RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10

[Joao Saraiva]

Alright I'm going to make my argument to prevent KG camp from making a joke out of the Top 10.

With so many people center on KG impact based on his RAPM (mostly on the Regular Basis because that is where he shine the most). BUT what people don't understand is that when you are evaluating all-time level talent, especially those in the Top 10, you MUST account for what they do in the postseason. This is WHY Hakeem is the consensus SUPERIOR player to D-Rob and rank several GOAT rank higher despite the fact D-Rob is better than Hakeem in every statistical measurement in the regular season.

With RAPM limit to regular and year basis, the closest we can use is the simple box-score based OBPM and DBPM. I like to see at these two players we are going to argue the most in here, Bird vs KG.

In Playoff OBPM,

Bird was...

10th in 1980
3rd in 1981
10th in 1982
7th in 1983
2nd in 1984
1st in 1986

KG was...

7th in 2001

You got that right, just ONE time in the Top 10 PS OBPM performer.


Defensively, while KG showed much stronger argument but Bird wasn't actually that bad!

Bird was...

6th in 1980
2nd in 1981
2nd in 1982
2nd in 1983
6th in 1984
8th in 1987
8th in 1988

KG was

3rd in 1998
8th in 1999
5th in 2000
6th in 2001
3rd in 2003
2nd in 2004
8th in 2011
1st in 2013
6th in 2014

All in all, it appears their defensive performance relative to their era and league leader were close enough but offensively, Bird was on a different universe and level than KG in the postseason. This is why we must evaluate Top-10 level in the PS production.

1st pick: Bird
2nd pick: Kobe

I'd be careful using stats like BPM to make such statements.

Some defensive stats are actually very team oriented, and some of them are brought in to explain what the offensive stats don't.

While they're nice to Bird I think it comes a lot with the profit of playing with McHale and Parish.

There is no doubt in my mind that KG was the superior defender.

Just like there is no doubt in my mind Bird, Dirk or Kobe were better offensive players.

[Purch]

I think its about time to talk about Charles Barkley

The only player to win an Mvp over Jordan in his absolute prime.

Charles Barkley

Career Leaders and Records for Offensive Rating

1. Chris Paul 122.44 (G)
2. Reggie Miller 121.48 (SG)
3. Magic Johnson* 120.79 (PG-Point F)
4. John Stockton* 120.55 (PG)
5. Kiki Vandeweghe 119.49 (SF-SG)
6. Sidney Moncrief 119.40 (CG-PG)
7. Charles Barkley* 119.31 (PF)

SHOT MADE/MISS DIFFERENTIAL STAT-
(minimum 15,000 shot attempts)

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: +3,367.5
2. Shaquille O'Neal: +3,200.5
3. Wilt Chamberlain: +1,865
4. Charles Barkley: +1,434

NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating


1. Michael Jordan* 27.91
2. LeBron James 26.91
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.43
4. David Robinson* 26.18
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
6. Dwyane Wade 25.65
7. Bob Pettit* 25.35
8. Chris Paul 25.22
9. Tim Duncan 24.84
10. Neil Johnston* 24.63
11. Charles Barkley* 24.63

NBA & ABA Career Playoff Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating


1. Michael Jordan* 28.59
2. George Mikan* 28.51
3. LeBron James 26.31
4. Shaquille O'Neal 26.12
5. Hakeem Olajuwon* 25.69
6. Tim Duncan 25.43
7. Dirk Nowitzki 24.75
8. Tracy McGrady 24.66
9. Dwyane Wade 24.56
10. Charles Barkley* 24.18

Nba all time career leaders in True Shooting %

1. Cedric Maxwell .6294
2. Artis Gilmore .6227
3. Dave Twardzik .6184
4. James Donaldson .6177
5. Adrian Dantley .6166
6. Tyson Chandler .6166
7. Reggie Miler .6139
8. Charles Barkley .6120

Most seasons with a 2 point percentage of 60% or more ( playing at least 60 games)

1 Artis Gilmore 1981 1986 6
2 Charles Barkley 1987 1991 5
3 Tyson Chandler 2007 2013 5
4 Wilt Chamberlain 1967 1973 3


The common theme you see in a lot of these efficiency stats, is that role players who have a lot of baskets created for them are near the top. However, with Barkley you have a player near the top in all these effiency stats, who at the same time was one of the single most double teamed players in nba history.



Charles Barkley playoff games
Charles Barkley – 1 (50 point playoff game)
Charles Barkley- 5 (40 point playoff game)
Charles Barkley- 28 (30 point playoff games)

For comparison Kevin Garnett has only scored 30 points in 9 playoff games.

