RealGM

penbeast0 wrote:Still, someone is going to have to talk me out of voting for Moses Malone; he's my default vote right now.

My vote again is for Moses Malone

Right now I will just compare him to Karl Malone.

For all of Karl's Longevity talk and Moses' relatively short career for the guys on this list, KM appeared in 14 all-star games and MM in 12. While a simplistic way to look at it, it still shows to me that maybe the gap might not be what one would perceive from reading these threads.

5 year playoff Peak per100
89-93 KM- 34.3/10.8(3.7)/3.1 on .567 TS%
79-83 MM- 31.0/18.1(7.5)/1.9 on .551 TS%

Career per100
KM- 34.4/13.9(3.3)/4.9 on .577 TS%
MM- 30.4/18.3(7.6)/1.9 on .569 TS%

Playoffs- Not sure KM's gap in scoring/assists/TS% matches MM's rebounding superiority, especially when you consider how much is coming form the offensive end.

Career- MM shows a lot more consistency… but whether that's good or bad is up to each individual voter. For me it shows that no matter the quality or intensity of the defense, MM was going to get his. For KM, I can't decide whether its because he falters under pressure, excels when games aren't as intense or just a result of defenses focusing in on him.

MM does have what KM doesn't that seems to play a lot into his legacy- a championship. And it wasn't as if MM joined a super team and became a 3rd option- he was finals MVP and is generally considered the playoff MVP that season. He out rebounded Kareem 72-30 (27-5) in that 4 game series, outscored him 103-94 and played 39.25 mpg. That's the guy who was ranked 2nd on this list. Not that one series defines a career but it certainly helps support it.

While Karl has the advantage defensively, I do not think MM's defense is as poor as people make it seem. From what I've been reading his man-to-man was solid (goes right along with his physical offensive nature) but his team defense is what brings him down. I would still like to see a little more about MM's defense.

But at this point, as I have stated before with my bias to offensive rebounds that no one else seems to really share, I have to vote Moses Malone.

colts18 wrote:How does Moses compare to Steve Nash offensively? We know Moses is a bad defender so he doesn't have a huge advantage over Nash in that category.

colts18 wrote:How does Moses compare to Steve Nash offensively? We know Moses is a bad defender so he doesn't have a huge advantage over Nash in that category.

rich316 wrote:We are about to come up to a group of talented perimeter players who may or may not be good at all facets of the game, and we will have to weigh how much we value certain contributions over others.

- Frazier is obviously >>> Nash on defense - does that propel him over Nash? I think we will see real contentious debate over that choice, and it will be a true litmus test for what voters want to see in a player. A lot of the #10-18 discussion has sort of established that here, Great Defense + Good Enough offense > Great Offense, Bad Defense. The counterpoint: for guards, and point guards in particular, defense isn't that relevant. How do we feel about this claim? shutupandjam presented some very interesting data that seems to indicate that defense is relevant for every position to an extent not typically recognized. My eye test tells me that I would rather have Nash than Frazier, but I will admit I've seen much more of Nash. This thread, and subsequent ones, should look more at that stuff and decide if it's worth serious consideration.

First and foremost, the object of the game is to help your team win. Basketball is a job like any other, and a basketball player’s job is to help bring his team wins just as a salesman’s job is to make sales for his company. When a player is drafted, he’s drafted so that he can help that team win. When a player is signed, he’s signed so that he can help that team win. When a player is scouted, he’s scouted because the scouts hope to find in him a player who can help their team win. That’s the bottom line. A basketball player has more impact on the game than any player in any other team sport. Football is too specialized, with separate teams for offense and defense, and one player is one of 11 on the field for his team; in baseball, one man is only one of nine, and position players only come to bat 3-4 times a game. Pitchers have the most impact on a game, but only pitch once every five games. A basketball player can help his team win to a greater extent than football or baseball players are capable of due to the inherent constraints of their sports. Therefore, the most important thing for a basketball player to have is the ability to integrate oneself and whatever respective abilities one brings to the table with the rest of the players on one’s team in order to enhance the whole for the facilitation of the ultimate objective of winning, the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectuation of said purpose, and the ability to effectively employ their respective abilities toward the purpose of helping their team win.

