Page 1 of 17

RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Larry Bird)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 12:58 pm
by penbeast0
Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. There will also be a Nomination vote where whoever gets nominated by the most voters gets added to the Nominee list for subsequent votes. This is again optional.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:
AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
eminence
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
lessthanjake
ljspeelman
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
One_and_Done
penbeast0
rk2023
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
ZeppelinPage


Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Larry Bird
Image

Kobe Bryant
Image

George Mikan
Image

Oscar Robertson
Image

Jerry West
Image

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 1:26 pm
by eminence
Were we switching to the 2 choice ranked nomination system this round?

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 1:34 pm
by One_and_Done
I am assuming we have 2 nomination preferences now.

Vote: Bird

Alternate: TBD

Nominate:D.Rob (since he has traction)

Alternate nomination: Dirk

We’re now getting down into the gritty part of the voting, so I think it’s time for some more in depth cases to be made for new candidates, as I think things will open up after the #12 vote. Frankly D.Rob would have just been nominated over Oscar if we had preferences last round, so that's a fail.

For me #12 is easy. Bird peaks higher than the other nominated candidates and has sufficient longevity. You can see the lift he had when he turned the 79 Celtics from a 29 win team to a 61 win contender. That's so tough to do. He makes your whole offense and floor raises you. Kobe is more of a supplementary player.

So who do I think we should nominate next. I’m torn between several candidates. First is KD, who would be my first choice for the reasons set out below. Unfortunately he may not get any traction.

Spoiler:
As for Durant vs Kobe I don’t understand the argument for Kobe. Durant was a better scorer, better defender, and a better complementary piece who fit in more easily with others. His longevity is enough that any minor advantage Kobe has is negated.

Let’s just look at a peak to peak comparison to start with. Because KD has the consistency of a metronome (when he’s on the court), a number of different years can be advanced as his “peak”. But 2014 seems to have the strongest case. So let’s look at 2014 KD v.s 2008 Kobe (which is often advanced as Kobe’s best year).

KD: 41.8 pp 100, 9.6 rp 100, 7.2 ap 100, 123 Ortg, 104 Drtg, on an insane 635. TS%

Kobe: 36.5 pp 100, 8.1 rp 100, 6.9 ap 100, 115 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 576. TS%

KD is better in literally every, single category, and not by a small margin. But let’s be fair to them and look at a bigger, more representative sample.

Here’s KD from 2010 to 2023, a 13 year stretch if we exclude 2020.

RS per 100: 38.2, 10, 6.3, 120 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 631. TS%

PS per 100: 36.9, 9.8, 5.3, 115 Ortg, 108 Drtg 598. TS%

Kobe from 2000 to 2013:

RS per 100: 37.1, 7.6, 6.9, 112 Ortg, 105 Drtg, TS% 556.

PS per 100: 35.3, 6.9, 6.5, 110 Ortg, 106 Drtg, TS% 543.

So again, KD is basically beating him in every single category except for a trivial defensive rating difference, which could just be noise given how close it is and the sample size. He’s scoring more, and scoring more on insane efficiency. Even his assists are similar, despite Kobe’s supposed passing advantage (which FYI isn’t much of an advantage if you don’t like passing). The difference in Ortg is insane. KD is just cooking him.

On the defensive end KD is almost 7 feet tall with crazy long arms, so he can to a limited extent provide rim protection and switch on to bigger guys, all of which was key to his time on the Warriors. KD fits so much better than Kobe in so many situations, needing a lower usage and complementing other guys. KD was also misused to some degree in OKC, with it now being apparent in hindsight that Westbrook was not an optimal co-star for KD (to put it lightly). He often played with poor spacing in OKC, and thrived anyway.

But let’s turn to the one thing Kobe supporters can maybe argue, which is longevity. I don’t buy this, because KD has had enough longevity to score almost 27K points despite playing through several seasons cut short by COVID and lock outs, so at that point I’d say he has “enough” longevity that unless the person he’s being compared to is a comparably good player longevity isn’t enough to move the needle. But then I’m not even sure we can criticise KD’s longevity too much. Kobe has basically 12-13 healthy-ish, prime type seasons. His last few seasons were negative value add, and the early part of his career is mostly not adding too much. If we took out those years Kobe actually only has 28k+ points, so barely different to KD (who isn’t done yet either).

