RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #13

[penbeast0]

Again I'll be brief (of necessity), and maybe say why NOT certain others......

Jerry West - not enough longevity/durability vs most other candidates. To a lesser degree the weaker (imo) era is a factor

Outstanding durability/longevity for his era. Had no control over when he was born. I find both criticisms entirely invalid.

David Robinson - relatively lacking longevity. That's about it, I otherwise think he's a great candidate, and expect I'll be supporting him sooner than most

Assuming you do, how do you reconcile putting him above Barkley, a contemporary who was considered better/greater during their careers and after?

How do you justify changing the narrative more than a decade later?

(a) While my vote (After Mikan) is for West, I think compared to his contemporary Oscar Robertson his durability was indeed questionable. Part of it is style, Oscar was more a backdown, physically powerful, midrange shotmaker/passer. West was more a long range or drive type, doing Iverson type slashes down the lane with similar damage to his slimmer body.

(b) Barkley was not considered as better/greater during his career except by those who valued scoring over defensive impact . . . ie, the people who today consider Carmelo Anthony better than Paul George for example. Even with the tendency to overrate offensive superstars over defensive superstars and the shorter prime, notice that David Robinson STILL has more MVP shares than Charles Barkley.

[rebirthoftheM]

Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions
Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.3 pts (57.2% TS), 8.5 reb, 10.3 ast (TO not recorded)
Kevin Garnett (1999 - 2008): 30.2 pts (55% TS), 16.8 reb, 6.6 ast, 3.7 TO

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions
Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.7 pts (56.6% TS), 9.3 reb, 9.4 ast (TO not recorded)
Kevin Garnett (1999 - 2008): 29.5 pts (52.3%), 16.8 reb, 5.9 ast, 3.9 TO

*Oscar doesn't have per-100 numbers on B-R, but since they almost certainly were playing at least 100 possessions/game pace I used his actual per-game numbers

Quick question DRZA re per 100. I thought that per 100 stuff are calculated on per 48 minutes basis. So let's say PPG... if 04 KG is scoring 24.2 PPG... we divide 24.2 by his actual MPG then multiply it by 48 minutes. We then divide it by the actual pace KG's team played at then multiple it by 100. Is this right?

So without looking at bball ref per 100 stuff initially, if we follow this formula.. I have KG's 04 season at 33.13 PPG. And then I look at b-ball reference's per 100 ppg for 04 KG, and they have it as 33.2. So about the same.

If that holds, 61-70 Oscar, per the estimations on pace for the Cincinnati in the 60s (which ranges from 114-125) would be approx. a 27 PPG scorer per 100. West meanwhile was around 28.5 PPG. Oscar though was slightly more efficient than west.

Or does this not hold up with dudes playing 110+ possessions in reality?

Do you think this is an accurate judge of their scoring abilities though?

[JoeMalburg]

Again I'll be brief (of necessity), and maybe say why NOT certain others......

Jerry West - not enough longevity/durability vs most other candidates. To a lesser degree the weaker (imo) era is a factor

Outstanding durability/longevity for his era. Had no control over when he was born. I find both criticisms entirely invalid.

David Robinson - relatively lacking longevity. That's about it, I otherwise think he's a great candidate, and expect I'll be supporting him sooner than most

Assuming you do, how do you reconcile putting him above Barkley, a contemporary who was considered better/greater during their careers and after?

How do you justify changing the narrative more than a decade later?

(a) While my vote (After Mikan) is for West, I think compared to his contemporary Oscar Robertson his durability was indeed questionable. Part of it is style, Oscar was more a backdown, physically powerful, midrange shotmaker/passer. West was more a long range or drive type, doing Iverson type slashes down the lane with similar damage to his slimmer body.

(b) Barkley was not considered as better/greater during his career except by those who valued scoring over defensive impact . . . ie, the people who today consider Carmelo Anthony better than Paul George for example. Even with the tendency to overrate offensive superstars over defensive superstars and the shorter prime, notice that David Robinson STILL has more MVP shares than Charles Barkley.

