RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #16 (George Mikan)

[Dr Positivity]

Vote

1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Karl Malone

I prefer Dirk on offense to Malone as I feel his skillset translates to playoffs and the spacing has impact, albeit you can say Malone is better passer/defender. Close but edge goes to slightly more modern player. I prefer Robinson as a player to Malone (the defensive gap is bigger than offense) but there is a pretty significant longevity difference.

Nominate

1. CP3
2. Barkley

[One_and_Done]

Vote

1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Karl Malone

I prefer Dirk on offense to Malone as I feel his skillset translates to playoffs and the spacing has impact, albeit you can say Malone is better passer/defender. Close but edge goes to slightly more modern player. I prefer Robinson as a player to Malone (the defensive gap is bigger than offense) but there is a pretty significant longevity difference.

Nominate

1. CP3
2. Barkley

I think there are 4 great choices this round, and Mailman is one, but the alternate vote is to influence the outcome. Right now Malone doesn't have any support. If I thought KD had support I'd vote for him now, but I'd be throwing my vote away. Malone has only 1 vote so far out of 15. I think once D.Rob or Dirk get in this round then Malone will get alot of their support next time.

[Owly]

2. Rather strong early or late? So, key thing here is that whoever loses the last game loses the entire series, and thus if you're on the losing side playing not-so-great at that critical time, the fact you had a great Game 1 doesn't matter a whole lot.

You've read Thinking Basketball, the book, right?

If not, get it. If so just ... reread through ...

Just saw that and it stood out. Will glance over ([quick edit to complete thought] other stuff later, probably not going to go point-for-point though, tbh).

But "end is "critical" whilst early "doesn't matter a whole lot" because in retrospect we know it's still alive late ..." (think Ben's is more game level) ... type thinking read as quite jarring.

(now at series level "end" could be game 4 and for this purpose middle series but then that just means my great early guy won, or my great early guy was great and it didn't matter).

I think point 1 also relates to this ... it doesn't miss any of the actual data, it just misses the splits. Anything lost later must have been gained "back" earlier.

Certainly. Read as it was being written.

Clearly there's something about my post that sounds like a misguided fallacy, and I may be as I'm certainly not immune, but it's not entirely clear to me what you're saying that is.

I'd probably guess that you believe I'm falling prey to the idea that the guy who scores the final points/goals/whatever is inherently more valuable than those who did it earlier, when all those points count the same, but I would emphasize that I'm aware of this type of error in reasoning and if I'm falling prey to something, I think it's more subtle than that.

I think best case is I read 5, 6, 7 as late and you read split whatever happened in half after that is late and we were talking past one another??

I mean maybe it's a reading thing but re-read the bolded in the quote. The early "didn't matter" because it ended up staying alive later and the late is "critical".

- The late is no more critical than the early. I will circle back to this in terms of probability.
- The early did matter. (at best maybe with the game level thing you could be saying he's running up margins early and that part doesn't matter? thought this isn't explicitly said, maybe implied with regard to the value of the splits on plus-minus).

At best it seems to be the difference noted with regard to series not game.

But I don't know what I'm to take from the quoted phrase:
-The team lost so the team lost?
-The team lost so any goodness of individual performance didn't matter in retrospect?
-I know that the team lost so any early movement of the series probability odds doesn't matter?
I'm struggling to get to something that's seems [to me] both true and adding value.

Maybe I'm missing something, being unfair somehow.
But you seem to be angling regardless towards preferring late.
And as I see it as overcomplicating things:

Let's say I've got a great player slowly getting solved in the series we'll call him Cleanthony Early
You've got a player who develops as the series goes: we'll call him Long-Arms McGee because I recently heard he's a terrific player
They're equally good - we know this
I might even stop here and just say they're equally good, it's a noisy game the rest is probably luck...
but imagine -say playing the same minutes, perhaps the same position - Early is whatever +20 BPM or locked into +20 plus minus in g1 or whatever and McGee is 0 it pulls in to 10-1o at G4, by G7 it's reversed zero to 20.

Turn those into game odds say 95-5 g1 shifting 15% each game, or 80-20 shifting 10%. Run those calculations. I haven't and may not finish the calculations but ... we know that being good in the "dead rubber" games, ones that they don't actually play, that happen in a lot of scenarios is of low value, ditto the cost of being weaker by g7.
[edit: I think what I may have intuitively thought on this is off - if those are the game level odds it's 50-50 overall, it's just the bulk of the "early" guy wins come 4-0, 4-1; whereas late/"McGee" will be if it goes 6 or 7. This moves me a little although the following core point still rings as true]

Long term, this would lead to less mileage (long term) and more rest (short term) and thus better chances.

My inclination is this type of variation is noise unless there's something compelling saying otherwise ... but all else equal I'd take the guy who's better early.

Not got time to edit ... so if there's any misinterpretation or non-clarity or tone issues, sorry. Put simply I don't see the case for late over early, I see an obvious case for early over late (get it done early 4-0, 4-1 ... then rest) or for it's noise. And the late being "critical" and early not mattering were jarring, triggered a response. [edit, from above: less degree so "obvious" sounds strong, but still ... win early get rest, get prep time ... maybe buff your early game chances for the next round].

[penbeast0]

In terms of pure statistics, the guy who consistently comes up big in the 1st quarter probably affects games more than the guy who consistently comes up big in the 4th. In the 1st quarter, you are setting the tone for your team and you are still in the game every time. In the 4th quarter, you may be way ahead or way behind and your explosion doesn't affect the game as much. If you are Steph Curry, you may be resting a lot of that time (most other coaches don't do this as much).

[iggymcfrack]

In terms of pure statistics, the guy who consistently comes up big in the 1st quarter probably affects games more than the guy who consistently comes up big in the 4th. In the 1st quarter, you are setting the tone for your team and you are still in the game every time. In the 4th quarter, you may be way ahead or way behind and your explosion doesn't affect the game as much. If you are Steph Curry, you may be resting a lot of that time (most other coaches don't do this as much).

Nah, there is an edge to playing better in the 4th quarter because there’s a natural bounceback effect whereby the team with the lead with let off the gas pedal a little bit and also get less favorable calls from the officials. A team that’s down 10 points at half will have a significantly better expectation in the second half betting line than if that same team was up 10.

So 4th quarter points are on average worth more, just nowhere near to the degree people think they are. It’s a very exaggerated effect and if you play well enough early on, you can absolutely close the door on a comeback before it has the chance to start.