But what of KD? He was healthy from 2010 to 2014. That’s 5 prime seasons right there. 2016 healthy. That’s 6. 2017 and 2018 he was being rested and was out by design basically, I count those as healthy seasons. KD is up to 8 prime seasons. 2019? He was healthy all the way to the finals, then had an injury. I don’t dock him for that because it’s absurd. It would be rewarding guys like Kobe for getting bounced out in the first round, before they had a chance to injure themselves. That’s 9 prime seasons. In my mind that’s enough to overcome Kobe’s longevity easily. But I also feel KD added good value from 2021 to 2023. In those 3 seasons some of the games he missed were for rest, or due to reasons having nothing to do with injury; if he and the team were keen on him playing more, he could have. He was also healthy for the playoffs in 2021 and 2023 when it mattered (which is what he was being rested for).

I just don’t see what Kobe’s argument over KD would be. KD is just flat out better.


I’d also be interested in Karl Malone, who has more longevity than most if not all remaining candidates, and whose case v.s Kobe I discussed below. Moses Malone has a lot of longevity also, but I am doubtful about how his game would translate today. He feels like a player who was built for a different era, and that holds him back a little.

Spoiler:

I am looking at the stats, and I'm not really seeing Kobe's case.

From 88 to 98 Malone's per 100 stats were 36.6/14.5/4.5 with 591 TS%.

From 00 to 10 Kobe's per 100 stats were 36.9/7.6/6.9 with 558 TS%

But Karl gets worse in the playoffs right? Um, ok a little bit, but not enough that his production drops below Kobe.

From 88 to 98 Malone's per 100 PS stats were 35.2/14.9/3.9 with 534 TS%.

From 00 to 10 Kobe's per 100 PS stats were 35/7/6.6 with 545 TS%

Then leave the stats aside. Karl Malone is a huge force on D, clearly more impactful than Kobe on that end. Malone certainly led the Jazz to successful seasons. He just didn't have the fortune to play with the stacked teams Kobe did. Kobe also juices his stats by playing alot of his prime during the post 2004 rule changes; Malone is doing it under less favourable scoring rules. Malone has a big longevity advantage too.

It seems like the Mailman just flat out delivered, regular season or not


Dr J seems to have peaked higher than Kobe, who has already been nominated, as I discuss below.

Spoiler:
I've already had threads discussing Malone and D.Rob's case, but let's look at Dr J. Underrated due to injuries later in his career that slowed him a little, and forced to take less shots to help manage the egos on his early NBA teams. However there's really no doubt in my mind he peaked higher than Kobe and had longer longevity than people think at first. He also has size, length, hands and athleticism that let him do stuff on both ends that Kobe never could.

Peak Dr J absolutely kills Kobe's best year.

1976 RS Erving: 34.4 pp 100, 12.9 r, 5.9 a, 116 Ortg/97 Drtg, 569 TS%

1976 PS Erving: 37.4 pp 100, 13.6 r, 5.3a, 2.1, 2.2, 128 Ortg/103 Drtg, 610 TS%, and a title.

1976 ABA was as strong or stronger than 1976 NBA in terms of top teams.


There’s also D.Rob, who doesn’t have great longevity, but arguably has “enough” that it doesn’t matter. Giannis is another player in this category. Yeh, sure, Giannis only has 10 years in the league; but when Jordan first retired he only had 9 and people were already calling him one of the greatest ever. In today’s game would Jordan really be more impactful than Giannis? I have my doubts. Just comparing Giannis/D.Rob/Dirk/Kobe’s best seasons, here’s how they come out:

Giannis 2019-23 – 42.6 pp100, 17.6 rp100, 8.4 ap100, 120 Ortg/103 Drtg, 625 TS%

D.Rob (pre-Duncan) prime 90-96 – 33.9 pp100, 15.6 rp100, 4.1 ap100, 118 Ortg/97 Drtg, 592 TS%

Dirk (post-Nash) prime 2005-11 RS – 35.7 pp100, 12.1 rp100, 4.2 ap100, 119 Ortg/104 Drtg, 586 TS%.

