RealGM Top 100 List #20

[Gongxi]

I've always kinda chuckled at the credit both Kidd and Nash get for turning around the Nets and Suns, respectively. I'm sure we're all aware of who they were replacing, right? Coincidence?

[ronnymac2]

Btw, Pippen's scoring rate in 1994 was 22.5/75 pos. And 21.9, 20.9 and 21.4 in the ensuing seasons. Artis was absolutely more efficient...but was it from Tyson Chandler shot selection, if you know what I mean? THere's a massive difference in offensive value between a point-creator and primary scorer/self-creator and someone only taken what they are given.

Thank you. By my observations, Gilmore was like this his entire career. No way could you actually run an offense through him. Bad passing and average shot creation aren't the tools one should possess if one hopes to be an offensive anchor.

[Fencer reregistered]

Monster post. I've always been a Kidd fan, not gonna lie. I could easily see the argument for Kidd over Stockton and Payton.

Same here. Great post.

I'm not sure how much of his rebounding was great skill, and how much was just a smart scheme in which the Nets's bigs boxed out and Kidd took the rebound personally to start the break. (Hey, if your bigs are good at boxing out but perhaps not at outlet passing, then why not?) Still, gotta give him some credit for a lot of boards ...

[Fencer reregistered]

Wait, so now we say Kidd is better than Isiah and Stockton because he led teams to the finals, but we don't say the same for Drexler over Pippen?

Pippen has a bunch of years where he has a very good excuse for not doing so -- he won rings w/o being called the "leader".

[ronnymac2]

Definitely agree that Kidd should get some love. His teams may have not been good offensively, but that had more to do with team construction and lack of offensive talent on the team.

[ElGee]

Definitely agree that Kidd should get some love. His teams may have not been good offensively, but that had more to do with team construction and lack of offensive talent on the team.

No, I mean Kidd liked to play Quarterback, but he didn't make his teams very good on offense. He simply wasn't in the same ballpark as these top offensive players, and that's more what you want from a PG. That's why Kidd is drastically overrated by some.

[ElGee]

Why is Pippen better than Drexler? What exactly did Scottie do that Clyde didn't? Why is he the superior basketball player?

Comparable playmaker, better rebounder, better defender. Clyde has a clear edge as a scorer, but not by that much, really. I think offensively, Pippen is just a little bit behind him, while his defense more than makes up for it.

Why is Pippen better than Drexler? What exactly did Scottie do that Clyde didn't? Why is he the superior basketball player?

Exceptional defense.

The main argument appears to be defense then.

Well, I agree that Scottie holds a clear edge as a defensive player. He's my GOAT perimeter defender, while Clyde was just a very good piece.

But Drexler has a really nice edge as total offensive player. Just looking at their respective offensive games holistically, Drexler is superior- in a really important way.

Scottie never proved himself as an offensive Constant- an offensive Constant meaning a guy who can put up consistently great production throughout a regular season and playoff run (against playoff defenses), constantly effect defenses regardless of context (meaning any defense must submit to this player's pressure by doing things it may not want to do), and give his team something to go to the well with in a crucial second quarter situation with his team on the bottom end of an 8-0 run. Just give me two points and we'll figure it out from there.

Scottie never proved he could do this like Clyde did. Scottie had a top-3 GOAT offensive player and arguably greatest volume scorer in history taking pressure off of him and he still saw his fair share of playoff runs and series where his production and efficiency were unimpressive.

The only meaningful time he didn't have Jordan was in 1994. Now I'll admit that he had his hardest time this season against a truly dominant defense in NY, so it's understandable, but still...he clearly wasn't an offensive Constant here.

Meanwhile, we have Clyde Drexler, who was the first option for many years on Portland. This guy was one of the most athletic guards in history with a raw yet effective post game, excellent driving game, good jumper with decent 3-point range, and a creative passer/playmaker who was unselfish and allowed other peripheral players to rack up volume statistics as well. Check out Terry Porter's assists averages.