The more I watch of Barkley and Garnett, the more I'm convinced that the gap between them offensively, is almost as substantial as the gap between them defensively. With Barkley you literally have a 6'4 power foward, scoring the ball with Shaq level efficiency during his prime.

For four straight years during his prime he led the league in True shooting percentage.

1986-1987- .660
1987-1988- .665
1988-1989- .653
1989-1990- .661

For comparison sake, Kevin Garnett does not have a single season of 60 TS% or better. Whiles Barkley is ranked #9 in career TS% and has a career TS% of .6120, Kevin Garnett is ranked #193 all time with a TS% of only .5472 for his career.


And he was doing this whiles being one of the most double teamed players in nba history.There's literally less than a handful of players in nba history who have been able to score as much at as high an efficiency against both playoff and regular season defenses as Charles Barkley. The only guys who have, have already been voted in as top 5 players in this project.

Also I forgot to add on, just how good Charles Barkley was on the offensive glass. For three straight seasons he led the league in offensive rebounds

1986-1987- 390 offensive rebounds
1987-1988- 385 offensive rebounds
1988-1989- 403 offensive rebounds

For his career he's ranked 6th all time in offensive rebounds

1. Moses Malone -7382
2. Artis Gilmore - 4816
3. Robert Parish -4598
4. Buck Williams- 4526
5. Dennis Rodman-4329
6. Charles Barkley- 4260

This is even more impressive considering he only played a 15 year career, and a lot of those were after his body broke down.

[Purch]

Karl Malone

His averages for 16 years between 1986-2003

22/10/2
28/12/2
29/11/3
31/11/3
29/12/3
28/11/3
27/11/4
25/12/4
27/11/4
26/10/4
27/10/4
27/10/5
24/9/4
26/10/4
23/8/5
22/9/4
21/8/5


In the 11 straight bolded seasons from 1989-1999 he was all nba 1st team.

If you want to talk about player durability look no further than Karl Malone.

In 17 out of his 19 seasons he played 80 or more games
For comparison Kevin Garnett has only played 80 games 8 out of the 19 years of his career
Not only that but Malone accomplished this whiles playing 2,624 more playoff minutes than Garnett in his career

He's the oldest player in Nba history to win Mvp at age 35.


His longevity in the playoffs is just as impressive

22/8/1
20/10/1
30/12/2
31/16/1
25/10/2
30/13/3
29/11/3
24/10/2
27/12/3
30/13/4
27/10/4
26/11/3
26/10/3
22/11/5
27/9/3
28/9/3
20/8/5
20/7/4

That's an 18 year span in the post season

So if you guys are criticizing Magic and Bird for their durability and longevity, that same focus should be propelling Malone up in these rankings.


Also for you guys who put great value in the "player efficency stat" or "PER"rating, Malone's consistency in that statistic speaks for itself.

For 13 seasons from 1988-2001 Karl Malone was top 5 in "PER" in a league that included extremely efficient players like ; David Robinson, Shaq, Barkley, Ewing, Hakeem and Jordan all in their prime

1988-1989 - #5 In PER (24.4)
1989-1990- #2 In PER (27.2)
1990-1991- #5 In Per (24.8)
1991-1992- #3 in PER (25.4)
1992-1993- #3 in PER (26.2)
1993-1994- #5 in PER (22.9)
1994-1995- #5 In Per (25.1)
1995-1996- #4 in PER (26.0)
1996-1997- #1 in Per (28.9)
1997-1998- #2 in Per (27.9)
1998-1999- #2 in Per (25.6)
1999-2000- #2 in PER (27.1)
2000-2001- #4 In Per (24.7)

That shows ridiculous efficiency over such a long period of time. That very few can match

Also for you guys who seem to value win shares as a legitimate stat.. Malone was consistently elite in that as well


1988-1989 - #5 in Win Shares (15.2)
1989-1990- #4 in Win Shares (15.9)
1990-1991- #3 in Win Shares (15.5)
1991-1992- #2 in Win Shares (15.1)
1992-1993- #3 in Win Shares (15.4)
1993-1994- #4 In Win Shares (13.4)
1994-1995- #4 in Win Shares (13.8)
1995-1996- #3 in Win Shares (15.1)
1996-1997- #2 in Win Shares (16.7)
1997-1998- #1 in Win Shares (16.4)
1998-1999- #1 in Win Shares (9.6)
1999-2000- #2 in Win Shares (15.3)
2000-2001- #5 in Win Shares (13.1)

That again is 13 straight years of being top 5 in the league in Win Shares.

