prime was basically '85-'97, from '98 onwards Hakeem simply wasn't the same caliber player. So that's a 13 year prime. So I decided to compare Hakeem vs. LeBron in terms of a year by year ranking using the RealGM Player of the Year project. A lot of the posters participating on that project are also participating in this project and I feel like the general results from that project are very reasonable and correlate strongly with my own rankings of these players during these seasons. The results between Hakeem vs. LeBron were interesting...
Season ---- Hakeem ---- LeBron Year 1 ------- 0 ------------ 0 Year 2 ------- 3rd ---------- 9th Year 3 ------- 4th ---------- 5th Year 4 ------- 4th ---------- 5th Year 5 ------- 4th ---------- 3rd (similar through year 5, epic young talents with 1 early NBA Finals loss on resume) Year 6 ------- 8th ---------- 1st ('09 for LeBron vs. '90 for Hakeem) Year 7 ------- 7th ---------- 1st Year 8 ------- 7th ---------- 2nd (just an enormous edge for LeBron from seasons 6-8) Year 9 ------- 2nd ---------- 1st Year 10 ------ 1st ---------- 1st Year 11 ------ 1st ---------- 1st (Tremendous 3 year runs for both leading to 2 titles each) Year 12 ------ 6th ---------- Year 13 ------ 3rd ---------- (Hakeem with 2 more strong years but a slight drop from years 9-11)
You could argue that Hakeem was a tiny bit better from years 1-5, a tiny bit better from years 9-11, and has two more great years to give him a slight longevity edge. All that is important. But LeBron absolutely slaughters Hakeem during years 6-8, just straight up outclasses him.
Hakeem's mid-career lull from '90-'92 simply cannot be overlooked. To put it in perspective, we're thinking about ranking Hakeem 7th on this all-time list and 6th among all the Bigs in NBA history. But from '90-'92 Hakeem was on average the 7th best player and 5th best Big in the league (Malone, Robinson, Ewing, Barkley all performed better). None of the players voted in so far have had a mid-career question mark as large as Hakeem's '90-'92 performance. Kareem didn't win enough in the mid/late 70s but he was still the unquestioned boss of the league. Shaq struggled with injuries but when he actually played his impact was never in question.
While Hakeem was struggling to remain a Top 5 player in the game during years 6-8, LeBron was putting up one of the GOAT two year stretches in NBA history with his '09 and '10 seasons. And although he took a step back in '11 when he had to change his game up in MIami, he was still the best player in the league despite Rose taking the MVP and Dirk winning the POY due to his Finals win. Dirk had an epic playoff run and LeBron failed hard in the Finals, so you can't complain too much about LeBron not being called the POY in 2011. But even with the Finals loss, 2011 was a very strong year for LeBron and far stronger than any season Hakeem put up from '90-'92. And there is absolutely no comparison between LeBron's '09 and '10 seasons and Hakeem's '90-'92 stretch.
Hakeem's mid-career lull from '90-'92, his inability in the regular season to perform at a dominant level on offense before '93, the fact that his offensive prime and defensive prime only overlapped for 2 years ('93-'94), and his generally lacking regular season career just makes me question his consistency in a way I simply don't with LeBron. LeBron was simply the more consistent and valuable superstar over the course of their primes and he also has a ridiculous peak so you can't give Hakeem the edge solely because of '93-'95.
This post is for those who say that LeBron's impact hasn't translated to team results in the playoffs.
leBron's prime (09-14) playoff:
Team SRS: +7.54 Offensive rating when LeBron is on court: 111.4 (average opponent 102.8 D rating) Offensive rating relative to opponent when LeBron is on court: +8.6
O rating relative to opponent when LeBron is on the court: 09: +9.8 10: +5.6 11: +4.7 12: +10.7 13: +9.9 14: +9.6
Baller2014 wrote: For instance, most of the games Oscar missed come right at the end or right at the beginning of his Royals career. And, of course, that was the time when the Royals had the weakest support casts.
Okay so look at the with without in the single largest year he missed.
With without in ’68 (chosen because it’s his largest absence, I haven’t done this with other years) is pretty huge. Obviously preface this with: (a) With without is noisy, it is measuring things that aren’t what you’re trying to measure (quality of backup, coaching adjustments, schedule etc). (b) It’s a small sample Over the year Cincinnati were -69 (82 games), with Robertson they were +118 (65 games, +1.815385 per game). That means without him they were -187 without him (17 games, -11 per game). That suggests a value of roughly 13 points (in that particular context, with all the caveats above) over his reserve (Guy Rodgers).
Baller2014 wrote:In 7/10 years Oscar was missing between 0 and 5 games. I'm not sure that's a meaningful enough sample size to draw conclusions from, and it's particularly troublesome given the constantly changing support casts over this 10 year period. I mean, do we know who else played in the 0-5 games he played in those years? Were they resting guys, were they losing only to the Bill Russell Celtics? These are all legitimate questions, for which we have no data.
