RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 (Moses Malone)

Moderators: Doctor MJ, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063

Jordan Syndrome
Rookie
Posts: 1,213
And1: 943
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#21 » by Jordan Syndrome » Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:41 pm

I'm really not buying into Stockton yet. His longevity is incredible but he is a somewhat limited player with little variance--the versatility and variance of Nash, Curry, Paul adds a dimension to their games which allows them to readily take over games at a degree Stockton simply cannot.
WestGOAT
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,430
And1: 1,852
Joined: Dec 20, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#22 » by WestGOAT » Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:45 pm

penbeast0 wrote:I think both Dantley and Aguirre have showed that they can maintain their TS% at higher usage than they did in Detroit and were 1st options most of their career.

You are correct about their past performances as the first option for their team, but would they have managed the same by the time they were playing for Detroit? I'm not sure they were still capable of that.

Having a quick glance at their TS% is why I'm skeptical:

Dantley in 1988-1989 was scoring at his usual efficient rate (TS around 61%) in Detroit, but this declined significantly after he was traded to Dallas and started shooting more in Dallas (TS around 55%). Obvious decline as a player. The question is when did this decline as a player set in?

Aguirre in 1988-89 was scoring at an okay efficient rate (TS around 51%) for Dallas, but once his usage dropped in Detroit and he started taking fewer shots, he was scoring more efficient (TS 55% for the remainder of the 1988-1989 and TS 54% for 1989-1990 season). This indicates to me Aguirre's TS benefited from playing a smaller role.

These numbers suggest that Dantley/Aguirre would actually not maintain their TS% if they had to shoot more if IT was replaced by Stockton.

Also looking at their seasons, Dantley and Aguirre were not even playing for the Pistons during the 1985 and 1986 post-seasons. A significant chunk of IT's prime (2 of the 6 seasons I plotted). So how would the Pistons have maintained their above average ORtg (4th and 8th)? Kelly Tripucka?

I think IT's prime is getting underrated here.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,092
And1: 5,074
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#23 » by trex_8063 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:49 pm

WestGOAT wrote:I managed to scrape regular and post-season miscellaneous team stats from basketball-reference, and decided to plot and compare the team playoff ORtg for IT, Stockton, and Nash. I have added tables below as well. I did this for all the post-season teams, so this can be a nice resource for those who are interested. I never realized myself how good the late 80's Hawks were on offense, for example. Mind you I did this a bit automated, so there could be some mistakes.

Anyway I think the graphs speak for themselves, safe to say the Pistons(1985-1990) and the Suns(2005-2010) were better offensively than the Jazz(1988-1993). How much credit/fault you want to give the respective PG's is up to your discretion of course, but these stats did not change my mind on Stockton.

Thomas, team ranking: [4,8,5,11,4,8], average: 6.66.
Above average in the playoffs. Definitely better than the Jazz. For having relatively low TS%, it didn't seem like his team suffered from it too much.

Stockton, team ranking: [9,13,10,9,4,14], average: 9.83.
Underwhelming for his and Malone's reputation. Once again how valuable is an individual's high TS% on low volume if the rest of the team is meh?

Nash, team ranking : [1,2,2,12,nan,1], average: 3.6.
Finishing top 2, 4 out of 5 post-seasons, is pretty insane.
Dragged down by the 2008 performance. Also, how heavily do you penalize him for missing the playoffs in 2009? Still very impressive numbers.

Image
Image
Image



Absolute and relative ORtg for each team for the 1985-1993 playoffs:
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

             Team         Year   ORtg   Orank
0       Los Angeles Lakers  1985  117.0    1.0
12        Dallas Mavericks  1985  115.5    2.0
5   Portland Trail Blazers  1985  111.8    3.0
4          Detroit Pistons  1985  111.7    4.0
2           Denver Nuggets  1985  111.6    5.0
1           Boston Celtics  1985  111.3    6.0
11     Cleveland Cavaliers  1985  110.5    7.0
7          Milwaukee Bucks  1985  109.5    8.0
10           Chicago Bulls  1985  108.2    9.0
3       Philadelphia 76ers  1985  107.8   10.0
15            Phoenix Suns  1985  105.8   11.0
9        San Antonio Spurs  1985  105.3   12.0
13      Washington Bullets  1985  105.0   13.0
14         New Jersey Nets  1985  104.6   14.0
6                Utah Jazz  1985  103.6   15.0
8          Houston Rockets  1985  100.2   16.0
0
                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
2       Los Angeles Lakers  1986  115.6    1.0
0           Boston Celtics  1986  115.0    2.0
5         Dallas Mavericks  1986  114.4    3.0
4       Philadelphia 76ers  1986  111.4    4.0
1          Houston Rockets  1986  110.7    5.0
11               Utah Jazz  1986  110.1    6.0
3          Milwaukee Bucks  1986  109.8    7.0
9          Detroit Pistons  1986  109.6    8.0
7            Atlanta Hawks  1986  109.1    9.0
10  Portland Trail Blazers  1986  108.7   10.0
6           Denver Nuggets  1986  108.2   11.0
12           Chicago Bulls  1986  108.0   12.0
13         New Jersey Nets  1986  107.0   13.0
8       Washington Bullets  1986  104.8   14.0
14        Sacramento Kings  1986  102.0   15.0
15       San Antonio Spurs  1986   91.0   16.0
0
                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
0       Los Angeles Lakers  1987  119.9    1.0
4          Milwaukee Bucks  1987  115.3    2.0
1           Boston Celtics  1987  114.7    3.0
10        Dallas Mavericks  1987  114.3    4.0
2          Detroit Pistons  1987  113.9    5.0
8       Philadelphia 76ers  1987  111.6    6.0
5          Houston Rockets  1987  110.4    7.0
3      Seattle Supersonics  1987  110.3    8.0
12  Portland Trail Blazers  1987  109.9    9.0
6            Atlanta Hawks  1987  109.4   10.5
13           Chicago Bulls  1987  109.4   10.5
7    Golden State Warriors  1987  108.5   12.0
9                Utah Jazz  1987  105.1   13.0
11          Indiana Pacers  1987  103.9   14.0
14          Denver Nuggets  1987   99.8   15.0
15      Washington Bullets  1987   92.2   16.0
0
                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
4            Atlanta Hawks  1988  115.7    1.0
10     Seattle Supersonics  1988  114.9    2.0
2         Dallas Mavericks  1988  114.7    3.0
0       Los Angeles Lakers  1988  114.1    4.0
9          Milwaukee Bucks  1988  113.7    5.0
6           Denver Nuggets  1988  111.7    6.0
3           Boston Celtics  1988  110.1    7.0
12         Houston Rockets  1988  109.7    8.0
5                Utah Jazz  1988  108.7    9.0
8      Cleveland Cavaliers  1988  108.0   10.0
1          Detroit Pistons  1988  107.6   11.0
11      Washington Bullets  1988  105.9   12.0
13         New York Knicks  1988  105.2   13.0
15       San Antonio Spurs  1988  103.9   14.0
14  Portland Trail Blazers  1988  103.1   15.0
7            Chicago Bulls  1988  102.1   16.0
0
                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
1       Los Angeles Lakers  1989  115.8    1.0
8            Atlanta Hawks  1989  114.1    2.0
3             Phoenix Suns  1989  113.4    3.0
0          Detroit Pistons  1989  113.2    4.0
6          Milwaukee Bucks  1989  110.5    5.0
4          New York Knicks  1989  110.4    6.0
14  Portland Trail Blazers  1989  109.8    7.0
10         Houston Rockets  1989  108.5    8.0
2            Chicago Bulls  1989  108.0    9.0
13      Philadelphia 76ers  1989  107.2   10.0
7      Seattle Supersonics  1989  107.1   11.0
5    Golden State Warriors  1989  106.9   12.0
15               Utah Jazz  1989  105.8   13.0
9      Cleveland Cavaliers  1989  105.3   14.0
12          Denver Nuggets  1989  104.7   15.0
11          Boston Celtics  1989   97.4   16.0
0
                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
8           Boston Celtics  1990  119.0    1.0
9      Cleveland Cavaliers  1990  113.9    2.0
5       Los Angeles Lakers  1990  112.7    3.0
4        San Antonio Spurs  1990  111.0    4.0
3             Phoenix Suns  1990  110.5    5.0
6          New York Knicks  1990  110.3    6.0
2            Chicago Bulls  1990  109.9    7.0
0          Detroit Pistons  1990  109.7    8.0
7       Philadelphia 76ers  1990  109.6    9.0
10               Utah Jazz  1990  108.0   10.0
12         Milwaukee Bucks  1990  107.3   11.0
1   Portland Trail Blazers  1990  105.8   12.0
11         Houston Rockets  1990  105.6   13.0
14          Denver Nuggets  1990  105.1   14.0
15          Indiana Pacers  1990  103.5   15.0
13        Dallas Mavericks  1990  103.2   16.0

