RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #17

[penbeast0]

...

I've been working on a way too long post about Isiah Thomas, as soon as someone votes for Stockton or Paul above him (which I can't wait to tell the guys at the gym and get a good laugh out of them) I'll lay out the case from my point of view as best I can and hope that can break the ice. If not I'll just go back to lingering, comparing my reactions to NBA events with others, using the team forums to see how fan bases are reacting and of course stealing y'all's good ideas when I come across them.

Have a Good Day Powerade!

You sound like some friends from NY state in the early 90s who spent 3 years telling me that Kenny Anderson and Derrick Coleman were better than Stockton and Malone. I watched Stockton, and Isiah, and Anderson, and I thought it was pretty clear that Stockton dominated the game more . . . and said so then. Still think so, advanced stats just happen to match eye test. Not unimpressed with Isiah, just very impressed with Stockton.

When something doesn't meet my preconceptions . . . advanced stats or results, I go back and reevaluate as best I can. When Kobe won rings with Pau Gasol as his 2nd best player, I had to reevaluate his game, which previously I had not been as impressed with as the casual fans. There had to be something there to achieve those results that I had not seen.

Nice to see Detroit still gives Ralph Simpson props.

[trex_8063]

I don't think I'd honestly place Isiah in the top 30, let alone top 20, and this is somebody that acknowledges that he's one of the best playoff PGs of all time.

Those Detroit teams were pretty stacked, man. The current +- footprint of the 80s (i.e. ElGee's WOWY work) actually portrays Thomas as the 3rd highest impact guy on that team behind Rodman and Laimbeer.

That just tells me those numbers are highly flawed and entirely unreliable. That's a ludicrous suggestion. I don't fully understand why so many here put so much stock in numbers that are highly questionable and never even been tested by peer review...

I play basketball on the weekends at a famous Church in Detroit, the scoreboard was donated by Jalen Rose and pictures of George Gervin and Ralph Simpson hang on the wall outside the gym among others. We talk basketball a lot, and advanced metrics never come up. I'm not saying that way of evaluating things is right, or better, but I can tell you I'm just as impressed with their knowledge of the game as I am with the people on here. I think the better approach is somewhere in the middle. If the numbers suggest that a conclusion that the basketball world has long drawn and accepted is wrong, we can't assume the numbers are right, we have to be skeptical. Just as when we see a player like Pete Maravich who is largely revered and selected to the 50@50 team, but the numbers suggest he was a far less impactful player, we can be expected to dig deeper and not just take the reputation at it's word.

I'll be honest, reading your response frustrates me a lot, I just want to laugh at how crazy some of your conclusions sound to me, but I know I'm just not understanding the context from which you're perspective is coming. Just as one example, you write this:

"This isn't to say that Isiah was a bad player at all - he was definitely a good player. But he's one of the key examples of a player whose mythos is drawn from championships/playoff success as opposed to his actual play."

And I have to laugh because Isiah was considered a Superstar by the end of his rookie season. His "mythos" is drawn from eyeballs watching him. You're doing after the fact analysis without the context of what smart people at the time were thinking and saying. That matters. At least to me it does.


I know that you probably don't care much about what the careers of the Bad Boy Pistons were like before that team was assembled or what their reputations were and how that team was able to put everyone (except Isiah) in an ideal spot for their strengths because of just how good Isiah was. Just as I don't care very much about some guy who doesn't use his real name's made up metric. Both have value, but only as much as you or I place on them. I'm here to better understand how you guys have used this amazing data to draw conclusions that seem way off base to me. The problem I'm running into is that you're much better at making your points to each other than someone who does;t share your analytical philosophy and zeitgeist.

I've been working on a way too long post about Isiah Thomas, as soon as someone votes for Stockton or Paul above him (which I can't wait to tell the guys at the gym and get a good laugh out of them) I'll lay out the case from my point of view as best I can and hope that can break the ice. If not I'll just go back to lingering, comparing my reactions to NBA events with others, using the team forums to see how fan bases are reacting and of course stealing y'all's good ideas when I come across them.

Have a Good Day Powerade!

