RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #9

mailmp · Post #41 » by **mailmp** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:24 am

Ah yes, Garnett’s numbers are inflated by playing in the western conference of the 2000s. :roll:

Joao Saraiva · Post #42 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:26 am

Votes
1 - Hakeem Olajuwon
2 - Kobe Bryant
3 - Larry Bird

Hakeem is in tier 1 peak wise. He was an offensive force, with extremely good footwork (best ever?) and a good (not great, but good) passer. He was also a tremendous rebounder. If this isn't enough for tier 1 on offense (and I don't think it is, but he's close), he's the best defensive guy I've ever witnessed. Rim protection? Superb! Man to man in the post? More than could hold his own. Need a switch? Yes, he'll hang with the guards, stop them at the rim or not give them any uncontested jumpshots. He was purely incredible, and I'd call him mister perfect on defense.

He had that level for 3 years, and that is not high enough for me to push him up the list. But I think he fits right here tremendously well.

Hakeem was a truly amazing defender until 95, when he started declining on that end (still very good, but not GOAT tier). He developed a better passing game in 92/93 and he still had it after that, obviously. But he started declining as scorer. His atlethic decline prevented us from having more brutal years like the 93-95 ones.

He won 2 rings, went to another NBA finals while overachieving. Sounds kind of low against Kobe or Bird, but he was nowhere near in the ideal situation the other two were.

His longevity is still good. 3 stunning seasons, +8 of being among the best players in the league and a fantastic rookie year.

The rest of his career adds value... but much less value.

Hope he gets in. I'm big fan of the Dream!

To sum it up:
- GOAT tier peak
- GOAT tier 3 year prime
- Super versatile player
- Great two way player
- GOAT footwork
- GOAT defender candidate

SHAQ32 · Post #43 » by **SHAQ32** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:34 am

Joao Saraiva wrote:If this isn't enough for tier 1 on offense (and I don't think it is, but he's close)

I honestly don't see any arguments for Hakeem at tier 1 offense. When I think of tier 1 offense I think of Barkley, Shaq, Durant, Jordan, Nash, Dirk, etc. Basically, guys that heavily anchor elite offenses. Hakeem played on two top5 offenses his entire career, 1986 and 1999. Bird for example led eight top5 offenses.

And we can go on about his supporting casts, but the Rudy T Rockets were essentially built for optimal Hakeem offense. You know, with Horry stretching the floor along with all of the shooting in the backcourt; and Drexler.

90sAllDecade · Post #44 » by **90sAllDecade** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:51 am

Repost for supporting cast Bird's rookie year, gonna finish a few things in real life and call it a night.

Bird was the major contributer to that turnaround his rookie season, no doubt. But he did have help that created the turnaround.

Larry Bird's Supporting Cast Rookie Year

Bill Fitch - Won Coach of the Year 79-80' (they had a coaching carosel the past two years)

Sports Illustrated wrote:After finishing the 1977-78 season with a dismal 32-50 record, the team that had once won eight world championships in a row stumbled to a hideous 29-53 mark in 1978-79. In that one nightmare season the Celtics went through two coaches (Satch Sanders and Dave Cowens), tried 21 different starting lineups and shuttled 18 different players in and out of town.

"Getting Fitch was the smartest move I ever made," says Auerbach. "He's a disciple of mine, you know. He studied the way I coached and everything."

Tiny Archibald - Second in the NBA in Assists 80' (missed 30 games the previous season, healthy Bird's Rookie Year.
Tiny Also made the All Star team the next year and won AS MVP the next year when healthy.

A major note was Tiny was coming off a ruptured Achilies tendon and a year and a half layoff.

It's unlikely that there was another player on the Celtics' roster whose confidence needed restoring more desperately than Archibald. He was one of the premier guards in the game when he ruptured an Achilles' tendon in 1977. Last season, his first in Boston, he was coming back from a layoff of a year and a half, and he was both rusty and not-so-tiny. And though he had dropped 10 to 15 pounds when he showed up for training camp this fall, it was clear that he had become a dour workman.

Dave Cowens - 2nd Team All NBA Defense and All Star 80' (Eventually got in HOF)

ML Carr - 2nd Team All NBA Defense 79' the year before and had previously lead the league in steals

By the opening game of the regular season Carr had either slimmed down or made a big deposit in a savings & loan because he came out of the blocks like a rocket—a svelte rocket—and has given the Celtics 14.3 points a game and incalculable leadership.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1979/12/03/boston-is-winging-once-more-grounded-for-two-seasons-the-celtics-are-perched-high-atop-the-nba-standings-the-big-difference-a-rare-bird-of-a-rookie

Cedric Maxwell - Led entire NBA in TS% and Ortg 80' He was the Finals MVP for the Celtics the next year.

Chris Ford - 2nd in NBA in 3PT%, 4th in 3PT attempts, not much back then but a quality bench shooter playing 29 minutes a game.