I don't love the sample sizes. However ... "were they losing only to the Bill Russell Celtics?" is that a legitimate question? Do you believe Oscar Robertson's injuries coincided "only" with Celtics games? Do you believe the Royals gave up on games if they missed Oscar (and even if you do, and are right, wouldn't that be a measure of how important he was)? And "for which we have no data" the data is there on basketball-reference for all but 3 seasons (9 games), and source of the rest has been given, if indirectly. If you mean "for which you haven't presented the data" (and you might expect the person making the case to make it as transparent as possible) fair enough. His source is this http://www.nbastats.net/01NBA/09playerl ... ertson.xls
Also per that nbastats spreadsheet they were ouscored by 5313 to (the Royals) 4939 in Robertsons absence, thats -374, or -8.311111111 points per game. And whilst it is reasonable to note that the most missed games are in the teams weaker years one should point out that they would be Oscar's weaker years so when you note an approximate 26 win impact was as a rookie. And my 13 points per game approximate was at the tail end of his prime (still plenty productive after of course). In '70 despite injuries and playing with a coach who didn't want him without they appear to have been 1503-1604; outscored by 101 points over 13 games or -7.769230769 per game, which means with him they were 5.725752508 points better off and that's with Norm Van Lier (a good, albeit rookie, pg as his backup). If the approximates are correct and if we accept Robertson added more value as he peaked (64, 65 ish), that would make him a remarkable player. And the '60 and '68 values are perhaps high (they seem pretty big). But then a look at some of your estimated impacts suggest they're overstated too. See last point.
Baller2014 wrote:2) By Lorak's argument Steve Nash has an even stronger case. From the 05-11 period he not only had the Suns playing like an offensive juggernaut, but the with/without wins record was even more compelling: In games with Nash they were a 55 win team, and without him they were a 25 win team, so he improved them by 30 games, not 26. Nash's achievement is even more impressive, because that includes 2009 (when Terry Porter ran the offense through Shaq and not Nash, the equivalent of Spo telling Lebron this year "I want to try something new, let's run everything through Wade and have you play off the ball". Obviously it was ludicrously dumb and backfired).
As in my above I'm not a huge advocate of with without. But if you're using it you'd have to look at backups. Guy Rodgers (the backup in Robertson's largest absence) was despite his flaws (and I've noted them in this project) a point guard. Leandro Barbosa simply isn't. This may suggest Nash's value is more contextual (and Robertson's more absolute).
Baller2014 wrote:1) Weak Era 2) Still not as impactful as other guys in play here 3) The law of diminishing returns; it's easier to turn a bad team into a middling team than it is to turn a bad team into a contender.
The first two are as given here, just opinions, wheras in the case of the third it's fortunate for him that he did both (though I'd say Cincinatti peaked at better than "middlling").
Baller2014 wrote:20 to 46 is the actual improvement using bballref. So that's 26 wins. Impressive, but not comparable to the guys in play here. Examples: - Bird improving the Celtics 32 wins as a rookie, despite the support cast arguably being worse (or no better certainly) than the 1979 Celtics. [cast clearly is improved, notably at the bottom end where washed up, me first, no-D sub-replacement level players like Kurtis Rowe, Billy Knight, Marvin Barnes are no longer playing semi-significant minutes (a combined 3137) nor are washed up replacement level formerly valuable Celtics (White and Chaney 2529 combined minutes). They get more minutes from more solid players e.g. Robey, healthier Archibald, Carr arrives, a bit of Maravich.] - Kareem improving the Bucks 29 wins as a rookie. Remember, both Bird and Kareem got better after their rookie season. [Dandridge arrives simultaneously, but even so Kareem's already in, at 2 no less, so ...] - Duncan carrying garbage teams in 01-03 to 58-60 win seasons. I doubt either team would have won 20 games without Duncan, and I covered this extensively in discussion on him [speculation, even if it were true, he's already in so ...] - I don't doubt at all that the Cavs in 09 and 10 were getting 30 wins out of Lebron. [Conjecture again though more plausible, anyway he's likely coming in now, so ...] - Dr J on the 1976 Nets was almost certainly worth 30 wins [contingent on seeing ABA wins as the equal of NBA ones, contingent on seeing a win in an arguably diluted era (25 pro teams for the full season, others for the start of it), perhaps contingent on seeing the Nets' record as not flukey 55 wins for a +2.56 SRS team, even accepting circumstances Erving's impact the next year on Philly is so much less that even it doesn't make you question one 30 win season, it makes you think a career less valuable as a whole than Robertson's] - The Rockets dropped 32 wins after trading Moses Malone [after teams blow up is kind of dangerous. This year is now notorious for supposed tanking, overplaying an aging Elvin Hayes (which may be overstated) led to the lottery. Adequate vets like Dunleavy and Reid allowed to leave, big minutes for sub-replacement level players. And even if we accept a 30 win impact, you could only really argue he was at that same level one other year ('83) with some others close-ish].
lorak wrote:I'll concede the "what if his supporting casts were just that bad" is a possibility, but I think the most likely explanation isn't that.
Why? During his career in Cincinnati Royals were 18 wins team without Oscar. Sure, lot of noise in such data, but it's pretty consistent from season to season and what is the basis of your claim that they weren't bad enough to explain that Royal's offenses weren't better (while they still were the best in the 60s!)?[/quote]
Well first off, let me hammer in again the line of mine I quoted. I'm not making a claim, I'm simply saying what I think is most likely. Some observations though:
1. It was very difficult to be THAT bad for that long back then. It's an era where teams winning less than 50 were still contenders, and many years there was nobody even in the 18 win tier of bad teams.
2. The Royals got Jerry Lucas. I used to be considerably higher on Lucas than I am now, but Lucas was an absolute giant of a prospect who was forced to defer to Oscar. Now, Oscar's so talented that that deference made sense, but if Lucas had gotten to develop into the alpha he'd been in college I don't believe for a minute that that Cincy would have been winning 18 games every year.