The means by which a player helps his team are inconsequential. What is important is the end. The player in question should use whatever skills he brings to the table to help his team win. As different players have different abilities, the means employed will vary. The only thing that matters are results. No one way of helping one’s team is inherently valued more than another.

rich316 wrote:I
How do people feel about Ben Wallace v. Steve Nash? Nash has more prime longevity, but consider this: Ben Wallace won DPoY 4 times in 5 years. If anybody has an argument for an all-defense player over Nash, the all-offense player, it might be him. He was the unquestioned tone-setter and best defensive player for those Pistons teams, who might be the equivalent of the Nash Suns in terms of dominance on one side of the ball.

Some quick +/- observations:

Nash has 4 seasons in the top 50 for RAPM.
Wallace doesn't show up until #215 in RAPM.

Nash has 5 of the top 12 offensive RAPM seasons.
Wallace has the 8th best defensive RAPM season, but his next best is down at #34.

How do we feel about that data? To me, it suggests that the ultimate offense-only PG was more valuable than the ultimate defense-only big man. Is that something that has any relevance at all to comparing other players, or is it totally context-dependent, and shouldn't be applied, to, say, Nash v. Frazier? I'm still new at this RAPM stuff, so cut me some slack if I'm butchering the data.

Doctor MJ wrote:in modern basketball offensive stars typically have more impact than defensive stars.

DannyNoonan1221 wrote:

My vote again is for Moses Malone

Right now I will just compare him to Karl Malone.

For all of Karl's Longevity talk and Moses' relatively short career for the guys on this list, KM appeared in 14 all-star games and MM in 12. While a simplistic way to look at it, it still shows to me that maybe the gap might not be what one would perceive from reading these threads.

5 year playoff Peak per100
89-93 KM- 34.3/10.8(3.7)/3.1 on .567 TS%
79-83 MM- 31.0/18.1(7.5)/1.9 on .551 TS%

Career per100
KM- 34.4/13.9(3.3)/4.9 on .577 TS%
MM- 30.4/18.3(7.6)/1.9 on .569 TS%

Playoffs- Not sure KM's gap in scoring/assists/TS% matches MM's rebounding superiority, especially when you consider how much is coming form the offensive end.

Career- MM shows a lot more consistency… but whether that's good or bad is up to each individual voter. For me it shows that no matter the quality or intensity of the defense, MM was going to get his. For KM, I can't decide whether its because he falters under pressure, excels when games aren't as intense or just a result of defenses focusing in on him.

MM does have what KM doesn't that seems to play a lot into his legacy- a championship. And it wasn't as if MM joined a super team and became a 3rd option- he was finals MVP and is generally considered the playoff MVP that season. He out rebounded Kareem 72-30 (27-5) in that 4 game series, outscored him 103-94 and played 39.25 mpg. That's the guy who was ranked 2nd on this list. Not that one series defines a career but it certainly helps support it.

While Karl has the advantage defensively, I do not think MM's defense is as poor as people make it seem. From what I've been reading his man-to-man was solid (goes right along with his physical offensive nature) but his team defense is what brings him down. I would still like to see a little more about MM's defense.

But at this point, as I have stated before with my bias to offensive rebounds that no one else seems to really share, I have to vote Moses Malone.

Sorry, too lazy to start this all over again. Think of Karl Malone as my reasoning why he should be in now since Karl already is. If this doesn't suffice let me know but I am trying to get this out of the way because I'll probably be out of commission all day tomorrow and into sunday.

rich316 wrote:How do people feel about Ben Wallace v. Steve Nash? Nash has more prime longevity, but consider this: Ben Wallace won DPoY 4 times in 5 years. If anybody has an argument for an all-defense player over Nash, the all-offense player, it might be him. He was the unquestioned tone-setter and best defensive player for those Pistons teams, who might be the equivalent of the Nash Suns in terms of dominance on one side of the ball.

Some quick +/- observations:

Nash has 4 seasons in the top 50 for RAPM.
Wallace doesn't show up until #215 in RAPM.

Nash has 5 of the top 12 offensive RAPM seasons.
Wallace has the 8th best defensive RAPM season, but his next best is down at #34.

How do we feel about that data? To me, it suggests that the ultimate offense-only PG was more valuable than the ultimate defense-only big man. Is that something that has any relevance at all to comparing other players, or is it totally context-dependent, and shouldn't be applied, to, say, Nash v. Frazier? I'm still new at this RAPM stuff, so cut me some slack if I'm butchering the data.

drza wrote:

rich316 wrote:How do people feel about Ben Wallace v. Steve Nash? Nash has more prime longevity, but consider this: Ben Wallace won DPoY 4 times in 5 years. If anybody has an argument for an all-defense player over Nash, the all-offense player, it might be him. He was the unquestioned tone-setter and best defensive player for those Pistons teams, who might be the equivalent of the Nash Suns in terms of dominance on one side of the ball.