So the team had a solid head coach who won COY for the first time in years, a healthy Tiny Archibald and Cowens making all star teams, a top assist leader, all defensive team talent and a solid bench. Not even mentioning Maxwell who would become a Finals MVP over Bird the next year.

Bird was the catalyst absolutely, but to deny the talent he had around him, stablity and bench is not fully giving context imo.

LA Bird · Post #45 » by **LA Bird** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:14 am

SHAQ32 wrote:
LA Bird wrote:How do people view Bird's offense compared to Garnett's, before his game took the next leap in the 84 playoffs?

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

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

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

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

1. The West may be the more offense-friendly conference but showing a list of the #1 offenses doesn't prove that. A conference can theoretically have the best offense but also the 14 worst offenses at the same time. A comparison of average ORtg in each conference is much more insightful.

2. Even if we assume there is a significant difference in ORtg between conferences, how much of that is reflected in the stats of an individual player? If Western teams on average score 3 more points per 100 possessions than Eastern teams, does that mean a single player will score all those 3 additional points? Or is it more likely his production only benefits from a fraction of that additional scoring by his team?

3. Due to the ratio of games, conference imbalances have a smaller effect on overall averages than they may seem. 3/4 of the season is effectively the same regardless. Even if a player averages 3 more points against one conference than another, switching conferences will only lead to a 0.8 ppg increase in their overall averages.

If you have evidence that conference differences have a significant effect on a player's statistical averages, do share it. But otherwise, I am not convinced.

freethedevil · Post #46 » by **freethedevil** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:20 am

9. Hakeem best corp despite his playoffs probably being underrated

10. KG barring hakeem KG, easily best career value left, and that's really all that matters for me.

Beyond that he was as imapctful as anyone else left at his apex(probably more so) aside from hakeem, most portable player left, played in the most talented league by far of the other potential candidates, and doc mj has a mde a decent case for him as a very positive outside of court influence.

There's also just about no room for doubt given garnett's impact basically was present in every sort of scenario on every quality of team.

11. Kobe, has top 10 career value, and yeah thats basiclally it. Going off of peak he's way below, but here he's only clearly below hakeem and KG who should have probably been voted higher tbh imo

SHAQ32 · Post #47 » by **SHAQ32** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:36 am

LA Bird wrote:
SHAQ32 wrote:
LA Bird wrote:How do people view Bird's offense compared to Garnett's, before his game took the next leap in the 84 playoffs?

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

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

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

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

1. The West may be the more offense-friendly conference but showing a list of the #1 offenses doesn't prove that.

Well, looking here at the yearly top10 offenses, circa 2000-13 (essentially KG's prime):

- 2001-2004, the west had eight of the top10 offenses
- Not one single year did the east have more teams in the top10; only one season with 5 teams in top10

KPT1867 · Post #48 » by **KPT1867** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:44 am

Hakeem Olajuwon is my vote.

To me he was one of the most skilled Centers to ever play. His footwork is unmatched. So much so that other centers after him, came to him to work with him in the off seasons. He had a mid range shot.

Defensively, he is also one of the best. 2x Defensive Player of the year. 9x all defensive team. Leading the league in blocks twice. As a center, he averaged 2+ steals 5x.

He also led the league in rebounding a couple years.

I almost didn’t bring up his 3 Finals appearances. The first was his second year, where he ran into a very good experience Boston team that was at their peak in the 80s. The second appearance, where they beat the odds on favorite Knicks in 7. His third appearance where they swept the odds on favorite Magic.

DQuinn1575 · Post #49 » by **DQuinn1575** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 5:02 am

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

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

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

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

First of all, JoJo White wasn't trash. A classy man and shouldn't be included in that group. Archibald helped the team a lot, he deserves some of the credit - it wasn't all Bird.
Bird basically took the spot of Rowe/Knight/Barnes, playing their spot. Archibald as noted was very helpful, but not the same player from the mid 70s. THe other 3 starters were the same both years: Cowens, Ford, Maxwell - Cowens missed a lot of games. I was never enamored with Ford, always surprised he lasted as long as he did in the league.
M.L. Carr was a starter from a 30 win Detroit team that is most famous for waving his towel as a bench warmer. Rick Robey was 7th in minutes played, and this year was the most he ever played.
It was basically Bird, Archibald, and Maxwell taking a team picked 3rd or 4th in their division to the best record in the league. Obviously they lost in the playoffs, but in contention for the 3rd best team in the league after being second worst, and starting 4 of the same 5 players - with a big comeback from Tiny.

slight edit

DQuinn1575 · Post #50 » by **DQuinn1575** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 5:16 am

90sAllDecade wrote:Repost for supporting cast Bird's rookie year, gonna finish a few things in real life and call it a night.

Bird was the major contributer to that turnaround his rookie season, no doubt. But he did have help that created the turnaround.