3. The Royals didn't go back to winning 18 after Oscar left. It was far less dramatic than that.
4. The whole WOWY thing back then is a bit tricky, for the same reason that +/- would be virtually useless even if we had it: When your star is playing 45 MPG, there basically is no back up plan. There's Plan A, and then there's suffering. If there ISN"T suffering when the player is out, then that's telling as it probably means there's some serious poor optimization in Plan A, but if there is, well you can't just throw someone out there and tell them to emulate Oscar Robertson.
It's worth noting that this issue still exist to some degree and seems to have come up repeatedly with Chris Paul. Paul has outstanding +/- data, but from what I recall, when he's out for a while his teams tend to do a bit better than you'd expect based on the +/-. Makes sense. If a player is out for a while it gives you a chance to re-optimize with the talent you have healthy, and if that talent has different strengths than the star did, you might be surprised what they can give you.
To some degree this is what I'm talking about when I talk about Lucas' potential. To some degree though what I'm really getting at is a difference based on the "with" portion rather than the WOWY differential. When I champion Russell I'll mention WOWY as proof-in-pudding for those who somehow doubt that he had a huge impact on his team, but what really matters to me is that he was extremely valuable playing a role that helped a team be very successful. The same WOWY on a team going nowhere, while not unimpressive, is not the type of thing that stirs my ranking soul.
What of Garnett? Isn't his time in Minny like Oscar's in Cincy? Well, it's the overall trend with Garnett that makes me find him so compelling. As stated, I had no qualms putting him below Duncan back when he was in Minny. It's the fact that no matter where he went he found a way to have that same impact that gets me...
Which I think gives you an opportunity to tee off: "Well, when Oscar went to Milwaukee, damned if he didn't have that same impact!"
I too am very impressed with his pivot in Milwaukee, and by no means would I say I'm unimpressed with Oscar in general. Any criticism I've directed toward him here is only done because we're having to pick at straws. He's amazing, but there are a few others I find a bit more amazing.
lorak wrote:The 1971 is on its own planet. Very cool, but also clearly a weird time in the NBA, oh and Oscar's not the best player on the team.
He was the best player on that team. I wrote about it before and even for guys who don't like such approach like mine there are articles from early 70s, which also say that. (to be clear - for me that has almost 0 value, but I know some people value such things a lot.) I think that was situation similar to mid 00s Suns, where also not leading scorer was the most important player. And it shouldn't be surprise, because 1971 team was better on offense than on defense (of course on that end they also were very good, just not as good as on O) and perimeter players are usually responsible for offense - and no doubt Oscar was VERY impactfull player on that end of the floor. [/quote]
I know you believe that, but basically no one but you thinks that. I fully respect you putting yourself out there, and I think you make some compelling points, but you're never going to be able to use that as a starting point for persuading people of something else.
Put another way: If I believed that Oscar was the best player on that team, then yes, I'd be voting for him now.
lorak wrote:I agree, it's problematic, but context kind of explains it. I mean, bigs are mainly responsible for defense, it's even more true in the 60s, when game was in the paint oriented more than post 1980, so It's hard to knock Oscar for Royals defensive performance. Especially considering how big burden on offense he had to carry. You know, even LeBron right now isn't able to play non stop at 100% on both ends of the floor, so why we should expect something like that from player in the 60s, when his defensive impact from perimeter was even more limited by specifics of era he played? After all he proved that he was also capable of leading great offenses when at the same time team played very good defense, so it doesn't seem like something was wrong with Robertson - just really bad situation in Cinncinati, just like KG in Minnesota (BTW, remember how his impact was great on offense or on defense, but not on both ends of the floor at the same time? And how Minny's defense for most of his time there were just barley above average?)
Bigs are not responsible for defense though. Players are. Yes the bigs are going to typically be more important, but if that's what's making the team lose, you've got to do more.
When I think of Oscar vs West, this is one of my issues. Here you have the two best offensive players of the 60s, and one of whom has a career full of people raving about his defense while the other played on defenses that were legendarily incompetent. Seems like a pretty big deal.
colts18 wrote:This post is for those who say that LeBron's impact hasn't translated to team results.
leBron's prime (09-14):
Team SRS: +7.54 Offensive rating when LeBron is on court: 111.4 (average opponent 102.8 D rating) Offensive rating relative to opponent when LeBron is on court: +8.6
O rating relative to opponent when LeBron is on the court: 09: +9.8 10: +5.6 11: +4.7 12: +10.7 13: +9.9 14: +9.6
2012 was higher than 2013?
WOW, I did not expect that. The team seemed to go to a different level in 2013, most of 2012 they still looked like they had the plodding offense of 2011, things changed with the Bosh injury and they went small.
There are many more but these were the best I came across.
Honestly the Russell comparison seems apt. From the limited footage of him, as well as what I read about his game, these are the kinds of lines I imagine (with lower scoring obviously). Just an octopus on the court, hands everywhere, swiping passes, blocking shots, grabbing rebounds, all at copious rates.
This does two things:
1. It makes me feel good about my no. 1 Russell vote.
2. Makes me feel the need to reconsider my Hakeem analysis.
WOW, I did not expect that. The team seemed to go to a different level in 2013, most of 2012 they still looked like they had the plodding offense of 2011, things changed with the Bosh injury and they went small.