                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
0            Chicago Bulls  1991  117.2    1.0
9           Indiana Pacers  1991  116.4    2.0
4           Boston Celtics  1991  114.7    3.0
5    Golden State Warriors  1991  112.9    4.0
1       Los Angeles Lakers  1991  111.7    5.0
3          Detroit Pistons  1991  111.2    6.0
2   Portland Trail Blazers  1991  111.0    7.0
6       Philadelphia 76ers  1991  110.8    8.0
7                Utah Jazz  1991  109.9    9.0
10     Seattle Supersonics  1991  108.4   10.0
12       San Antonio Spurs  1991  106.7   11.0
8            Atlanta Hawks  1991  105.7   12.0
14         Milwaukee Bucks  1991  103.6   13.0
13         Houston Rockets  1991  102.8   14.0
11            Phoenix Suns  1991   99.4   15.0
15         New York Knicks  1991   93.7   16.0
0
                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
10   Golden State Warriors  1992  117.2    1.0
6             Phoenix Suns  1992  116.0    2.0
4           Boston Celtics  1992  114.6    3.0
3                Utah Jazz  1992  113.7    4.0
1   Portland Trail Blazers  1992  113.6    5.0
7      Seattle Supersonics  1992  113.3    6.0
2      Cleveland Cavaliers  1992  112.3    7.0
0            Chicago Bulls  1992  112.2    8.0
13          Indiana Pacers  1992  111.0    9.0
15       San Antonio Spurs  1992  110.1   10.0
9     Los Angeles Clippers  1992  108.4   11.0
14              Miami Heat  1992  107.0   12.0
5          New York Knicks  1992  105.7   13.0
12         New Jersey Nets  1992  105.0   14.0
11      Los Angeles Lakers  1992  100.8   15.0
8          Detroit Pistons  1992   96.9   16.0
0
                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
0            Chicago Bulls  1993  113.8    1.0
2      Seattle Supersonics  1993  111.1    2.0
1             Phoenix Suns  1993  111.0    3.0
13          Indiana Pacers  1993  110.9    4.0
12          Boston Celtics  1993  107.3    5.0
5        San Antonio Spurs  1993  107.1    6.0
3          New York Knicks  1993  106.5    7.0
4          Houston Rockets  1993  106.4    8.0
6        Charlotte Hornets  1993  105.4    9.0
7      Cleveland Cavaliers  1993  105.3   10.0
14  Portland Trail Blazers  1993  103.9   11.0
9       Los Angeles Lakers  1993  103.0   12.0
15           Atlanta Hawks  1993  102.4   13.0
11               Utah Jazz  1993  102.3   14.0
10         New Jersey Nets  1993  101.9   15.0
8     Los Angeles Clippers  1993   97.7   16.0

Absolute and relative ORtg for each team for the 2005-2011 playoffs:
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