Larry Bird's Supporting Cast Rookie Year

Bill Fitch - Won Coach of the Year 79-80' (they had a coaching carosel the past two years)

Sports Illustrated wrote:After finishing the 1977-78 season with a dismal 32-50 record, the team that had once won eight world championships in a row stumbled to a hideous 29-53 mark in 1978-79. In that one nightmare season the Celtics went through two coaches (Satch Sanders and Dave Cowens), tried 21 different starting lineups and shuttled 18 different players in and out of town.

"Getting Fitch was the smartest move I ever made," says Auerbach. "He's a disciple of mine, you know. He studied the way I coached and everything."

Tiny Archibald - Second in the NBA in Assists 80' (missed 30 games the previous season, healthy Bird's Rookie Year.
Tiny Also made the All Star team the next year and won AS MVP the next year when healthy.

A major note was Tiny was coming off a ruptured Achilies tendon and a year and a half layoff.

It's unlikely that there was another player on the Celtics' roster whose confidence needed restoring more desperately than Archibald. He was one of the premier guards in the game when he ruptured an Achilles' tendon in 1977. Last season, his first in Boston, he was coming back from a layoff of a year and a half, and he was both rusty and not-so-tiny. And though he had dropped 10 to 15 pounds when he showed up for training camp this fall, it was clear that he had become a dour workman.

Dave Cowens - 2nd Team All NBA Defense and All Star 80' (Eventually got in HOF)

ML Carr - 2nd Team All NBA Defense 79' the year before and had previously lead the league in steals

By the opening game of the regular season Carr had either slimmed down or made a big deposit in a savings & loan because he came out of the blocks like a rocket—a svelte rocket—and has given the Celtics 14.3 points a game and incalculable leadership.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1979/12/03/boston-is-winging-once-more-grounded-for-two-seasons-the-celtics-are-perched-high-atop-the-nba-standings-the-big-difference-a-rare-bird-of-a-rookie

Cedric Maxwell - Led entire NBA in TS% and Ortg 80' He was the Finals MVP for the Celtics the next year.

Chris Ford - 2nd in NBA in 3PT%, 4th in 3PT attempts, not much back then but a quality bench shooter playing 29 minutes a game.

So the team had a solid head coach who won COY for the first time in years, a healthy Tiny Archibald and Cowens making all star teams, a top assist leader, all defensive team talent and a solid bench. Not even mentioning Maxwell who would become a Finals MVP over Bird the next year.

Bird was the catalyst absolutely, but to deny the talent he had around him, stablity and bench is not fully giving context imo.

Same starters as year before except Bird; Archibald played WAY better in 1980. And yes, Maxwell was pretty good. But again Maxwell, Ford, Cowens, Archibald all started for 29 win team. Carr was starter from 30 win Detroit team, best known for waving his towel. A good defensive player. Cowens made all-star and defense as everybody loved his comeback story. He missed 20 games that year. Ford was a good bench shooter who started for this team.
Fitch's career record is 944-1106 - his record pre Boston was terrible- it wasnt like they brought in Phil Jackson or Pat Riley.

70sFan · Post #51 » by **70sFan** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 8:04 am

DQuinn1575 wrote:It was basically Bird, Archibald, and Maxwell taking a team picked 3rd or 4th in their division to the best record in the league. Obviously they lost in the playoffs, but definitely the 3rd best team in the league after being second worst, and starting 4 of the same 5 players - with a big comeback from Tiny.

Were they definitely 3rd best team in the league? I know they had the highest SRS, but they played in far worse conference (something isn't talked about often).

I wouldn't bet on Celtics beating Seattle, who were defending champions, 3rd best team in RS and beat very talented Bucks team. I know RS series don't mean much, but Sonics beat Celtics 2-0 as well.

Seattle were legit then, they just run on clearly the best team in the league.

70sFan · Post #52 » by **70sFan** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:53 am

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

This is what I don't like in this type of thinking - you basically award less sophisticated player to adjust better because teams would expect him to do less.

There was nothing sophisticated about Admiral's offensive game - it was very simple face up game that relied on quickness and decent jumpshot, then everything else was related to his athleticism. He wasn't skilled scorer, he relied on his physicality heavily. To his credit - I like his passing, he was good at finding open teammates.

You think that Robinson would adjust to 2020 basketball because he wouldn't be asked to be the focal point of offense, He wouldn't have to create, he wouldn't have to rely on his scoring skillset - he just would be a finisher who would thrive as such because of his physicality, not because of his skills. Olajuwon was just as gifted in terms of athleticism, so why should we assume that he wouldn't be able to play that role? Because he was better than that and could give you variety of other things?

It's strange to me that we always praise perimeter players for their skillset but when it comes to bigs, it doesn't matter. If 1990s era required bigs to be more skilled than today, then we should praise players who did better in such circumstances. Being hyper-DeAndre Jordan wouldn't be hard for any bigman - Shaq would do just fine strictly as a finisher, so would Moses and so would Hakeem. When people talk how playing through Hakeem offense is not optimal, you should keep in mind that playing next to perimeter creators would help Hakeem's game, not reduce his impact.