2012 ranks high because they played some pretty tough defenses (NYK, OKC, BOS). The average Defense he faced had a 101.2 D rating which is about the equivalent of the 2013 Spurs defense. The Heat also had a 115 O rating against the Thunder which helps. Their defense was mediocre in that series but it didn't matter because the offense was on fire.
WOW, I did not expect that. The team seemed to go to a different level in 2013, most of 2012 they still looked like they had the plodding offense of 2011, things changed with the Bosh injury and they went small.
2012 ranks high because they played some pretty tough defenses (NYK, OKC, BOS). The average Defense he faced had a 101.2 D rating which is about the equivalent of the 2013 Spurs defense. The Heat also had a 115 O rating against the Thunder which helps. Their defense was mediocre in that series but it didn't matter because the offense was on fire.
Oh ok, didn't realize it was just Playoffs.
Yeah, the 2012 Finals would have been my favorite series of the last few years if it wasn't so damn lopsided. It was a straight shootout, seemed like nearly every shot from both teams was going in.
90sAllDecade wrote:I'll be voting Hakeem here and will be sharing analysis why over time.
Regardless of the vote, I'll do my best to address and contribute whatever new data or perspectives I can. I'll still advocate, but this will become mostly academic comparisons for other's benefit if they find value in it.
Here's my reasons in the previous thread. I'll be going into new info as well in this thread as much as possible.
[spoiler]*UPDATED POST*
I vote Hakeem Olajuwon and will go in-depth why he's a better combined overall individual two way player than anyone else considering team support, competition and all context.
When you hold a microscope to these players, Hakeem is actually the true GOAT center and big man all time imo despite these long held media influenced beliefs.
Basketball has always been a center's game from 50's in Mikan, 60's Wilt, Russell, 70's-80's Kareem, Walton, 90s Hakeem & 00's Shaq. Dominant two way bigs have always been more impactful than wing players on the whole. They are extremely rare, can be offensive and defensive anchors and whenever a GM is given a choice of what to start a franchise with a dominant big is the #1 choice.
Hakeem Olajuwon is the consensus greatest two way big of all time and imo the GOAT center
No wing player in NBA history, Jordan, Magic included, has ever won a championship without an all star or HOF talent versus bigs. Hakeem is the only player in NBA history to win a championship without an all star, HOF talent or elite/GOAT level coach. Wings need more help, bigs can do more with less because they are historically more impactful overall. Dr. James Naismith made basketball's scoring mechanism ten feet off the ground; height, shooting, coordination and explosiveness are traditionally king in this game and likely always will be
If you were to create the closest perfect shooting guard by combining skills with no weaknesses to date, it would be Jordan. If you were to create the closest perfect center with skills and no weaknesses it's Hakeem Olajuwon.
He combines every quality all the greatest have and is the greatest playoff center of all time:
He has playoff offense that's comparable to KAJ and Shaq:
Hakeem is the greatest player in NBA history with the lowest team support and highest competition. This shows just how good he had to be versus the others who had outstanding high team support and lower competition advantages.
Team Support Comparison
Jordan: 15 years Years with 1 All Star Player: x5 ( x6, if you consider 91' Pippen, which I do personally) Two All Star player: x0 (x2 depending how you view Rodman) Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x2 HOF Coach x7
*if you count Tex Winter, architect of the Triangle Offense, Jordan had two HOF coaches at once
Kareem: 19 years Years with 1 All Star Player: x15 Two All Star player: x7 Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x7 HOF Coach: x8
Larry Bird: 13 years Years with 1 All Star Player: x13 Two All Star player: x10 Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x0 HOF Coach x0
LeBron: 10 years Years with 1 All Star Player: x6 Two All Star player: x4 (so far) Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x0 HOF Coach x0
Magic: 12 years Years with 1 All Star Player: x11 Two All Star player: x7 Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x7 HOF Coach x9
Russell: 12 years Years with 1 All Star Player: x12 Two All Star player: x11 Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x9 HOF Coach x9
Hakeem: 17 years Years with 1 All Star Player: x7 Two All Star player: x1 Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x0 HOF Coach x0
In his prime (age 23-33) Hakeem dominated or outplayed his HOF center peers in the playoffs throughout his career.
Hakeem played PF while Sampson guarded Kareem. Kareem's numbers are misleading though, 2nd year Hakeem destroyed the Lakers PF and was killing old Kareem, Lakers PFs and everyone else on the front-line on the glass and running the floor. The lesser talented Rockets beat the 62 win defending champion Lakers without HCA (Was that a tough former champion the Rockets beat?)
They wanted to keep both big men out of foul trouble until game 4 I believe when they put KAJ on him and Hakeem starts dominating him in their very few head to head plays that series. KAJ was old and Hakeem was a 2nd year player, but throughout their prime careers Hakeem had a better peak, was a better rebounder, defender, shot blocker and stealer with comparable offense in the playoffs. KAJ would also get outplayed by HOF peers in the playoffs. Olajuwon was also mentally tougher with less help and better competition.
I can provide a link for people to watch the series, there is no doubt who the dominant player was. Here's the highlights for an idea.
The Rockets faced a team and frontline that is argued as the best of all time and 2nd year Hakeem dominated Parish and anyone who guarded him. He undressed Parish on both sides of the ball, while Sampson guarded McHale at PF. The Rockets got beat handily and simply were out matched talent wise. Only two players dominated indivdiually against that Boston defense and team: Michael Jordan and Olajuwon.