Kobe (post-Shaq) prime 2006-10 RS – 39.2 pp100, 7.3 rp100, 6.6ap100, 114 Ortg/106 Drtg, 565 TS%

How about playoffs?

Giannis 19-23: 39 pp100, 17.8 rp100, 7.5 apg, 113 Ortg/ 102 Drtg 580 TS%

D.Rob 90-96: 31.6 pp100, 15.5 rp100, 3.9 ap100, 113 Ortg/101 Drtg 557 TS%

Dirk 05-11: 34.3 pp100, 13.3 rp100, 3.9 ap100, 119 Ortg/107 Drtg, 586 TS%

Kobe 06-10: 38.1 pp100, 7.3 rp100, 6.9 ap100, 114 Ortg/108 Drtg, 570 TS%

So the first observation is that Giannis is the best of the bunch and it’s not close. The only reason not to take him yet is if you don’t think he has “enough” longevity. He isn’t just a force offensively, he’s one of the best defensive players you could have in the modern era. Defense is something that’s hard to measure, but I think we can all agree D.Rob and Giannis are 2 of the best defensive players ever. Then on the other end they’d only need to be solid to be in discussion here. But they’re not just solid. Giannis is flat out better than the rest on offense, and while D.Rob is the “worst” of the 4 in the playoffs on O, he’s still close enough that I don’t know that the others have much of a case over him given his all-time defensive anchoring ability. If you’re taking Dirk or Kobe it’s got to be on longevity. Kobe looks the worst on balance by far. He’s 2nd of the group on volume scoring, but he does it by having bad efficiency which is probably part of why his TS% is the worst of anyone except playoffs D.Rob, and his Ortg is the worst of the bunch on balance (because regular season isn’t worthless, your performance there adds a lot of value). Then factor in this is literally Kobe’s very best stretch. If we’d run this from 00-10 for instance, he’d look so much worse (see above comparison with KD).

Dirk’s high end run in the 2011 playoffs is a level of impact neither D.Rob nor Kobe had during a singular playoff run, putting up 39.1 pp100, 11.5 rp100, 3.6 ap100 on 115 Ortg/105 Drtg, and 609 TS% while taking out Kobe’s Lakers, KD’s Thunder, and Blazers, and the first incarnation of the Heatles, is crazy impressive. Yeh, they’d have gone down to the 2012 Heatles once they balanced the team a little and figured out the line-ups to play, etc, but nobody expected them to win that year. They weren’t even supposed to beat the Lakers, and they ka-rushed them. Check out the stat-line of 32 year old Kobe v.s 32 year old Dirk. It’s not pretty. Kobe had 23.3 ppg, 3rpg, 2.5 apg on 519 TS%, v.s Dirk’s 25.3ppg, 9.3 rpg, 2.5apg on an insane 673 TS%.

On Kobe generally:
Spoiler:
I’ve talked a lot about the higher quality of modern basketball a lot throughout this project.

To my mind a fair amount changed in the NBA even between 2010 and 2011. By 2015 it had begun the process of turning into an almost different sport. In that sense, Kobe is no more of a modern player than Bird, because his entire prime happens before the changes to the league that warped it into a new sport. He was there for the introduction of the new rules that hyper-charged offenses from 2005 onwards, and he was there for the introduction of the new strong side defensive concepts which came in from 2008 onwards, but it’s notable that his prime appears to end in 2011, the same time that both concepts were adopted by a single team in the Mavericks (albeit to a limited extent).

By 2015 the Hibbert’s and Tony Allen’s of the NBA were finding they had no place, and the playstyles of inefficient Iso-kings like Melo had become untenable. I think Kobe was quite lucky his career ended when it did, as if he had been 5 years younger I think the flaws in his game would have received far more criticism; much like an elderly Kobe got over his final 2 years in the league.

This touches on something not sufficiently discussed, which is that Kobe was a terrible team mate who for a “modern” player had a play-style that was often the antithesis of today’s league. Look at him shooting his team out of the 2004 finals by refusing to pass to Shaq, because he was gunning for finals MVP. Look at his dreadful shot selection in 2008, and even 2010 where he relied on Pau to bail him out. Look at the horrid 2011 series where Dirk completely outplayed him. Kobe was a “my way or the high way” sort of guy, who caused a tonne of on-court and chemistry issues for his teams over the years with an attitude that would have seen him labelled as a cancer in today’s game. His game 7 v.s the 2006 Suns, where he deliberately refused to shoot in the 2nd half as a response to criticism that he should share the ball more, stands out as particularly Kyrie like in it’s childishness.