                        Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
3          Phoenix Suns  2005  118.2    1.0
4      Dallas Mavericks  2005  113.3    2.0
13     Sacramento Kings  2005  113.0    3.0
14    Memphis Grizzlies  2005  112.0    4.0
9       Houston Rockets  2005  111.7    5.0
6   Seattle Supersonics  2005  111.1    6.0
0     San Antonio Spurs  2005  110.0    7.0
2            Miami Heat  2005  107.2    8.0
10        Chicago Bulls  2005  106.3    9.0
7    Washington Wizards  2005  105.6   10.0
1       Detroit Pistons  2005  105.0   11.0
12   Philadelphia 76ers  2005  101.2   12.0
8        Boston Celtics  2005  100.6   13.5
15      New Jersey Nets  2005  100.6   13.5
5        Indiana Pacers  2005   97.7   15.0
11       Denver Nuggets  2005   97.4   16.0
0
                    Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
6      San Antonio Spurs  2006  114.0    1.0
3           Phoenix Suns  2006  113.7    2.0
5   Los Angeles Clippers  2006  111.6    3.0
1       Dallas Mavericks  2006  110.2    4.5
14       Milwaukee Bucks  2006  110.2    4.5
12    Washington Wizards  2006  109.4    6.0
11      Sacramento Kings  2006  108.8    7.0
2        Detroit Pistons  2006  107.9    8.0
7        New Jersey Nets  2006  106.5    9.5
8     Los Angeles Lakers  2006  106.5    9.5
0             Miami Heat  2006  106.2   11.0
9          Chicago Bulls  2006  104.2   12.0
4    Cleveland Cavaliers  2006  103.7   13.0
10        Indiana Pacers  2006  103.2   14.0
15     Memphis Grizzlies  2006   99.0   15.0
13        Denver Nuggets  2006   95.0   16.0
0
                     Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
7   Golden State Warriors  2007  110.9    1.0
6            Phoenix Suns  2007  110.6    2.0
0       San Antonio Spurs  2007  107.6    3.0
3               Utah Jazz  2007  106.9    4.0
9        Dallas Mavericks  2007  105.7    5.0
2         Detroit Pistons  2007  105.2    6.0
12     Los Angeles Lakers  2007  103.8    7.0
15     Washington Wizards  2007  103.5    8.0
4           Chicago Bulls  2007  103.4    9.0
14          Orlando Magic  2007  102.9   10.0
1     Cleveland Cavaliers  2007  102.5   11.0
5         New Jersey Nets  2007  101.7   12.0
10        Toronto Raptors  2007  101.0   13.0
11         Denver Nuggets  2007  100.7   14.0
8         Houston Rockets  2007   99.6   15.0
13             Miami Heat  2007   96.9   16.0
0
                   Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
5   New Orleans Hornets  2008  111.5    1.0
7         Orlando Magic  2008  111.0    2.0
6             Utah Jazz  2008  110.1    3.5
14      Toronto Raptors  2008  110.1    3.5
1    Los Angeles Lakers  2008  110.0    5.0
0        Boston Celtics  2008  109.4    6.0
2       Detroit Pistons  2008  108.0    7.5
12     Dallas Mavericks  2008  108.0    7.5
11   Washington Wizards  2008  104.9    9.0
4   Cleveland Cavaliers  2008  104.6   10.0
15       Denver Nuggets  2008  104.3   11.0
13         Phoenix Suns  2008  104.1   12.0
3     San Antonio Spurs  2008  103.9   13.0
9       Houston Rockets  2008  103.8   14.0
8         Atlanta Hawks  2008  101.6   15.0
10   Philadelphia 76ers  2008   99.8   16.0
0
                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
3           Denver Nuggets  2009  116.8    1.0
6         Dallas Mavericks  2009  113.0    2.0
2      Cleveland Cavaliers  2009  112.6    3.0
0       Los Angeles Lakers  2009  111.4    4.0
1            Orlando Magic  2009  107.3    5.0
9               Miami Heat  2009  106.7    6.0
4           Boston Celtics  2009  106.3    7.0
8            Chicago Bulls  2009  105.9    8.0
13       San Antonio Spurs  2009  105.4    9.0
5          Houston Rockets  2009  104.7   10.0
14               Utah Jazz  2009  104.2   11.0
11  Portland Trail Blazers  2009  103.9   12.0
7            Atlanta Hawks  2009  102.0   13.0
10      Philadelphia 76ers  2009  100.5   14.0
12     New Orleans Hornets  2009   93.7   15.0
15         Detroit Pistons  2009   93.6   16.0
0
                      Team  Year   ORtg  Orank
3             Phoenix Suns  2010  117.8    1.0
7                Utah Jazz  2010  114.0    2.0
10          Denver Nuggets  2010  113.9    3.0
0       Los Angeles Lakers  2010  112.8    4.0
2            Orlando Magic  2010  110.8    5.0
4      Cleveland Cavaliers  2010  108.2    6.0
12  Portland Trail Blazers  2010  106.5    7.0
6        San Antonio Spurs  2010  105.7    8.0
9         Dallas Mavericks  2010  105.1    9.0
8          Milwaukee Bucks  2010  105.0   10.5
13           Chicago Bulls  2010  105.0   10.5
1           Boston Celtics  2010  104.8   12.0
5            Atlanta Hawks  2010  104.3   13.0
11   Oklahoma City Thunder  2010  103.6   14.0
15       Charlotte Bobcats  2010  100.2   15.0
14              Miami Heat  2010   96.2   16.0



I'm having a little difficulty figuring out exactly where/how you got your numbers. I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the Jazz '88-'91, CLE/PHX/BOS in '90, ATL in '88, LAL/DET in '85......as far as I can tell you're using bbref's advanced game log summary feature [or something very similar to it]????

Even that doesn't appear to match EXACTLY with the numbers you've cited [in most instances], but it's generally very very close, not varying from your numbers by more than 0.3-0.4 [usually less].....except for the Utah Jazz in a couple instances.

Example: '88 Jazz
The advanced gamelog summary indicates a playoff ORtg of 109.5. We also get the same if we go to the playoff series page for each of the two series's they played that year: they were a 108.3 ORtg in the first round (4 games), and a 110.2 ORtg in the semis (7 games)......averages out to 109.5 if weighting for games played in each series.
But your chart credits them for only a 108.7 ORtg.

There's a similar discrepancy in the figure shown for '91:
The advanced gamelog summary puts the '91 Jazz playoff ORtg 110.6, as does doing it algebraically from the ORtg's shown on the individual series's pages.
But your chart credits them for only a 109.9 ORtg.


You've also used terms like "relative ORtg", which [when referencing the playoffs] we usually take to mean their performance relative to the defense faced. If you're just using the gamelog data [or similar methodology], that is NOT listed relative to defense faced; it's just an absolute figure.

Thus, if we for instance had Team A playing as a 110 ORtg while facing a 104 DRtg [+6], and Team B playing as a 111 ORtg while facing a 109 DRtg [+2], your listing is going to be placing Team B ahead; when in actuality, Team A performed FAR better offensively.

Focusing in on a few of the cited years for the Jazz, this REALLY becomes relevant.....

'88
Again, gamelogs and algebraic derivation placed their ORtg at 109.5 (though you'd cited 108.7), but they did that by way of performing as a +2.2 rORTG (relative to the defenses faced): in the 1st round [4 games] they were a 108.3 ORtg while facing a 107.4 DRtg [+0.9], and in semis [7 games] they were a 110.2 ORtg while facing a 107.3 DRtg [+2.9].......averages out to about a +2.2 rORTG. Added to the league avg (108.0), that would be 110.2.