[DraymondGold]

In terms of pure statistics, the guy who consistently comes up big in the 1st quarter probably affects games more than the guy who consistently comes up big in the 4th. In the 1st quarter, you are setting the tone for your team and you are still in the game every time. In the 4th quarter, you may be way ahead or way behind and your explosion doesn't affect the game as much. If you are Steph Curry, you may be resting a lot of that time (most other coaches don't do this as much).

Nah, there is an edge to playing better in the 4th quarter because there’s a natural bounceback effect whereby the team with the lead with let off the gas pedal a little bit and also get less favorable calls from the officials. A team that’s down 10 points at half will have a significantly better expectation in the second half betting line than if that same team was up 10.

So 4th quarter points are on average worth more, just nowhere near to the degree people think they are. It’s a very exaggerated effect and if you play well enough early on, you can absolutely close the door on a comeback before it has the chance to start.

While it's certainly true that there are games when winning the 4th quarter is more important than winning other quarters... this is not true overall.

Check out this study: https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2018/05/does-winning-a-specific-nba-quarter-matter/#:~:text=Winning%20a%20specific%20quarter%20matters,the%20second%20and%20fourth%20quarter.

Looking across *every single game* from 1950 until 2018, it checked how often winning a specific quarter correlated with winning the game.

In the regular season:
-The team that won the 1st quarter won the game 66.5% of the time
-2nd quarter: 64.8%
-3rd quarter: 66.2%
-4th quarter: 64.3%

So it seems winning the 4th quarter is, on average, the least important quarter to win. The 1st and 3rd quarters tend to be more important, though it's by a small margin -- the 1st and 3rd quarter are only 2% more important than the 4th. Why? Well, there are times when winning the 4th quarter is paramount. If the game is tied going into the 4th, the team that wins the 4th quarter (and OTs) will win the game 100% of the time. But! There are evidently more times where the game is won by work done in the first 3 quarters.

What about the playoffs? Does clutch 4th quarter performance become more important?
-1st quarter: 66.9%
-2nd quarter: 65.0%
-3rd quarter: 65.7%
-4th quarter: 64.8%

Again, winning the 4th quarter is not more important than winning the other quarters, on average. In fact, even in the playoffs, it again tends to be the least important quarter to win!

[iggymcfrack]

In terms of pure statistics, the guy who consistently comes up big in the 1st quarter probably affects games more than the guy who consistently comes up big in the 4th. In the 1st quarter, you are setting the tone for your team and you are still in the game every time. In the 4th quarter, you may be way ahead or way behind and your explosion doesn't affect the game as much. If you are Steph Curry, you may be resting a lot of that time (most other coaches don't do this as much).

Nah, there is an edge to playing better in the 4th quarter because there’s a natural bounceback effect whereby the team with the lead with let off the gas pedal a little bit and also get less favorable calls from the officials. A team that’s down 10 points at half will have a significantly better expectation in the second half betting line than if that same team was up 10.

So 4th quarter points are on average worth more, just nowhere near to the degree people think they are. It’s a very exaggerated effect and if you play well enough early on, you can absolutely close the door on a comeback before it has the chance to start.

While it's certainly true that there are games when winning the 4th quarter is more important than winning other quarters... this is not true overall.

Check out this study: https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2018/05/does-winning-a-specific-nba-quarter-matter/#:~:text=Winning%20a%20specific%20quarter%20matters,the%20second%20and%20fourth%20quarter.

Looking across *every single game* from 1950 until 2018, it checked how often winning a specific quarter correlated with winning the game.

In the regular season:
-The team that won the 1st quarter won the game 66.5% of the time
-2nd quarter: 64.8%
-3rd quarter: 66.2%
-4th quarter: 64.3%

So it seems winning the 4th quarter is, on average, the least important quarter to win. The 1st and 3rd quarters tend to be more important, though it's by a small margin -- the 1st and 3rd quarter are only 2% more important than the 4th. Why? Well, there are times when winning the 4th quarter is paramount. If the game is tied going into the 4th, the team that wins the 4th quarter (and OTs) will win the game 100% of the time. But! There are evidently more times where the game is won by work done in the first 3 quarters.

What about the playoffs? Does clutch 4th quarter performance become more important?
-1st quarter: 66.9%
-2nd quarter: 65.0%
-3rd quarter: 65.7%
-4th quarter: 64.8%

Again, winning the 4th quarter is not more important than winning the other quarters, on average. In fact, even in the playoffs, it again tends to be the least important quarter to win!

You might be looking at this from the wrong perspective though. The reason the 4th quarter correlates less with winning is that often the better team will have a big lead going into the 4th quarter in which case we’d expect the team that’s behind to actually be more likely to win the 4th. It’s not starting from an independent place. The bounceback effect is the reason 1st quarter points matter less and it’s also the reason the 4th quarter correlates least with winning. It’s not that 4th quarter points matter less. It’s that you get less of them when you’re ahead.

[iggymcfrack]

Like hypothetically, imagine there was no psychological bounceback effect present with the referees and the players, but at the start of the 4th quarter, the team that’s down is awarded 1 point for every 4 points they trail. If you include the points awarded for trailing, this will very much skew things in favor of the trailing team and make the losing team much more likely to win the 4th quarter than any other quarter. HOWEVER, points scored in the 4th quarter will still be worth 4/3 as much as points scored in the first 3 quarters. This is actually very analogous to the actual real life situation. If you follow live betting lines, you can see it. A team going on a 15-0 run in the first quarter will probably only move the line for the game 9 points whereas the same run in the 4th quarter will move it 14-15 points.

[Owly]

In terms of pure statistics, the guy who consistently comes up big in the 1st quarter probably affects games more than the guy who consistently comes up big in the 4th. In the 1st quarter, you are setting the tone for your team and you are still in the game every time. In the 4th quarter, you may be way ahead or way behind and your explosion doesn't affect the game as much. If you are Steph Curry, you may be resting a lot of that time (most other coaches don't do this as much).

Nah, there is an edge to playing better in the 4th quarter because there’s a natural bounceback effect whereby the team with the lead with let off the gas pedal a little bit and also get less favorable calls from the officials. A team that’s down 10 points at half will have a significantly better expectation in the second half betting line than if that same team was up 10.

So 4th quarter points are on average worth more, just nowhere near to the degree people think they are. It’s a very exaggerated effect and if you play well enough early on, you can absolutely close the door on a comeback before it has the chance to start.