In order to be a player who could transcend the weaker eras of the NBA, you need to really stand out. Guys like Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, and even Bird or D.Rob, pass this test. You can see the way Bird and D.Rob were the catalyst for the greatest team improvements in NBA history. You can see the floor raising of Duncan in 01-03, or Hakeem in 94, to lift bad teams into contender status. Then there’s Kobe. He starts getting minutes on a stacked Laker team, and in his years with Shaq we see a disturbing discrepancy. The Lakers play like a 60 win team in games Kobe misses, but Shaq plays. Invert that and Kobe is not even leading the Shaqless Lakers to 500 ball. We finally get to see Kobe without Shaq in 05-07, and it’s a disaster for his rep. He shows very limited floor raising compared to the all-time greats in discussion here. Then from 08 onwards he’s got a team so stacked they could win 50 games without him. Then his prime ends and that’s it. I walk away feeling confident that Kobe was not a great floor raiser. He was a complementary piece. Unlike a lot of complementary pieces like KG or Durant, you also need to be extra careful about how he’s deployed so he’s not a bad fit (and doesn’t feud with his team mates).

Kobe isn’t going to be in my top 20. He’s just not enough of an impact player, and that means longevity can only get him so far. Then there’s the question of how much longevity he even has. His fans only give him 10 prime years (00-10 is usually the proposed time frame, with 05 often excluded due to him supposedly being too injured). He adds some value in the other years, but he honestly doesn’t have that much longevity given the superior players he’s being compared to. Some guys like the Malones actually have more longevity than him, and KD is pretty similar.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 1:59 pm
by AEnigma
VOTE: Kobe Bryant
NOMINATE: Dirk Nowitzki

In a battle between Kobe and Bird, easy for me to side with the guy who played at a high level for longer, played (and started) in more postseasons, and was more resilient in the postseason. I have major criticisms of Bird’s 1980-83 playoff production. Strong playoff on/off would not sway me because I expect him to look fine there, and I could even see the Celtics winning his minutes against the 76ers in 1982. All the same, I think he consistently had a strong team and good coaching (credit due to Red Auerbach), which is mostly true of Kobe too here, but I am more impressed by the 2001/09/10 rings than I am by Bird’s trio of rings, and Bird’s case overall is too tied to that 1981/84-88 stretch. 1985 we see the negative effect of his love of trash talk, 1990 he relinquishes a 2-0 lead to a worse team that had not won in Boston in years, 1991 he is injured for a series that could have brought his team to the conference finals, and in 1992 he is even more injured (despite his team making the second round and establishing a 2-1 lead without him). I am fine arguing he peaked higher — relative to era he certainly did — but in a career value sense, I have fewer complaints with Kobe as a postseason engine.

A similar concept extends to Dirk, but I have some additional concerns about Dirk’s postseason impact outside of that 2006-11 true prime, and I think he uniquely took advantage of a league where his shooting made him a massive mismatch but opposing offences were not so sophisticated as to be able to properly exploit his defensive limitations the way we would see today. Still a top fifteen career in my eyes though.

On similar notes, I take both Erving and Karl Malone over Robinson. The Robinson/Malone discourse in particular has irked me a bit because I am pretty sure 1998-2003 Malone would have won at least two titles with Duncan too (I might expect three!), and I am more impressed by Malone’s production as a playoff lead generally and specifically in that 1994-96 period where Robinson was at his peak and being directly outperformed by Malone anyway. Here I will echo 70sFan’s commentary on the seeming malleability of “pure CORP” standards in play, although with the acknowledgment that again Hakeem at #6 and Garnett at #9 automatically telegraph a certain elevated finish for Robinson, even though I myself see a very clear distinction in ability to function as a playoff engine.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 2:16 pm
by penbeast0
Vote: George Mikan