In Offensive win Shares he's 6th all time trailing only Jordan, Oscar, Kareem, Wilt and Stockton.

In Defensive win shares he's a 6th all time (Ahead of Garnett) only trailing Russell, Duncan,Kareem , Hakeem and Wilt

For his career he only trails Wilt Chamberlin and Kareem in total win shares, he's 3rd all time.

So for a 13 year span from age 24-37 Malone was top 5 in PER and WIN Shares every single year, whiles being top 5 in the league in Points per game every single one of those years


Comparing the longevity of Karl Malone and Hakeem

Seasons played

Malone-19
Hakeem-18

Seasons played averaging 30+ Minutes

Malone-19
Hakeem-15

Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-17
Hakeem-12

Post Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-18
Hakeem-12


All Nba 1st teams

Malone-11
Hakeem-6

Seasons shooting 50%TS or more

Malone-19
Hakeem-16

Seasons with an offensive rating of 100+ or more

Malone-18
Hakeem-16

Seasons playing 80 or more games

Malone- 17
Hakeem- 5

Seasons missing 20+ games

Hakeem-6
Malone-2

Seasons being Top 5 in WIN SHARES

Malone-13
Hakeem-2

Seasons being Top 5 in PER

Malone-13
Hakeem-7

[scrabbarista]

.

[Lucky707]

Can somebody make some vote counting? The KG vs rest of the world is heating up

Bird is very comfortably ahead right now. There is no way KG can win because all 6 of the Kobe voters have Bird at #2.

On a further note, I think KG voters are more likely to "go against the flow", so to speak, and challenge conventional thinking. As a result, you'll see a few of them with #2 votes that aren't repeated by anyone else (ie. the Dirk and DRob #2 votes).

[scrabbarista]

I'm not considering either at this point, but I don't get why Dirk>Karl Malone is a given in so many people's eyes. Dirk's a better offensive player at least in the postseason, but Malone was a super iron man and giving you legit 2 way production for basically 18 ish years. Dirk has 06 and 11 as his great playoff runs, but Malone also has his share of postseason success.

My guess is two things. The championship, obviously, but also, based on the eye-test, Malone could be stopped by the highest levels of defense. Dirk, on the other hand, gave the impression that when he was at his peak, no one who ever lived could stop him from getting the bucket that his team needed. I still have Malone higher, because that's what my formula gives me, but if I didn't have a formula and was just going on my gut, I honestly would probably have Dirk higher.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Karl Malone is certainly a difficult player to evaluate. I feel like he has a case over Bird, Kobe or Dirk... but I really can't get over some lack of playoff performance (by this standards, I don't mean he was horrible or something most of the time, but he certainly decreased his play in playoff time).

I'd say 92, 94 and 98 were his best runs, at all time great level. But for a guy with so many playoff runs it doesn't seem like a good ratio when competing for such high spot.

If I'm allowed I'll still vote for him above KG, but I don't think Malone will get my vote before Bird, Kobe and Dirk.

Karl Malone has a crushing advantage over Dirk, for his entire career, as a rebounder, a defender, a passer.

While Dirk is lauded for longevity, like KG he pales before the machine that was the Mailman. The longer Dirk goes, the more his career stats plummet.

Right now we are talking about:

Mailman 1476 54852min 25.0pts (.577TS%) 10.1reb 3.6ast 1.4stl 0.8blk 3.1TO
Nowitzki 1394 48673min 21.7pts (.578TS%) 7.8reb 2.5ast 0.8stl 0.9blk 1.7TO

Those gaps are only going to broaden the longer Dirk hangs on. Dirk has had great longevity, but he's just hanging on now and fighting a deteriorating body. It wasn't until Mailman's very last season that the machine finally broke down. He crushes all these guys depending on "I hung around" arguments for greatness, because he didn't just hang around.

And while Dirk absolutely deserves credit for being a playoff performer, and Mailman was rarely truly up to his normal snuff, if you cut through the fast pace that Dirk played at in his younger years, and the slower pace the Jazz (and perhaps much of 90s basketball) played at, these are the playoff per 100 numbers for both guys:

Playoff Per 100
Mailman 193gms 32.6pts 14.1reb 4.2ast 1.8stl 0.9blk 3.8TO
Nowitzki 145gms 32.8pts 12.9reb 3.2ast 1.3stl 1.2blk 2.9TO

and let's look at those playoff shooting efficiency stats:
Mailman .463FG% 0.0-0.3 3pt 8.7-11.8FT .736
Nowitzki .462FG% 1.3-3.7 3pt 9.6-10.8FT .892