In regards to A, I think West is less durable than Robertson, but playing 12 relatively healthy seasons (where he was healthy for the playoffs and did not hurt his teams chances by missing 10-25 RS games) and lasting until the age of 35 is quite impressive for his era. Cetainly holds up with Russell, Wilt, Baylor, Pettit etc. His contemporary superstar counterparts. Now if we are splitting hairs, fine, but I can't justify that being listed as a detrimental weakness in a two sentence summation.

In regards to B, There may have been moments when Robinson was considered better than Barkley, especially once injuries set in for Chuck in 1994. But when both of their careers ended, I don't know of anyone who held Robinson in the same category as Barkley. To me, he is clearly a notch below and it's only since advanced stats have shined such a positive light on him that he's been elevated by some. I'm not okay with that. If the numbers tell us something our eyes didn't, the numbers are incomplete. There is no number to measure competitiveness, but if there were, Barkley would have a sizable edge.

Robinson should have been better, had the tools to be better, but he wasn't. Don't piss on my leg and tell me the win shares say it's raining.

[penbeast0]

In regards to B, There may have been moments when Robinson was considered better than Barkley, especially once injuries set in for Chuck in 1994. But when both of their careers ended, I don't know of anyone who held Robinson in the same category as Barkley. To me, he is clearly a notch below and it's only since advanced stats have shined such a positive light on him that he's been elevated by some. I'm not okay with that. If the numbers tell us something our eyes didn't, the numbers are incomplete. There is no number to measure competitiveness, but if there were, Barkley would have a sizable edge.

Robinson should have been better, had the tools to be better, but he wasn't. Don't piss on my leg and tell me the win shares say it's raining.

Nope, was never impressed that much with Barkley. He is the one whose numbers (and continued visibility on TV, etc.) make him look much better in hindsight. Robinson was considered better by all but the scoring is everything types who actually saw Barkley play defense (or NOT play defense) and heard the tales of his drinking at 4A before games with rookies, etc.

When Charles retired after the 00 season, Robinson had ALREADY passed him in MVP shares and had 3 seasons to go as defensive center next to Tim Duncan and Robinson, to me, was a clear level higher than Barkley . . . long before I'd ever heard of RAPM or even Win Shares.

As for competitiveness, Robinson was a tremendous hard worker every day; Charles wasn't. One explanation for Robinson's relative drop (and Charles's relative boost) in playoff offense is that Robinson was busting his butt in the regular season even on a Tuesday night in Minnesota while Charles was coasting except for the TV games and the playoff. There are other possible explanations but none that say Robinson wasn't a competitor. And, even in the playoffs, as the Garnett fans will explain, you can have a tremendous defensive impact even when your offensive numbers slip . . . but only if you play defense.

Even here in 2006 when ts% efficiency numbers (Charles's strongest suit) were the hot advanced stats of the day, David Robinson finished higher in that year's top 100 project. So, look down at your leg, it's raining and you may be pissing on yourself.

[JoeMalburg]

In regards to B, There may have been moments when Robinson was considered better than Barkley, especially once injuries set in for Chuck in 1994. But when both of their careers ended, I don't know of anyone who held Robinson in the same category as Barkley. To me, he is clearly a notch below and it's only since advanced stats have shined such a positive light on him that he's been elevated by some. I'm not okay with that. If the numbers tell us something our eyes didn't, the numbers are incomplete. There is no number to measure competitiveness, but if there were, Barkley would have a sizable edge.

Robinson should have been better, had the tools to be better, but he wasn't. Don't piss on my leg and tell me the win shares say it's raining.

Nope, was never impressed that much with Barkley. He is the one whose numbers (and continued visibility on TV, etc.) make him look much better in hindsight. Robinson was considered better by all but the scoring is everything types who actually saw Barkley play defense (or NOT play defense) and heard the tales of his drinking at 4A before games with rookies, etc.

When Charles retired after the 00 season, Robinson had ALREADY passed him in MVP shares and had 3 seasons to go as defensive center next to Tim Duncan and Robinson, to me, was a clear level higher than Barkley . . . long before I'd ever heard of RAPM or even Win Shares.