Admittedly, Drexler wasn't always the peak Drexler I'll talk about. That doesn't change the fact that he at times reached offensive levels Scottie never got to.

Scottie never was able to average the peak scoring numbers of Drexler (and still rarely was as efficient as Drexler!), Jordan or no Jordan.

If you guys truly think Scottie is better than Drexler, then why don't you think Sidney Moncrief is better than Dwyane Wade? Moncrief has a defense and rebounding edge, and I believe he also has an efficiency edge (probably better than all four player as he shot 60 true shooting at times) while providing comparable playmaking. The difference between his peak scoring averages and Wade's is similar to the difference between Drexler and Pip.

In the NBA Finals against the Bad Boy Pistons- the team that boasted Dennis Rodman and Joe Dumars on the wing and at times gave peak MJ a hard time- Drexler dropped 26 points and 6 assists per game while shooting 54 percent from the field and getting to the line 7 times per game. Pretty damn good as a first option.

And I honestly don't see how Pippen is that much better at being a second option type of player either. Scottie is one of my favorite player to watch because he's on the short list of best all-around player ever, but Drexler is right behind him. Drexler was unselfish (admittedly almost to a fault), was a monster rebounding wing, was a good defensive piece, improved his jumper over the course of his career, could play on or off the ball, and could handle the rock.

When Clyde became a second option offensive player to a high-volume shooting superstar (Olajuwon shot the ball a lot in the 1995 playoffs), they found success. They fit.

Drexler has a clear edge as a first-option offensive player, and he's above average defensively. I'm not saying he's Wade or Kobe, but he could carry a successful offense and successful team. Hell, he was even a piece on some excellent defensive teams, too. It isn't as simple as saying Scottie's defense is just a tad below Drexler's offense, but Scottie's offense is more valuable than Drexler's defense. Or that since their offense is comparable, Scottie's D advantage gives him the edge (mainly because Drex has a clear edge on offense). Concentrations in important areas such as total offensive impact matter when we're comparing top-level superstars like this. Scottie isn't the defensive dominator or big-game player that Bill Russell was, so the fact that his offense isn't up to par with the competition shouldn't be glossed over.

I think you're really overstating Clyde Drexler's offense. He has a nice game at his peak, but he played on a really good ball club. That never seemed to really make things easier for him, or if defenses keyed on him, he never seemed to punish them with his running mates. This is a guy, who from 91-96 in 74 playoff games hit 30 14.9% of the time...which is a really low number. It's almost exactly as often as KG did it...only Drexler played faster and with better offensive teammates.

[andrewww]

I'm seeing tons of arguments for Payton, and similarly regarding defense, Stockton's been getting some kindly love too, but no mention of Kidd at the same time?

We're talking about a player that clearly had more a defensive impact than Stockton, and I'd go as far as saying maybe even on par with that of Gary Payton. Check out starting from his seasons with the Suns, their overall DRtg goes from elite to average when he's shipped to the Nets for Marbury, and with that stated so does their overall record.

Progress onwards, you've got the Nets with Marbury coming off as one of the worst teams in the league, their primary players were Keith Van Horn, Stephen Jackson, rookie season Kenyon Martin, Evan Eschmeyer, Kendall Gill, and Luscious Harris. They're unable to retain Jackson & Gill, draft a rookie Richard Jefferson, Kittles is back, & Kenyon Martin is just a sophomore. Yet the Nets defense with the key addition of Jason Kidd bursts from being one of the worst in DRtg to #1. They make it to the finals, there's 0 All-NBA Team caliber players, there's 0 All-Stars.

I've heard the arguments of "oh the East was at its weak point", but take a closer look at how they did against both conferences, the East was obviously a bit better (64% winning percentage) compared to the West (60% winning percentage), but still an argument to be known and given.