So this is what you have:

1) Mailman persisting at a considerably higher level, and just dusting Dirk's career regular season stats. The gap is even larger in the playoffs where Mailman churned out 50 more games than Dirk ever reached (Mailman has 4761pts 2062reb 610ast in the playoffs, Dirk 3663-1446-360).
2) Even with Dirk playing above his head in the playoffs, and Mailman playing below his standards, Dirk probably still falls slightly short of Mailman in playoff productivity once you look through pace.
3) Where Dirk DOES have a playoff edge is in scoring efficiency, but that's it. And what is it? Does he shoot for a higher percentage? No. They are virtually identical. But Dirk hits a three a game, and he shoots his FTs at a higher percentage.

So there, point #3 is what you have to base an entire Dirk > Mailman argument on, despite the heavy pummeling he takes in the face of Mailman's all around excellence just forever.

That's another way of saying that Dirk, like KG, doesn't measure up to Mailman's relentless excellence for almost 20 years.

[Joao Saraiva]

Karl Malone is certainly a difficult player to evaluate. I feel like he has a case over Bird, Kobe or Dirk... but I really can't get over some lack of playoff performance (by this standards, I don't mean he was horrible or something most of the time, but he certainly decreased his play in playoff time).

I'd say 92, 94 and 98 were his best runs, at all time great level. But for a guy with so many playoff runs it doesn't seem like a good ratio when competing for such high spot.

If I'm allowed I'll still vote for him above KG, but I don't think Malone will get my vote before Bird, Kobe and Dirk.

Karl Malone has a crushing advantage over Dirk, for his entire career, as a rebounder, a defender, a passer.

While Dirk is lauded for longevity, like KG he pales before the machine that was the Mailman. The longer Dirk goes, the more his career stats plummet.

Right now we are talking about:

Mailman 1476 54852min 25.0pts (.577TS%) 10.1reb 3.6ast 1.4stl 0.8blk 3.1TO
Nowitzki 1394 48673min 21.7pts (.578TS%) 7.8reb 2.5ast 0.8stl 0.9blk 1.7TO

Those gaps are only going to broaden the longer Dirk hangs on. Dirk has had great longevity, but he's just hanging on now and fighting a deteriorating body. It wasn't until Mailman's very last season that the machine finally broke down. He crushes all these guys depending on "I hung around" arguments for greatness, because he didn't just hang around.

And while Dirk absolutely deserves credit for being a playoff performer, and Mailman was rarely truly up to his normal snuff, if you cut through the fast pace that Dirk played at in his younger years, and the slower pace the Jazz (and perhaps much of 90s basketball) played at, these are the playoff per 100 numbers for both guys:

Playoff Per 100
Mailman 193gms 32.6pts 14.1reb 4.2ast 1.8stl 0.9blk 3.8TO
Nowitzki 145gms 32.8pts 12.9reb 3.2ast 1.3stl 1.2blk 2.9TO

and let's look at those playoff shooting efficiency stats:
Mailman .463FG% 0.0-0.3 3pt 8.7-11.8FT .736
Nowitzki .462FG% 1.3-3.7 3pt 9.6-10.8FT .892


So this is what you have:

1) Mailman persisting at a considerably higher level, and just dusting Dirk's career regular season stats.
2) Even with Dirk playing above his head in the playoffs, and Mailman playing below his standards, Dirk probably still falls slightly short of Mailman in playoff productivity once you look through pace.
3) Where Dirk DOES have a playoff edge is in scoring efficiency, but that's it. And what is it? Does he shoot for a higher percentage? No. He hits a three, and he shoots his FTs at a higher percentage.

So there, point #3 is what you have to base an entire Dirk . Mailman argument on, despite the heavy pummeling he takes in the face of Mailman's all around excellence just forever.

That's another way of saying that Dirk, like KG, doesn't measure up to Mailman's relentless excellence for almost 20 years.

Well hitting 3s and shooting FTs is useful.

If Dirk was in Malone's shoes in the 97 finals that would have helped.

I also believe Dirk pulled more gravity effect than Malone.

Also the fact that Dirk is only better at one thing (scoring) doesn't mean it isn't better than Malone.

I'd also like to point Malone was very turn over prone. Dirk, however, has some of the lowest TOV% I can recall. Large gaps on ts% and TOV% mean that Dirk's production comes with much more excellence than Malone's, and everything on the box score is usually coming with only positive production. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well here.