Shaq held his own, but his turnovers, Hakeem was more impactful during crucial times and as a team defender; and the more talented, 57 win Magic lost in a sweep with HCA against a against the 47 win sixth seeded Rockets weighs the scales in Olajwon's favor imo.
Arguably the greatest frontline in NBA history (86' Celtics) and one of the greatest modern defensive cast (90's Knicks) couldn't even stop prime Olajuwon.
Shaq and Duncan however played worse against historic caliber defenses in the playoffs.
I can't say Ben outplayed Shaq offensively, but throughout Ben's prime career in the playoffs he's been troublesome for both Shaq and Duncan.
Ben, a center who is a potential HOFer, has consistently beaten Shaq in the playoffs and is 14-8 against him all time. His team beat him in the NBA finals and have beaten Shaq 3-1 while Shaq team's having HCA every time except once and very talented rosters. At this age (31-34) Hakeem was much better comparatively against tougher competition.
Look at how every time they played H2H, Ben's team usually won in the playoffs:
Ben's had better TS% although his rebounding was a little less and the Spurs won (the series went 7 games), Duncan had very good rebounding but played worse offensively against Ben and the Pistons comparatively. Compared to the defenses Hakeem dominated, he was better comparatively.
Hakeem vs Shaq 3 year peak & Defensive Comparison:
[spoiler]Three year Peaks: Hakeem 92'-95' vs Shaq 99'-02'
Regular Season
Hakeem TS% .568 Shaq TS% .580
Almost a wash with Shaq having better TS% and a small rebounding & point per game edge, but Hakeem has a tiny passing edge, better blocks, steals and slightly more turnovers.
Hakeem was far and away the dominant defensive player in his peak, winning Defensive Player of the year two years in a row and came in third the last year. Shaq never won one but did come in second the first year.
(Edit: I hashed their defense without accolades later, since they can be bad indicators.)
Playoffs
Hakeem TS% .564 Shaq TS% .562
Shaq had a clear rebounding edge and slightly less turnovers, but Hakeem had slightly better TS%, better passing, steals, blocks and played tougher competition with less help. As well as his peak defensive playoffs.
If you combine their offensive and defensive peaks, it seems Shaq had a slightly better single year and Hakeem had a better peak years overall in total impact.
Defense Shaq 99'-02' vs. Hakeem 92'-95'
Hakeem Regular Season
Def. Reb: 9.0 DRB% 24.2 Blks: 3.8 Steals: 1.8
Team Opp ppg Rank: 3rd (93'), 5th (94'), 14th (95') Team Drtg rank: 2nd (94'), 3rd (93'), 12th (95')
Shaq Regular Season
Def. Reb: 8.5 DRB% 23.9 Blks: 2.6 Steals: 0.6
Team Opp ppg Rank: 6th (00'), 9th (02'), 23rd (01') Team Drtg rank: 1st (00'), 7th (02'), 21st (01')
Hakeem Playoffs
Def. Reb: 8.7 DRB% 22.2 Blks: 3.7 Steals: 1.5
Team Opp ppg Rank: 3rd (93'), 7th (94'), 12th (95') Team Drtg rank: 3rd (94'), 6th (93'), 9th (95')
Shaq Playoffs
Def. Reb: 9.7 DRB% 25.5 Blks: 2.4 Steals: 0.5
Team Opp ppg Rank: 3rd (01'), 7th (02'), 15th (00') Team Drtg rank: 1st (01'), 7th (02'), 13th (00')
And to help account for teammate help or hindrance and pace for Drtg.
So not only was Hakeem better in just about every defensive category, he also had less defensive help than Shaq and also faced tougher competition.
Spoiler:
Hakeem vs Duncan:
Career Numbers Regular Season: Hakeem vs Duncan:
Hakeem
Duncan
So, despite the fact that Duncan hasn't played until the age of 39 yet, Hakeem still has better numbers for his career even in the regular season.
Hakeem is a better individual offensive player as a scorer, has better TS%, is a better stealer, shot blocker not to mention just an overall better defensive player. Duncan will also likely get worse statistically as he ages to 39 and over, bringing these numbers down.
I consider Duncan a better rebounder (his 0.5 passing advantage is enhanced by teammates and Pops system imo), but if you want to be literal on "what actually happened" then they are dead even rebounders and assists are a wash (but I look at advanced percentage and teams support as well)
Well, how about what actually happened individually in the playoffs?
Playoff Career Stats: Hakeem vs Duncan:
Hakeem
Duncan
Well, based on actual numbers for their entire playoff careers Hakeem is still a better offensive player as a scorer, better TS%, stealer, shot blocker and better all around defensive player as well. Rebound and assists are a wash and this doesn't include team support, competition and that Hakeem is a better athlete than Duncan.
So not only does Hakeem have a better peak and is a better athlete; he has a better prime, and also is a better regular season & playoff performer individually over their entire careers.
therealbig3 wrote:I think I have Bird over Magic as of right now. Magic from 80-83 was in a completely different situation than Bird from 80-83...he didn't have nearly the same offensive responsibility, and he was in a system DESIGNED to generate a lot of assists, so his numbers and his overall efficiency would obviously look great compared to a Larry Bird who hits the rookie wall in 1980 and gets the flu in 1983. Bird was a comparable passer to Magic, just didn't play on-ball as much. But his shooting (thus his overall off-ball play) and his defense was on another level compared to Magic, even early Magic who played a key role in LA's trapping defensive schemes.