You look deeper at that team, they had 0 defensive anchors, it's hard to say that Todd MacCulloch or Keith Van Horn, or even a 2nd season Kenyon Martin had much of an impact to add significant leaps defensively. You go onto the following season, they sustain their level of play, they dominate the eastern conference playoffs, they are still elite defensively, Jason Collins is now handling big minutes as a C, yet they're still sustaining their elite level of defensive player.

And I'll go on further he's facilitating and running an offense in both the half & open court consistently distributing 9+ APG while still playing next to 0 All-NBA caliber teammates. Even in significant amount of games Kerry Kittles doesn't play in, the Nets are still very much so elite (75% winning percentage without him). Go onto the following season, similar team, you notice Kidd missing a few games, Nets go 6-9 without him, his impact is still very much so alive, you notice Jefferson & Martin making large strides offensively.

Continue onto the following season, you've got Jefferson out with a serious injury, Martin traded, Kittles traded, Mourning hurt, Kidd starting out hurt. It seemed like there was no chance in hell they'd even make it to playing .500 ball, but once he's back the offense is kicking like no other, the Nets won just 2 games without Jason. With him they're a flying 38-28 record, obviously Carter gave him a lethal offensive weapon, but still, remember they're still a top 7 defense in the entire league. Just saying, we're hearing this Stockton love too much, when I'm not seeing anything to contradict him being a better player than even Jason Kidd at peak form, and rightfully given so, his impact goes down as his team success goes up, it's completely opposite for Kidd, and we're talking about a triple-double machine, we're talking about defensive impact, not just longitivtiy. You can even argue this past season a 38-yr old kid did some major key moments defensively against Bryant, James, & Wade.

In terms of intangibles, Kidd has it and I think thats what youre trying to get at here, and I must say I agree because this is just a narrative but the US is undefated w/ Kidd in uniform, obviously if his shot isnt falling (which wasnt for the first part of his career) he's still able to contribute defensively against the elite 2's such as Wade or Kobe.

[TMACFORMVP]

In '90, and '91, Robinson performed just fine in the post-season.

In 93 versus Barkley:

Barkley
159/79/20 on 54-120
26.5 PPG, 13.1 RPG, 3.3 APG on .450 shooting from the field.

Robinson
154/66/21 on 53-109
25.6 PPG, 11.0 RPG, 3.5 APG on .486 shooting from the field (3.5 blocks as well).

Barkley had the game-winner to close the series, which is most memorable, but we also forget in a G1 victory for the Suns, Robinson has 32/10/4 with 7 blocks on 13-20, while Barkley has 18/10 on 5-21. The SUNS still win the game, in large part thanks to KJ's 25/7 with 5 steals, and Dumas 22 points on 9-13 shooting. The rest of the Spurs supporting cast combines for 57 points on 38% from the field.

In G2; Robinson has 27/10/3 on 11-22 and 2 blocks, while Barkley rebounds with 35/10 game on 12-18. The Spurs supporting cast shoots 43% from the field, opposed to the Suns supporting cast shot exactly 50% from the floor. Majerle/Dumas have 30 combined points and KJ chips in with a 15/12 effort.

We can say it's a role sort reversal in G3, but Barkley didn't play any better than DRob did in the first two games to win the game despite Robinson's subpar performance. Robinson in a G4 win has 36/16 to tie up the series.. Barkley would outplay him in the final two games to ultimately wrap up the series (32/16/3 on .525 versus 23/11/4 with 3.5 blocks on .516). So it wasn't like Robinson played that poorly..but Barkley was better OFFENSIVELY for sure.

The Suns were a superior TEAM (over 60 wins, season they made it to the Final), and that's why they won. Robinson was arguably better on both ends of the floor, but he didn't have the supporting cast to win the series. Also note in the first round, they faced a 50+ win Blazers team.. with the series tied 1-1:

Game 3: 26/14/5 and 4 blocks on 8-16 shooting.
Game 4: 20/17/11 and 7 blocks on 8-14 shooting.

that's Robinson's stats to close out the series. He was GOOD in this post-season.