I can see the case for Malone > Dirk tough like you say. Maybe I'll vote for him before I vote for Dirk, I really got to think about that. I'm not even sure I shouldn't be voting for Malone right after Bird, but I feel that would be a bit unfair to Kobe too.

I think this is one of the parts where making a top 100 is very difficult. A ton of guys start having great arguments right about now.

Btw how do you feel about a Malone vs Jerry West comparison? Or Malone vs Oscar Robertson?

EDIT: I'm also not a big fan of pace adjustment to per 100, I've explained it earlier when discussing KAJ. But still useful.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Btw how do you feel about a Malone vs Jerry West comparison? Or Malone vs Oscar Robertson?

Yeah, those two are very interesting. Such complete apples and oranges.

Obviously I am going to tout Mailman over both as my #11 here, but the more on point comparisons become Oscar v. Kobe v. West. Now I had Oscar in my Top 10 until the last decade. What he did was spectacular and revolutionary, and I am steadfast on Oscar as > West by several spots. But Oscar v. Kobe is blurry for me.

[eminence]

Vote: Kevin Garnett
-drza's post on playoff performance alleviated one of the small concerns I did still hold about KG's game (relative to where I rank him, I already had him a clear tier up from everyone else left on the board)
-Nobody left on the board has a good argument for more defensive career value than KG
-Exactly the type of player to get badly underrated on offense by the casual fan (game built on being a hub/spacing/screen setting), but overall a very strong All-NBA offensive player as well

Alternate: Dirk Nowitzki
-Been impressed with a couple of arguments presented on Dirk's offensive resiliency, and in turn feel much better about his middle years than before
-Just looking through on my own I think his early Nash years were also generally under-appreciated at the time (seems to be a general trend of most players having their first few years underrated, but KG/Dirk are some of the more extreme examples I've found so far)

Other: Would really love to hear more on Oscar in the coming threads. I have him clear of West, but would like to see discussion on him vs Bird/Kobe/Dirk/maybe Robinson?

[penbeast0]

...
But my question to you, that I have the most interest in and hope you respond to is...when you look at the whole of the evidence, in context, do you still believe that Garnett was NOT majorly helping his teams even in the years that his scoring efficiency dropped? And if not...how do you explain his teams' performances?

Ok, I agree that Robinson's series was worse. Dennis Rodman was up to his antics and Dale Ellis was also ice cold but Robinson, as alpha dog, couldn't harness them to all pull together.

I do agree that Garnett was helping his team. Of course he was, he was a terrific defensive anchor. Robinson was that too of course (it was mainly Rodman on Malone, Terry Cummings/JR Reid the game Rodman was suspended). Both teams only made the playoffs because their star was a great player. Did they outperform their abilities in the playoffs? I'm not seeing it. And yes, I dock David Robinson for his playoff performances as well.

But what you say is that Garnett's skillset and playmaking make up for his poor playoff shooting in the team context of the TWolves. The team offensive efficiency dropped reasonably significantly which implies that these factors didn't make up for his poor shooting performance. I haven't done the analysis for each of Garnett's runs the way you have but one thing I'd love for you to look at is how his team's offense performed in the playoff v. their regular season standard. We have done it for his individual performance . . . Garnett was one of the ATGs that had serious efficiency drops in the playoffs. For you to argue that his skills and playmaking made that irrelevant, it seems you have to show that those skills and playmaking helped his team compensate when his scoring was off as it seemed to be so often in the playoffs. In 2000, I would have to argue they didn't.

[JoeMalburg]

Olajuwon over Bird seems like a pretty huge misstep. Olajuwon never reached the level Bird did and was far less consistent.

I can't think of a single reason I'd have Dream ahead of Bird that pertains to what they accomplished as players.

Way, way off here guys.

[Purch]

Olajuwon over Bird seems like a pretty huge misstep. Olajuwon never reached the level Bird did and was far less consistent.

I can't think of a single reason I'd have Dream ahead of Bird that pertains to what they accomplished as players.

Way, way off here guys.

I don't see how you can say 93/94 Hakeem wasnt at Bird's level. Care to eloborate?

[JoeMalburg]

Olajuwon over Bird seems like a pretty huge misstep. Olajuwon never reached the level Bird did and was far less consistent.

I can't think of a single reason I'd have Dream ahead of Bird that pertains to what they accomplished as players.

Way, way off here guys.

I don't see how you can say 93/94 Hakeem wasnt at Bird's level. Care to eloborate?