Careful now.
Regardless of their differing opinions, I don't believe anyone has stated anything to the effect of them wanting "to laugh at your conclusions", nor closed their replies with churlish and provocative variations on your forum handle (as you have just done here). Please afford everyone the same respect they are giving you.

[mischievous]

I'm voting Dirk, although it looks he'll get in pretty handily anyhow. This is exactly where i'd have him on my list.

People have pretty much covered why Dirk should be in. Of the guys still not in, he has the best mix of peak, prime, longevity, accolades etc. 2 all time great playoff runs, 2006 and 2011, one title, could've been 2 if Wade didn't go Jordan on them in games 3-6. I like him over Barkley mostly because of longevity, i think Barkley may be slightly better a 6-8 year prime with one year peak being either a wash or slight edge in Dirk's favor. Dirk over Moses, because i see both as mostly offensive players, and Dirk wins at offense over Moses. Dirk over Wade, because of a large prime longevity gap. Dirk over Robinson for longevity and being a significantly better offensive player in the postseason.

2nd Vote: Moses

[JoeMalburg]

Fair enough. I'll just say that I'd highly recommend looking into the impact of Isiah on the city of Detroit and his teammates right from day one.

That will help bridge the gap between our perceptions.

Fair enough. Do you perhaps have some recommended reading I could look into?

And fwiw, I do think Isiah's impact far outstrips his box-based advanced metrics (I have my own WOWY data I harvested a couple years ago, which looks pretty impressive; I'll share when he's gaining more traction).

The Detroit Pistons: capturing a remarkable era, by Jerry Green.

Daly Life, Chuck Daly's memoirs

Jack McCallum's newish Dream team book has a lot of new quotes about Isiah and how he was viewed within the league.

Bill Simmons piece on him in the Book of Basketball is short and hits all the bullet points you'd want to google to learn more about.

The Pistons website had a piece written by Tom Wilson, long time team president about how the Palace was always called "The house that Isiah built" by everyone on the inside because of how much everything changed when Zeke showed up.

This is a good piece from SI https://www.si.com/vault/1987/05/18/115406/theres-just-no-doubting-thomas-isiah-thomas-sparked-the-pistons-to-a-surprising-3-1-playoff-lead-over-atlanta

[JoeMalburg]

I don't think I'd honestly place Isiah in the top 30, let alone top 20, and this is somebody that acknowledges that he's one of the best playoff PGs of all time.

Those Detroit teams were pretty stacked, man. The current +- footprint of the 80s (i.e. ElGee's WOWY work) actually portrays Thomas as the 3rd highest impact guy on that team behind Rodman and Laimbeer.

That just tells me those numbers are highly flawed and entirely unreliable. That's a ludicrous suggestion. I don't fully understand why so many here put so much stock in numbers that are highly questionable and never even been tested by peer review...

I play basketball on the weekends at a famous Church in Detroit, the scoreboard was donated by Jalen Rose and pictures of George Gervin and Ralph Simpson hang on the wall outside the gym among others. We talk basketball a lot, and advanced metrics never come up. I'm not saying that way of evaluating things is right, or better, but I can tell you I'm just as impressed with their knowledge of the game as I am with the people on here. I think the better approach is somewhere in the middle. If the numbers suggest that a conclusion that the basketball world has long drawn and accepted is wrong, we can't assume the numbers are right, we have to be skeptical. Just as when we see a player like Pete Maravich who is largely revered and selected to the 50@50 team, but the numbers suggest he was a far less impactful player, we can be expected to dig deeper and not just take the reputation at it's word.

I'll be honest, reading your response frustrates me a lot, I just want to laugh at how crazy some of your conclusions sound to me, but I know I'm just not understanding the context from which you're perspective is coming. Just as one example, you write this:

"This isn't to say that Isiah was a bad player at all - he was definitely a good player. But he's one of the key examples of a player whose mythos is drawn from championships/playoff success as opposed to his actual play."

And I have to laugh because Isiah was considered a Superstar by the end of his rookie season. His "mythos" is drawn from eyeballs watching him. You're doing after the fact analysis without the context of what smart people at the time were thinking and saying. That matters. At least to me it does.