Yes, his era was weak and he probably wouldn't be Joel Embiid level in today's game. But you can only meet the challenges given to you and he is arguably the most dominant player in the history of the game. Russell type winning (for less years), Wilt/MJ type statistical dominance, Mikan is more deserving than Jerry West, who was nearly as dominant -- for a guard -- as Mikan but in an era where centers were significantly more valuable than anyone else on the floor. He's more deserving than Kobe, who was a terrific player for a long time but never really stood out from his peers to anywhere near the same degree, not as a scorer though he was playoff resilient, not as a playmaker/rebounder/defender. He's more deserving than Larry Bird, who was a not outstanding (early) to weak (late) defender and whose playoff scoring was not resilient. Mikan is the last true dominant player left and while his era was one of racism and relatively low athleticism (much of which is due to playing over boards laid over ice rinks or concrete, in canvas sneakers, with questionable understanding of training techniques), it was still NBA basketball, the best in the world.

Alternative: Jerry West All the arguments for Kobe can be made in a stronger fashion for Jerry West except for Rings, longevity, and modernity. Kobe was a great and playoff resilient scorer; West was significantly better as a scorer relative to the guards of his day (only Oscar, and in the later part of his career, Walt Frazier, came close) and stepped it up in stronger fashion in the finals. Kobe was (when he wanted to) a strong defensive guard, West was a much more consistent and from everything I understand, higher peaking defender as well. Kobe was a decent playmaker, West was a better one who started as a score first combo guard but by the end of his career, was also leading the NBA in assists. Great player, smart player, tough player, very high intangibles and leadership from everything I have ever read.

NOMINATE: David Robinson.

I am going with basically the next Kevin Garnett vote, a dominant defensive force (I have him over Garnett, roughly equal with Hakeem), a strong offensive player for terrible teams that gave him little help, but one whose playoff scoring is not resilient either. Reverse that one series against Hakeem (individual and team results) and he'd be in already and Hakeem would be here.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 2:26 pm
by AEnigma
I can reverse a lot of series and boost players up. Erving probably pushes Bird here if I reverse one quarter of the 1981 conference finals. Karl Malone had two series where he automatically wins a title with a reversal — unlike Robinson who would still need to go through Shaq and Penny — and Dirk is here if the 2006 Finals is reversed as well. Oscar could be here if he closed out Boston in 1963, Ewing might soon be in the conversation if we reverse the result of a single block, Barkley could be in the conversation, Durant could more legitimately be in the conversation if we flip one of his exits in 2012 or 2014…

Robinson lost because he was worse. There is no point to this hypothetical where we make him a better postseason performer and Hakeem a worse one. They go where they go because of how they performed when it mattered most. Robinson got outperformed by Karl Malone, and Hakeem made every other big man in the second golden age of big men look like a comparative shell.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 2:35 pm
by One_and_Done
Or maybe KD has some shooters in 16 and doesn't get hurt in 19 and he has 4 titles. Or his Robins don't both get hurt in 21 and has 5 rings.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 2:38 pm
by AEnigma
Or maybe Durant needed to for once translate that “unguardable” skillset into the postseason outside of some laughably stacked offensive roster.

However, for what it is worth, I may end up taking Durant over Robinson too. He certainly has a longevity edge by now, and Robinson does not get any breaks from me for missing time because of navy commitments.

EDIT: To be clear on the last point, I am more interested in postseasons here, so Durant being a top player on twelve postseason teams now is worth more to me than Robinson being a top player on ten postseason teams, a role-player on two more, and an absent regular season driver on one more (1992). Not by a lot, but in terms of meaningful longevity, that is more what I check first.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 2:44 pm
by One_and_Done
He pushed a 73 win team to the brink in 7 games, despite Serge Ibaka being the 2nd best shooter among their 7 best guys. He pushed the title winning Bucks to 7 games with both his other stars hurt and was a literal inch away from winning. It's not exactly hypothetical that he could easly have won.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 2:50 pm
by AEnigma
If they had beaten the Warriors then a ton of that would have been on Westbrook, and I do not think they top the Cavaliers anyway. Do not expect sympathy because he only had a first-team all-NBA teammate and two all-defensive calibre forwards, plus one of the greatest screeners and team rebounders in league history. Dirk wishes he had that for the bulk of his prime.