Because Hakeem was even better in 1993 and yet with the Suns healthy and Jordan still suiting up for the Bulls, neither he or his team was the elite of the elite. That's what we are talking about here. Bird is a three-time MVP, three-time Champion as his teams best player and a guy who was considered possibly the greatest ever to play the game while he was playing. Only 6-8 other guys can make that claim and none of them are named Hakeem Olajuwon. He can't claim none of those three achievements.


Hakeem was damn close, but a half a tier lower, he did not win the MVP in 1993 (he could have and it'd been fine) didn't win the MVP in 1995, nor was he even close as his team struggled to the sixth seed and got extremely lucky with injuries to the Suns in the second round. In fact other than '94 and '95, the Rockets were rarely even contenders for the title during Hakeem's prime.

During Bird's best stretch (84-87), the Celtics made the Finals ever year, Bird won three straight MVP's and put up equally great numbers in the fourth season.

Bird was only going to lose to teams with players as good or greater than him. The same can not be said about Hakeem.

Also having lived through both eras, the perception of Hakeem was that he was on the level of Barkley, Robinson, Malone etc. Not Jordan, Bird or Magic. Not at any time while he was playing did his name come up as being on their level.

Additionally and what makes it most definitive for me, up until about 7 years ago the consensus top six was and had been for some time, Wilt, Russ, MJ, KAJ, Magic and Bird. It took more than a decade of retirement and distance from Hakeem's career before he started moving into the elite group. That makes no sense. All the guys I rank above him have been considered the greatest of all-time or on their way to possibly becoming that. Hakeem never entered that conversation. Look into all the top 50 all-time stuff that came out during the NBA @ Fifty celebration in 1997 and the years after. You'll see Hakeem ranked 15-20 most often. I like expanding our knowledge and understanding of a player with time and review of statistics, but I'm not into changing the narrative of their career after it's already played out.

Hakeem to me is number 12 all-time and I'll never have him any higher. He won his two titles in seasons where Jordan was sitting out and the Suns suffered major injuries to Barkley and/or KJ during their series and both times the Suns were in control (up 2-0 and 3-1) before those injuries. Still it's because he did win those titles that he gets elevated above the likes of West, Oscar, Doctor J, Moses, Barkley, Malone, Dirk, KG etc. in my opinion and I am okay with that, even if my eyes tell me Barkley was better for sure.

[eminence]

Spoiler:

...
But my question to you, that I have the most interest in and hope you respond to is...when you look at the whole of the evidence, in context, do you still believe that Garnett was NOT majorly helping his teams even in the years that his scoring efficiency dropped? And if not...how do you explain his teams' performances?

Ok, I agree that Robinson's series was worse. Dennis Rodman was up to his antics and Dale Ellis was also ice cold but Robinson, as alpha dog, couldn't harness them to all pull together.

I do agree that Garnett was helping his team. Of course he was, he was a terrific defensive anchor. Robinson was that too of course (it was mainly Rodman on Malone, Terry Cummings/JR Reid the game Rodman was suspended). Both teams only made the playoffs because their star was a great player. Did they outperform their abilities in the playoffs? I'm not seeing it. And yes, I dock David Robinson for his playoff performances as well.

But what you say is that Garnett's skillset and playmaking make up for his poor playoff shooting in the team context of the TWolves. The team offensive efficiency dropped reasonably significantly which implies that these factors didn't make up for his poor shooting performance. I haven't done the analysis for each of Garnett's runs the way you have but one thing I'd love for you to look at is how his team's offense performed in the playoff v. their regular season standard. We have done it for his individual performance . . . Garnett was one of the ATGs that had serious efficiency drops in the playoffs. For you to argue that his skills and playmaking made that irrelevant, it seems you have to show that those skills and playmaking helped his team compensate when his scoring was off as it seemed to be so often in the playoffs. In 2000, I would have to argue they didn't.

I think this is what you were looking for, I looked at the T-Wolves relative Orating each season and then compared it to their playoff relative Orating.

1997: +8.5 better in the playoffs.
1998: -0.4
1999: +0.5
2000: +2.1
2001: -5.8
2002: -5.4
2003: -2.2
2004: -3.5 Most of the damage actually done by underperforming offensively against the Kings. Looked solid against Nuggets/Lakers.

Overall a general downward trend, but I'm not sure what these numbers would look like for other stars either, I think I might expect it to be slightly downward overall. Keep in mind that all but '04 are only one series (so extremely small sample size).

[Joao Saraiva]

Olajuwon over Bird seems like a pretty huge misstep. Olajuwon never reached the level Bird did and was far less consistent.

I can't think of a single reason I'd have Dream ahead of Bird that pertains to what they accomplished as players.

Way, way off here guys.