Some quick +/- observations:

Nash has 4 seasons in the top 50 for RAPM.
Wallace doesn't show up until #215 in RAPM.

Nash has 5 of the top 12 offensive RAPM seasons.
Wallace has the 8th best defensive RAPM season, but his next best is down at #34.

How do we feel about that data? To me, it suggests that the ultimate offense-only PG was more valuable than the ultimate defense-only big man. Is that something that has any relevance at all to comparing other players, or is it totally context-dependent, and shouldn't be applied, to, say, Nash v. Frazier? I'm still new at this RAPM stuff, so cut me some slack if I'm butchering the data.

I would say that if you were going to do the all-defense player to compare to Nash, especially using +/- data, it would be Dikembe Mutombo. Mutombo also has 4 Defensive Player of the Years, and his RAPM scores are distinctly better than Wallace's. He in fact has the best defensive RAPM scores on record back through 1998, and that doesn't include two of his DPoY awards.

Offense only, Nash's top-3 O-RAPM scores averaged to +9.6 in Doc MJ's scaled PI RAPM spreadsheet (1998 - 2012). Defense only, Mutombo's top-3 D-RAPM scores averaged to +8.7 (all in the three seasons from '98 - 2000). That isn't a big difference, and it is certainly arguable that Mutombo may have had more seasons at that level or higher before '98. Mutombo's overall RAPM score from '98 is slightly higher than the best that Nash ever scored, but we don't have 2001 and only partial for 2002 and after he had declined. But I think one could make an interesting case for at least mentioning Mutombo around the time that Nash starts getting major traction.

ThaRegul8r wrote:

Spoiler:

rich316 wrote:We are about to come up to a group of talented perimeter players who may or may not be good at all facets of the game, and we will have to weigh how much we value certain contributions over others.

- Frazier is obviously >>> Nash on defense - does that propel him over Nash? I think we will see real contentious debate over that choice, and it will be a true litmus test for what voters want to see in a player. A lot of the #10-18 discussion has sort of established that here, Great Defense + Good Enough offense > Great Offense, Bad Defense. The counterpoint: for guards, and point guards in particular, defense isn't that relevant. How do we feel about this claim? shutupandjam presented some very interesting data that seems to indicate that defense is relevant for every position to an extent not typically recognized. My eye test tells me that I would rather have Nash than Frazier, but I will admit I've seen much more of Nash. This thread, and subsequent ones, should look more at that stuff and decide if it's worth serious consideration.

Speaking solely for myself, I will continue to refer to the preestablished criteria for this purpose:

Spoiler:

First and foremost, the object of the game is to help your team win. Basketball is a job like any other, and a basketball player’s job is to help bring his team wins just as a salesman’s job is to make sales for his company. When a player is drafted, he’s drafted so that he can help that team win. When a player is signed, he’s signed so that he can help that team win. When a player is scouted, he’s scouted because the scouts hope to find in him a player who can help their team win. That’s the bottom line. A basketball player has more impact on the game than any player in any other team sport. Football is too specialized, with separate teams for offense and defense, and one player is one of 11 on the field for his team; in baseball, one man is only one of nine, and position players only come to bat 3-4 times a game. Pitchers have the most impact on a game, but only pitch once every five games. A basketball player can help his team win to a greater extent than football or baseball players are capable of due to the inherent constraints of their sports. Therefore, the most important thing for a basketball player to have is the ability to integrate oneself and whatever respective abilities one brings to the table with the rest of the players on one’s team in order to enhance the whole for the facilitation of the ultimate objective of winning, the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectuation of said purpose, and the ability to effectively employ their respective abilities toward the purpose of helping their team win.

The means by which a player helps his team are inconsequential. What is important is the end. The player in question should use whatever skills he brings to the table to help his team win. As different players have different abilities, the means employed will vary. The only thing that matters are results. No one way of helping one’s team is inherently valued more than another.

The player who was better able to effectively utilize whatever respective abilities he brings to the table to help his team win is the player who will receive the higher ranking. That way any stylistic biases can be eliminated. The only thing I continue to ask of player advocates is to show how their chosen player utilized whatever it is he brought to the table to help his team win.

ThaRegul8r wrote:I've heard of these numbers for Mutombo (or, seen mention of them, more accurately). Where can they be found?