RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 (Moses Malone)

[Doctor MJ]

1. The fact their raw +/- is about the same doesn't say they had the same impact, and I'm not quibbling about noise which is of course a whole nother issues. I mean that when one guy plays a lot more than the other, leading that team to .500 ball can actually be a pretty significantly positive indication of impact. Or not. Really depends, but what's definitely the case is that a +/- of zero doesn't mean zero impact, because zero +/- isn't replacement level.

I realize that we have APM-style stats that may give Stockton the edge based on this, but pretty sure that if Malone rides the pine as much as Stockton, the Jazz don't get that far.

When you say "APM-style" stats, are you referring to '94-'96? Stockton wasn't "riding the pine" much more than Malone in those years, is why I ask.

Honestly I don't remember and I don't think it makes that much sense to look it up because I can just try to explain myself directly here.

I was speaking to the specific risk of the more durable player getting downgraded by use of a regression stat relative to his more selectively-used teammate. That is relevant to Malone-Stockton. Is it relevant every year to equal degrees? Certainly not, and if you feel like I'm blowing the difference out of proportion relative to the scale of some other thing, feel free to explain what I"m missing.

I mentioned this in another thread, but specifically wrt '97, there's a clear answer to why his on/off lags so far behind that year. If you look at the starters, he's way behind EVERYONE in the starting line-up: next lowest is Ostertag at +16.0.....everyone else is >+20 (even Russell).

But watching the Jazz that year you see it's Stockton who was tasked with "carrying" the 2nd unit (which wasn't too impressive that year, especially in that rs). This is reflected looking at the line-ups page on bbref:

The 4th, 5th, 9th, and 12th-most common Stockton line-ups were Stockton with ZERO other starters. His 6th, 8th, and 10th-most common line-ups were him with just ONE other starter.

By comparison, there is not a single line-up with Malone on the court with ZERO other starters; and only his 7th and 9th-most common line-ups have him on the court with only ONE other starter. Hornacek and Russell enjoyed similar line-up distributions, btw.

I can't speak to other years, but just wanted to point out that the '97 on/off numbers are HIGHLY mis-leading based on this.

Interesting. That isn't something that I recall knowing. I'll have to examine it more closely.

[Doctor MJ]

1. Moses, so for an 11 year span from 1978 to 1988 he led the NBA in win shares. (per B-Ref)
Moses 125.2
Bird 123,7
Kareem 121.0

From 1980-1988, Magic's first 9 years:
Bird 123,7
Moses 105.0
Magic 104.2

So he is ahead of Magic in the first 9 years of Magic's career, and starting in 79 better than Kareem going forward. From 79-83 he pretty much was best player in the world, no one left doesn't come close to this. I think Moses is the last player left who was the best player for an extended period of time.

I don't think it's crazy at all to vote for Moses here, but talking as if you can compare Moses to Bird/Magic simply by Win Shares pretty drastically underrates what Bird & Magic were in my opinion.

[Cavsfansince84]

1. Moses, so for an 11 year span from 1978 to 1988 he led the NBA in win shares. (per B-Ref)
Moses 125.2
Bird 123,7
Kareem 121.0

From 1980-1988, Magic's first 9 years:
Bird 123,7
Moses 105.0
Magic 104.2

So he is ahead of Magic in the first 9 years of Magic's career, and starting in 79 better than Kareem going forward. From 79-83 he pretty much was best player in the world, no one left doesn't come close to this. I think Moses is the last player left who was the best player for an extended period of time.

I don't think it's crazy at all to vote for Moses here, but talking as if you can compare Moses to Bird/Magic simply by Win Shares pretty drastically underrates what Bird & Magic were in my opinion.

Ya, I don't mind people using win shares as a valid metric but its not something you can use to really definitively prove anything. I think it tends to work better for teammates. Just as I could bring up that Bird and Magic's worst full prime seasons by vorp are better than Moses' second best season. Most metrics I've seen don't think Moses is close to them. Though I'm ok with saying that Moses was the best player in the league from 79-83(but might still go with Kareem if I had to choose one to build around despite Kareem turning 36 in 1983.) I'd also strongly consider taking Dr. J over Moses.

[WestGOAT]

Did his Ast/100 numbers or AST% decline upon Hornacek's arrival? No, at least not until a very tiny decline beginning in '96 (but Hornacek had arrived in '94).