I know that you probably don't care much about what the careers of the Bad Boy Pistons were like before that team was assembled or what their reputations were and how that team was able to put everyone (except Isiah) in an ideal spot for their strengths because of just how good Isiah was. Just as I don't care very much about some guy who doesn't use his real name's made up metric. Both have value, but only as much as you or I place on them. I'm here to better understand how you guys have used this amazing data to draw conclusions that seem way off base to me. The problem I'm running into is that you're much better at making your points to each other than someone who does;t share your analytical philosophy and zeitgeist.

I've been working on a way too long post about Isiah Thomas, as soon as someone votes for Stockton or Paul above him (which I can't wait to tell the guys at the gym and get a good laugh out of them) I'll lay out the case from my point of view as best I can and hope that can break the ice. If not I'll just go back to lingering, comparing my reactions to NBA events with others, using the team forums to see how fan bases are reacting and of course stealing y'all's good ideas when I come across them.

Have a Good Day Powerade!

Careful now.
Regardless of their differing opinions, I don't believe anyone has stated anything to the effect of them wanting "to laugh at your conclusions", nor closed their replies with churlish and provocative variations on your forum handle (as you have just done here). Please afford everyone the same respect they are giving you.

Have to be honest, If people here are that fragile, I have no interest in engaging further.

I hope you can just assume anything that seems "churlish" is either you misreading it, in good nature, hyperbole or a bad joke.

My intentions are to be honest and direct, if that's so problematic that it outweighs the benefits of conversation. Just delete my account and I'll get the message.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #63:

Dirk Nowitzki - 7 (Bad Gatorade, Dr Positivity, Joao Saraiva, LABird, mischievous, Senior, trex_8063)
David Robinson - 5 (Narigo, Hornet Mania, drza, Doctor MJ, 2klegend)
Moses Malone - 3 (JordansBulls, mdonnelly1989, scabbarista)
Charles Barkley - 2 (Winsome Gerbil, Outside)
George Mikan - 2 (penbeast0, janmagn)
Bob Pettit - 1 (Pablo Novi)

I will leave this thread open for perhaps 4 more hours or so, if anyone else wants to get a word in.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[JoeMalburg]

...

I've been working on a way too long post about Isiah Thomas, as soon as someone votes for Stockton or Paul above him (which I can't wait to tell the guys at the gym and get a good laugh out of them) I'll lay out the case from my point of view as best I can and hope that can break the ice. If not I'll just go back to lingering, comparing my reactions to NBA events with others, using the team forums to see how fan bases are reacting and of course stealing y'all's good ideas when I come across them.

Have a Good Day Powerade!

You sound like some friends from NY state in the early 90s who spent 3 years telling me that Kenny Anderson and Derrick Coleman were better than Stockton and Malone. I watched Stockton, and Isiah, and Anderson, and I thought it was pretty clear that Stockton dominated the game more . . . and said so then. Still think so, advanced stats just happen to match eye test. Not unimpressed with Isiah, just very impressed with Stockton.

When something doesn't meet my preconceptions . . . advanced stats or results, I go back and reevaluate as best I can. When Kobe won rings with Pau Gasol as his 2nd best player, I had to reevaluate his game, which previously I had not been as impressed with as the casual fans. There had to be something there to achieve those results that I had not seen.

Nice to see Detroit still gives Ralph Simpson props.

The beauty is both sides can and will be wrong sometimes and hopefully can admit when they are. Coleman and Anderson should have been better than Malone and Stockton, but they weren't.

I don't think there is a huge gap between Isiah and John because of longevity, but Isiah is in a different tier for me and while they were playing, it was very obvious to me and it felt like the basketball world at large. I was a Joe Dumars guy, liked the named and the humble attitude. I guess I'd put John near the top of a group that was good enough to be my second best player on a title team and Isiah near the bottom of my group above them that were good enough to lead a title team.

[wojoaderge]

The beauty is both sides can and will be wrong sometimes and hopefully can admit when they are. Coleman and Anderson should have been better than Malone and Stockton, but they weren't.

I don't think there is a huge gap between Isiah and John because of longevity, but Isiah is in a different tier for me and while they were playing, it was very obvious to me and it felt like the basketball world at large. I was a Joe Dumars guy, liked the named and the humble attitude. I guess I'd put John near the top of a group that was good enough to be my second best player on a title team and Isiah near the bottom of my group above them that were good enough to lead a title team.