Basically, from 1980-1986, there's no question who the better player was to me: Larry Bird. Even in 1987 and 1988, they're comparable. Magic out-duels him in the 1987 Finals, and doesn't get bogged down by injuries in 1988 like Bird does, which is why I'd give Magic the edge in both of those years, but it's really quite close. Only from 1989-1991 does Magic destroy Bird in terms of impact, because Bird basically misses all of the 1989 season, and then he's a shell of himself in 1990 and 1991. But Magic also suffers an injury in the 1989 Finals which should dock him a bit too.
I think as individual players, Bird was better, and there's no real longevity edge for Magic in this comparison imo. His early career had the benefit of playing on a Lakers team where he wasn't asked to be the main star, in a pretty generous offensive system. Bird was a heavy lifter on offense from day 1.
BTW, what are people's opinions of Dr. J? From what I remember from the peaks project, he was an absolute monster, with legitimate impact on both sides of the ball...comparable to LeBron according to some. He also looks like he has some pretty legitimate longevity, making the AS team up until his very last year in the league, and was still a 20 ppg scorer until he was 34. I understand if people downgrade him, because they don't rate the ABA that highly, but I've read some posts (I think by Doctor MJ actually) that suggest the difference in competition between the NBA and ABA was pretty negligible, and what Erving was doing in the ABA shouldn't be dismissed at all. His numbers do drop once he crosses over to the NBA, but according to Erving, he was suffering from injuries his first few years, and along with the adjustment that he would have had to make in a new league on a new team, it would make sense when you look at his numbers. After his first couple of seasons in the NBA (77 and 78), in which he's "only" a 21/8/4 player that led his team to the Finals in his first year...he averages 25/7/4 as the first option from 79-82, during which he leads the Sixers to the Finals 2 more times BEFORE Moses even shows up. After that, he plays the role of a great 2nd option to Moses for a few years, as he gradually declines and eventually retires.
Erving was also an extremely durable player, but he did miss 13 games in 1973 (2nd year in the league, leads ABA in scoring), 8 games in 1978 (2nd year in the NBA), 8 games total in 1979 and 1980 (maybe his two best seasons in the NBA), and 19 games total from 83-85 (his last 3 seasons as a 20+ ppg scorer, was a 2nd option to Moses).
Would be really interesting to see the with/without data for Erving in these games. If ElGee has them and could provide them, that would be great. Otherwise, I could look into it myself when I have the time.
Yeah, I may well end up with Bird over Magic as well.
It was me talking about Erving, and I'll confirm: There's no good reason at all to rate the NBA as clearly ahead of the ABA right before the merger. 5 years earlier sure, but the reason the merger happen had everything to do with the fact that the ABA kept gaining and gaining. By the end the ABA was winning more of the cross-league games than the NBA, and as I mentioned even the NBA's battlecry of "we played both sides of the ball" looks silly when you see how the ABA teams did when they came over and played with NBA rules.
Re: Declining numbers when he switched over. There were injuries yes, and there was a general decline that seems to me to come from a player whose game peaked more closely with his athleticism than your average all-timer - which says something about how special his athleticism was, and also says something about his BBIQ being good but not genius
The big thing though is simply that he was put onto another team with the worst fit imaginable. Philly's star George McGinnis was the knock off version of Erving: Both guys did it all, and both were used to their entire team being built around them in a unipolar manner. It was kind of like LeBron coming to Miami if you were to imagine Wade as a guy with no intention of sacrificing for build a great team around the new superior talent, except that the gap between LeBron & Wade as first option was smaller than the gap between Erving & McGinnis.
So Erving goes there and does what's asked of him, which is quite a bit less than he's used to because the team is essentially alternating between he and McGinnis. Over time, as the 76ers realized this just wasn't good enough, McGinnis got phased down and then traded, and so by the time we get to the '80s Erving's basically doing what you can expect him to do in that time period - which is very impressive, but it's not what he looked like in his peak.
If the New York Nets had been able to come over to the NBA intact, there's every reason to believe that the progression of Erving's stats from '76 to '80 would have been much more of a straight line, and he'd have been been doing his thing leading what would have been a strong contender without anyone seeing his teammates as particularly strong. Good chance that if this happened, Erving's something of a GOAT candidate.
So I think a case definitely could be made here for Erving. I tend to rate him lower than the guys with great longevity and graceful decline (like Garnett), but since most people here clearly aren't being bothered by that (LeBron vs Magic FTW), yeah, Erving's peak was right up there with these guys and he continued to be an all-star long after the entire duration of LeBron & Magic's careers.
If I've missed it, I apologize, but has anyone given a Magic vs Hakeem post in detail? If you have, just give me the bullet points. I feel like Hakeem is getting grossly overlooked.
I mean, if Shaq was picked over Magic...why not Hakeem as well? Hakeem and Shaq were always viewed as relative equals.
He has very underrated longevity. His 1995 season is overrated but the rest of his career is underrated. He has 7 playoff runs with 25+ PER. From 86-97 he had a 20+ PER in each playoff run. He has very few playoff disappointments (vs 90 Lakers). He had a playoff run in 1988 with a 39 PER.
therealbig3 wrote:I think I have Bird over Magic as of right now. Magic from 80-83 was in a completely different situation than Bird from 80-83...he didn't have nearly the same offensive responsibility, and he was in a system DESIGNED to generate a lot of assists, so his numbers and his overall efficiency would obviously look great compared to a Larry Bird who hits the rookie wall in 1980 and gets the flu in 1983. Bird was a comparable passer to Magic, just didn't play on-ball as much. But his shooting (thus his overall off-ball play) and his defense was on another level compared to Magic, even early Magic who played a key role in LA's trapping defensive schemes.