I think his AST%, at least in the playoffs, did drop no?
1988-1993: 52,08333333
1994-1998: 46,46

Code: Select all

Period      AST%
1988-1993   52,08333333
1994-1998   46,46

Raw stats:
Season   Age   AST%
1987-88   25   51,9
1988-89   26   50,6
1989-90   27   55,9
1990-91   28   51,5
1991-92   29   54,2
1992-93   30   48,4
1993-94   31   46,4
1994-95   32   45,4
1995-96   33   45,9
1996-97   34   47,5
1997-98   35   47,1



Well, by that slight standard we have even MORE grounds to say that Isiah "took more of a backseat" once Dumars arrived: his rs AST% took an even more notable dip [than Stockton's did] immediately upon arrival of rookie Dumars, and his playoff AST% took a more substantial dip beginning in Joe's 2nd year.

Did Isiah's team improve as dramatically as the Jazz did on offense when Dumars arrived? Having a quick look at the post-season numbers the Pistons performed pretty well already offensively in the 1985 and 1986 playoffs, before Dumars really broke-out and Isiah's AST% declined in 1987. Besides how relevant is AST% for Isiah? He is held in high regard for his ability to take over games with his scoring.

In contrast for Stockton his assists was his main contribution on offense, so his drop AST% is more relevant. I just find it telling that the Jazz reaching elite levels of offense coincided with their offense becoming less dependent on Stockton('s assists).

[DQuinn1575]

First to say i don’t have Moses over Bird or Magic, but i do have him as best player in league over 5 year period, and have him above Doc overall and starting in at least 79 going forward. The 10 year span also shows he has more longevity than people give him credit for. But to me he was the player that replaced Kareem as best in the game, and for those 5 years he was best, with some good years before and after. I’ve voted Mikan Moses 1-2 for a few in a row here, and have always had Moses higher than 20.

[rrravenred]

I think both Dantley and Aguirre have showed that they can maintain their TS% at higher usage than they did in Detroit and were 1st options most of their career. I think both Dumars and Vinnie are quite comfortable being the open man while Laimbeer could run a mean pick and pop.

Not participating in this project, but just popping up to say that Laimbeer is an intriguingly modern player and would have loved to see what he could have produced in 2020 basketball.

[colts18]

I know some people were questioning whether Stockton was on the same level defensively as his contemporaries like J Kidd or Payton. When we compare the RAPM defensive data for those 3 players, Stockton comes out ahead. Every single year from 1997-2002, Stockton finished ahead of those 2 in Defensive RAPM. It's only in 2003 when Kidd surpasses him, while Payton still comes out behind Stockton.

Code: Select all

Year   Stockton Payton   Kidd
1997   1.54    1.1     -1.09
1998   2.04    0.79     0.13
1999   2.27    -0.19     0.44
2000   3.06    0.81     0.54
2001   2.5    -0.7     1.4
2002   1.6    -0.6     0.2
2003   0     -1.2     1.3

It's not hard to see why Stockton was an elite defender. He was the best ever at generating steals, his help defense was elite, he made the right heady plays, played physical, and took charges.

[trex_8063]

I think both Dantley and Aguirre have showed that they can maintain their TS% at higher usage than they did in Detroit and were 1st options most of their career. I think both Dumars and Vinnie are quite comfortable being the open man while Laimbeer could run a mean pick and pop.

Not participating in this project, but just popping up to say that Laimbeer is an intriguingly modern player and would have loved to see what he could have produced in 2020 basketball.

Agree. The more I watch the late-80s Pistons, the more I notice Laimbeer appears an EXTREMELY intelligent defensive player, too. He doesn't have great mobility or athleticism [other than his height], but similar to a Marc Gasol he was a super-effective team defender in spite of these things.

And he's got that outside shooting touch long before that was an especially desired trait in big-men.......yeah, I think he fits nicely in the modern game. Really underrated player, imo.

[Doctor MJ]

I think both Dantley and Aguirre have showed that they can maintain their TS% at higher usage than they did in Detroit and were 1st options most of their career. I think both Dumars and Vinnie are quite comfortable being the open man while Laimbeer could run a mean pick and pop.

Not participating in this project, but just popping up to say that Laimbeer is an intriguingly modern player and would have loved to see what he could have produced in 2020 basketball.