'90
Were a 108.3 ORtg while facing a 106.2 DRtg (+2.1). Added to league avg (108.1), that's a 110.2 [you'd listed 108.0].

'91
Again, algebraically [or via gamelogs] they'd been a 110.6 ORtg. But that came via being a 112.0 ORtg in 1st round [4 games] vs a 106.1 DRtg [+5.9], and a 109.4 ORtg in the semis [5 games] vs an elite 104.3 DRtg [+5.1].......they averaged out as a +5.5 rORTG (added to league avg that would be 113.4).
Again, the figure cited for them in your data is 109.9.


Can you shed some light on what I am missing here?


I'd also note that cutting off at '93 may be skewing things against Stockton: iirc, the Jazz were outstanding in terms of post-season offense in '94 and '96, and actually '97 is quite good too (were the #2-rated +6.9 rORTG in rs, and then out-performed that expectation by +0.1 in the playoffs [relative to defenses faced]).


EDIT: I will note that when I run the "relative" numbers as I have above (the method that yielded 113.4 for Utah, for example), I get a very different figure for other teams than what you've listed.....and generally much lower. However, no team [even specifically in '91] seems to suffer as large of a [negative] discrepancy as Utah. So if there's some manner of adjuster I'm unaware of, it doesn't seem to be applied equitably across all teams.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 42,962
And1: 11,678
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#24 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:12 pm

Apologies if I'm repeating myself but I don't think I actually made this post before:

On the idea of a guy's efficiency being held back by volume:

I think this often isn't what's happening. Yes there are players who become efficient specifically by taking on a role where they look to pass rather than take on harder shots like Stockton, but if you're talking about a guy who leads his team's offense, his shot taking is generally just based on his own judgment.

With a guy like Isiah, who in general was a below average efficiency shooter his whole career while scoring at various volumes, I think you're just talking about a guy whose natural instinct of what a good shot was for himself was off in the "me" direction. To be fair, I don't think there's anything all that different from Isiah's brain here compared to Jordan except that Jordan happened to be better and thus more efficient while attempting high degree of difficulty attacks.

To be clear: I'm not looking to assert that Isiah was "bad". I don't think it's crazy at all to argue that Isiah was extremely valuable, only that his shooting efficiency isn't the product of n-dimensional chess. He's just a dude trying to make the best decisions possible in the absence of better data which could have helped him navigate things better.

But as I say that: I do think there are players with a strong since of efficiency without the need for stats (I think Oscar & West are arguably the poster boys for this), so when I'm talking about a legendary point guard who didn't seem to have this internal compass, well, this is a negative thing to at least some degree.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
DQuinn1575
Rookie
Posts: 1,046
And1: 345
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#25 » by DQuinn1575 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:14 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Vote:

1. Steph Curry
2. Steve Nash
3. Moses Malone

I voted for Curry first last time and explained how I saw him - as the focal point of the best team I've ever seen play. I don't see a need to belabor the point. To be clear, Nash certainly has a longevity argument over Curry, and I'm not saying those who rate Nash over Curry prime vs prime are crazy, but I do rate Curry's prime beyond Nash's, and the significance of what Curry achieved is so huge legacy-wise that it's not easy to make up for that for me. Anyway, I want to give a focus on Nash here:


.


What year are you calling golden state the best ever? Trying to follow logic, not sure between Curry and Durant when they played together, and like to understand this view better.
Voted for Mikan a few times in a row, and want to sort the players out better- there are a bunch of guys with a good case, and I’m not sure of my order right now.
WestGOAT
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,430
And1: 1,852
Joined: Dec 20, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#26 » by WestGOAT » Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:25 pm

trex_8063 wrote:I'm having a little difficulty figuring out exactly where/how you got your numbers. I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the Jazz '88-'91, CLE/PHX/BOS in '90, ATL in '88, LAL/DET in '85......as far as I can tell you're using bbref's advanced game log summary feature [or something very similar to it]????

Can you shed some light on what I am missing here?

Absolutely, glad you asked!

I basically pulled data using a basketball-reference scraper that can make collecting data more automated. For Team ORtg data I used the following table for different years, for example:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1988.html#all_misc

Here you can see the Jazz has an ORtg of 108.7. I collected data from 1985 till 2020.

trex_8063 wrote: You've also used terms like "relative ORtg", which [when referencing the playoffs] we usually take to mean their performance relative to the defense faced. If you're just using the gamelog data [or similar methodology], that is NOT listed relative to defense faced; it's just an absolute figure.

Yea my rankings are indeed relative to absolute ORTg for total playoffs.

I see what you mean with "relative ORtg" and understand the reasoning behind it, but I think it also has it's downfalls.
How do you take into account regular season vs post-season defence for example. Less fast-breaks, and everything slows down in the playoffs, etc. Or if players are injured? What about match-up issues? Also some teams just match up better than others, so how representative is regular season ORtg/DRtg (if that's being used as baseline)? I think there are probably many ways to calculate a "normalized" ORtg/DRtg.

For example you mention:
trex_8063 wrote:Thus, if we for instance had Team A playing as a 110 ORtg while facing a 104 DRtg [+6], and Team B playing as a 111 ORtg while facing a 109 DRtg [+2], your listing is going to be placing Team B ahead; when in actuality, Team A performed FAR better offensively.


Is an arbitrary comparison, how do we how team B would have fared against the 104 DRtg, and vice versa Team A against the 109 DRtg?

In my case, the ORtg I used is definitely not perfect, but considering we are looking over multiple years this should correct for opposition (hopefully), since different opponents are faced over this span. Also I think playoffs ORTg can be more valuable than regular-season ORTg since the playoffs should not include bottom-feeder teams.

I'd also note that cutting off at '93 may be skewing things against Stockton:

Yea every cut-off is somewhat arbitrary, but I based it mainly on Stockton's age and how many posters keep bring up his early year exploits (Also I thought it would be nice to have an equal-year comparison for Thomas, Stockton, and Nash).
I fully am aware the Jazz ORtg became elite when Hornachek joined and Stockton took more of a backseat.
User avatar
eminence
General Manager
Posts: 8,248
And1: 4,966
Joined: Mar 07, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#27 » by eminence » Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:26 pm

trex_8063 wrote:.


Are they just the #'s from the playoff summary page?

But yeah, those don't look like relative ratings to me at all. I see West has replied and my suspicion was correct.