Assuming its is as you say, doesn't the team that let off the gas pedal a little bit get the benefit of ... having let the off the gas pedal? Reserving their energy and retaining their "real terms" advantage. Then too, how much would any rubber-banding be explained by other "conservative" strategies either related to the above (more time for bench guys, more rest for core) or game management (depending on time in game, size of lead it could be: we'll accept passing up an okay early shot because we may get something better and if we don't we eat into your time). I don't know here I'm guessing this is marginal but then I'm not thinking rubber-banding is huge either, I may be wrong (I would guess if player independent stuff like reffing was significant that would generate more heat than I've seen [i.e. none]).

As noted, statistically other quarters are more correlative (which isn't the same as more important) and the psychological angle may have some merit (don't know). I think a lead, if significant, gives you leeway to make strategic decisions (and if not significant I can't see that the banding would occur). And I think all points count the same. We're straying from what was discussed before but here too, I think win it early, get some rest. Maybe you don't win by as much. But maybe you don't care.

[penbeast0]

I don't know if you can statistically show a bounceback effect that's stronger in the 4th quarter than in the 2nd or 3rd (obviously the 1st doesn't apply equally). Basketball is a game of runs, I just don't think the runs necessarily apply to a greater degree in the 4th.

The math if you aren't giving an extra point for each 3 in the 4th doesn't make sense to me.

[tsherkin]

Well this is supposed to be "against good defenses". The conjecture must be "this good defense is making him miss free throws".

They certainly aren't doing it actively; like there's evidently no on-court strategy which is causing him to suck at the line more, we agree there. I meant more, is the pressure of playing against good defenses and the effort expended to do so a point of correlation with his weaker FT shooting? You know what I mean?

It's relevant data if it's reasonably consistent in those situations. Not as directly involved with the defense itself as, say, his FG%, but again, if it's a consistent trend, it matters.

[Owly]

Well this is supposed to be "against good defenses". The conjecture must be "this good defense is making him miss free throws".

They certainly aren't doing it actively; like there's evidently no on-court strategy which is causing him to suck at the line more, we agree there. I meant more, is the pressure of playing against good defenses and the effort expended to do so a point of correlation with his weaker FT shooting? You know what I mean?

It's relevant data if it's reasonably consistent in those situations. Not as directly involved with the defense itself as, say, his FG%, but again, if it's a consistent trend, it matters.

Okay so
1) If "pressure and effort of a good defense" causes players to drop was established as a real thing ... I'd feel better about it. It seems more like, it seems to have happened in this instance, let's backfit a semi-plausible narrative to explain it.
2) "If it's reasonably consistent" ... okay so I'm not a top tier mathematician around here. Not close. But I am, I think reasonably confident that that those bucket samples are quite small. And that free throw percentage, even year to year (full RS), with no change in underlying ability or longer term career trajectory, can swing about a bit.

One could look at Mike Bibby, at his playoffs and say "his free throw percentage is all over the place. It's swinging wildly, normally by at least 12% almost always by 8% and often by a lot more. This keeps happening. It's a trend. And it's almost always alternating up, down, up down - it's better one year, worse the next it's a trend. If it's a consistent trend it matters." But it's our pattern-spotting brain, our story-making brain making up reasons for noise. Mike Bibby isn't getting much worse or better at playoff free throws as an underlying skill. It's noise.

Maybe someone who knows the math better will contradict me and say playoff free throw defense is real. It seems much more likely that this is noise or I think we'd see greater career level divergence from RS norms (especially on the low end with more tougher defenses).

But through circa 2019 there was nobody with more than 200 playoff attempts increasing by 10% (only Hayward with over 100, he's still active, he hasn't played much in the playoffs, I don't think his 95% in the playoffs would sustain over a larger sample). Over a large enough sample I don't think it changes because it's noise and it reverts to the mean. There were two that were over 200 attempts that dropped more than 10%. Both were active. Giannis has pulled back within 10%, regressing to the mean. Iguodala's has dropped on a large sample ... but his career RS number has an actual pattern ... early on he's okay and then by GSW he's a mess and the majority of his playoff sample is in GSW ... he does drop in Philly too but then it's a much smaller sample, he is still dropping from RS in GSW too ... it's tough to parse ... but for those already at the already weaker end (RS) of free throws where it's more likely part of the problem may be psychological maybe some aspect of playoff pressure ... probably not stronger defenses, but something ... does make a difference, to some players. That perhaps bears further investigation (I think Shaq and Wilt lost a bit of scoring value from playoff FT% - mind you I think Russell gained more, it might just be that bad FT shooters are higher variance - heck there's an upside cap for good shooters). But yeah, my belief is the number doesn't move much over larger samples because it's noise. But it will appear to if we chop it into small chunks.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

This whole conversation is trying to determine how much it matters that CP3 appears to fall off during the course of a series? Do I have that right?

I have no answer to that, but I will say that I'm not as high on CP3 as some of you, and that in comparing three PGs who seems likely to come up in the near future - CP3, Nash, and Stockton - that I am probably in the minority in that I would take Stockton over the others.

RS / PS career rTS averages:

Stockton: +7.6 / +3.6
Paul: +3.5 / +3.6
Nash: +7.5 / +5.3

Both Stockton and Nash are much more efficient during the larger sample of the regular season than CP3, with Nash being the most efficient in the post-season. They are both 4+ percentage points ahead of CP3 in the RS. Yes, Stockton falls the most in the PS, but +3.6 is still solid PS efficiency and there's no getting around CP3's RS deficiency.

Nash is the most efficient overall of the three, but of course his (lack of) defense hurts his case.

Career average DRAPMs:

Stockton: 1.77(11 seasons, JE RS+PS and Squared2020)

Paul: 0.94(14 seasons, JE RS+PS, I don't have his RAPMs post-2019)

Nash: -0.78(18 seasons, JE RS+PS)

Stockton's defense impact grades out well ahead of CP3, while Nash's is predictably much worse than either.

Career Average Turnover Economy PER 100 Possessions:

Some of you have lauded CP3 for being goat-tier in this category, and that's true, but Stockton seems to be right there with him.

Stockton: 16.8/4.5(3.73) RS, 15.4/4.3(3.58) PO
Nash: 13.8/4.7(2.94) RS, 12.8/4.6(2.78) PO
Paul: 14.1/3.5(4.03) RS, 11.6/3.6(3.22) PO

CP3 indeed leads in the RS, but Stockton is in the ballpark, just .3 behind in assist/turnover ratio. And in the playoffs, Stockton actually leads by a similar margin.