Agree. The more I watch the late-80s Pistons, the more I notice Laimbeer appears an EXTREMELY intelligent defensive player, too. He doesn't have great mobility or athleticism [other than his height], but similar to a Marc Gasol he was a super-effective team defender in spite of these things.

And he's got that outside shooting touch long before that was an especially desired trait in big-men.......yeah, I think he fits nicely in the modern game. Really underrated player, imo.

So, Laimbeer = Evil Marc Gasol, aka the Marc of Evil.

Ya, sounds about right.

[rrravenred]

Agree. The more I watch the late-80s Pistons, the more I notice Laimbeer appears an EXTREMELY intelligent defensive player, too. He doesn't have great mobility or athleticism [other than his height], but similar to a Marc Gasol he was a super-effective team defender in spite of these things.

And he's got that outside shooting touch long before that was an especially desired trait in big-men.......yeah, I think he fits nicely in the modern game. Really underrated player, imo.

Oh yeah, I think he'd translate very well to a data-driven defensive era and can't imagine he wouldn't work to expand his range to the 3.

[trex_8063]

Honestly I don't remember and I don't think it makes that much sense to look it up because I can just try to explain myself directly here.

I was speaking to the specific risk of the more durable player getting downgraded by use of a regression stat relative to his more selectively-used teammate. That is relevant to Malone-Stockton. Is it relevant every year to equal degrees? Certainly not, and if you feel like I'm blowing the difference out of proportion relative to the scale of some other thing, feel free to explain what I"m missing.

When you said "APM-style" data I assumed it was '94-'96 because we had that [rs-only] for those years. Subsequent to that we of course have RAPM (and why wouldn't you use that over "APM-style"?).

And specifically within the time-frame of '94-'96 neither player is "more durable" than the other [they both don't miss a single game in that span]. And while Stockton does play lower minutes [if that makes him "more selectively-used"], it's not by a huge margin:

'94 - 40.6 mpg vs 36.2 mpg
'95 - 38.1 mpg vs 35.0 mpg
'96 - 38.0 mpg vs 35.5 mpg


btw, as I am [again] the early champion for John Stockton in this project, I do want you to bear in mind I am NOT one of these people pushing a narrative that Stockton was actually the best player (or even a "1b") on those Jazz teams. Malone was the man. I just think Stockton was really good for a really long time (and it amounts to a large degree of career value).

How good do I think he was? I don't, for example, ever think he had a top 5 season. I DO, however, feel he was somewhere in the top 8 basically every year from '88 to '97 [a couple years perhaps as high as 6th], except for probably '93 (where I still think he was top 10).
And I think he was a top 20 player for at least 2-3 seasons outside of that, and of course an excellent role player all the way till his final season. His rookie season is the only relatively negligible year in his 19-year career, as far as I'm concerned.

[Cavsfansince84]

Agree. The more I watch the late-80s Pistons, the more I notice Laimbeer appears an EXTREMELY intelligent defensive player, too. He doesn't have great mobility or athleticism [other than his height], but similar to a Marc Gasol he was a super-effective team defender in spite of these things.

And he's got that outside shooting touch long before that was an especially desired trait in big-men.......yeah, I think he fits nicely in the modern game. Really underrated player, imo.

Laimbeer was a very effective defensive guy. Overall a good man defender imo who could hold his position, good rebounder and someone people knew they couldn't just go into the paint against without the risk of strong contact. Also very good at drawing charges. He'd also hit a lot of his 3's when it was crunch time and the pressure was on.

[trex_8063]

Agree. The more I watch the late-80s Pistons, the more I notice Laimbeer appears an EXTREMELY intelligent defensive player, too. He doesn't have great mobility or athleticism [other than his height], but similar to a Marc Gasol he was a super-effective team defender in spite of these things.

And he's got that outside shooting touch long before that was an especially desired trait in big-men.......yeah, I think he fits nicely in the modern game. Really underrated player, imo.

Oh yeah, I think he'd translate very well to a data-driven defensive era and can't imagine he wouldn't work to expand his range to the 3.

I feel like he DID extend his range to the 3, even in his own era: in his final six seasons [collectively], he was 34.5% on 1.4 attempts/36 min. It's not a lot of volume, but it's enough to show it's not a fluky once in awhile thing. Peak years are '90 (36.1% on 2.1 3PA/36) and '92 (37.6% on 1.4 3PA/36). That's pretty solid.