Owly · Post #53 » by **Owly** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 12:39 pm

90sAllDecade wrote:
Owly wrote:
90sAllDecade wrote:I put it out there for others to discuss and hopefully create thier own team support comparison of GOAT level players.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can’t help but feel this is an uninformed opinion as you have given no indication of having read any of the books. Further you cite the numbers involved in all-star voting but they are voting on different things (e.g. favourite players) and the result – particularly as presented in your post, is not an aggregation of the best opinions but a binary, yes/no. and there is no accountability and as before you get not reasoning. If a scout (and a CBA coach) do a terrible job they do damage to their professional reputation and no one buys the book or future books (and irritate the GMs, front office types and broadcasters who endorsed it or allowed themselves to be credited as sources), there is reasoning which can be examined (and disputed) and nuance in a 16 point scale (no [or v. rare] D- or AAA+) across multiple skills and an aggregation. Indeed I don't even know what you mean in claiming that it is "awful". The books? An imagined reality where this was advocated as either the only means of evaluating players or the only superior alternative to "do you have an all-star?"

90sAllDecade wrote:Also when comparing across eras all star selections are relative to competition. If I took an All star from the 60s with less teams vs a top player in a given modern year of course that wouldn't be the same and we shouldn't ignore context, but in that year in the 60s relative to competition that player was likely better than others up for that same spot, although that will definitely be debateable of course with exceptions and controversial picks at times.

But you used it for a Kareem and LeBron. That's two different eras. No all-stars in a 22 team league ('77, '78, '80), in the little that it tells us, tells us something different from no all stars in a 30 team league.

90sAllDecade wrote:Joe Johnson isn't playing Wilt and all star Paul Arizin in the 1960 playoffs. Relative to comptition that year Arizin was likely better than other 1960 players up for the same spot that year who didn't make it or weren't even close when he played other 1960 teams, again which is of couse debatable.

The main issue isn't that an all-star is likely to be better than a non-all-star though for an number of reasons it isn't necessarily the case. It's that in the vast majority of player comparisons "all-star or not" tells us nothing. 27th best player versus 300th who's better? No idea. 55th versus 129th? No idea.
For a 450 player set, try this https://www.random.org/integers/?num=2&min=1&max=450&col=100&base=10&format=html&rnd=new only if one is in and one is out of the top 24 does it give you (just) 1 bit of information.

90sAllDecade wrote:So cross era comparisons are difficult for a given year, as no one said they were the same or ignore other context. But that all star player was indicative of a given amount of talent relative to competition. If it's not to your liking as it can't be fully quantified, then please create a better system across eras per year and bring up the team support of other role players.

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

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

As covered above it is not necessary to have an ideal answer to help remove bad ones. This was a bad one.

Moving on might indeed be for the best though.

Owly · Post #54 » by **Owly** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 12:54 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
Owly wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Other floor raisers like Hakeem almost always have top 5 defenses built around them. Maybe because it's easier to build around a rim protector. It was 2004 before Minnesota with Garnett even cracked the top 10, they were in the bottom half of the league a long time.

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

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

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

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

Personally, and this is off the top of my head (so means little) I think I would be inclined to have Robinson higher. See response in previous thread about Robinson for the reasons (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2011632&start=140#p85945053). I'd reiterate mentally aggregating the knowledge and methods I have (insofar as I have them, I don't have a system I'm happy with) doesn't mean much.

I can't help with "way better" than Robinson. "Better" might be justified on longevity (of quality), perhaps?

Also, the '91 to '14 version is a boxscore-based version (xRAPM) and not what most would think of in terms of impact metrics.

Owly · Post #55 » by **Owly** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 1:46 pm

70sFan wrote:
limbo wrote:Part of me thinks Robinson would've done better in a more sophisticated/finesse era like now, with more average offensive talent per team. Robinson wasn't someone that liked to bump and grind in the crowded post. He would operate better with more space, imo, where he could use his GOAT-level explosion at the C position to take advantage of said space and he would have players set him up better as well.

This is what I don't like in this type of thinking - you basically award less sophisticated player to adjust better because teams would expect him to do less.

There was nothing sophisticated about Admiral's offensive game - it was very simple face up game that relied on quickness and decent jumpshot, then everything else was related to his athleticism. He wasn't skilled scorer, he relied on his physicality heavily. To his credit - I like his passing, he was good at finding open teammates.

You think that Robinson would adjust to 2020 basketball because he wouldn't be asked to be the focal point of offense, He wouldn't have to create, he wouldn't have to rely on his scoring skillset - he just would be a finisher who would thrive as such because of his physicality, not because of his skills. Olajuwon was just as gifted in terms of athleticism, so why should we assume that he wouldn't be able to play that role? Because he was better than that and could give you variety of other things?