Career RS/PS On/Off

Stockton has superior on/off in RS and PS to both. Though I acknowledge that we only have on/off from 1997 onwards and that it's possible Stockton's numbers would lower if we had all the data. I'm not entirely sure of that though.

Stockton: +10.8 / +7.9
Nash: +7.0 / +4.7
Paul: +9.6 / +6.2

Durability:

Career average games played per season:

Stockton: 79.2
Nash: 67.6
Paul: 67.4

Total number of career playoff games missed / total number of playoff games played by team

Stockton: 0/182
CP3: 12/161(all 2015 and later)
Nash: 3/123

In conclusion, I just think Stockton is the most complete player of the three with the fewest holes - more efficient than CP3 by a wide margin in the regular season, better defender than Nash(than both, actually, by DRAPM), more durable than both, highest on/off, etc.

Given the sheer impact of Nash's offensive game - beyond his individual efficiency, his teams had an average rORtg of +4.66 over his 18 seasons vs CP3's teams having an average of +2.49 over his 18 seasons so far, with 6 #1 finishes and 9 consecutive Top 2 finishes vs CP3's 3 #1 finishes and 4 Top 2 finishes - I might be tempted to take him over CP3 as well despite the defensive gap. This is also the one area where Stockton lags behind both.

[tsherkin]

1) If "pressure and effort of a good defense" causes players to drop was established as a real thing ... I'd feel better about it. It seems more like, it seems to have happened in this instance, let's backfit a semi-plausible narrative to explain it.

Perfectly fair. There is only anecdotal evidence at best, for sure.

[/quote]
2) "If it's reasonably consistent" ... okay so I'm not a top tier mathematician around here. Not close. But I am, I think reasonably confident that that those bucket samples are quite small. And that free throw percentage, even year to year (full RS), with no change in underlying ability or longer term career trajectory, can swing about a bit.[/quote]

True, though one could look at Garnett specifically and wonder. 02-12, you don't see huuuuge swings in his RS FT%. A general upward trend, though. Really as far back as 2000, he was hitting 76% and up, incrementally developing to where he'd be in the late 2000s and early 2010s. 02 and 03 were egregious examples of him falling off in the playoffs at the line, but he was otherwise pretty good. So unless we break it down by series/opponent defense, then we aren't really seeing a consistent trend.

But yeah, my belief is the number doesn't move much over larger samples because it's noise. But it will appear to if we chop it into small chunks.

It's a reasonable base premise, for sure. It would be interesting to stack his per-series FT% and arrange by opponent defense. Maybe I'll do that when I'm done this set at work. Then we might see if there even IS a trend worth investigating to any degree.

[Owly]

RS / PS career rTS averages:

Stockton: +7.6 / +3.6
Paul: +3.5 / +3.6
Nash: +7.5 / +5.3

Both Stockton and Nash are much more efficient during the larger sample of the regular season than CP3, with Nash being the most efficient in the post-season. They are both 4+ percentage points ahead of CP3 in the RS. Yes, Stockton falls the most in the PS, but +3.6 is still solid PS efficiency and there's no getting around CP3's RS deficiency.

These guys are all great. I might be as high on Stockton as anyone.
But Stockton and Paul are by your calculation at an identical number and so there's a bit of whiplash when in the same sentence 3.6 is at once "still solid efficiency" and a "deficiency" that "there's no getting round". That doesn't feel like a balanced framing.

For that matter I'm not on the "Stockton should have shot more, that's a negative" train, he did what he did leading some good offenses and with a great TS add. Paul isn't in the same league, but he does make up a little ground with a little greater volume (Stockton takes it back by being so healthy and productive for so long).

Career Average Turnover Economy PER 100 Possessions:

Some of you have lauded CP3 for being goat-tier in this category, and that's true, but Stockton seems to be right there with him.

Stockton: 16.8/4.5(3.73) RS, 15.4/4.3(3.58) PO
Nash: 13.8/4.7(2.94) RS, 12.8/4.6(2.78) PO
Paul: 14.1/3.5(4.03) RS, 11.6/3.6(3.22) PO

CP3 indeed leads in the RS, but Stockton is in the ballpark, just .3 behind in assist/turnover ratio. And in the playoffs, Stockton actually leads by a similar margin.

Yes but assists aren't the only source of turnovers. And Paul creates a bit more for himself. A Nash advocate (I don't think I see him yet) might note not all assists are equal and that his dynamic playmaking has led to some exceptional offensive lift in his prime.

Career RS/PS On/Off

Stockton: +10.8 / +7.9
Nash: +7.0 / +4.7
Paul: +9.6 / +6.2

Stockton has superior on/off in RS and PS to both. Though I acknowledge that we only have on/off from 1997 onwards and that it's possible Stockton's numbers would lower if we had all the data. I'm not entirely sure of that though.

Stockton, I believe, especially in '97 benefits less from collinearity than Malone (that year he suffers from playing with some horribly janky lineups). And larger scale RAPM really likes him. That said I don't know whether overall he might not still benefit from the Jazz rotation patterns for on-off. I'd want a closer look before trying to draw too much meaning from this. I'd also try to integrate 94-96 numbers and perhaps, with acknowledgement of the tiny sample, the versus 76ers data and come to think of it Squared's data.

In conclusion, I just think Stockton is the most complete player of the three with the fewest holes - more efficient than CP3 by a wide margin in the regular season, better defender than Nash(than both, actually, by DRAPM), more durable than both, highest on/off, etc.

Given the sheer impact of Nash's offensive game - beyond his individual efficiency, his teams had an average rORtg of +4.66 over his 18 seasons vs CP3's teams having an average of +2.49 over his 18 seasons so far, with 6 #1 finishes and 9 consecutive Top 2 finishes vs CP3's 3 #1 finishes and 4 Top 2 finishes - I might be tempted to take him over CP3 as well despite the defensive gap. This is also the one area where Stockton lags behind both.

Citing one-end impact as the (possible) justification for Nash over Paul, when the impact stuff you've cited for Stockton first (On-Off, DRAPM) both give Paul an advantage ... doesn't seem that viable, at least to me.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

RS / PS career rTS averages:

Stockton: +7.6 / +3.6
Paul: +3.5 / +3.6
Nash: +7.5 / +5.3

Both Stockton and Nash are much more efficient during the larger sample of the regular season than CP3, with Nash being the most efficient in the post-season. They are both 4+ percentage points ahead of CP3 in the RS. Yes, Stockton falls the most in the PS, but +3.6 is still solid PS efficiency and there's no getting around CP3's RS deficiency.