Durant had two spectacular games against the Bucks, yes. The fact it was two tells us just how sustainable that was, and somehow I doubt his legacy would be quite as boosted with a loss to Trae Young or Chris Paul rather than to Giannis.

Oh, Chris Paul, there is another guy with a massive boost if you reverse a series and make them better than they were.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 2:56 pm
by Colbinii
AEnigma wrote:Or maybe Durant needed to for once translate that “unguardable” skillset into the postseason outside of some laughably stacked offensive roster.

However, for what it is worth, I may end up taking Durant over Robinson too. He certainly has a longevity edge by now, and Robinson does not get any breaks from me for missing time off because of navy commitments.


Does Durant really have more longevity than Robinson?

Durant has 7 MVP-level seasons [2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018].
Durant has two healthy all-nba prime seasons [2011 and 2019]
Durant has four injury-filled seasons [2015, 2021, 2022, 2023]
Durant missed 2020.

Robinson has 6 MVP-level seasons [1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998]
Robinson has five healthy all-nba prime seasons [1990, 1993, 1999, 2000, 2001]
Robinson missed 1997.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 3:07 pm
by DraymondGold
Bird vs Kobe according to Data

Part 1: Box Stats

Backpicks VORP: Regular Season + Playoffs. This is the most accurate box stat in tests, and it goes back to the 1950s, so I value this more than the other box stats:
Playing around with my version of BPM by weighing playoff minutes 7x. Top-16 championships over replacement:
Backpicks RS + PS VORP (as of 2018, in units of expected championships added)
[1. LeBron (2.76)]
[2. MJ (2.75)]
[3. Kareem]
[4. Wilt]
[5. Magic]
[6. Russell]
[7. Duncan]
8. Karl
[9. Stockton]
[10. Hakeem]
[11. Garnett]
12. Dirk
[13. Shaq]
14. Bird
[15. Pippen]
16. Kobe

Career PIPM (in units of "wins added", box estimate is used for the pre-97 seasons):
[no Wilt, West, Oscar available]
[Duncan: 284 wins added]
[Garnett: 261.4]
Karl: +257.9 (with box estimates for early years)
Dirk: +241.2
[Shaq: + 232 (with box estimates for early years)]
Robinson: +217.5 (with box estimates for early years)
[Curry: ~202 (if we consider 2021-2023 to be 3 average prime years. ~181 if we add 3 average career years. +142 pre 2021). ]
[Magic: + 188 (box estimate)]
Bird: +187 (box estimate)
Kobe: +185

RAPTOR: Career + Extra Prime weighting (projecting 2022 out to 2023 for the recent guys, post 1977):
[LeBron: 250.1 (if 2023 was like 2022)]
[Jordan: 233.9]
[Stockton: 226.7]
Paul: 196.9 (if 2023 was like 2022)
[Magic: 177.8]
[Duncan: 173.9]
[Garnett: 168.8]
Kobe: 166.1
Bird: 164.7
[Curry: 163 (if 2023 was like 2022)]
[Kidd: 162.3]
[Pippen: 160.6]
Robinson: 160.2
[Barkley: 158.5]
Karl: 155.7
[Drexler: 151.1]
[Hakeem: 151.1]
Dirk: 149.9
[Shaq: 144.8]

Takeaways: So Bird is favored in the best box stat, then they're basically tied (1–1) in the other two better stats. These are the best three available box stats in tests of how well stats do, so I'll be prioritizing these. Overall: Bird up 2-1.

Part 2: WOWY Stats

10-year prime (single season) WOWY:
Bird: +5.3 (9th all time)
Kobe: +3.9 (26th all time)

10-year Prime (multi-season) WOWY:
Bird: +8.19
Kobe: +3.93

Non-Prime (multi-season) WOWY:
Bird: +4.88
Kobe: +2.19

10-year prime (single season) Adjusted WOWY metrics:
Kobe: +5.4
Bird: +5.3
*But Bird has the highest uncertainty of any star in the database. Thinking Basketball notes his method does well for most stars, but gives much of the credit for the late 80s Celtics to Reggie Lewis, which is likely incorrect.

Regressed WOWY by Moonbeam (5 year samples over career):
Image
Image
So Bird has 16 samples above the 90th percentile, 14 samples above the 95th percentile (it includes time ranges than span pre/post- rookie year and pre/post- retirement year). Kobe has only 3 samples above the 90th percentile.