It's strange to me that we always praise perimeter players for their skillset but when it comes to bigs, it doesn't matter. If 1990s era required bigs to be more skilled than today, then we should praise players who did better in such circumstances. Being hyper-DeAndre Jordan wouldn't be hard for any bigman - Shaq would do just fine strictly as a finisher, so would Moses and so would Hakeem. When people talk how playing through Hakeem offense is not optimal, you should keep in mind that playing next to perimeter creators would help Hakeem's game, not reduce his impact.

I wouldn't weight time machine stuff really.

That said I don't think anything the poster said implies "punish Hakeem" for his variety of moves of "assume that he wouldn't be able to play that role".

I think you're both too low on Robinson's offensive game (If we take Limbo's "run out answers" as referring to offense) or at least - as I think others have touched on relating to other players - overvaluing complexity/beauty. Even beyond the numbers he's a triple threat, good passer, excellent slasher (as you note, the athleticism) including a strong ability to draw fouls, solid shooter. He was generally solid on the offensive glass when not deferring to Rodman. Even in the low post, by 93-94 he was acknowledged to have a turnaround J to either shoulder, hook and the driving ability (even the criticisms, which still come in the Barry Pro Basketball Bible editions, mix wanting a "go-to" move with "a major threat in the post"(after '96), "in the post, he's merely good" (versus near unguardable further out, '95), "improved his repertoire in the post ... His turnaround J now close to a go to move" ('94)). But is he great down there? No. Is he best utilized as a uni-polar force on a team with few other creation options - no this will be predictable.

Then too I think, for what little it's worth, his greatest advantage in the modern game wouldn't be being just a finisher, though he has fabulous tools for this. Rather it would be in escaping the idea that the dominant big man should be stationed in the low post, doing "post moves".

Side notes: Are you sure on Moses as a finisher. I haven't seen a ton on him so would absolutely defer on this - but disregarding shooting %s (tipping, some outside shots) I recall hearing he had small hands that would presumably make catching and finishing harder and clips don't seem to show a lot of dunking, from memory.

Not sure if I'm parsing you correctly on Hakeem. In any case ... he quite liked his primacy. If you like his offensive post game a lot as a value add/impactful (and this may depend on year) a battle for who gets the ball would seem to diminish either his value or the perimeter creators'. If you don't then you might be cynical about him around here anyway.

70sFan · Post #56 » by **70sFan** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:14 pm

Moses played a lot of two-man action when he got older and even if he wasn't the finisher of Robinson caliber, he was masterful at drawing fouls.

My point was that Moses could play thia reduced role just fine.

limbo · Post #57 » by **limbo** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:44 pm

70sFan wrote:This is what I don't like in this type of thinking - you basically award less sophisticated player to adjust better because teams would expect him to do less.

Robinson wasn't less sophisticated, lol. He could handle the ball better than most Bigs in NBA history. He would go coast-to-coast in 3 seconds, he could face up or post up, he was good on the glass, he could make a 16 foot jump shot and he was a solid passer...

You're talking about a guy that led a +4.1 rORTG in 1994 with Dale Ellis and a garbage backcourt, with Dennis Rodman playing 38 mpg...

You're talking about the guy that has the same amount of triple doubles as Hakeem...

But i'm sure you think Hakeem was 'sophisticated' and Robinson wasn't.

There was nothing sophisticated about Admiral's offensive game - it was very simple face up game that relied on quickness and decent jumpshot, then everything else was related to his athleticism. He wasn't skilled scorer, he relied on his physicality heavily. To his credit - I like his passing, he was good at finding open teammates.

Hakeem had more fancy post moves, fadeaways and back-to-the-basket game, yes... Outside of that, his offensive game wasn't better than Robinson's... which ties up into my point. In an environment where Robinson doesn't need to focus as much on isolation scoring within unsophisticated offensive schemes that lack versatility, overall talent, and outside shooting (which is easier to find nowadays than it was in the 90's), Robinson and his team doesn't get as heavily countered in the Playoffs and an different story is written.

You think that Robinson would adjust to 2020 basketball because he wouldn't be asked to be the focal point of offense, He wouldn't have to create, he wouldn't have to rely on his scoring skillset - he just would be a finisher who would thrive as such because of his physicality, not because of his skills. Olajuwon was just as gifted in terms of athleticism, so why should we assume that he wouldn't be able to play that role? Because he was better than that and could give you variety of other things?

By far the biggest reason why people rank Hakeem ahead of Robinson at their peak was because of Hakeem's ability to be a more stable/reliable scorer in the Playoffs, that's harder to counter. And that's true. In an environment where you're running your offense through your Big man and the rest of the roster is just chipping in around that, Hakeem is going to have more value/impact that Robinson...