These guys are all great. I might be as high on Stockton as anyone.
But Stockton and Paul are by your calculation at an identical number and so there's a bit of whiplash when in the same sentence 3.6 is at once "still solid efficiency" and a "deficiency" that "there's no getting round". That doesn't feel like a balanced framing.

For that matter I'm not on the "Stockton should have shot more, that's a negative" train, he did what he did leading some good offenses and with a great TS add. Paul isn't in the same league, but he does make up a little ground with a little greater volume (Stockton takes it back by being so healthy and productive for so long).

I was saying there's no getting around the gap that both Stockton and Nash have over Paul in regular season rTS. Maybe "no getting around" is too dramatic a phrase, but it is a noticeable gap. The "still solid" thing was about Paul's playoff efficiency of +3.6. We can acknowledge that +3.6 is a solid efficiency for the playoffs(where players tend to be less efficient than in the regular season) while also recognizing Paul's significant trailing of both Stockton and Nash in the regular season. Not saying +3.5 is bad in the regular season on its own - it's good! - but +7.5 and +7.6 are great.

Career Average Turnover Economy PER 100 Possessions:

Some of you have lauded CP3 for being goat-tier in this category, and that's true, but Stockton seems to be right there with him.

Stockton: 16.8/4.5(3.73) RS, 15.4/4.3(3.58) PO
Nash: 13.8/4.7(2.94) RS, 12.8/4.6(2.78) PO
Paul: 14.1/3.5(4.03) RS, 11.6/3.6(3.22) PO

CP3 indeed leads in the RS, but Stockton is in the ballpark, just .3 behind in assist/turnover ratio. And in the playoffs, Stockton actually leads by a similar margin.

Yes but assists aren't the only source of turnovers. And Paul creates a bit more for himself. A Nash advocate (I don't think I see him yet) might note not all assists are equal and that his dynamic playmaking has led to some exceptional offensive lift in his prime.

Fair points, and I did point out Nash's team offenses later on.

Career RS/PS On/Off

Stockton: +10.8 / +7.9
Nash: +7.0 / +4.7
Paul: +9.6 / +6.2

Stockton has superior on/off in RS and PS to both. Though I acknowledge that we only have on/off from 1997 onwards and that it's possible Stockton's numbers would lower if we had all the data. I'm not entirely sure of that though.

Stockton, I believe, especially in '97 benefits less from collinearity than Malone (that year he suffers from playing with some horribly janky lineups). And larger scale RAPM really likes him. That said I don't know whether overall he might not still benefit from the Jazz rotation patterns for on-off. I'd want a closer look before trying to draw too much meaning from this. I'd also try to integrate 94-96 numbers and perhaps, with acknowledgement of the tiny sample, the versus 76ers data and come to think of it Squared's data.

I would certainly be interested to see what Stockton's on/off looks like with more seasons added!

And yes, JE's 1997-2022 25-year RAPM ranks both Stockton and Paul very highly - Paul #3, and Stockton #5(with Nash down at #40, I assume his defense is the difference). I do think those rankings are a bit dubious - I don't think they're two of the five most impactful players of the last 25 years. It is worth noting though that JE's "Upper Bound" for Stockton and Paul is identical at 9.6.

In conclusion, I just think Stockton is the most complete player of the three with the fewest holes - more efficient than CP3 by a wide margin in the regular season, better defender than Nash(than both, actually, by DRAPM), more durable than both, highest on/off, etc.

Given the sheer impact of Nash's offensive game - beyond his individual efficiency, his teams had an average rORtg of +4.66 over his 18 seasons vs CP3's teams having an average of +2.49 over his 18 seasons so far, with 6 #1 finishes and 9 consecutive Top 2 finishes vs CP3's 3 #1 finishes and 4 Top 2 finishes - I might be tempted to take him over CP3 as well despite the defensive gap. This is also the one area where Stockton lags behind both.

Citing one-end impact as the (possible) justification for Nash over Paul, when the impact stuff you've cited for Stockton first (On-Off, DRAPM) both give Paul an advantage ... doesn't seem that viable, at least to me.

Right, which is why I said "I might be tempted to". I'm undecided. Your point is a fair one. Another point against Nash is that he played most of his career for(and most of those highly ranked offenses came under) Don Nelson and Mike D'Antoni, and if there were two coaches a player like Nash's offensive impact was going to be supercharged under, it'd probably be those two(though Nash did also run #2 and #1 ranked offenses under Terry Porter and Alvin Gentry). In contrast to Stockton, who played most of his career for Jerry Sloan, who was primarily a defensive guy and whose offenses were pretty predictable, and Paul, who has played for a wider plethora of coaches(including two seasons for D'Antoni in Houston).

[Owly]

RS / PS career rTS averages:

Stockton: +7.6 / +3.6
Paul: +3.5 / +3.6
Nash: +7.5 / +5.3

Both Stockton and Nash are much more efficient during the larger sample of the regular season than CP3, with Nash being the most efficient in the post-season. They are both 4+ percentage points ahead of CP3 in the RS. Yes, Stockton falls the most in the PS, but +3.6 is still solid PS efficiency and there's no getting around CP3's RS deficiency.

These guys are all great. I might be as high on Stockton as anyone.
But Stockton and Paul are by your calculation at an identical number and so there's a bit of whiplash when in the same sentence 3.6 is at once "still solid efficiency" and a "deficiency" that "there's no getting round". That doesn't feel like a balanced framing.

For that matter I'm not on the "Stockton should have shot more, that's a negative" train, he did what he did leading some good offenses and with a great TS add. Paul isn't in the same league, but he does make up a little ground with a little greater volume (Stockton takes it back by being so healthy and productive for so long).

I was saying there's no getting around the gap that both Stockton and Nash have over Paul in regular season rTS. Maybe "no getting around" is too dramatic a phrase, but it is a noticeable gap. The "still solid" thing was about Paul's playoff efficiency of +3.6. We can acknowledge that +3.6 is a solid efficiency for the playoffs(where players tend to be less efficient than in the regular season) while also recognizing Paul's significant trailing of both Stockton and Nash in the regular season. Not saying +3.5 is bad in the regular season on its own - it's good! - but +7.5 and +7.6 are great.

Career Average Turnover Economy PER 100 Possessions:

Some of you have lauded CP3 for being goat-tier in this category, and that's true, but Stockton seems to be right there with him.