Then in '94 and '95 Robinson choked, no way around that, BUT he also had no help.

'94: Ellis was the only player who averaged double digits outside of DRob (10.5 PPG), and he shot 39% from the field, and 29% from distance. Their third and fourth leading scorer (Knight, and Anderson) shot .317 and .387 respectively. Cummings was the only other player worth a damn, and he was a guy who only got 18 minutes per game in the playoffs.

And IIRC, there were some questionable calls in that G5, and there's a little excerpt about him getting injured in one of the games, but that obviously didn't affect his play too much, since he sort of played a better game after that. No excuses for is performance, but his supporting cast did nothing to alleviate him. Isn't that the theme we've been using for some of these players?

In '95, he obviously goy his ass handed to him by Hakeem, but he demolished the Lakers in the 2nd round despite the lowered efficiency..

30.0 PPG, 15.6 RPG, 3.8 BPG on .450 from the field..That's monster production. He did 24/11/3 on similar percentages against Hakeem, but obviously defensively he was exposed and laid down in the clinching G6.

In '96, he faces Barkley again..
Barkley does 25.5 PPG, 13.3 RPG, 3.7 APG on .442 from the field.
Robinson does 30.0 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 3.0 APG on .555 from the field.

Robinson has the better supporting cast at this point, but he also outplays Barkley by a pretty large margin as well.

In the second round he was outplayed by Malone again (he actually outplayed him in the first two games, but when they went back to Utah, it was a nightmare for Robinson). Again, no real excuses here. Same thing happens in '98..

So, overall, we see Robinson gets outplayed in the playoffs by Hakeem and Malone, whom we've already established as much better players. These are guys who are 9th and 12th on our all-time list. Otherwise he's had three good overall post-seasons, and series in which he's played extremely well..and outplayed even a guy like Barkley.

---

We're choosing Barkley b/c he's a better playoff performer, right?

This is the same Charles Barkley who blew two 2-0 series leads (one 3-1 lead), with seven of those fourteen games shooting under 45% from the field? The same Barkley that had four of those games also under 40% shooting, including an infamous 5 points on 0-10 shooting. He blamed it on it being an "afternoon game.." He only shot better than 50% in four of those fourteen games against the Rockets in both these series..

Barkley in those series v. Hakeem/Rockets averaged 23/13/3 on 46% (Robinson averaged 24/11/3 on 45%). Hakeem averaged 29/11/4 on 55%. So are we penalizing Robinson for not defending Hakeem adequately, when Barkley didn't guard ANYONE?

Barkley unfortunately (or fortunately) didn't match up with Malone in the playoffs, but we've seen him getting outplayed by Robinson himself. And Barkley led team has missed the playoffs, and been swept by the Knicks. In '90 against the Bulls, he was good, but also had 16 points G2 with only 2 of them coming in the second half. Or he shot the ball from the line very uncharacteristically, 5-10 in the final game, or 6-15 in the previous game.

I'm not even arguing that Barkley was in some way an inferior playoff performer, because, no, he was definitely a better playoff performer in general. But this isn't some guy with a flawless record, and has an even worse history of choke jobs against the same player Robinson is so heavily criticized against.

--

And Robinson was very good in the post-season in the first Spurs championship run.

Was he man? No. But he played in 49/50 games, averaged 16/10 in only 32 MPG (18/11 PER36). In the playoffs, he kept up his averages, and for advanced metric freaks, had a 23.3 PER, higher DRTG, TRB% and DWS than even Duncan. He shot poorly in the Finals (43%), but he still contributed with 12 rebounds, 3 blocks, a steal, and nearly 17 points. For how much we talked about how Garnett's defense and rebounding not declining in the playoffs, I think the same could be said for Robinson in the Spurs first title run. He also had some other huge games in that same playoff run:

17/18/7 with 3 blocks and 3 steals in the pivotal Game 3 versus Minnesota with the series tied 1-1. Not to mention 19/11 and 4 blocks to close that series as well. In the Lakers series, he was a huge reason Shaq was kept below his averages - 23.7 PPG on .492 shooting in a sweep. Had over 20/10 games in both Game 1 and 4 of the WCF against the Blazers completing another sweep. Then the already aforementioned Finals defensive impact.