I don't see how you can say 93/94 Hakeem wasnt at Bird's level. Care to eloborate?

Because Hakeem was even better in 1993 and yet with the Suns healthy and Jordan still suiting up for the Bulls, neither he or his team was the elite of the elite. That's what we are talking about here. Bird is a three-time MVP, three-time Champion as his teams best player and a guy who was considered possibly the greatest ever to play the game while he was playing. Only 6-8 other guys can make that claim and none of them are named Hakeem Olajuwon. He can't claim none of those three achievements.


Hakeem was damn close, but a half a tier lower, he did not win the MVP in 1993 (he could have and it'd been fine) didn't win the MVP in 1995, nor was he even close as his team struggled to the sixth seed and got extremely lucky with injuries to the Suns in the second round. In fact other than '94 and '95, the Rockets were rarely even contenders for the title during Hakeem's prime.

During Bird's best stretch (84-87), the Celtics made the Finals ever year, Bird won three straight MVP's and put up equally great numbers in the fourth season.

Bird was only going to lose to teams with players as good or greater than him. The same can not be said about Hakeem.

Also having lived through both eras, the perception of Hakeem was that he was on the level of Barkley, Robinson, Malone etc. Not Jordan, Bird or Magic. Not at any time while he was playing did his name come up as being on their level.

Additionally and what makes it most definitive for me, up until about 7 years ago the consensus top six was and had been for some time, Wilt, Russ, MJ, KAJ, Magic and Bird. It took more than a decade of retirement and distance from Hakeem's career before he started moving into the elite group. That makes no sense. All the guys I rank above him have been considered the greatest of all-time or on their way to possibly becoming that. Hakeem never entered that conversation. Look into all the top 50 all-time stuff that came out during the NBA @ Fifty celebration in 1997 and the years after. You'll see Hakeem ranked 15-20 most often. I like expanding our knowledge and understanding of a player with time and review of statistics, but I'm not into changing the narrative of their career after it's already played out.

Hakeem to me is number 12 all-time and I'll never have him any higher. He won his two titles in seasons where Jordan was sitting out and the Suns suffered major injuries to Barkley and/or KJ during their series and both times the Suns were in control (up 2-0 and 3-1) before those injuries. Still it's because he did win those titles that he gets elevated above the likes of West, Oscar, Doctor J, Moses, Barkley, Malone, Dirk, KG etc. in my opinion and I am okay with that, even if my eyes tell me Barkley was better for sure.

1st of all Hakeem has a case for the best peak ever.

His defensive impact was miles ahead of Larry's for almost his entire career.

Now Bird made 3 finals... yeah we know. With Parish and McHale. Hakeem with much lesser rosters delivered two NBA titles in 94 and 95, and went to the finals beating Magic's Lakers.

He carried bigger loads than Bird, since he had to be the go to guy, the best rebounder, the best defender on his team by large margins and the guy who ran the most plays to open up space for his shooters.

Saying you have Larry over Hakeem is acceptable, altough I wouldn't agree. Saying it's a big mistake to have Hakeem over Bird, that's completely false. Both perspectives are acceptable, depending on what you value the most.

Also the longevity from Hakeem is much bigger. And if you're saying Bird was more consistent... well, Bird was actually not THAT consistent with his playoff play. I'd say Hakeem was a bigger playoff performer.

[JoeMalburg]

1st of all Hakeem has a case for the best peak ever.

That's a subjective opinion and in my subjective opinion he's not even in the conversation.

His defensive impact was miles ahead of Larry's for almost his entire career.

We're just far apart on the rest of what you posted that it really isn't interesting to me to discuss it. We'll just disagree on subjective opinions.

Here's my question, taking personal bias out of it (for me and you) why did no one consider Hakeem as great when he was actually playing as message boards do now?

[rebirthoftheM]

A lot of votes for Bird, but I'm unsure on what basis. He has a brilliant 83-88 peak but then is underwhelming compared to some of the other competitors (most notably Kobe and you can throw Dirk in here) in the PS. His BPM gets a real boost in the RS from others in large part because of his DBPM, which again is highly suspect. Most analyses I've read (and some have spoken about their own understanding of Bird's defense) do not have Bird as a high impact defender, and some even suggest he was getting beat down at times. Yet his DBPM depicts him as this stalwart. IMO, more scrutiny is required here because basing things on box scores based stuff without reference to game tape leads to aberrant conclusions. Russell Westbrook just up a DBPM of 4.7, basically doubling his highest rate which was reached in 15-16, and I doubt anyone will argue he was playing high value defense based on what we saw from him. To be honest, when it comes to non anchors, using defense as a separating point (unless quite literally a player is a liability, which again needs reference to sustained game-tape analysis) is not appropriate as such a defender does not move the needle for a teams ability to defend.