But the question is, why would you want to do that, since a system predicated around Hakeem isolating and then volume scoring at slightly above average efficiency or kicking out has historically NOT been a recipe for good offenses... Even in 1993 and 1994 where Hakeem got some talent on his team, the offense was still largely unimpressive, and even far worse than Robinson in 1994 with arguably less talent around him. Sure, in the Playoffs, Hakeem stepped up individually, and the offense became better, ONCE in his entire career, but not to some crazy level where you wouldn't just scrap that and build around your perimeter unless you have Vinny Del Negro or Ngele Knight there...

So to keep my answer short. I don't care that much about Hakeem being a more stable/resilient offensive 1st option/focal point of an offense in the Playoffs, because i don't want Hakeem being the focal point of my offense anyway... Yeah, maybe that's good enough to win a title in 1994, against the no defense Phoenix Suns, a pre-prime Jazz team with three players, one of them being a choking Malone, and a Knick team that runs their offense through Patrick Ewing... But that doesn't mean a heliocentric, inside-out, Hakeem offense will bring me to the promise land in most scenarios in NBA history... I rather not take my chances with it. And yes, you can say ''what about 1995'', that was an elite offensive supporting cast that played out of their minds in every series sans the Spurs... Hakeem didn't carry that team anymore than Rasheed Wallace did the Jailblazers...

So when we eliminate that (which is Hakeem's biggest advantage over Robinson) out of the equation, what we're left with is what these guys give us off-ball... And in that sense, you could make an argument for Robinson based on being more mobile and a stronger finisher. This doesn't mean that Hakeem would suck as a 2nd option with less offensive creation responsibilities, he would also be very good in this role, imo, but Robinson just seems a more natural fit for that type of role, imo. And no, post injury Robinson playing with Duncan who is an inside post player is not a good representation of what that would look like...

It's strange to me that we always praise perimeter players for their skillset but when it comes to bigs, it doesn't matter. If 1990s era required bigs to be more skilled than today, then we should praise players who did better in such circumstances. Being hyper-DeAndre Jordan wouldn't be hard for any bigman - Shaq would do just fine strictly as a finisher, so would Moses and so would Hakeem. When people talk how playing through Hakeem offense is not optimal, you should keep in mind that playing next to perimeter creators would help Hakeem's game, not reduce his impact.

The thing is it's not about it being 'hard' or 'easy', 'skilled or 'not skilled'... it's about how a player can plug his skillset into a team that helps the team maximize their overall ability to win. Even if we take your flip your hypothetical into a scenario where DeAndre Jordan was just as skilled in the post as Hakeem... Why would i ran the offense through him if i have Chris Paul on the same team who is a much better offensive engine and DeAndre could just play the role of screener/finisher, which is a non-focal offensive role a Big that doesn't require him to have the basketball but still requires the defense to dedicate resources into covering him or he will punish them just by finishing plays...

All of the guys you mentioned would do fine as finishers, but so would Robinson, and in that case, why does it matter that much that Hakeem is better as a focal point than Robinson? I know why. Because it mattered in real time, when one of many possible scenarios happened in which Robinson happened to have an inept supporting cast on both ends and it forced him to try and do things beyond what a single player should do. Hakeem had a better cast, better coaching and was more comfortable in a focal offensive role and in the end it manifested in two rings. Fair enough. Does that mean Hakeem was a better player than Robinson in a vacuum? Possibly. But it could also be a bit of a Duncan/Garnett effect, where KG was having league-high impact despite playing in a wonky setting that wasn't necessarily suited to his biggest strengths which backfired in the Playoffs.

I completely understand when people are arguing Duncan/Hakeem's offense being superior than Garnett/Robinson's offense under systems that require these guys to be focal points on offense. Not only that, i also agree with it. But ultimately, i don't care as much, because i'm looking at things from a ''how would my ideal offense look like, and what role would each player play'', not necessarily from ''is player A better than player B at carrying a mediocre roster to an above average offense in a specific environment where teams lack talent and don't take wide open 3pt shots which are the strongest offensive weapon in the game''...

But i understand the 'It's not Hakeem's fault players/coaches on his team didn't know how to get better offensive looks and convert them at a higher rate so it was better to just dump the ball in the post' angle as well... It's just the way i look at things.

Hornet Mania · Post #58 » by **Hornet Mania** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:51 pm

At this point Hakeem and Bird stick out as the only two sure-things. Between them I give Hakeem the edge due to longevity, but both had exceptional peaks and were dominant players in the league who could be the focal points of championship rosters.

My third choice is where things get tricky. IMO after Bird everything gets murky and I have a lot of guys around the same area with not much to differentiate them. They all have arguments but for now let me just list off the threes names currently bubbling at the top, with the pro/con for why they should be the next choice in my eyes, plus a few other names also in consideration after Bird.

Kobe Bryant

Pros:
-Exceptional offensive anchor, put enormous pressure on defenses with a variety of ways to get his shot off and a relentless desire to attack-attack-attack.
-One of the best post-entry passers I've ever seen. A highly underrated part of his game.
-Unquestionable work ethic, Kobe will give you 100% of what he's capable of in any given season. Motivation won't be an issue.
-Scoring efficiency remains steady even against strong postseason competition.
-Plenty of team success even in a brutal conference.