I don't mind Barkley over Robinson, but I think there's a double standard used in the arguments against him. He didn't have a great supporting cast in his peak, he was outplayed by much better players (which has already been established), but so has Barkley, or anyone that's an inferior player. He's extremely underrated in the Spurs first title run, and we focus far too heavily on his flaws than rather looking at his strengths..

[therealbig3]

Wait, so now we say Kidd is better than Isiah and Stockton because he led teams to the finals, but we don't say the same for Drexler over Pippen?

Who the heck brought that up? I said I'd take Kidd over those guys, because I believe he was a better player...his defense has a bigger impact than what you'd expect from a PG, while his offense, while not great, isn't quite terrible either. He's never really worked with the greatest offensive talent in the world either.

Meanwhile, the Pistons and the Jazz got better when Isiah and Stockton took on smaller roles. Isiah won as barely the best player on a stacked and incredibly balanced offensive team, which won on the back of their defense primarily...much like Billups with the 04 Pistons.

Stockton and his impressive stats didn't translate into the type of impact that you'd expect. Similar to Isiah, the Jazz did better when he took on a smaller role.

Both of these guys were better offensively than Kidd, but it's a lot closer than their individual stats suggest imo.

[Laimbeer]

Wait, so now we say Kidd is better than Isiah and Stockton because he led teams to the finals, but we don't say the same for Drexler over Pippen?

Pippen has a bunch of years where he has a very good excuse for not doing so -- he won rings w/o being called the "leader".

And he has some years when he needed to be and couldn't. With Mike retired, he didn't, right in the middle of the Bulls' run. Or as parts of talented teams in Houston and Portland. Particularly Portland, where he had the chance to step up and take a team to the title and provide a key leadership presence, and didn't.

[therealbig3]

Great post, I'm a Nets fan and I love Kidd. I think his defensive impact is overlooked, because people say "Well, he was just a PG"...I think he probably had a defensive impact closer to a SF.

Just because I see it as relevant, here's Engelmann's RAPM ratings on offense & defense for Kidd over the years:

Year Offense Defense
'01-02 +1.7 +1.0 (partial season)
'02-03 +2.4 +1.4
'03-04 +2.4 +2.1
'04-05 +3.1 +2.3
'05-06 +4.1 +1.1
'06-07 +2.4 +0.0
'07-08 +1.3 +1.5
'08-09 +1.9 +2.3
'09-10 +0.9 +2.7
'10-11 -0.1 +0.2

The specific scales of the numbers from year to year don't get too carried away with, but what does seem to be clear:

1) In Kidd's prime, his offense was clearly better than his defense
2) But his defense was always good
3) Late in his career, this seems to have switched - arguably due to offense falling off and defense staying similar

And those are pretty big defensive numbers for a PG, am I right? He's at or above +1.0 in all but 2 seasons, and half the time, he's in the +2.1-2.7 range. From Engelmann's 6-year study from 06-11, LeBron was ranked 5th with a defensive +/- of +2.8. And this is LeBron, one of the best defensive players in basketball.

From what I understood, PGs struggle to reach +1 on the defensive side of the ball, and most of the time they make a negligible difference.

[Laimbeer]

Unless you're totally disregarding him because of era (remember he played with the guy second on our list), Bob Cousy is probably deserving of the nomination. Defined and dominated his position for a decade and perhaps should get credit as the guy on one title team. First teamer ten years running and won an MVP. I don't think Pippen or Stockton approach his excellence or place in the game's history. He's going too low as it is.

[Laimbeer]

Hondo, Baylor and Barkley deserve most consideration here. DRob didn't quite dominate his position like Baylor or Barkley. Hondo gets credit as second guy getting multiple titles on two different teams and longevity.