100% agreed on all of this

[pandrade83]

The same can be said for Isiah....

Not really. You would go on to say yourself that by his 12th season......

...he was out of gas. He wasn't an elite player or even close anymore.

And by similar standards, I don't believe he can be argued as an elite player in his rookie year: avg 17.0 ppg @ 48.7% TS [-5.11% rTS; 43.2% eFG and 70.4% FT], 7.8 apg with a 1.89 Ast:TO [poor for a PG, and led the league in TO's], while leading a -1.1 rORTG team (17th of 23).
I mean we can debate semantics, but that is simply not an elite level player to me.


Beyond that, I think you've gone too far in basically giving Isiah credit for the caliber of players that guys like Dumars, Laimbeer, and Rodman were (which I also don't agree with). But I don't want to derail further on this topic before these guys are gaining traction.

Fair enough. I'll just say that I'd highly recommend looking into the impact of Isiah on the city of Detroit and his teammates right from day one.

That will help bridge the gap between our perceptions.

Everything tangible points to Stockton - all the advanced metrics, longevity, etc tells me Stockton's a better player and it's not close.

Tangibles aren't everything though. If Player A is better than Player B on the tangibles, we still need to check intangibles. The biggest things that could sway me to player B would be

1) Quality of Teammate, Leadership, Impact on Team Culture.
Both men are excellent in this area. I don't think there's any credible argument against that. I think you could definitely argue that Isiah is better - but both guys rate very highly in this area - and the gap (for me) isn't so great that it's worth changing your opinion over. We're not talking about a Shaq vs. Duncan situation here.

2) Performance in the clutch. So, the best way I think we can measure this is how did they do in close-out/elimination games.

If you're going to make a case that Isiah is better than Stockton he needs to own this conversation. So, I looked at Isiah's entire career against what we'll call Stockton's prime ('88'-'97); this still gives us a larger sample size for Stockton. I'm building upon Bill Simmons' "42 concept" and adding my own twist.

A "stud" game for this purpose will be: (Points * TS) + Reb + Ast + Stl + Block - TO > 30
A "dud" game for this purpose will be: (Points * TS) + Reb + Ast + Stl + Block - TO < 18

Isiah: 30 games.
20.5 pts, 9.1 ast, 5.0 reb, 2.1 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.1 TO, 54.0% TS.
Stud games (9):
NYK in 84 games 4 & 5, 85 vs. Boston Game 6, 86 vs. Atlanta Game 4, 88 vs. Lakers Game 6, 89 vs. Bucks Game 4, 90 vs. Indy Game 3, 90 vs. Chicago Game 7, 92 vs. NYK Game 5
Dud games (8):
87 vs. Was Game 3, 88 vs. Boston Game 6, 88 vs. LA Game 7 (I'm aware of the sprained ankle but he hurt the team), 89 vs. Boston Game 3, 89 vs. LA Game 4, 90 vs. NYK Game 5, 91 vs. Atlanta Game 4, 91 vs. Chicago Game 4

Stockton: 33 games.
16.5 points, 11.8 ast, 3.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 0.4 blk, 3.3 TO, 62.6% TS.
Stud Games (10):
88 vs. Portland Game 4, 88 vs. Lakers Game 7, 89 vs. GSW Game 3, 91 vs. Por Game 5, 92 vs. LAC game 4, 92 vs. Sea Game 5, 95 vs. Hou Game 4, '96 vs. Portland game 5, 96 vs. Seattle Game 7, '97 vs. Houston Game 6
Dud Games (6): '92 vs. LAC Game 5, '94 vs. Denver Game 7, '94 vs. Houston Game 5, '95 vs. Houston Game 5, '96 vs. Spurs Game 5, '96 vs. Seattle Game 5.

It's easy to remember Isiah's dominant games because he scored a lot but he has dome duds in there. They just aren't as memorable because Detroit won 5 of the games I called "duds" which speaks to the quality of their depth & how much talent those teams had. As I review their performance in these "clutch" games, I'm just not seeing the thing that tips the scales in Isiah's favor if you're going to make a case for him. This should be the area where Isiah does better if you're going to rank him higher, but I don't even see the closeout/elimination games in his favor. This area to me seems like a slight edge for Stockton and further reinforces my opinion - although I went into this exercise with an open mind.