Stockton: 16.8/4.5(3.73) RS, 15.4/4.3(3.58) PO
Nash: 13.8/4.7(2.94) RS, 12.8/4.6(2.78) PO
Paul: 14.1/3.5(4.03) RS, 11.6/3.6(3.22) PO

CP3 indeed leads in the RS, but Stockton is in the ballpark, just .3 behind in assist/turnover ratio. And in the playoffs, Stockton actually leads by a similar margin.

Yes but assists aren't the only source of turnovers. And Paul creates a bit more for himself. A Nash advocate (I don't think I see him yet) might note not all assists are equal and that his dynamic playmaking has led to some exceptional offensive lift in his prime.

Fair points, and I did point out Nash's team offenses later on.

Career RS/PS On/Off

Stockton: +10.8 / +7.9
Nash: +7.0 / +4.7
Paul: +9.6 / +6.2

Stockton has superior on/off in RS and PS to both. Though I acknowledge that we only have on/off from 1997 onwards and that it's possible Stockton's numbers would lower if we had all the data. I'm not entirely sure of that though.

Stockton, I believe, especially in '97 benefits less from collinearity than Malone (that year he suffers from playing with some horribly janky lineups). And larger scale RAPM really likes him. That said I don't know whether overall he might not still benefit from the Jazz rotation patterns for on-off. I'd want a closer look before trying to draw too much meaning from this. I'd also try to integrate 94-96 numbers and perhaps, with acknowledgement of the tiny sample, the versus 76ers data and come to think of it Squared's data.

I would certainly be interested to see what Stockton's on/off looks like with more seasons added!

And yes, JE's 1997-2022 25-year RAPM ranks both Stockton and Paul very highly - Paul #3, and Stockton #5(with Nash down at #40, I assume his defense is the difference). I do think those rankings are a bit dubious - I don't think they're two of the five most impactful players of the last 25 years. It is worth noting though that JE's "Upper Bound" for Stockton and Paul is identical at 9.6.

In conclusion, I just think Stockton is the most complete player of the three with the fewest holes - more efficient than CP3 by a wide margin in the regular season, better defender than Nash(than both, actually, by DRAPM), more durable than both, highest on/off, etc.

Given the sheer impact of Nash's offensive game - beyond his individual efficiency, his teams had an average rORtg of +4.66 over his 18 seasons vs CP3's teams having an average of +2.49 over his 18 seasons so far, with 6 #1 finishes and 9 consecutive Top 2 finishes vs CP3's 3 #1 finishes and 4 Top 2 finishes - I might be tempted to take him over CP3 as well despite the defensive gap. This is also the one area where Stockton lags behind both.

Citing one-end impact as the (possible) justification for Nash over Paul, when the impact stuff you've cited for Stockton first (On-Off, DRAPM) both give Paul an advantage ... doesn't seem that viable, at least to me.

Right, which is why I said "I might be tempted to". I'm undecided. Your point is a fair one. Another point against Nash is that he played most of his career for(and most of those highly ranked offenses came under) Don Nelson and Mike D'Antoni, and if there were two coaches a player like Nash's offensive impact was going to be supercharged under, it'd probably be those two(though Nash did also run #2 and #1 ranked offenses under Terry Porter and Alvin Gentry). In contrast to Stockton, who played most of his career for Jerry Sloan, who was primarily a defensive guy and whose offenses were pretty predictable, and Paul, who has played for a wider plethora of coaches(including two seasons for D'Antoni in Houston).

1) Yeah ... I wasn't saying anything was "wrong" ... there's a generosity to ... this 3.6 which comes in a dropoff for Stockton is "still solid". Paul who is more or less at that number for both gets it framed as a a deficit in the RS without acknowledgement of the playoff "solidity". To me it read as having the implicit, "I am supporting this guy and looking closely you may notice it by the sheen and framing I put on these numbers" that you'd rather not spot.
3) Hard to do precisely. '94-'96 are at the margin approximates. We don't have play-by-play. We do have plus-minus so we know points dif on and minutes on and points dif off and minutes off. They are approximates because they are assuming steady pace. They should be close.
Haven't checked links but main thread was here:
viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1343246
This will also have versus 76ers for earlier spells. Versus Malone my recollection is 94-96 favors Malone. Versus 76ers massively favors Stockton though over a small sample.
Assume you are aware but Squared's stuff is here https://squared2020.com/
4) I tried to acknowledge uncertainty with the "(possible)" ... even so ... saying it ... giving that as the reason ... I'd stand by the feedback (not saying you're telling me not to, you acknowledge the point).

[One_and_Done]

With about a day to go the voting is very close, with our first 3 way race it seems like. Dirk is on 5, Mikan 5, D.Rob 4, K.Malone 1. There are still lot of people yet to cast their vote though, so preferences will be key. D.Rob has 3 Mikan preferences for example, so the order in which these guys are eliminated could change the result. At least a few D.Rob voters haven't voted yet as well.

Dr J leading nominations with 5 votes, CP3 has 3, Giannis and Jokic 2, Moses 1.

[DraymondGold]

Voting Post
Vote: David Robinson
Alternate: Dirk Nowitzki
Nomination: Chris Paul
Alternate Nomination: Dr J

Really struggling with this one. I have Robinson as the superior player to Dirk, both in absolute goodness and in context-dependent value. I have Robinson with the better 1 year peak, the better 3 year peak, the better 5 year extended peak, and the better 8–10 year prime. Adjusting for the shortened 99 season, Robinson was on pace to play 716 games in his 10 year primes, while Dirk played 782 games in his 10 year primes — i.e.e Dirk only 9% more prime games even with Robinson’s missed season, and I have prime Robinson as more than 9% better than prime Dirk.

But Dirk has significantly more longevity. Even with Robinson’s superior prime, he still missed a full season in 1997. He was injured in the 1992 playoffs (although Dirk was injured in 2003). Dirk played *5* seasons before age 24 when Robinson was a rookie, and Dirk played *3* more seasons after age 37 when Robinson retired. Some of this is explainable by era: high-minutes players played an average of 10% more games in Dirk’s era than Robinson. Some of this is also explainable by context: Robinson played all 4 years of college, and lost 2 years to military service, while Dirk had neither. Both of these (along with Robinson’s Top 10 level play as a rookie in 1990) suggest that Robinson was capable of having greater longevity in another situation, which makes me weight Robinson’s poorer longevity slightly less. But Dirk’s raw longevity advantage is massive, so even adjusted for context, it’s still clearly a point for Dirk.