Cons:
-The attack-attack-attack mentality I mentioned also could work against him. Too headstrong at times.
-Adding to the headstrong point, Kobe as an all-time strong personality. I don't think he was necessarily uncoachable and an inevitable coach killer for anyone but Phil, which would be the most uncharitable reading of is career, but he clearly had a rigid opinion about his primacy in the offense. Kobe was explicitly chasing immortality from day one, his ego was a real issue that had to be managed.
-Though his passing was sublime when he wanted to do it (he had an amazing stretch in 2013 where he just made a point to be a passer) he was more than willing to forego the right play for his own shot.
-Defensive focus was up and down. In the playoffs it was more constant, but in terms of regular season performance his All-D awards were often not merited.

Oscar Robinson

Pros:
-Statistically incredible. Until recently (Westbrook) his triple-double average for a season was unmatched. Aside from Wilt he may be the most overwhelming guy numbers-wise.
-Seemed to succeed when his supporting cast was strong, which unfortunately was not as common as it was for some other guys this high on the list.
-Was extremely high in the GOAT conversation until basically the late 90s. Was considered the GOAT by majority of sportswriters polled as late as the mid-80s.

Cons:
-Without a lot of footage to create context it's hard to be certain all those stats were really improving team success. Not saying it didn't, just saying can't be sure.

Jerry West

Pros:
-Great shooter and passer, ahead of his time especially in regards to his range. Would likely be even more effective with 3pt line.
-Steady team success, at least until he got to the Finals, but even then imagine a guy getting nicknamed "Mr Clutch" when he went 1-8 on the biggest stage. Obviously very few felt those losses were for lack of rising to the moment.
-There is solid evidence to suggest he had a basketball IQ among the all-time greatest. His post-career management success only lends credence to that notion.
-Underrated defender, pesky with active hands that wreaked havoc. His long reach was also a big help, his wingspan was a major strength which allowed him to guard either PG/SG.

Cons:
-All those Finals losses. So many were against Russell it's easy to excuse them, but it must be noted.
-Similar to Oscar, without enough footage for context it's so hard to be certain how much is legend and how much is fact in terms of his accolades. This is a major issue for all players with a large chunk of prime pre-70s imo. I don't disregard them due to this, but it makes things murky.

Others in consideration- Dr. J, Dirk, Karl Malone, David Robinson, Charles Barkley, Moses Malone, KG

Ultimately I went ahead with Kobe this round, but I was super tempted to take Oscar instead. I have this nagging suspicion we are severely underrating his impact due to lack of evidence, it wouldn't shock me at all if he were genuinely top 5 but we just don't have the data to clearly see it. Kobe got the nod as a known quantity, more or less, but I don't think there is much daylight at all between him and Oscar/West.

My vote:
1. Hakeem Olajuwon
2. Larry Bird
3. Kobe Bryant

70sFan · Post #59 » by **70sFan** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:09 pm

limbo wrote:Robinson wasn't less sophisticated, lol. He could handle the ball better than most Bigs in NBA history. He would go coast-to-coast in 3 seconds, he could face up or post up, he was good on the glass, he could make a 16 foot jump shot and he was a solid passer...

Robinson didn't have elite handles, where did you find this? His teammate Duncan was far better ball-handler and I wouldn't call him one of the best bigmen ever at that either.
He could go coast-to-coast in 3 seconds because of his athleticsm, not because of skills.
He could face up and post up only against weaker and less athletic defenders, because against good defenders he became easy to contain.
Moses was also good on the glass and you don't call him sophisticated.
He was extremely inconsistent shooter, but I agree that he could make midrange jumpshots. This along with passing are the only things I agree here.

Besides, we're talking about top 15 players ever. Of course Robinson wasn't unskilled, but his offensive game was probably the weakest among all top 10 bigs ever.

You're talking about a guy that led a +4.1 rORTG in 1994 with Dale Ellis and a garbage backcourt, with Dennis Rodman playing 38 mpg...

Yeah, keep talking about this myth that Rodman was bad offensive player... Even in Spurs when he wasn't focused and often didn't try, Rodman made SAS better offensively. They became clearly worse offensively in 1996 without him.

You're talking about the guy that has the same amount of triple doubles as Hakeem...
But i'm sure you think Hakeem was 'sophisticated' and Robinson wasn't. .

I wouldn't call Hakeem's offensive game sophisticated either, but he had very varied scoring game. Robinson had no countermoves and he struggled against defenders he couldn't outquick or overpower. Malone made his life miserable by being stronger and quicker laterally basically (although to Robinson's credit - Malone was awesome man defender).

That's the whole strategy to stop Robinson - when you have good defender, throw him on Admiral and make him losing the ball, forcing tough inside finishes and shooting contested fadeaways he couldn't make at high rate.