[eminence]

.

His name is Ben

But anywho, I don't see the tier gap you're claiming between Isiah/Stockton, and can't agree that the basketball world at large agreed either. After becoming a starter Stockton finished All-NBA from '88 to '94, while Isiah didn't make any teams during that time (actually through '97, but Isiah was retired, so not relevant here). Finished higher in MVP voting every single one of those years as well.

[JoeMalburg]

Everything tangible points to Stockton - all the advanced metrics, longevity, etc tells me Stockton's a better player and it's not close.

Not counter-arguments, just want your responses:

1) Why was Isiah ranked higher in both Slam lists, the Athlon list, the Doug Collins list, Elliott Kalb's book and Bill Simmons book?

2) Why was Isiah considered a superstar by mainstream media to such a greater degree than Stockton?

3) Why was there such uproar when Stockton made the Dream Team over Isiah?

4) Why do all-time greats like Magic and Jordan think Isiah is a greater player?

5) Why did Isiah's teammates improve more playing alongside him than Stockton's?

[pandrade83]

Everything tangible points to Stockton - all the advanced metrics, longevity, etc tells me Stockton's a better player and it's not close.

Not counter-arguments, just want your responses:

1) Why was Isiah ranked higher in both Slam lists, the Athlon list, the Doug Collins list, Elliott Kalb's book and Bill Simmons book?

2) Why was Isiah considered a superstar by mainstream media to such a greater degree than Stockton?

3) Why was there such uproar when Stockton made the Dream Team over Isiah?

4) Why do all-time greats like Magic and Jordan think Isiah is a greater player?

5) Why did Isiah's teammates improve more playing alongside him than Stockton's?

On #1 & 2 -

As time goes by our understanding of what true impact is continues to improve. Simmons' book didn't even come out that long ago, and knowing what we now know, the rankings don't age well at all - although the stories are still really cool. There wasn't a strong knowledge of efficiency and true impact until fairly recently. Both guys are high impact guys (although Stockton's is higher) but Isiah's impact is more visceral than Stockton's because of the style and the team success plays a part.

Virtually all modern lists have Stockton higher and you need take that into account when you start referencing magazines from the early/mid 90's.

#3 - From what I remember and some quick google searches on the topic, it was more about the how than the what. He basically wasn't on there because MJ didn't want him there - that in itself deserves a lot of uproar.

#4 - Probably because both guys lost to Isiah's teams in a playoff setting. But that comes back to the team aspect of it and we're trying to assess the impact of the individual.

#5 - This is really questionable. A great point guard should lift everyone up offensively and there's nothing telling me that Isiah did this to a greater degree than Stockton - this is pretty much based on your opinion and I'm not conceding this.

One last one for you: Why did Stockton and not Isiah make All NBA every year during their mutual prime?

[THKNKG]

My vote is David Robinson. 2nd vote is Dirk Nowitzki.

I originally had it the other way, but have since flipped. A few reasons why:

1. David Robinson's longevity issues are overstated. He played essentially the exact same amount of games as West did, and that's after entering the league at 24.

2. He had 7 massive impact years, then the injury, then still had ~4 all-NBA caliber years, for a roughly 11 year prime.

3. His post-injury prime years are still massively valuable.

4. His postseason drop off is overstated. I've made a few posts about this throughout.

5. He's the best post-Russell defender.

6. His peak years 94-96 were on a Lebron level of impact, imo. Box score and impact stats we have show this.

7. His non-peak years were all still massively valuable.

I can elaborate more if needed. Basically, I'm not convinced Dirk's impact even with more years matched Robinson's, which is remarkable since IMO Robinson played way out of role most of the time. Dirk just has 2011 on 94-96 level, and then the rest of the prime years are comparable (though I'm welcome to being persuaded otherwise).

[drza]

Wow. Traveling again, won't get a chance to post in depth before deadline. Which kinda sucks, because I feel a great Dirk vs Robinson concept post coming, and by the time I could get to it one or the other (likely Dirk) will be voted in.