Basically, from 1980-1986, there's no question who the better player was to me: Larry Bird. Even in 1987 and 1988, they're comparable. Magic out-duels him in the 1987 Finals, and doesn't get bogged down by injuries in 1988 like Bird does, which is why I'd give Magic the edge in both of those years, but it's really quite close. Only from 1989-1991 does Magic destroy Bird in terms of impact, because Bird basically misses all of the 1989 season, and then he's a shell of himself in 1990 and 1991. But Magic also suffers an injury in the 1989 Finals which should dock him a bit too.
I think as individual players, Bird was better, and there's no real longevity edge for Magic in this comparison imo. His early career had the benefit of playing on a Lakers team where he wasn't asked to be the main star, in a pretty generous offensive system. Bird was a heavy lifter on offense from day 1.
BTW, what are people's opinions of Dr. J? From what I remember from the peaks project, he was an absolute monster, with legitimate impact on both sides of the ball...comparable to LeBron according to some. He also looks like he has some pretty legitimate longevity, making the AS team up until his very last year in the league, and was still a 20 ppg scorer until he was 34. I understand if people downgrade him, because they don't rate the ABA that highly, but I've read some posts (I think by Doctor MJ actually) that suggest the difference in competition between the NBA and ABA was pretty negligible, and what Erving was doing in the ABA shouldn't be dismissed at all. His numbers do drop once he crosses over to the NBA, but according to Erving, he was suffering from injuries his first few years, and along with the adjustment that he would have had to make in a new league on a new team, it would make sense when you look at his numbers. After his first couple of seasons in the NBA (77 and 78), in which he's "only" a 21/8/4 player that led his team to the Finals in his first year...he averages 25/7/4 as the first option from 79-82, during which he leads the Sixers to the Finals 2 more times BEFORE Moses even shows up. After that, he plays the role of a great 2nd option to Moses for a few years, as he gradually declines and eventually retires.
Erving was also an extremely durable player, but he did miss 13 games in 1973 (2nd year in the league, leads ABA in scoring), 8 games in 1978 (2nd year in the NBA), 8 games total in 1979 and 1980 (maybe his two best seasons in the NBA), and 19 games total from 83-85 (his last 3 seasons as a 20+ ppg scorer, was a 2nd option to Moses).
Would be really interesting to see the with/without data for Erving in these games. If ElGee has them and could provide them, that would be great. Otherwise, I could look into it myself when I have the time.
Yeah, I may well end up with Bird over Magic as well.
It was me talking about Erving, and I'll confirm: There's no good reason at all to rate the NBA as clearly ahead of the ABA right before the merger. 5 years earlier sure, but the reason the merger happen had everything to do with the fact that the ABA kept gaining and gaining. By the end the ABA was winning more of the cross-league games than the NBA, and as I mentioned even the NBA's battlecry of "we played both sides of the ball" looks silly when you see how the ABA teams did when they came over and played with NBA rules.
Re: Declining numbers when he switched over. There were injuries yes, and there was a general decline that seems to me to come from a player whose game peaked more closely with his athleticism than your average all-timer - which says something about how special his athleticism was, and also says something about his BBIQ being good but not genius
The big thing though is simply that he was put onto another team with the worst fit imaginable. Philly's star George McGinnis was the knock off version of Erving: Both guys did it all, and both were used to their entire team being built around them in a unipolar manner. It was kind of like LeBron coming to Miami if you were to imagine Wade as a guy with no intention of sacrificing for build a great team around the new superior talent, except that the gap between LeBron & Wade as first option was smaller than the gap between Erving & McGinnis.
So Erving goes there and does what's asked of him, which is quite a bit less than he's used to because the team is essentially alternating between he and McGinnis. Over time, as the 76ers realized this just wasn't good enough, McGinnis got phased down and then traded, and so by the time we get to the '80s Erving's basically doing what you can expect him to do in that time period - which is very impressive, but it's not what he looked like in his peak.
If the New York Nets had been able to come over to the NBA intact, there's every reason to believe that the progression of Erving's stats from '76 to '80 would have been much more of a straight line, and he'd have been been doing his thing leading what would have been a strong contender without anyone seeing his teammates as particularly strong. Good chance that if this happened, Erving's something of a GOAT candidate.
So I think a case definitely could be made here for Erving. I tend to rate him lower than the guys with great longevity and graceful decline (like Garnett), but since most people here clearly aren't being bothered by that (LeBron vs Magic FTW), yeah, Erving's peak was right up there with these guys and he continued to be an all-star long after the entire duration of LeBron & Magic's careers.
I looked at how a player's WS/48 minutes changed from '76 to '77 based on the league they were in before. I think I put in an aging curve too. The ABA players had their stats go down a little ... but so did the NBA players, and their decline was more severe.
The two leagues combined were basically contracting teams, and thus the competition increased.
By the way, if Erving had the exact same season in '76 in the NBA, how would people rate it?
therealbig3 wrote:I think I have Bird over Magic as of right now. Magic from 80-83 was in a completely different situation than Bird from 80-83...he didn't have nearly the same offensive responsibility, and he was in a system DESIGNED to generate a lot of assists, so his numbers and his overall efficiency would obviously look great compared to a Larry Bird who hits the rookie wall in 1980 and gets the flu in 1983. Bird was a comparable passer to Magic, just didn't play on-ball as much. But his shooting (thus his overall off-ball play) and his defense was on another level compared to Magic, even early Magic who played a key role in LA's trapping defensive schemes.