Yeah, WestGOAT, RelativeRating has an agreed upon meaning, and that's not it. That's their offense rank without respect to competition faced, nothing relative about it.
'17-'18 APBR Win Projections Champion (1st of 20)
'18-'19 5th of 18
'19-'20 2nd of 17 (For now?)
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 42,962
And1: 11,678
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#28 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:54 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:What year are you calling golden state the best ever? Trying to follow logic, not sure between Curry and Durant when they played together, and like to understand this view better.
Voted for Mikan a few times in a row, and want to sort the players out better- there are a bunch of guys with a good case, and I’m not sure of my order right now.


I was referring to '15-16 actually but let me be clear:

I consider the '16-17 team to be the most unbeatable team ever and thus generally consider that the best team ever. And on that team, Curry was the MVP.

For perspective here, if we take the NBA from '16-17 to '18-19, the 3 years Durant played in GS, here were the overall leaders in +/- for that time:

1. Steph Curry +2698
2. Kevin Durant +2191
3. Draymond Green +2121
4. Klay Thompson +1912
5. Chris Paul +1467

There are more sophisticated stats out there that point in the same direction, but I think looking at raw +/- does tend to paint a pretty concrete picture. The Warriors' success just correlated a lot more with Curry than Durant or anyone else.

And I would say this is gravity at work. After '15-16, the league was so terrified of Curry that he was able to use that fear against opponents to a staggering degree which allowed him to move more off-ball, which allowed Durant to thrive all the more.

I think that if you end up focusing on just on-ball play it's easy to think "Durant was just doing more for the Warriors than Curry", but the truth was that while Curry sacrificed his stats by taking on a lower primacy role, his value remained best-in-game level.

I also think that I've seen enough from Curry after Durant's injury to think "Oh yeah, he's still got his on-ball game." While we don't know what will happen after the injury and year off, there isn't really any reason to think that Curry circa 2019 was a fundamentally less capable player than he was in 2014-15. I think he's considerably more capable than he was in his first MVP year.

But as I said, '15-16 is in a different category for me. It's quite true that Curry and the team was not playing the best in the playoffs and I'm not trying to say a) that didn't matter or b) it doesn't say something about at least some level of fragility to the flow they thrive with. But when they were on that year, it was like nothing else I've seen in basketball over an extended period of time. Those closest would be the '95-96 Bulls. And yeah those Bulls won the championship so overall what they did was a greater accomplishment, but when that Warriors team was at their best, it was jaw-dropping.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
WestGOAT
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,430
And1: 1,852
Joined: Dec 20, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#29 » by WestGOAT » Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:58 pm

eminence wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:.


Are they just the #'s from the playoff summary page?

But yeah, those don't look like relative ratings to me at all. I see West has replied and my suspicion was correct.

Yeah, WestGOAT, RelativeRating has an agreed upon meaning, and that's not it

Fair play if you have an agreed-upon meaning in these circles on what playoffs ORtg should be relative to, but I thought I was clear enough in my posts I was doing a simple ranking based on absolute playoff ORtg values, which is definitely relative in a technical sense.

Like I outlined above to trex_8603, if I understand correctly, I am not sure how you should evaluate a stat that is based on the difference between a team's offensive performance in the playoffs for one series (series ORtg) relative to the oppositions' defensive performance calculated over a season (RS DRtg).

I think everyone acknowledges that playoff defence is way different than regular-season defence.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,092
And1: 5,074
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#30 » by trex_8063 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:19 pm

I appreciate the reply :).

WestGOAT wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:I'm having a little difficulty figuring out exactly where/how you got your numbers. I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the Jazz '88-'91, CLE/PHX/BOS in '90, ATL in '88, LAL/DET in '85......as far as I can tell you're using bbref's advanced game log summary feature [or something very similar to it]????

Can you shed some light on what I am missing here?

Absolutely, glad you asked!

I basically pulled data using a basketball-reference scraper that can make collecting data more automated. For Team ORtg data I used the following table for different years, for example:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1988.html#all_misc

Here you can see the Jazz has an ORtg of 108.7. I collected data from 1985 till 2020.


Ah. Believe it or not I was not even aware of the "Playoff Summary" pages.
It's odd that the numbers come out a little different [usually] than what the gamelog page or the playoff series page shows. Not sure why that would be.
The Jazz do seem to have more years where the difference appears "punitive" to them, for whatever reason. Granted I haven't looked at EVERY team within these samples, but I've looked at more than several; and outside of the Jazz the largest discrepancy I've found was with the '91 Pacers: series page says 117.0 ORtg, Playoff Summary page says only 116.4 [-0.6].......most other teams are <0.4 off.
But TWO of the Jazz teams cited are -0.7 or -0.8 difference.


WestGOAT wrote:In my case, the ORtg I used is definitely not perfect, but considering we are looking over multiple years this should correct for opposition (hopefully), since different opponents are faced over this span.


Over a large enough sample things probably would "even out" or normalize [even spread of good/bad/average defenses faced] across all teams. But as a former poker player, I'd say a mere handful of years is no where near large enough.

Even a century of data [which obviously no individual player has a career that remotely approaches that span] would probably only be adequate to pull things with a few tenths of a point in most instances (would probably still be at least one or two outliers).

Within individual years one can get an idea of how much omitting the defense faced can skew things.....

Example: in '91 the average defense the Jazz faced [when they got that 108.7 that is listed on the summary page] was a -2.8 rDRTG. The Spurs by comparison faced a +2.4 rDRTG.
So whereas the playoff summary page shows them separated by a mere two places (9th and 11th) and 3.2 difference in ORtg, the actual difference in rORTG was 8.4 (which is larger than the separation between 9th and 1st as shown on that listing).

Or perhaps more to the point, framing '91 specifically in a Stockton vs Isiah light (as is the premise of your charts): Stockton helped anchor the "109.9" cited while facing a -2.8 rDRTG [on average]. Isiah helped anchor a 111.2 ORtg while facing an [on average] a -0.5 rDRTG.
So relative to the defenses faced, the Stockton-led offense was actually +1.0 better than the Isiah-led one, while the chart cites them as -1.3 worse and trailing by three places (9th vs 6th).

Hopefully food for thought.


WestGOAT wrote:
I'd also note that cutting off at '93 may be skewing things against Stockton:

Yea every cut-off is somewhat arbitrary, but I based it mainly on Stockton's age and how many posters keep bring up his early year exploits (Also I thought it would be nice to have an equal-year comparison for Thomas, Stockton, and Nash).
I fully am aware the Jazz ORtg became elite when Hornachek joined and Stockton took more of a backseat.