As for competitiveness, Robinson was a tremendous hard worker every day; Charles wasn't. One explanation for Robinson's relative drop (and Charles's relative boost) in playoff offense is that Robinson was busting his butt in the regular season even on a Tuesday night in Minnesota while Charles was coasting except for the TV games and the playoff. There are other possible explanations but none that say Robinson wasn't a competitor. And, even in the playoffs, as the Garnett fans will explain, you can have a tremendous defensive impact even when your offensive numbers slip . . . but only if you play defense.

Even here in 2006 when ts% efficiency numbers (Charles's strongest suit) were the hot advanced stats of the day, David Robinson finished higher in that year's top 100 project. So, look down at your leg, it's raining and you may be pissing on yourself.

Not buying a word of it. It's solely the contrarian you which allows you to think so critically as to have this as a hobby that allows you to believe your own narrative was fostered by others and not created by you.

[mischievous]

The proof would be that Dirk was around average/above average defensively, and he's a PF. That instantly makes him better defensively than an average/above average defensive PG, which is what Oscar was considered throughout his career, and from the film I've seen of him, nothing really changes my mind about that.

That's true in theory yeah, i just don't think it's "definite" that Dirk was making more defensive impact, as Jaivl said. I'm sure the case can be made, but there's too much varying opinion on either guy's defense to say for certain. That's all i'm saying by that, i don't think Dirk gets the edge just because of default.

Dirk's spacing at the PF position, and his superiority as a scorer, can definitely be enough to compensate for Oscar's abilities as a playmaker.

Yeah i just don't agree here. Oscar was running elite offenses for his time while being the do everything on offense guy for his teams. Dirk's spacing helps open things up, but that doesn't compare to someone who's one of the greatest passer and playmakers of all time. And i don't think the scoring edge is much in Dirk's favor if at all, Dirk was more efficient, while Oscar had higher volume. Then we get into era differences, with efficiency etc i just see it as too hard to compare.

(I don't think saying that a PF naturally has more defensive impact than a PG is all that controversial), it's tough to see much of a separation either way.

Oscar was also 6'5-6'6 though and he was rebounding at pretty much a sf/pf level so he wasn't exactly your typical point guard pg in size or style.

I see it a bit different from you. I see Oscar as having a small but still clear offensive edge, while i won't really use defense at all since i don't see it making much difference for either.

[Doctor MJ]

Glad people are talking about Oscar and specifically is demeanor.

Essentially he's of the Chris Paul mold of floor general. Brilliant, and see it all before anyone else, impatient with those who make mistakes.

I used to hold that against Oscar more. Thing is, offensively it just plain worked the question is whether it led to intangible damage elsewhere. I wish I knew better.

I think Dirk serves in clear contrast to this and it's part of why you can build culture around Dirk.

I also think Jerry West was very, very different from this and it's part of why at times in the past I've had West over Oscar.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[drza]

Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions
Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.3 pts (57.2% TS), 8.5 reb, 10.3 ast (TO not recorded)
Kevin Garnett (1999 - 2008): 30.2 pts (55% TS), 16.8 reb, 6.6 ast, 3.7 TO

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions
Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.7 pts (56.6% TS), 9.3 reb, 9.4 ast (TO not recorded)
Kevin Garnett (1999 - 2008): 29.5 pts (52.3%), 16.8 reb, 5.9 ast, 3.9 TO

*Oscar doesn't have per-100 numbers on B-R, but since they almost certainly were playing at least 100 possessions/game pace I used his actual per-game numbers

Quick question DRZA re per 100. I thought that per 100 stuff are calculated on per 48 minutes basis. So let's say PPG... if 04 KG is scoring 24.2 PPG... we divide 24.2 by his actual MPG then multiply it by 48 minutes. We then divide it by the actual pace KG's team played at then multiple it by 100. Is this right?

So without looking at bball ref per 100 stuff initially, if we follow this formula.. I have KG's 04 season at 33.13 PPG. And then I look at b-ball reference's per 100 ppg for 04 KG, and they have it as 33.2. So about the same.