EDIT: Fun side-bar story--->I saw Bill Laimbeer [and Herb Williams] in the Seattle airport once. I almost got giddy and had to fight the urge to run up to him and gush about how I'm such a huge NBA fan, blah blah blah. Actually retrospectively, I kinda regret not approaching him, offering a word of praise and maybe asking for a memento (autograph, photo, etc).

[rrravenred]

I feel like he DID extend his range to the 3, even in his own era: in his final six seasons [collectively], he was 34.5% on 1.4 attempts/36 min. It's not a lot of volume, but it's enough to show it's not a fluky once in awhile thing. Peak years are '90 (36.1% on 2.1 3PA/36) and '92 (37.6% on 1.4 3PA/36). That's pretty solid.

Fair comment, although the volumes can (I think) distort the portability of it to a modern context.

[penbeast0]

Seeing Isiah v. Stockton, but I would guess Nash v. Paul is the more relevant to who goes in next. I rate Stockton over Nash but I am willing to bet that's a minority opinion. Anyone want to weigh in on Steve Nash v. Chris Paul?

[trex_8063]

Thru post #55:

Moses Malone - 3 (DQuinn1575, Joao Saraiva, Odinn21)
Kevin Durant - 3 (Dutchball97, Joey Wheeler, Magic Is Magic)
Charles Barkley - 2 (Cavsfansince84, trex_8063)
Stephen Curry - 2 (Doctor MJ, penbeast0)
Chris Paul - 1 (sansterre)


Let's say roughly 22 hours life left for this thread. Get your votes in if you're not seen above....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Doctor MJ]

When you said "APM-style" data I assumed it was '94-'96 because we had that [rs-only] for those years. Subsequent to that we of course have RAPM (and why wouldn't you use that over "APM-style"?).

I supposed because to me RAPM is just applying a particular technique to APM. A convolutional neural net is still a neural net, y'know?

[Cavsfansince84]

Seeing Isiah v. Stockton, but I would guess Nash v. Paul is the more relevant to who goes in next. I rate Stockton over Nash but I am willing to bet that's a minority opinion. Anyone want to weigh in on Steve Nash v. Chris Paul?

I'm leaning towards Stockton mainly due to consistent high level+availability for 13-14 straight years. CP3 had higher highs but in terms of overall career I can't help but feel Stockton did more and gives you a better chance at winning a ring if you can give him a good supporting cast for the duration of his career. Also, Stockton's peers all speak very highly of the sort of competitor and player he was. That speaks to his intangibles to some degree imo.

[eminence]

The more traditional playoff RelRatings over each of the discussed periods (plus Curry). Removed series where Curry missed sizable time, I don't think any of the other guys had series like that on first glance, but if I missed one let me know.

Pistons '85-'90, 18 Series
+4.5 Off, -5.3 Def, +9.8 Net

Suns '05-'10, 12 Series
+11.4 Off, +2.9 Def, +8.5 Net

Jazz '88-'93, 10 Series
+3.9 Off, -0.9 Def, +4.7 Net

Curry w/o KD '13-'19, 11 Series
+4.5 Off, -3.5 Def, +7.9 Net

Curry w/KD '17-'19, 8 Series
+9.7 Off, -4.7 Def, +14.4 Net

Curry total '13-'19, 19 Series
+6.7 Off, -4.0 Def, +10.6 Net

Just adding CP3's career #'s. Didn't wind up removing any series for Chris, as he was present for the majority of his. '09 vs the Nuggets is by bar the most damaging.

CP3 total '08-'20, 19 Series
+3.3 Off, +0.1 Def, +3.2 Net

[Odinn21]

Seeing Isiah v. Stockton, but I would guess Nash v. Paul is the more relevant to who goes in next. I rate Stockton over Nash but I am willing to bet that's a minority opinion. Anyone want to weigh in on Steve Nash v. Chris Paul?

I'm leaning towards Stockton mainly due to consistent high level+availability for 13-14 straight years. CP3 had higher highs but in terms of overall career I can't help but feel Stockton did more and gives you a better chance at winning a ring if you can give him a good supporting cast for the duration of his career. Also, Stockton's peers all speak very highly of the sort of competitor and player he was. That speaks to his intangibles to some degree imo.

Come on now... Stockton had Karl Malone for his entire prime, and up until Hornacek's arrival they weren't succeeding much in the playoffs. Comparing Paul's teams in his career, only 2018 and 2019 Rockets were better than the Jazz from 1994 to 1998.