I'm not really seeing any indication whatsoever that he "took more of a backseat".....

Did his mpg decline upon Hornacek's arrival? No, it did not.

Did his usage decline upon Hornacek's arrival? No, it did not. In fact, '94-'98 were ALL marginally higher than ANY of '90-'93.

Did his Ast/100 numbers or AST% decline upon Hornacek's arrival? No, at least not until a very tiny decline beginning in '96 (but Hornacek had arrived in '94).
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,092
And1: 5,074
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#31 » by trex_8063 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:30 pm

WestGOAT wrote:Like I outlined above to trex_8603, if I understand correctly, I am not sure how you should evaluate a stat that is based on the difference between a team's offensive performance in the playoffs for one series (series ORtg) relative to the oppositions' defensive performance calculated over a season (RS DRtg).

I think everyone acknowledges that playoff defence is way different than regular-season defence.


I think one has to use the rs DRtg as defining figure of what that team was like defensively [and then just mention injuries or whatever other contextual information might be relevant].
One can't [or shouldn't, imo] use a team's playoff DRtg as the baseline, because for teams eliminated early [e.g. 1st round], the sample size is obviously questionable, AND the team that beat them could essentially be penalized for playing awesome offense.

Example: Suppose a hypothetical Team A destroys their 1st round opponent to the tune of a 180 ORtg. This would obviously be the single-greatest offensive series in all of NBA history. But if we're grading it vs the playoff DRtg faced, it gets graded as a +/- 0.0 rORTG series........because after all that opponent's playoff DRtg would be 180.

The rs DRtg provides a [more or less] reliable assessment for those teams.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
Owly
Analyst
Posts: 3,220
And1: 1,666
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#32 » by Owly » Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:32 pm

WestGOAT wrote:
eminence wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:.


Are they just the #'s from the playoff summary page?

But yeah, those don't look like relative ratings to me at all. I see West has replied and my suspicion was correct.

Yeah, WestGOAT, RelativeRating has an agreed upon meaning, and that's not it

Fair play if you have an agreed-upon meaning in these circles on what playoffs ORtg should be relative to, but I thought I was clear enough in my posts I was doing a simple ranking based on absolute playoff ORtg values, which is definitely relative in a technical sense.

Like I outlined above to trex_8603, if I understand correctly, I am not sure how you should evaluate a stat that is based on the difference between a team's offensive performance in the playoffs for one series (series ORtg) relative to the oppositions' defensive performance calculated over a season (RS DRtg).

I think everyone acknowledges that playoff defence is way different than regular-season defence.

I would imagine the idea would be that RS scheduling is sufficiently similar for all that an adjustment for opponent, whilst perhaps desirable, isn't necessary (or isn't a high priority or whatever). For playoffs this self-evidently isn't the case, so the need to adjust for opponent quality becomes more glaring.

Whether you can assume a team will necessarily repeat their large sample performance over a series is probably up for grabs. My inclination would be perhaps not, but it's probably the least worst option.
User avatar
eminence
General Manager
Posts: 8,248
And1: 4,966
Joined: Mar 07, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#33 » by eminence » Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:46 pm

The more traditional playoff RelRatings over each of the discussed periods (plus Curry). Removed series where Curry missed sizable time, I don't think any of the other guys had series like that on first glance, but if I missed one let me know.

Pistons '85-'90, 18 Series
+4.5 Off, -5.3 Def, +9.8 Net

Suns '05-'10, 12 Series
+11.4 Off, +2.9 Def, +8.5 Net

Jazz '88-'93, 10 Series
+3.9 Off, -0.9 Def, +4.7 Net

Curry w/o KD '13-'19, 11 Series
+4.5 Off, -3.5 Def, +7.9 Net

Curry w/KD '17-'19, 8 Series
+9.7 Off, -4.7 Def, +14.4 Net

Curry total '13-'19, 19 Series
+6.7 Off, -4.0 Def, +10.6 Net
'17-'18 APBR Win Projections Champion (1st of 20)
'18-'19 5th of 18
'19-'20 2nd of 17 (For now?)
WestGOAT
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,430
And1: 1,852
Joined: Dec 20, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#34 » by WestGOAT » Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:11 pm

eminence wrote:The more traditional playoff RelRatings over each of the discussed periods (plus Curry). Removed series where Curry missed sizable time, I don't think any of the other guys had series like that on first glance, but if I missed one let me know.

Pistons '85-'90, 18 Series
+4.5 Off, -5.3 Def, +9.8 Net

Suns '05-'10, 12 Series
+11.4 Off, +2.9 Def, +8.5 Net

Jazz '88-'93, 10 Series
+3.9 Off, -0.9 Def, +4.7 Net

Okay the Jazz's ORtg looks much better now (instead of underwhelming), but do you agree that the chart I plotted was more or less in line with the numbers you calculated, at least in the sense of rating the ORtg of the Pistons, and especially the Sun's, higher than the Jazz?

Thomas, team ranking: [4,8,5,11,4,8], average: 6.66.
Stockton, team ranking: [9,13,10,9,4,14], average: 9.83
Nash, team ranking : [1,2,2,12,nan,1], average: 3.6

trex_8063 wrote:Or perhaps more to the point, framing '91 specifically in a Stockton vs Isiah light (as is the premise of your charts): Stockton helped anchor the "109.9" cited while facing a -2.8 rDRTG [on average]. Isiah helped anchor a 111.2 ORtg while facing an [on average] a -0.5 rDRTG.
So relative to the defenses faced, the Stockton-led offense was actually +1.0 better than the Isiah-led one, while the chart cites them as -1.3 worse and trailing by three places (9th vs 6th).

Hopefully food for thought.

Definitely, maybe I will see how I can calculate these stats automatically, but seems a bit complicated. And actually I don't think IT '91 playoffs is included, I did up to 1990.

That said eminence was dedicated enough to provide the numbers for time periods I used, and while the Jazz's ORtg definitely doesn't look underwhelming, the Pistons still have a higher rORTg, and the Suns are still head-and-shoulders above the rest. The chart I built wasn't too far from the mark (at least in my biased opinion ofc).

trex_8063 wrote:Did his Ast/100 numbers or AST% decline upon Hornacek's arrival? No, at least not until a very tiny decline beginning in '96 (but Hornacek had arrived in '94).