If that holds, 61-70 Oscar, per the estimations on pace for the Cincinnati in the 60s (which ranges from 114-125) would be approx. a 27 PPG scorer per 100. West meanwhile was around 28.5 PPG. Oscar though was slightly more efficient than west.

Or does this not hold up with dudes playing 110+ possessions in reality?

Do you think this is an accurate judge of their scoring abilities though?

A few quick things:

1) This was an older post. I didn't re-write it, with newer info. Which is relevant because...

2) I believe TRex posted pace-adjusted estimates for older players in like thread 2. So, if I were writing it today, I'd probably have better estimates for Oscar

3) Pace adjusting, or now...box score stats across era are going to be affected in some ways by pace, but we don't exactly have a definite relationship. Some feel that pace adjusting isn't necessary because we don't know for sure how changing the pace would change the results...I'm of the camp that, with both being estimates, I'd at least prefer to look at estimates over similar numbers of possessions because to me it's ridiculous to hold up volume production from players playing around 30 more possessions a game as though they're taken from similar pools. I do understand that it's not 1-to-1, though, and as you can probably tell from my posts I only use the box score stuff as general estimates and/or ways to identify mechanisms of impact, for the most part, anyway. Thus, for the use I make of them, I feel like pace-adjusted numbers are close enough for what I need (given that I'm not sure a better solution exists anyway).

4) Piggybacking on that last one, I'm much more likely to put more energy into trying to estimate impact than quibble about the box score estimates. I like the WOWY and WOWYR work that's been done, though I do think that the WOWYR has more problems than I'm comfortable just brushing off at the moment. I do have hopes that, once more research on the approach is done, it may become more useful moving forward. At the moment I still have more confidence in pure WOWY than WOWYR, but either way, both are very high on Oscar's impact which gives me more comfortability that I'm barking up the right tree that he was a huge impact player.

[wojoaderge]

Fred Carter was another high volume shooter who ended up missing nearly the entire season.

Fred Carter was traded to the Bucks in order to relieve the logjam

[wojoaderge]

Not much more to say about George Mikan other than he's my first vote once again. To repeat, no one left on the board was as dominating in his particular time or served as the go-to guy on as championship teams as he did.

Now for my alternate. Moses - I just have no idea why he's so underrated. He's easily more dominating, more overpowering, and more impossible to stop than any of 5s or 4s remaining. 3 MVPs. He led a 65-17 team to the championship as its best player and led a sub-.500 team to the NBA Finals (only the 2nd one to date). If you want to talk longevity, he had at least 16 straight good to awesome seasons. So, I don't know the problem is here.

1-George Mikan
2-Moses Malone

[Outside]

Dirk
I've got him at 33 (sorry)

Positives
Longevity
Scoring
Spacing
Efficiency
Low turnovers
Good playoff performer
Leadership -- not elite compared to many guys picked in prior threads, but still notable
Good teammate -- no drama, plays team ball

Negatives
Offensive diversity -- not a driver/slasher/finisher, not useful on the break other than as a three-point trailer. Despite his size, allergic to the paint (in his career, only 14.4% of his shots come inside 3 feet, only 8.4% from 3-10 feet).
Defense -- others have tried to make a case for him on D, but he is slow, not mobile, and not gifted with a defensive IQ or mindset. He did okay around the rim, but in space, he's just never been good. He was merely okay at best and has been a liability on D for most of his career. It's no coincidence that the Mavs' title team needed Tyson Chandler at center.
Weak rebounding for his size and position -- averaged only 7.8 for his career, never averaged double figures
Not a playmaker -- averaged only 2.5 assists for his career with a peak of only 3.5
Doesn't have the versatility in his game to be considered at this point

Is Dirk's offensive diversity really that much of a problem though?

Offensive diversity is useful, sure, but Dirk (who was also quite good at drawing FTs in his prime, i.e. the most efficient shot in basketball) became essentially impossible to guard in the mid range, which is the "worst shot in basketball." So not only does Dirk's mid range jump shot become a very credible weapon on its own accord, but it allows other players to occupy the paint + 3 point area. Numerous studies have been done correlating big man floor spacing with offensive prowess, and Dirk is the premier floor spacing big.