Basically, from 1980-1986, there's no question who the better player was to me: Larry Bird. Even in 1987 and 1988, they're comparable. Magic out-duels him in the 1987 Finals, and doesn't get bogged down by injuries in 1988 like Bird does, which is why I'd give Magic the edge in both of those years, but it's really quite close. Only from 1989-1991 does Magic destroy Bird in terms of impact, because Bird basically misses all of the 1989 season, and then he's a shell of himself in 1990 and 1991. But Magic also suffers an injury in the 1989 Finals which should dock him a bit too.
I think as individual players, Bird was better, and there's no real longevity edge for Magic in this comparison imo. His early career had the benefit of playing on a Lakers team where he wasn't asked to be the main star, in a pretty generous offensive system. Bird was a heavy lifter on offense from day 1.
BTW, what are people's opinions of Dr. J? From what I remember from the peaks project, he was an absolute monster, with legitimate impact on both sides of the ball...comparable to LeBron according to some. He also looks like he has some pretty legitimate longevity, making the AS team up until his very last year in the league, and was still a 20 ppg scorer until he was 34. I understand if people downgrade him, because they don't rate the ABA that highly, but I've read some posts (I think by Doctor MJ actually) that suggest the difference in competition between the NBA and ABA was pretty negligible, and what Erving was doing in the ABA shouldn't be dismissed at all. His numbers do drop once he crosses over to the NBA, but according to Erving, he was suffering from injuries his first few years, and along with the adjustment that he would have had to make in a new league on a new team, it would make sense when you look at his numbers. After his first couple of seasons in the NBA (77 and 78), in which he's "only" a 21/8/4 player that led his team to the Finals in his first year...he averages 25/7/4 as the first option from 79-82, during which he leads the Sixers to the Finals 2 more times BEFORE Moses even shows up. After that, he plays the role of a great 2nd option to Moses for a few years, as he gradually declines and eventually retires.
Erving was also an extremely durable player, but he did miss 13 games in 1973 (2nd year in the league, leads ABA in scoring), 8 games in 1978 (2nd year in the NBA), 8 games total in 1979 and 1980 (maybe his two best seasons in the NBA), and 19 games total from 83-85 (his last 3 seasons as a 20+ ppg scorer, was a 2nd option to Moses).
Would be really interesting to see the with/without data for Erving in these games. If ElGee has them and could provide them, that would be great. Otherwise, I could look into it myself when I have the time.
Yeah, I may well end up with Bird over Magic as well.
It was me talking about Erving, and I'll confirm: There's no good reason at all to rate the NBA as clearly ahead of the ABA right before the merger. 5 years earlier sure, but the reason the merger happen had everything to do with the fact that the ABA kept gaining and gaining. By the end the ABA was winning more of the cross-league games than the NBA, and as I mentioned even the NBA's battlecry of "we played both sides of the ball" looks silly when you see how the ABA teams did when they came over and played with NBA rules.
Re: Declining numbers when he switched over. There were injuries yes, and there was a general decline that seems to me to come from a player whose game peaked more closely with his athleticism than your average all-timer - which says something about how special his athleticism was, and also says something about his BBIQ being good but not genius
The big thing though is simply that he was put onto another team with the worst fit imaginable. Philly's star George McGinnis was the knock off version of Erving: Both guys did it all, and both were used to their entire team being built around them in a unipolar manner. It was kind of like LeBron coming to Miami if you were to imagine Wade as a guy with no intention of sacrificing for build a great team around the new superior talent, except that the gap between LeBron & Wade as first option was smaller than the gap between Erving & McGinnis.
So Erving goes there and does what's asked of him, which is quite a bit less than he's used to because the team is essentially alternating between he and McGinnis. Over time, as the 76ers realized this just wasn't good enough, McGinnis got phased down and then traded, and so by the time we get to the '80s Erving's basically doing what you can expect him to do in that time period - which is very impressive, but it's not what he looked like in his peak.
If the New York Nets had been able to come over to the NBA intact, there's every reason to believe that the progression of Erving's stats from '76 to '80 would have been much more of a straight line, and he'd have been been doing his thing leading what would have been a strong contender without anyone seeing his teammates as particularly strong. Good chance that if this happened, Erving's something of a GOAT candidate.
So I think a case definitely could be made here for Erving. I tend to rate him lower than the guys with great longevity and graceful decline (like Garnett), but since most people here clearly aren't being bothered by that (LeBron vs Magic FTW), yeah, Erving's peak was right up there with these guys and he continued to be an all-star long after the entire duration of LeBron & Magic's careers.
Thank you for that. I know I have Erving in my top 12 right now...I was just wondering, if he was a great player throughout his prime, and he played for a very long time, and I remember his peak being widely considered among the best to ever play when we were doing the peaks project (ElGee included him in his 13 greatest peaks, players he considered a level above everyone else to ever play)...then what about Erving vs Bird/Magic? Is Erving's longevity enough to overtake them? I'm not sure.
What do you think about the in/out data from 78-80 for Erving (small sample size, 16 games over 3 years...still, it's not nothing), where the Sixers played better without him? Do you think this says something about Erving overall from 77-82, and says anything about his impact in the ABA?