I think his AST%, at least in the playoffs, did drop no?
1988-1993: 52,08333333
1994-1998: 46,46

Code: Select all

Period      AST%
1988-1993   52,08333333
1994-1998   46,46

Raw stats:
Season   Age   AST%
1987-88   25   51,9
1988-89   26   50,6
1989-90   27   55,9
1990-91   28   51,5
1991-92   29   54,2
1992-93   30   48,4
1993-94   31   46,4
1994-95   32   45,4
1995-96   33   45,9
1996-97   34   47,5
1997-98   35   47,1

sansterre
Sophomore
Posts: 156
And1: 225
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#35 » by sansterre » Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:50 pm

1. Chris Paul - lots of longevity, actually got better in the playoffs, underrated because his teammates weren't as good as they needed to be, suffered from durability issues (totally true) but never debilitatingly so (he tended to miss lots of little stretches, not lose entire seasons like Durant). Had a success with a lot of teams, rosters and coaches, often without a lot to work with.

2. Charles Barkley - not an above average defender, and not a lot of range, but has an extremely dominant offensive skillset. Early on was super-athletic, but not a great passer. The older he got the less athletic he became, but he became a very capable playmaker toward the end. Also got a little better in the playoffs. Combine that, a long value curve and pretty respectable longevity and Barkley is my pick here.

3. Kevin Durant - arguably the best regular season scorer ever. Sure his passing isn't great, sure his defense is only decent and sure his only other real skill is defensive rebounding. But when you're one of the very best scorers ever *and* have considerable off-ball value such that you can scale with strong teams . . . you're super valuable. The only reason he's this low is because of playoffs/seasons missed.

I know there's a lot of groundswell for Moses, and his offensive rebounding and longevity are legit, but his extremely low assist/passing numbers plus the fact that he led every team he was ever on (or close to it) in turnovers by a lot makes me feel like he's being a little overrated.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,092
And1: 5,074
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#36 » by trex_8063 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:34 pm

WestGOAT wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:Did his Ast/100 numbers or AST% decline upon Hornacek's arrival? No, at least not until a very tiny decline beginning in '96 (but Hornacek had arrived in '94).

I think his AST%, at least in the playoffs, did drop no?
1988-1993: 52,08333333
1994-1998: 46,46

Code: Select all

Period      AST%
1988-1993   52,08333333
1994-1998   46,46

Raw stats:
Season   Age   AST%
1987-88   25   51,9
1988-89   26   50,6
1989-90   27   55,9
1990-91   28   51,5
1991-92   29   54,2
1992-93   30   48,4
1993-94   31   46,4
1994-95   32   45,4
1995-96   33   45,9
1996-97   34   47,5
1997-98   35   47,1



Well, by that slight standard we have even MORE grounds to say that Isiah "took more of a backseat" once Dumars arrived: his rs AST% took an even more notable dip [than Stockton's did] immediately upon arrival of rookie Dumars, and his playoff AST% took a more substantial dip beginning in Joe's 2nd year.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,092
And1: 5,074
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#37 » by trex_8063 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:44 pm

1st vote: Charles Barkley
One of the greatest offensive forwards ever, imo. Led THE LEAGUE in TS% for four consecutive years while averaging anywhere from 23-28.3 ppg. Multiple other high scoring seasons at ~60+% TS, and a career 12.5% OREB% (once led the league in this as well [in the same year he led the league in TS%]), as well as being a more than capable passing forward. Just a tremendous [GOAT-tier] foul-draw capacity, devastating finisher (both in the half-court and in transition), excellent at passing out of doubles, and capable of taking the point on the fast-break.
You watch young Barkley and you see one of the most uniquely athletic players of all-time. Only 6'5", but long arms, strong as a bull, fast in the open court, and able to explode almost effortlessly from a two-footed jump.

Barkley ticks most of the "accomplishment" boxes, except for having a title; but that's hardly a requisite [imo] at this stage of the list.
His biggest weaknesses are that he didn't take care of himself tremendously well (but he still played >39,000 minutes in 16 seasons), and his defensive shortcomings by the mid-point of his career and after are at times glaring.
But still a worthy candidate at this stage.


2nd vote: John Stockton
I'll keep it short 'cause I'm out of time. Yeah, meaningful longevity matters to me: Stockton was valuable (almost a borderline All-Star calibre player) even in his 19th and final season (every metric, including the impact variety, bare this to be true).
So clever (and dirty), particularly defensively, excellent shooter, fantastic [if a touch overly "safe"] passer; and bloody tough as nails.
While I don't think he attained the offensive heights of Steve Nash, he so thoroughly trumps Nash as a defender AND in terms of longevity that I have him comfortably ahead in an all-time sense.
Vs Chris Paul: I feel Paul was a similar offensive engine in the rs, and a bit better where the playoffs are concerned. He's also every bit Stockton's peer (probably a bit better, actually) defensively. This is what pulls him roughly even, despite lesser longevity. I could [and have] flip their order relative to each other.
I imagine I'll be championing him for awhile before others are willing to give him votes, so I'll have to work up some more extensive arguments at a later time.


3rd vote: Chris Paul
I think Paul suffers severely in the esteems of the media and casual fans alike because he's a pass-first PG (which limits ppg), because he's not been to the finals, and a relative lack of flash.
But this is a player who is 9th all-time in career PER (despite a career lasting 15 seasons, >1000 games, >35,000 minutes), 14th in WS (12th in NBA-only careers), and 7th in VORP.
In the playoffs he's got the 10th-best career PER of all-time (ahead of contemporaries like Dirk, Kawhi, Steph Curry, and James Harden), as well as being 34th in WS and 24th in VORP (despite never making a run as deep as the finals).

In terms of impact, his best 10 years RAPM added is 5th among those players we have the data for. Only Lebron, Garnett, Duncan, and Shaq exceed him in this (all of them already voted in, the nearest being 8 places ago)......which means he's AHEAD of contemporaries like Dirk and Wade. He's also ahead of the best 10-years of Charles Barkley, fwiw (and we have some pseudo-RAPM going back as far as '88 for Barkley).

While I think Paul's fallen slightly short of the offensive peaks attained by Nash or Magic (I think his relative conservatism holds him back), it's notable that he combines the offense he does provide [GOAT-tier mid-range shooting, GOAT-tier turnover economy] with frequently being one of the best defensive PG's of his generation: he's short, but thick, strong, and aggressive. He's not easily abused even by bigger guards, doesn't die on screens, is persistently pesky on ball [with quick hands], and is impeccable in his positioning to interfere with the slip pass on pnr defense. Rebounds reasonably well for his size, too (obviously well shy of Magic in this regard, not that Magic is on the table for comparison presently).