I've put my toe into the comp in previous threads, and I'll post it again here, but I think it would have been fun and useful to go further.

Robinson was electric, to my eye test. His tournament run at Navy was some of the most exciting individual play I remember in the NCAA, and when he burst onto the scene in the pros after his tour of duty was up, he immediately looked like one of the best players in the NBA. Before the RPoY project I always felt like Robinson was overly downgraded for the Hakeem series in 95, but in that RPoY project several posters (especially Kaima) did a great job of pointing out how Robinson relatively struggled in 94, 96 and 98 against Karl Malone and the Jazz and used that as a basis for arguing that Robinson's playoff issues weren't just a Hakeem 95 thing, but a systemic issue. Subsequent research, posts and project discussions about Robinson's mechanisms of impact have been convincing that Robinson's game really does have tangible difficulty to be the focal iso-scoring lead in the playoffs...and that his overall offensive game wasn't diverse enough to maintain his offensive impact in the postseason. There is even some evidence that in the postseason in his peak, while trying to carry the load on both ends against some tough competition, Robinson's defensive impact slid a bit as well. These are all issues.

However, we have more information than that to work with to try to peg Robinson's level. It shouldn't have come as a shock to anyone, but Robinson's regular season on/off +/- data did peg him as the highest regular season impact player of the mid-90s (94 - 96). That's expected, but it is good to be able to quantify that. However, we also have quantitative impact estimates for another time period that is often minimized/ignored for Robinson...the 98 - 2000 period that has historically been considered the "Duncan era".

While it is unarguable that Duncan's presence as the focal point of the Spurs was huge in bringing the Spurs to championship level, and probably made the game much easier for Robinson...and while one could also strongly argue that Duncan may have been the actual leader of those teams and the player that opponents game-planned for...it's ALSO clear from the RAPM results that Robinson was having just about as much impact on the scoring margins of those 98 - 00 Spurs as Duncan was. Robinson was the defensive anchor on those teams, and with Timmy there as another offensive focus Robinson's offense was also able to flourish. And even in the postseason, the available on/off +/- numbers suggest that Robinson was able to maintain his huge regular season impact into the postseason in this era. Again, when we compare Robinson's postseason impact in the Duncan era to his impact at his peak, I think we have to credit Duncan's presence with making the game easier for him to maintain his best impact. However...that doesn't disqualify the impact itself. And I think that it also suggests that, while a team wouldn't want to move forward with Robinson as their focal offensive player, that a team that allows him to play to his strengths would be getting very possibly the highest impact player in the NBA in both the regular and post season.

Dirk played his whole career in the databall era, so we have the ability to measure/estimate his impact at a granularity that isn't available for previous generations. In both the regular and the postseason. He was a unique beast as a player, in that there isn't really a template for how a 7-footer with the offensive/scoring abilities of an elite wing can affect the game. What we saw, in practice, was that Dirk was able to make a very high impact on the game for much of the 2000s...he was regularly among the top 10, if not top-5, in the league as far as individual regular season impacts while carrying very successful teams.

But, while he actually improved on many of his boxscore stats in the postseason, he didn't have a very strong postseason impact run for most of the 2000s. I've argued, in the past, that those lower playoffs +/- numbers may have come from teams not distorting their defenses to defend him in the postseason the way that they did in the regular season. That teams may have been more willing to play Dirk straight up and let him get his as he could in the postseason, which allowed him to improve his scoring volume/efficiency, but may have weakened his spacing impact. That some of the teams would go so far as to defend Dirk with a wing instead of a big man, which further may have allowed him to get his but weakened his spacing impact on his team's results. And (as I've been arguing more and more in recent times), I think that a player's impact on team results can be much more important than his own scoring numbers, when it comes to estimating his overall impact.

Up through most of the 2000s, then, I'd argue that Dirk's seasons were similar impact-wise (in both the regular season and the playoffs) to what we saw from 90s Karl Malone. Malone's postseason scoring numbers dipped, unlike Dirk's, but again I don't know that Dirk's boxscore numbers were indicative of his actual impact. And in the larger regular season samples, both Karl (as measured by the available +/- numbers from 1994 on) and Dirk measured out in that top 5 - 10 players in the NBA range in the regular season and had trouble maintaining that in the postseason.