After all, look at situations such as the Heatles - one of the reasons they remained so good offensively is that Bosh's propensity for taking jump shots allowed LeBron/Wade to keep driving to the hoop. Those shots don't magically disappear simply because a guy like Dirk doesn't take many - a lot of these shots are taken up by other players who are more free to roam to the hoop than before.

And tbh, Dirk is one of the most resilient players ever in regards to things such as playoff scoring, clutch situations (honestly, his clutch numbers are amazing) and it's those scenarios where diversity really becomes an argument vs the typical "volume/efficiency" components of scoring.

FWIW, he was also quite good at drawing fouls (he was actually very comparable to Olajuwon in FTA/FGA) and despite never averaging double digit rebounding in the regular season, he has averaged 10.0 boards across his (very lengthy) playoff career.

33 is way too low for Dirk, IMO.

Dirk is only okay at drawing FTs. Compare him to other guys we're considering at this point:

Karl Malone -- averaged 8.9 FTAs for his career, six seasons with double-digit FTAs
Jerry West -- averaged 9.4 FTAs for his career, five seasons with double-digit FTAs
Oscar Robertson -- averaged 8.8 FTAs for his career, seven seasons with double-digit FTAs
Dirk Nowitzki -- averaged 5.8 FTAs for his career, zero seasons with double-digit FTAs

Comparing Dirk to third-wheel Chris Bosh on the Heatles isn't helping the argument for Dirk. Yes, Dirk provides spacing for teammates, but as someone else mentioned, if spacing was so beneficial that it trumped everything else, we'd be talking Reggie Miller over Magic Johnson.

Offensive versatility makes a player significantly more dangerous to the defense. Dirk has a great outside shot, practically unblockable, and that helps his team tremendously, but he's not a particularly good driver, he doesn't finish well at the rim, and he doesn't run the break except as a trailer. He has an all-time great one tool, but he's no Swiss army knife.

I'm fine with him at 33. Besides West and Oscar, here are guys I have over him:

John Havlicek
Kevin McHale
Karl Malone
Charles Barkley
Elgin Baylor
Julius Erving
David Robinson
Bob Pettit
Scottie Pippen
Patrick Ewing
James Worthy
George Mikan
Walt Frazier
John Stockton
Nate Thurmond
Dave Cowens
Isaiah Thomas

I could be convinced to move Dirk over a few of them, but in general, these guys are far more complete players than Dirk. I don't get the argument that Dirk is a plus defender, and that puts him below everyone I listed. As I've mentioned before, I just don't understand the push to place Dirk so high. I like Dirk, I really do, but he's a guy who does one thing really, really well, is so-so in a bunch of other areas, and is a poor defender. The guys I listed above are great in multiple areas.

There have been a lot of great players. Being number 33 on the ATL for a guy with Dirk's resume is no slight.

[Dr Positivity]

Wow, that is high for James Worthy

[mikejames23]

Snippet on Dirk.

It almost feels like we've been watching different players. You think it's no slight, but you're placing him 2 tiers lower than he really is.

- His defensive impact measures to be above average. A guard like Oscar Robertson would have to be roughly a Jason Kidd level defender to equal Dirk's impact on that end. He can certainly be an important piece to a good defense, even if he's not an anchor.
- Dirk is #8 all time in RS Defensive Rebounds.
- #15 all time in Defensive Rebounding % in Playoffs - Right between Tim Duncan and David Robinson. I think your assessment on his rebounding is off by a good amount.
- I think your post implies that it's somewhat of a soft game that limits the offense. He seems to have the agility to take bigmen off the dribble and take it straight to the basket. What here limits my offense from being great?
- Pick and Roll/High Post - One of the best in any era.
- Playmaking - How much is this hurting my offense? I give him the ball, what is going wrong for the rest of my team due to his lack of assist totals? What limited the teams he worked with? At most you need an Old Jason Kidd to provide additional playmaking? I don't feel my team's lacking anything because of this critique - it's certainly not a hole you will have a difficult time overcoming. Dirk plays the type of game that DOES allow teammates to have good years in Dallas - namely centers and even average to mediocre guards like Monta Ellis. He benefits his teammates immensely.
- I actually think overall you're massively underrating his Midrange ability as a scorer. I don't know if allergic to the paint really makes sense here. It appears like you're criticizing him for his play style more than anything else. Dirk can take it to the paint, but the Midrange has to be where most of his shots come from, as the spacing opens up the entire offense. The center benefits, the open man in the corner benefits, a guard with a good drive game benefits, etc. What is my offense missing?