Dirk vs Robinson: Perusing the stats

What do the box stats and box-estimates of plus-minus stats say? Our best 3 box stats are Backpicks BPM, PIPM, and RAPTOR.
-Backpicks RS + PS VORP: Dirk > Robinson
-Career PIPM: Dirk > Robinson
-Career RAPTOR: Robinson > Dirk

So Dirk’s longevity wins out in 2/3 stats, although it’s not universal.

What about WOWY based metrics?
-Prime WOWY: Robinson +4.7 (13th all time) >> Dirk +1.8 (94th all time)
-Prime Adjusted WOWY metrics: Robinson +9.1 > Dirk +6.1. Dirk would have to be +3.34 better than Robinson in his non-prime years to surpass him in career adjusted WOWY. Unlikely, but possible.
-Moonbeam’s RWOWY: Robinson > Dirk.
Robinson: 4 samples over 95th percentile, 11 over 90th percentile, 16 over 75th percentile, 16 over 50th percentile (18 total).
Dirk: 0 samples over 95th percentile, 9 over 90th percentile, 15 over 75th percentile, 18 over 50th percentile (24 total)

So WOWY based metrics favor Robinson. Although Robinson is the type of player that WOWY would overrate: 1) he *is* the system, both offensively and defensively through much of his prime, and 2) the Spurs tanked in their year without him. Regardless, he’s clearly better than Dirk here, possibly for his career.

What about plus minus based metrics? Let’s start with AuPM, since we have a greater portion of Robinson’s prime (though we’re still missing 4 years in 90–93).
-Robinson (missing 90–93): 3 years over +6.0, 3 years over +5.0, 3 years over +4.0, 6 years over +3.0
-Dirk: 1 year over +6.0, 3 years over +5.0, 9 years over +4.0, 12 years over +3.0

So this supports Robinson having a better peak and… not much else. Robinson does have 4 missing years, and given his box performance, his 1991 on/off and Squared2020 RAPM, and 1994 on/off and AuPM, I’d say it’s likely Robinson had at least three more (perhaps four more) 4.0+ AuPM years… which would get him to 6–7, compared to Dirk’s 9.

What about RAPM? Rather than looking at the actual value across different metrics (Squared2020 RAPM in 91 and 96, AuPM estimates of RAPM in 94–96, Goldstein RAPM post 97)… let’s look at league ranking.

-Robinson (missing 90, 92, 93): 1st two times, Top 3 four times, Top 5 six times, Top 10 nine times
-Dirk (no missing years): 1st one times, Top 3 4 times, Top 5 eight times, Top 10 fourteen times

So Robinson looks better in peak by Top 1 and Top 3 appearances, they look about the same in Top 5 appearances (if you predict Top 5 in 91 and 1st in 94 to mean Top 5 in 92 and 93, and possibly 90). Predicting out for the missing years, Robinson would have twelve Top 10 appearances to Dirk’s fourteen.

All in all, the plus minus stats were closer for their whole career. Robinson has the better peak, Dirk the longer prime.

Dirk vs Robinson: Some Contextual Considerations

What about resilience and scalability? I tend to think resilience / playoff improvement is an overrated quality. People in this project have valued how much a player improved in the playoffs more than the actual playoff value itself, which just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t care if Hakeem improves more in Playoff BPM than Jordan if Jordan still has 10/10 of the best playoff runs according to Playoff BPM.

Still, resilience is still a factor to consider, especially since we’re discussing Robinson. Robinson declined in the playoffs during the heart of his prime. But interestingly, he actually improved quite a bit once he got a better fitting team. Post 1997, Robinson improved by 29% in the playoffs in AuPM! Now much of this is boosted by an ideal fit, some issues of collinearity in lineups, perhaps some coasting in the regular season as an older player. I don’t expect Robinson to be a true 29% playoff improver. He might even be a negative if we had the data for the majority of his prime. But! It does suggest Robinson might have declined significantly less throughout his prime if he had a better fitting situation around him.

Compare that to Dirk who, on average, declined -1% across his full career in the playoffs. Like Robinson, I suspect some of this was a decline in his younger years, and improvement in a better situation and with more experience in his later years. I absolutely see late-prime Dirk as a playoff improver. But it does suggest that, over the course of his career, Dirk wasn’t a massive improver like we would want for him to gain some separation over Robinson, even if we give Dirk the slight advantage.

Scalability, I see as a slight point for Robinson. His prime defense might be Top 5 ever. You can — and the Spurs did — create an all-time defense around Robinson. Even if Dirk’s isn’t negative, I’d argue it could be slightly problematic from a team building perspective, particularly as a big man. Offensively, Dirk definitely has fantastic spacing and a strong off-ball game. He could play as a finisher. But he also had strong isolation tendencies, and wasn’t good as a creator. Robinson did not have the spacing, but he definitely had the off-bal game. He was fantastic as a screener, he could roll to the basket or pop for an efficient midrange jumpsuit. He was a much better offensive rebounder (peaking at +5.4 per 100 possessions to Dirk’s +2.3). And he was the better creator, drawing double teams and willingly passing out.

With another situation, I could see Robinson having a far different reputation among basketball fans. Say Robinson played for the Utah Jazz instead of Karl Malone. All of a sudden, he has a 2nd all star to help set up the offense. With Stockton, he would have to focus far less on isolation face-up offense in the playoffs and do what he was better at. He was a pick and roll monster -- great screener, great face-up roll man, ability to pop to the midrange. I did some film analysis of the 94 playoffs back for the Greatest Peaks project, and saw consistent double teams leading to missed open shots for Robinson teammates. The other option was for Robinson to shoot into the double team, which was not his forte. He would not have this problem on the Jazz. He could draw double teams constantly, he was a willing passer, and with Utah's shooting, he would have teammates who could actually make the shots. And of course defensively, Robinson would be a huge boost over Malone. I could absolutely see the Robinson Jazz winning a ring or two somewhere in 94, 95, 98, or 99. And what would we think of him then...

Hypotheticals aside, Robinson's scalability advantage is born out in the actual team performance. Robinson's best team was the 1999 Spurs, while Dirk's was the 2011 Mars. The 1999 Spurs were 17th ever in overall SRS (+10.37) while the 2011 Mavs 41st (+8.93). And Robinson was more valuable to the 1999 Spurs than Duncan was: Robinson had 35% better full-season Goldstein RAPM than Duncan, and Duncan did not play 35% more minutes than Robinson did.

…

In sum: this is a tough one. I’m not happy with it. I value peak and prime more than longevity. I tend to take longevity as (somewhat) era-relative, and I’m at least more forgiving when there’s a lack of longevity due to extenuating circumstances (like military) not related to the player’s goodness. I think scalability is as important as resilience.

