ceiling raiser wrote:I’m looking at these guys, but feel free to include others:
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Steph Curry
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
LeBron James
Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
Dirk Nowitzki
Shaquille O’Neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
Oscar Robertson
David Robinson
Bill Russell
Are any players more than 70/30 in one direction or another? Who is closest to 50/50?
I'm going to approach this a little differently because I just don't feel like I can give meaningful numbers, and I'm particularly interested in how players evolved.
Kareem - I believe he was likely always more valuable on offense than defense, but that it was close early in his career. By the time he's in LA I don't think it was close any more, and that gap got bigger and bigger and if his defense never went negative, it was because of the poor spacing of the time.
Bird - Always bigger on offense no doubt, but I think he was significantly value on defense for much of his career. When you have a player who improvises a lot while playing considerably more than anyone else, and the result is an elite defense, I think what he's doing out there must be working quite well on the whole.
Kobe - Heavy tilt toward offense the entire time. Clear positive defensive impact in his early prime, and had the ability to be positive defensively when he focused on it and didn't gamble too much.
Wilt - Mild offensive impact for most of his time on the Warriors, massive defensive impact when focused on it. Apex comes in '66-67 with the change in offensive strategy, and in that year his offense likely eclipsed his defense in impact. A second crest in the Sharman Laker years when he bought into the garbage man role (while also being focused, and excellent on defense).
Steph - Heavy tilt toward offense the entire time, but with the defense gradually getting more and more robust to the point where it's become a clear positive even in the playoffs.
Duncan - Heavy tilt toward defense in general. Offensive impact likely peaked in '02-03 and then after falling rose some as he took on a role with less primacy, but unlikely his offense was ever more valuable than defense.
Garnett - In a nutshell - mostly from offense in Minny, mostly from defense in Boston, with the defensive arc being very much detached from his physical arc due to the superior strategy in Boston.
LeBron - Heavy tilt toward offense, but while his defense never comes close to offense, at times his defensive impact was quite big.
Jordan - Similar in general orientation and scale to LeBron, but I think more consistent and robust.
Magic - Heavy tilt toward offense the entire time, but likely with a positive defensive impact for most of his prime because of the benefits of his size in an era with poor spacing.
Dirk - Heavy tilt on the positive with a defensive impact that could be positive but also had vulnerabilities.
Shaq - Heavy tilt toward offense on average, but in his prime his impact against teams that didn't use space against him was quite good.
Hakeem - Defensive tilt, though I think he was a net positive on offense from the jump and once you get to the Rudy T years, his offense starts to become debatable with his defense.
Oscar - Confident that this is an offensive tilt the entire time, but less confident in evaluating his defense precisely.
Robinson - I'm honestly not sure in his alpha years whether his offensive or his defensive impact in the regular season was bigger - I expect both were big. I think his defense was always more robust in the playoffs relative to the norms of the age (most teams were not
Run TMC) and as Duncan arrives, Robinson tilts heavily toward defense in general.
Russell - The ultimate tilt toward defense among the all-timers, only real question is whether Russell was positive or negative on offense and when. What's tricky here really is how you're considering a replacement player. As Russell cheats more and more to optimize for defense, are you asking how Russell's offense compared to someone else who would be expected to play his defensive role (along with all the effort that went into that playing every meaningful minute for his team), or whether you're comparing Russell's offense to how you'd expect to use a center with more balanced strengths? As always, what's most real here is the overall impact rather than the offensive vs defensive split.
Adding more players in:
George Mikan - probably the most interesting example here because of how the game changed around him. When he started at DePaul before goaltending was disallowed, I'd expect defense to be his primary source of impact - though his offensive impact was likely considerably higher than his arrival Bob Kurland who wasn't a primary scorer. Once goaltending was disallowed, I'm not actually sure over the next few years which was more valuable between his offense and defense.
If you look at his TS Add, you see how it drops off between '50-51 & '51-52. Some will point out that Mikan was injured in the 1951 playoffs and that may be a factor, but something else I think was likely a major factor was the fact the NBA widened the key from 6 feet to 12 feet (the "key" actually used to look like a key) between those two years specifically to make it harder for Mikan. I think they were trying to make it harder on both sides of the ball, but I think in practice it hurt his offense more than his defense, and frankly I wonder if that rule change might have set the course for big men in the future to typically be stronger on defense than offense.
Jerry West - I'm always curious to know if there was a time when West had defensive impact that would have been by far the best of the non-bigs in the league, but in general I'd have to lean toward saying his offense was always more valuable, and when he was at his best offensively, it wasn't close.
Connie Hawkins - heavy tilt toward offense, but the defense is worth noting - here you have a guy who was an outstanding shot-blocker and thief, but couldn't hold against post-ups against strong guys, which made him a tweener for his day. Teammates, coaching approaches, and opponents loomed large as to whether his defensive value would be positive or negative in his prime, and his defense really decade as he lost his leap.
Julius Erving - heavy tilt toward offense and not typically a big defensive impact guy, but I do think he was very impactful on defense with the right scheme and cast around him (see NY, 1976).
Bill Walton - definite defensive tilt in his prime, but offensive value is significantly positive per minute even toward the end, while defense is more hurt by the loss of explosion.