Isiah and Clyde are very close, but not quite their time yet. But multiple title winners can't slip too far.

[Fencer reregistered]

Or as parts of talented teams in Houston and Portland. Particularly Portland, where he had the chance to step up and take a team to the title and provide a key leadership presence, and didn't.

You are referring to his 12th through 16th seasons in the league, and particularly his 13th through 16th.

[Fencer reregistered]

Unless you're totally disregarding him because of era (remember he played with the guy second on our list), Bob Cousy is probably deserving of the nomination. Defined and dominated his position for a decade and perhaps should get credit as the guy on one title team. First teamer ten years running and won an MVP.

And he introduced modern PG play, especially in transition, which earns him a pretty big dollop of bonus points.

[Fencer reregistered]

Barkley vs. DRob is tough. I like smart and crafty players, but I also like good teammates.

But you know what? Robinson-to-Duncan torch-passing, while clearly to DRob's credit, was nothing particularly special. Basketball players are commonly good about letting younger teammates rise to outshine them, if they have the ability to do so. And other than the Houston clusterfrack, I'm not aware of Barkley messing up a team w/ his oddball intangibles. (Him asking to leave Philadelphia is the mulligan I give all the guys -- they're not slaves, and deserve a chance to change employers if they want.)

Vote: Barkley, for reasons you guys have stated at great length.

[Doctor MJ]

And those are pretty big defensive numbers for a PG, am I right? He's at or above +1.0 in all but 2 seasons, and half the time, he's in the +2.1-2.7 range. From Engelmann's 6-year study from 06-11, LeBron was ranked 5th with a defensive +/- of +2.8. And this is LeBron, one of the best defensive players in basketball.

From what I understood, PGs struggle to reach +1 on the defensive side of the ball, and most of the time they make a negligible difference.

Short answer: Yes, they are pretty big.

Longer answer: Sigh. It's complicated.

Aside from the fact that I'm always cautious with 1-year APM numbers, Engelmann's been doing some complicated things, and his numbers have been changing - including his longer term numbers. As a result, his 6-year numbers (for the past 6 years) for Kidd have gone UP on defense but DOWN on offense. I'm not going to be so bold to tell you what you should think about that.

But just doing apples to apples here, Kidd's 6-year defensive numbers are listed as +2.1 which I believe is the best of any major minute point guards in the league. Pretty sweet, but some other comparisons are probably wise to point out.

LeBron's defensive numbers are +2.9. So not that much better than Kidd's...but LeBron's numbers have improved quite a bit from where he was in the early parts of this sample size.

Elite big men defenders are for the most part showing up at around +4.0, and then of course, way out by himself is Garnett at +6.2. On offense, the elite players are at around +5 to +6 with Nash being far out in front at +8.2.

[Doctor MJ]

Unless you're totally disregarding him because of era (remember he played with the guy second on our list), Bob Cousy is probably deserving of the nomination. Defined and dominated his position for a decade and perhaps should get credit as the guy on one title team. First teamer ten years running and won an MVP. I don't think Pippen or Stockton approach his excellence or place in the game's history. He's going too low as it is.

Well, I think the rough thing with Cousy in comparison to someone like Pettit is that I've come to conclude he was pretty drastically overrated in his own time. He was the original big name guy on a team that became the star of the greatest dynasty, but he was an offensive player on a defensive team that didn't miss a beat when he retired and the new point guard was KC Jones. There's also the matter that his efficiency was pedestrian by any standard, which I don't like with my point guard. I mean, I'm here defending Pettit for rocking a TS% of 52 and Cousy is rolling in there with years under 45 in the middle of his prime.

[fatal9]

Out for weekend or would make longer post...

Voting Barkley and Pippen again. Barkley and D-Rob both got underrated IMO,and I say that as someone who doesn't consider either to be as good as their boxscore numbers.