So I’m going with Robinson, at least at the moment. But Dirk’s longevity advantage is significant, and I really don’t think it would require much change to my criteria or the evidence to vote for Dirk.

[HeartBreakKid]

My vote is for David Robinson

I don't think Mikan, Durant or Malone are good enough here.

This is Nowitzki vs Robinson for me.

I actually had thought I switched my vote for Robinson over Oscar Robertson last thread, but maybe I forgot to.

Many of the points about David Robinson's offensive stats being really crappy in the playoffs are valid. He never really played against many great defenses and still did Karl Maloneesque. The post highlighting David's head to head stats with Karl and pretty much being a bit worse than him framed well in my mind what you get with David Robinson.

And I think that is fine.


Here is the thing. Most of the anti-Robinson post are focused on tearing down his offense. This does make sense because a few of the pro-Robinson posters are pretty much trying to make it seem like David Robinson is a titan on both sides of the ball. The whole "he's almost as good on offense, but way better on defense" argument.


I don't buy that at all. David Robinson is nothing compared to Dirk Nowitzki on offense, just like he wasn't close to Oscar Robertson when someone compared him in the last thread. High PPG and TS% especially during the RS is not a great indicator of offensive dominance in its own.


So my vote is really between an all time great offensive player vs an all time great defensive player.

Is the 2nd or 3rd best defender of all time good enough to go over Dirk Nowitzki? (who is pretty high up on the all time offensive player list). I think...yeah, why not?


I'll jot down a few thoughts/sub arguments that have went through my head. Keep in mind, some of this is crude, because going into this project I would have voted Nowitzki over Robinson easily, but I've been convinced over the last couple weeks of how good David Robinson is. Some of the data is based off of arguments posted in these threads, so I am explaining my rationale based off that data.



First off with my criteria. I don't care much for longevity. So this does punish Nowitzki (and Karl Malone). This benefits David Robinson and George Mikan for obvious reasons. Given my nomination is for Nikola Jokic, I am fairly consistent with being a peak oriented voter. I look at multi year stretches of players primes, not the totality value of their prime/career.



Second, I think if David Robinson wasn't seen as a whipping boy it'd be easier to buy how dominant he may have been despite his mediocre offense. David Robinson is arguably the best defensive player of all time not named Bill Russell. Center is typically the most impactful position of all time, and that is usually due to how much they impact defenses. Just based on positional dominance, Robinson already gives you everything you would want from a center. The existence of freaks like Kareem-Abdul Jabar and Hakeem Olajuwon makes him look second rate, but really if David Robinson never scored over 20 PPG in his career he would still be a superstar. That is pretty heavy.

Third, to conceptualize how good his defense is, look at Tim Duncan. It is almost universally agreed that David Robinson is a better defender than Tim Duncan. It is very difficult to parse through which elite defender is better than others, yet on this board, it feels like everyone is in agreement that Robinson > Duncan. Duncan is a top ten defensive player of all time, likely a full tier above someone like Rudy Gobert. Duncan's defense is by far the most impactful part of his play, and that is a guy who carried teams in the playoffs averaging 23-25 PPG per game in a slow paced era.

Four, we actually have David's impact stats to know that this isn't just pure theory crafting. His +/- does infer that his defensive impact is insane. If I can recall he rated higher than Duncan, though I will say that is because his role had changed. However, Robinson during the Twin Tower run doesn't get nearly as much credit as he did during the time that actually happened. The media had it right, they were seen as a 1A and 1B and that is pretty close to what they were. Similar to Dirk hosting a lot of elite offenses, we do see that Robinson hosted a lot of elite defenses (even when his team was pretty bad). Dominates everyone in WOWWY albeit that's because his team was really crappy. So the data is there to make reasonable assumptions.

Five, David is on the older side during the databall era. I think it isn't much of a stretch to give him a little boost for what most of his prime may have entailed. With pre-data ball era players we work with what we got, even if part of their career was in the data ball era. In other words, I assume that David's best years are not captured in RAPM variants.

Six, I think being a great 2nd option is more than enough to be a top 20 player of all time. Kevin Garnett was voted in the top ten and I am not sure if I consider him to be a "real #1". I don't really care either because at the end of the day, if you give KG 1 or 2 guys who are "just all-stars" on offense then that is enough to contend. I see David Robinson in that light, albeit, his skill set doesn't seem as transferable, and there is a lot more correlation between Garnett and good offense than Robinson and good offense (but this is why I'm not voting for Robinson in the top ten as well). If you gave Robinson a good scorer, doesn't have to be Michael Jordan or something, then David's own scoring isn't really a liability. We never saw David with a good offensive player for most of his career until Tim Duncan showed up (and then they won rather quickly, but that sample is ruined a bit because Tim is so good on defense too).




I am not entirely convinced Robinson > Nowitzki. But as I said, while reading this thread, I was hoping someone might comment on how David's defense may not be as good as advertised. A lot of the focus is on offense (which I suppose is to be expected), but I just don't think that is really the argument here. I think we should pull back on David Robinson's two way play and look at him more as a defensive juggernaut.



Alternate vote is for Dirk Nowitzki - I don't have any argument against him, really. I think at the very least he is as good as someone like Kobe Bryant as an offensive force, if not better. He is interesting in contrast with Robinson because Dirk's boxscore stats underrate him, while it overrates David Robinson. Nowitzki has anchored elite offenses with and without Steve Nash. His scoring generally has held up or gotten better in the post season against very harsh competition. While he lacks playmaking and defense, as a scorer he is pretty ideal. He is pretty close to being the GOAT scorer when we consider. Durant seems so much more clunky to me - he's a ball stopper, turnover prone, didn't really do anything he wasn't supposed to do with his stacked teams. Karl Malone I think is just lousy against any semblance of real defense, and he is not an all time great defensive anchor to make up for it like Robinson is. Mikan is very dominant, but I am not sure by how much, or if I care.

My nominations is for Nikola Jokic (I'm very peak oriented and he has enough seasons where it is pretty easy to see he is no fluke, he is probably better than some of the players on the top 10 list already)

Alternate nomination is for Julius Erving (I think Dr.J's skill set on paper makes it easy to rip him him apart, but he clearly made it work. If you start treating ABA titles as "world titles" he is a 3 time champion...who was the anchor on 2 of them, including an underdog run, and pretty much 1a/1b for his last one. He went to the NBA ECF/Finals a million times also, he's plenty successful despite being branded a loser).