Hakeem had more fancy post moves, fadeaways and back-to-the-basket game, yes... Outside of that, his offensive game wasn't better than Robinson's... which ties up into my point. In an environment where Robinson doesn't need to focus as much on isolation scoring within unsophisticated offensive schemes that lack versatility, overall talent, and outside shooting (which is easier to find nowadays than it was in the 90's), Robinson and his team doesn't get as heavily countered in the Playoffs and an different story is written.

Hakeem was better shooter.
Hakeem was much better isolation scorer.
Hakeem dealt with physical defense better.
Hakeem created more space for others.

It's not about being fancy. I don't care how Hakeem scored his points, I care that he was basically impossible to contain at his best because his scoring game was too well-rounded and his passing was good enough that you couldn't take advantage of it (at least after first few years).

It's like saying that outside of scoring, Kobe's game is worse than Jason Kidd's.

By far the biggest reason why people rank Hakeem ahead of Robinson at their peak was because of Hakeem's ability to be a more stable/reliable scorer in the Playoffs, that's harder to counter. And that's true. In an environment where you're running your offense through your Big man and the rest of the roster is just chipping in around that, Hakeem is going to have more value/impact that Robinson...

But the question is, why would you want to do that, since a system predicated around Hakeem isolating and then volume scoring at slightly above average efficiency or kicking out has historically NOT been a recipe for good offenses... Even in 1993 and 1994 where Hakeem got some talent on his team, the offense was still largely unimpressive, and even far worse than Robinson in 1994 with arguably less talent around him. Sure, in the Playoffs, Hakeem stepped up individually, and the offense became better, ONCE in his entire career, but not to some crazy level where you wouldn't just scrap that and build around your perimeter unless you have Vinny Del Negro or Ngele Knight there...

Then think about it - how many times your team could afford to have better offensive player than Hakeem or Robinson? You want to judge them on ideal situation, when more times than not they would be by far the best offensive players on their teams (or at worst 1A/1B).

You keep talking that Robinson would be better with better offensive players, what's the reason to believe in that? Hakeem didn't have any weaknesses in his game that made him less valuable than Robinson once you stop running your offense through him.

So when we eliminate that (which is Hakeem's biggest advantage over Robinson) out of the equation, what we're left with is what these guys give us off-ball... And in that sense, you could make an argument for Robinson based on being more mobile and a stronger finisher. This doesn't mean that Hakeem would suck as a 2nd option with less offensive creation responsibilities, he would also be very good in this role, imo, but Robinson just seems a more natural fit for that type of role, imo. And no, post injury Robinson playing with Duncan who is an inside post player is not a good representation of what that would look like...

Again, that's your assumption that isn't backed up with anything.

The thing is it's not about it being 'hard' or 'easy', 'skilled or 'not skilled'... it's about how a player can plug his skillset into a team that helps the team maximize their overall ability to win. Even if we take your flip your hypothetical into a scenario where DeAndre Jordan was just as skilled in the post as Hakeem... Why would i ran the offense through him if i have Chris Paul on the same team who is a much better offensive engine and DeAndre could just play the role of screener/finisher, which is a non-focal offensive role a Big that doesn't require him to have the basketball but still requires the defense to dedicate resources into covering him or he will punish them just by finishing plays...

So we're judging players on how well they would play next to Chris Paul - top 10 offensive player ever? Hakeem would do just fine with Paul, he never played with someone even close to this good from perimeter.

I completely understand when people are arguing Duncan/Hakeem's offense being superior than Garnett/Robinson's offense under systems that require these guys to be focal points on offense. Not only that, i also agree with it. But ultimately, i don't care as much, because i'm looking at things from a ''how would my ideal offense look like, and what role would each player play'', not necessarily from ''is player A better than player B at carrying a mediocre roster to an above average offense in a specific environment where teams lack talent and don't take wide open 3pt shots which are the strongest offensive weapon in the game''...

Judging players by ideal scenario is even worse than judging players in bad situations. You can just as well call KD GOAT scorer because of what he did in 2017 Warriors...

EDIT: by the way, this "choker" Malone outplayed Robinson every single time they faced each other in playoffs, including making him look miserable on offense. Malone was probably the best defender on Robinson we've ever seen and he kept shutting him down even when Spurs got Duncan.

Just to be clear - I don't view anything wrong with having Robinson high. I love him - he was excellent teammate and his impact was monstrous. I just don't see how anyone could tell that Robinson was better offensive player than Hakeem. KG vs Duncan is different, because KG has clear advantages over Timmy (shooting, passing), but Admiral didn't have such advantages and his playoff history wasn't just a fluke caused by one or two series - he disappointed many times. In part that's because he didn't have good teams around him, but Hakeem also had poor teams around him and he played much better than Robinson.

Owly · Post #60 » by **Owly** » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:24 pm

70sFan wrote:He could face up and post up only against weaker and less athletic defenders, because against good defenders he became easy to contain.

Are you sure on this? Do you have a big sample?