However, in the late 2000s up through 2011, Dirk upped his game. He added a more effective iso post game on offense, that took him out of the range of 7-foot scoring wing and gave him a legit big-boy component to his game. Thereafter, teams that tried to defend him with Stephen Jackson types would get punished. Also, I'd argue that by diversifying his scoring mechanisms an operating more from the post, it changed Dirk's center of offensive gravity and caused defenses to have to react to him in a more dynamic way. His shooting still provided interior spacing by bringing folks out, but his post-game could pull defenses more into the paint and make life a breeze for guys like Jason Terry. And his ability to partner the pick and roll/pop did the same, most famously around here for guys like J.J. Barea. And it's this late-prime modification to his game that separates Dirk from a player like Karl Malone, who also developed and diversified his offensive game in his late-prime to become a bigger offensive impact player...but never was able to do so to the full extent/effectiveness demonstrated by late-prime Dirk.

Overall: each of West, Robinson an Dirk had both a demonstrated/measurable all-time level impact that neither Erving, the Malones, or anyone else up in this category were able to match. However, each also had warts/limitations that kept them from going even higher on this list. To me, that means that right here is the exact right time to be discussing all three. And I'm not sure which is the correct order for the three. However, at the moment, Robinson's all-time defense in addition to his ability to operate at high level impacts as a secondary offensive threat (which is actually ideal for almost all big men) seems like the most effective of these three in the widest array of possibilities. West's injuries bother me, especially compared to a relative iron man like Dirk, but he also seemed to maintain his impact better throughout the course of his career...perhaps because his impact didn't rely so heavily on how teams chose to defend him, the way that Dirk's did until his post-game came into focus. Again, could be argued in any number of directions here (including with players that I didn't focus on), but having come in at this late stage of the thread, for now I have to just pick an order to vote, and then hope to have better discussions moving forward.

[Joao Saraiva]

My vote is David Robinson. 2nd vote is Dirk Nowitzki.

I originally had it the other way, but have since flipped. A few reasons why:

1. David Robinson's longevity issues are overstated. He played essentially the exact same amount of games as West did, and that's after entering the league at 24.

2. He had 7 massive impact years, then the injury, then still had ~4 all-NBA caliber years, for a roughly 11 year prime.

3. His post-injury prime years are still massively valuable.

4. His postseason drop off is overstated. I've made a few posts about this throughout.

5. He's the best post-Russell defender.

6. His peak years 94-96 were on a Lebron level of impact, imo. Box score and impact stats we have show this.

7. His non-peak years were all still massively valuable.

I can elaborate more if needed. Basically, I'm not convinced Dirk's impact even with more years matched Robinson's, which is remarkable since IMO Robinson played way out of role most of the time. Dirk just has 2011 on 94-96 level, and then the rest of the prime years are comparable (though I'm welcome to being persuaded otherwise).

Well... I don't think Robinson mathes LeBron's best years from 94 to 96.

PER numbers on post seasons:
22.6
29.1
24.1

LeBron has 5 seasons above that PER (29.1). The other two are not even in the same page.

WS/48
10.5
17.6
21.4

LeBron has 7 seasons above 21.4 WS/48.

Now that it's out of the way... Let's look at Dirk Nowitzki.
While he never 29.1 PER in the playoffs, he has 5 of their best 6 seasons in that regard.

In WS/48 Dirk has the 3 best post season runs between them.

Dirk was always a better #1 option than David Robinson on offense. His efficiency was superb, and his volume was great too. On top of that Dirk has really low TOV%. So that makes all his box score stats look as positive impact. I can't say the same about D-Rob, who was far less efficient.

Box metrics sure don't take into account all that D-Rob put as positive impact (defense is usually underrated) but they also don't with Dirk (gravity, spacing).

I also think Hakeem was a better defender than D-Rob, so saying D-Rob is the best defender since Russell is a personal opinion (I respect that, but it's not like it isn't debatable).

Just some food for thought. I voted Dirk but can see a case for D-Rob.