When it comes to RS offense, there is no evidence to suggest that Bird was another level on offense from his competitors in the RS. We have ORAPM figures for Dirk and Kobe during their best years, and they come out looking amazing. Bird has a very slightly higher AST% in 83-88 than Kobe in 01/03/06/07/08/09 (6 year prime seasons to make a fair comparison with 83-88 Bird) despite Kobe playing in an offense which deflates individual players accumulating high assist numbers in favor of high team assist% and hockey assists. Kobe's TOV% is higher in the RS, but then again he handled the ball far more than Bird. 83-84 bird was around +4% TS, and Kobe was +3%, despite Kobe handily beating him in volume.

Then comes the playoffs, and comparatively speaking, Bird falls apart in this comparison v his competitors. He ups his minutes by about 4 minutes, but his scoring per 100 significantly drops (about 3.5 points), as does his efficiency (about +4% during RS, and then +1% in the PS- Kobe's TS% stays the same). He also sees drops in his rebounding. His AST/TO minutely gets better. His WS/48 (against a very controversial category because of its value and how intertwined it is with team success) reasonably drops also. His PER (to me this is not a very valuable statistic but people raise it) also falls off the clif (about 3.5). Kobe was far more resilient in this respect, and from what I recall, Dirk was also. Kobe's PPG per 100 staying amount about the same in the PS as compared to the RS, despite the +3mpg is heavily affected by his 06 post-season, where unlike Bird who simply under-performed (or perhaps he was injured as some here have claimed), Kobe deliberately reduced his PPG to counteract the Suns transition game (as the Suns, unlike most teams, did not get demoralized by opponents dropping big numbers against them + loved working in transition and hitting 3s).

And then you consider Bird's playoff opponents. I haven't gone through the numbers with Dirk, but I'm sure this also applies to him (Dirk faced some tough teams, especially defensive teams). Bird faced far weaker teams (SRS based) and defensive teams (relative DRTG) than 6-year prime Kobe did. It actually isn't close. Bird's opponents roughly averaged out as -1.37 DRTG teams, and 2.86 SRS teams. Kobe meanwhile was facing on average -2.98 DRG teams and 5.34 SRS teams. Not even close.

And then we get to PS defense, and we run into the same DBPM issues. No real strong evidence that Bird was the defender in the PS that his DBPM implies. Per eye test, it is understood that both Dirk and Kobe played better D in the PS.

And finally, how can we ignore Bird's longevity issues, when he clearly isn't getting that much separation at best, in his 6 year prime window? This is a major elephant in the room against guys like Kobe and Dirk, who give you very valuable seasons outside of their best 6.

I feel like Bird heavily benefits from the 'narrative factor'. Very little scrutiny it appears about him, and a lot of stuff are said about him without it being anchored into something concrete.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #96 (about 4-6 left for this thread, depending on when I can get back to it):

Larry Bird - 9 (Joao Saraiva, trex_8063, 2klegend, janmagn, RCM88x, Winsome Gerbil, Outside, scabbarista, wojoaderge)
Kobe Bryant - 6 (Tesla, oldschooled, JordansBulls, ardee, andrewww, Hornet Mania)
Kevin Garnett - 6 (micahclay, Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, drza, eminence, kayess)
George Mikan - 1 (penbeast0)
Julius Erving - 1 (BasketballFan7)
Karl Malone - 1 (Narigo*)

Need arguments to count your vote, Narigo.

And could certain persons please try to not attach so much emotion or zeal to the order of the list....

[Joao Saraiva]

1st of all Hakeem has a case for the best peak ever.

That's a subjective opinion and in my subjective opinion he's not even in the conversation.

His defensive impact was miles ahead of Larry's for almost his entire career.

We're just far apart on the rest of what you posted that it really isn't interesting to me to discuss it. We'll just disagree on subjective opinions.

Here's my question, taking personal bias out of it (for me and you) why did no one consider Hakeem as great when he was actually playing as message boards do now?

Because some players who are not as flashy tend to not be seen as how great they are.

It's the same with Tim Duncan and Kobe. Kobe was much more proped (still is) by casual fans and the media. But Tim is clearly the better player.

If you want something objective, by my formula (only numbers) Hakeem has a better peak than Bird, a better prime than Bird, a brutal advantage on longevity and is ahead on the all time list (not by a lot, but still is) - accodales board goes Bird's way.