I'll go with this order for now, although as I stated previously: these three feel very fluid to me, so I have trouble sticking to an order I'm comfortable with.

As I think I may end up ghosted with these picks, I'll preemptively state that if given a choice between Moses Malone and Steph Curry, I go with Moses.

If it comes down to Moses vs Durant........idk; I'll have to think on that one.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
Cavsfansince84
Head Coach
Posts: 7,390
And1: 5,677
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#38 » by Cavsfansince84 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:44 pm

1. Barkley
-what I view as a somewhat long and very productive prime(11th in career vorp, top 5 7 times)
-very good peak(finished higher than prime level MJ in mvp voting twice)
-great post skills to go with solid outside shot, good handles for a big and passing ability
-game changing off rebounding
-consistently great playoff gear
-his mixture of strength, explosiveness and skill is what makes me put him here, it would be unstoppable in any era

2. Pettit
-10 time all nba 1st team
-very good shooter which he could do off the dribble
-excellent rebounder
-very good metrics/efficiency for his era(led league in per 4 times, has total ts add of 1757 for his career)
-25.5/15.8 career playoff averages
-won ring and top 4 in mvp voting 8 times

3. KD
-this is a close one for me. I put him over Moses but I don't really value any of the rings they won that highly. Both came to very similar situations on very stacked teams and won titles then left a few years later. Why I vote KD is I think that his average prime season was just better and I like his versatility and efficiency. Though Moses was somewhat efficient by his era(with career ts add of 1888 and peak of 250 in 1979 to KD's 2607 with a peak of 394(in 2013) and 5 seasons better than Moses' career high. The other thing is that most of the box score metrics consider KD's prime to be in the top 12 all time area while Moses would be more like top 40ish. I'm not sure if I consider Moses to definitely be 4th for me right now but I felt like comparing them. There's obviously also a whole group of 4-5 pgs that will be getting a lot of talk very soon and already are.
-to reinforce why I rate KD's prime highly: 9x top 10 in mvp voting, 6x top 5, 4x top 2. 5x top 3 in vorp. 4x league ppg leader
- generally speaking I think he's consistently very good with some great peaks with the Warriors(which can be taken with a grain of salt) in the playoffs and plays on winning rs teams. I think its pretty easy to build around him as your best player though I don't like his leadership skills much and think he needs a strong coach or teammate to sort of guide his teams. So that is a flaw in him imo.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,092
And1: 5,074
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#39 » by trex_8063 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:31 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
1. The fact their raw +/- is about the same doesn't say they had the same impact, and I'm not quibbling about noise which is of course a whole nother issues. I mean that when one guy plays a lot more than the other, leading that team to .500 ball can actually be a pretty significantly positive indication of impact. Or not. Really depends, but what's definitely the case is that a +/- of zero doesn't mean zero impact, because zero +/- isn't replacement level.

I realize that we have APM-style stats that may give Stockton the edge based on this, but pretty sure that if Malone rides the pine as much as Stockton, the Jazz don't get that far.


When you say "APM-style" stats, are you referring to '94-'96? Stockton wasn't "riding the pine" much more than Malone in those years, is why I ask.

Doctor MJ wrote:2. It's important to split the numbers up by years I think because Malone's impact seems to fall off dramatically at a certain point.

From '96-97 to '98-99 (3 years, just so we're clear), all-season numbers, the Jazz leaderboard looks like this:

1. Malone 1891
2. Hornacek 1724
3. Stockton 1573




LA Bird wrote:Here are the same numbers in year by year on/offs:

Malone vs Stockton (Regular season)
1994: +17.4 vs +7.3
1995: +9.6 vs +6.4
1996: +13.5 vs +14.5
1997: +21.9 vs +7.6
1998: +17.4 vs +12.4
1999: +13.0 vs +10.5
2000: +14.4 vs +14.6
2001: +6.2 vs +18.5
2002: -0.6 vs + 6.9
2003: +2.5 vs +6.2

Malone vs Stockton (Playoffs)
1997-99: +19.0 vs +3.1
2000-03: +12.3 vs +17.7

Malone had the better numbers when both were in their primes and the Jazz were at their best.


I mentioned this in another thread, but specifically wrt '97, there's a clear answer to why his on/off lags so far behind that year. If you look at the starters, he's way behind EVERYONE in the starting line-up: next lowest is Ostertag at +16.0.....everyone else is >+20 (even Russell).

But watching the Jazz that year you see it's Stockton who was tasked with "carrying" the 2nd unit (which wasn't too impressive that year, especially in that rs). This is reflected looking at the line-ups page on bbref:

The 4th, 5th, 9th, and 12th-most common Stockton line-ups were Stockton with ZERO other starters. His 6th, 8th, and 10th-most common line-ups were him with just ONE other starter.

By comparison, there is not a single line-up with Malone on the court with ZERO other starters; and only his 7th and 9th-most common line-ups have him on the court with only ONE other starter. Hornacek and Russell enjoyed similar line-up distributions, btw.

I can't speak to other years, but just wanted to point out that the '97 on/off numbers are HIGHLY mis-leading based on this.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
DQuinn1575
Rookie
Posts: 1,046
And1: 345
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #20 

Post#40 » by DQuinn1575 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:40 pm

1. Moses, so for an 11 year span from 1978 to 1988 he led the NBA in win shares. (per B-Ref)
Moses 125.2
Bird 123,7
Kareem 121.0

From 1980-1988, Magic's first 9 years:
Bird 123,7
Moses 105.0
Magic 104.2

So he is ahead of Magic in the first 9 years of Magic's career, and starting in 79 better than Kareem going forward. From 79-83 he pretty much was best player in the world, no one left doesn't come close to this. I think Moses is the last player left who was the best player for an extended period of time.

2. Getting hard to separate a bunch of players - going with Durant, probably the clincher is the championships.

3. Barkley - going with the efficient scoring over the host of good candidates. Pettit looks good, but I'm not ready to add another old-timer, and want to look at him vs Baylor. Feel like I need to sort through Paul v Stockton v Isiah v Curry v Frazier at guards, and then Wade v Pippen v Havlicek v Barry at forwards.

Return to Player Comparisons