[andrewww]

Vote: Dirk Nowitzki
Alternate: David Robinson

DIrk is the most accomplished player of the serious candidates remaining, and was the best go-to scorer when it mattered. Admiral is in contention because he is the best two-way player remaining, though his dip in efficiency in the playoffs concerns me in this regard. Chuck was an offensive juggernaut, but questionable defensively. I could stand to be convinced about Moses. KD actually has the body of work to be in the discussion, and is a better version of Dirk imo. But currently Dirk trumps him in his overall body of work, but I see KD eventually surpassing a player whose game is comparable.

[Winsome Gerbil]

DIrk is the most accomplished player of the serious candidates remaining,

Wondering how so?

All the serious candidates are fellow MVPs. Moses is a 3x MVP. Admiral also a DPOY and has more titles. Roughly equal number of All NBA titles...only stat Dirk really leads anybody in is career points. So...?

[andrewww]

DIrk is the most accomplished player of the serious candidates remaining,

Wondering how so?

All the serious candidates are fellow MVPs. Moses is a 3x MVP. Admiral also a DPOY and has more titles. Roughly equal number of All NBA titles...only stat Dirk really leads anybody in is career points. So...?

Overall body of work, but this is subjective. Moses is absolutely in the discussion. I do think Moses may have had the "weakest" skill set amongst the serious candidates, but there's no questioning his role on the 83 Sixers. He gets the realgm Kobe treatment from me where I legit think his accolades may have slightly over represented how good he was.

Chuck was scary good too, I don't think his defense was that much different from Dirk's tbh.

I have Dirk/Admiral/Chuck/Moses as the next 4.

[Lou Fan]

I am still in my trial period and therefore cannot vote, but if I could I would vote for Dirk Nowitzki. He had just as good of a prime as all of the players still left (you could argue Chuck and D-Rob), but with more longevity. I give Dirk the edge over the Admiral because he was far superior offensively in the playoffs. Robinson's tendency to underperform against other great centers really drops him in my eyes, while Dirk stepped up and beat the Big 3 in Miami. Dirk was also a much better "go-to" scorer. In the big moments you could just give Dirk the ball and get out of the way. Chuck and Dirk is incredibly close in my eyes. Winsome Gerbil laid out some great statistics that show how close they were on both sides of the court (he argued Chuck was slightly better). When two players are that close you have to nitpick to choose which one to rank higher. I put Dirk above Chuck for 3 reasons. 1. He spaces the floor better than Chuck as he never developed a reliable 3 point shot. 2. Personally I would trust Dirk to make a big shot in the clutch/lead my team to playoff victories. Dirk's fadeaway is a reliable go-to move in all scenarios. 3. Chuck has a somewhat divisive personality and Dirk seems to be a good leader and gets along with everyone. Alternative Hypothetical Vote: Charles Barkley

[Joey Wheeler]

Everything tangible points to Stockton - all the advanced metrics, longevity, etc tells me Stockton's a better player and it's not close.

Not counter-arguments, just want your responses:

1) Why was Isiah ranked higher in both Slam lists, the Athlon list, the Doug Collins list, Elliott Kalb's book and Bill Simmons book?

2) Why was Isiah considered a superstar by mainstream media to such a greater degree than Stockton?

3) Why was there such uproar when Stockton made the Dream Team over Isiah?

4) Why do all-time greats like Magic and Jordan think Isiah is a greater player?

5) Why did Isiah's teammates improve more playing alongside him than Stockton's?

People and the media hated Isiah at the time because everyone loved Magic, Bird and Jordan and Isiah has a positive playoff H2H record against ALL of them and really roughed them up on defense with a style that was considered 'ugly'.

Isiah was a hell of a player and he wasn't about his own stats, he did whatever was necessary for the team to win; he could go and drop 20 in a quarter, he could focus on setting up his teammates or he could just as easily focus on slowing down the tempo of the game. He made everyone around him better and was the leader of that team on and off the court, the rest of the squad went to war for him.

He wasn't just the leader and best player of a 'championship team', he was the leader of a (mini)dynasty that put an end to the dinasties of Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers while delaying Jordan's Bulls. And that's ultimately why he'll never get the recognition he deserves, he'll be undermined at every turn because he beat the teams and players everyone loved.