[mikejames23]

Anyway, if that's your opinion then that's your opinion - but I would ask you to seriously reconsider. I mean, you can even take all the greats listed here over him.

Jerry West
Oscar
Dr. J
Barkley
D-Rob
Karl Malone
George Mikan

He's still around #20. How would you drop him to #33 below guys like Pippen? Dirk's clearly more proven as the franchise player?

[Arman_tanzarian]

Option 1: West

Arguably the quickest release ever. Dude would be unguardable today. This is between West and Oscar for me. I have West as the better playoff performer although it's close if we are counting just Cinci years.

Really close since they are so identical between in their main years through 71ish but I have to side with West because of the sustained playoff performances time and time again.

Option 2: Oscar

[THKNKG]

Vote:

1. Oscar Robertson
2. Dirk Nowitzki

some reasons discussed earlier in the thread but will elaborate if I have time

[Outside]

Wow, that is high for James Worthy

Yeah, I apparently am much higher on Worthy than most, but that's a discussion for a later thread.

I assume that many people, if not most, will have an issue with where I place certain guys on my list. I don't want that to detract from my point that there have been a LOT of great players, that placing Dirk at 33 is still very high, and that placing him at 13 is ignoring the all-around greatness of many other players.

[wojoaderge]

questions about the era portability of his offensive impact (for what that's worth)

nothing

[penbeast0]

Not buying a word of it. It's solely the contrarian you which allows you to think so critically as to have this as a hobby that allows you to believe your own narrative was fostered by others and not created by you.

I've offered two pieces of evidence that you can double check. (1) MVP shares which show that during their careers, MVP voters valued David Robinson more highly, and (2) the most contemporaneous RealGM Top 100 list we have on record which shows that serious fans valued Robinson more highly 3-6 years after they retired. You offer . . . your opinion and say that your narrative was more widely shared. Let's see some evidence.

[penbeast0]

HERE ARE THE VOTES FOR #13 ON OUR LIST
-1-
penbeast0 -- Mikan (West)
Dr Positivity -- Erving (Dirk)
JordansBulls -- Moses (KMalone)
mischevious -- Oscar (Erving)
-2-
scabbarista -- KMalone (Erving)
Pablo Novi -- Erving (Oscar)
BasketballFan7 -- Erving (Dirk)
winsome gerbil -- KMalone (Oscar)
Hornet Mania -- Oscar (Erving)
janmagn -- KMalone (Mikan)
ardee -- Oscar (West)
Outside -- West (Oscar)
mdonnelly1989 -- Oscar (West)
trex_8063 -- KMalone (Dirk)
-3-
andrewww -- West (Oscar)
SactoKingsFan -- Oscar (West)
Joao Saraiva -- KMalone (Oscar)
Bad Gatorade -- Oscar (West)
drza -- Oscar (West)
-4-
wojoaderge -- Mikan (Moses)
Arman_tanzarian -- West (Oscar)
micahclay -- Oscar (Dirk)

AFTER THE VOTING IS TABULATED IS GOES
Oscar Robertson 6-7
Karl Malone 5 - 6
Jerry West 3-4
Julius Erving 3
George Mikan 2
Moses Malone 1

Moses is elimated with his vote switching to the other Malone, Karl
Mikan is eliminated with one vote to West (and Moses)
Erving is eliminated with one vote to Oscar (and two to Dirk)
West is eliminated with his 3 votes switching to Oscar giving the #13 spot to

OSCAR ROBERTSON