Takeaways: So Bird clearly surpasses Kobe in the WOWY-based metrics (winning 4-1). Overall: Bird up 6–2 in these stats. Kobe does have more non-era-relative longevity... but Bird's ahead in many of these metrics by more than Kobe's longevity advantage.

A note on longevity:
Total games: Kobe played 1346 game to Bird's 897 (Kobe has 50% more). But Kobe wasn't even a starter for his first two seasons, so he wasn't adding much value: he had a negative RAPM in those first two seasons (and his third)!
Starter games: Kobe started 1198 games to Bird's 870 (Kobe has 38% more). But Kobe tore his ACL in 2013, and on average had negative RAPM for his last 3 seasons (2014–2016, though most of this is dragged down by his last year).
Contributing games: If we look at pre-ACL tear, Kobe started 1091 games to Bird's 870 (Kobe 25% more).

Era-relative: The average career length in the 80s was 4.66 years, while the average career length in the 2000s was 6.66, so 2000s players are *expected* to have 43% more longevity.

Put simply: Just looking at total games for their career overrates Kobe's longevity compared to Bird's. Kobe's first 2 years were non-starter years, his first 3 years were a negative RAPM, and his last 3 years after his ACL tear were (on average) negative RAPM as well. Relative to era, Bird actually has an argument for better longevity! I wouldn't quite go that far myself, but I do think the longevity advantage is close enough that Bird's superior stats are worth taking Bird.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 3:14 pm
by AEnigma
Maybe people would be less upset at #2 Kareem if we told them he actually played for 29 years adjusted to era.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 3:35 pm
by eminence
I don't think average career length is a good way to era-adjust superstar career length.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 4:36 pm
by DraymondGold
eminence wrote:I don't think average career length is a good way to era-adjust superstar career length.
I agree! Which is part of the reason why I said Kobe still has better longevity in my post. The point of my longevity note, which I think I made clear, was that Kobe has less of a clear longevity advantage than people think, even moreso when we adjust for era.

And that Bird's advantage in impact metrics is larger than Kobe's longevity advantage.

The average career length stats came out of 70sFan's Top 50 thread. 70s was looking for a way to approximate longevity relative to era, and I saw someone had done a study of average career length.

A better longevity correction would look more at the higher-minutes or higher-value players (since some of the career length difference across era might be biased by improved longevity for role players). Maybe go to Basketball Reference, filter for anyone who was ever an all star, then look at average career length (number of games presumably? or maybe total minutes / possessions?) of players playing within a ~10 year span over time.

But that's obviously much more work than citing a source that already exists. If you or anyone else would like to do the work above though, that would give us a much better idea of true era-relative longevity among the all-time greats. Alas, I don't have time for such study :(

edit: To emphasize, some of the era relative stuff is very real though! Kobe played in a time when players were starting to limit how much they went to college. Kobe didn't play in college at all; Bird played 3 years in college (and had 2 extra years between high school and playing in college). Kobe played in an era where a player had the medical advantage to still play after tearing an ACL; Bird did not play in an era where medicine would help him extend his career after injuries (Kobe played 3 seasons after ACL, 2 discounting 2014 which he mostly missed).

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 4:55 pm
by HeartBreakKid
DraymondGold wrote:
edit: To emphasize, some of the era relative stuff is very real though! Kobe played in a time when players were starting to limit how much they went to college. Kobe didn't play in college at all; Bird played 3 years in college (and had 2 extra years between high school and playing in college). Kobe played in an era where a player had the medical advantage to still play after tearing an ACL; Bird did not play in an era where medicine would help him extend his career after injuries (Kobe played 3 seasons after ACL, 2 discounting 2014 which he mostly missed).



Isn't this usually taken into account one way or another? Kobe's first few years in the NBA and his last few years hardly make a difference in his longevity as they are relatively insignificant seasons for ATG standards.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 5:10 pm
by DraymondGold
HeartBreakKid wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:
edit: To emphasize, some of the era relative stuff is very real though! Kobe played in a time when players were starting to limit how much they went to college. Kobe didn't play in college at all; Bird played 3 years in college (and had 2 extra years between high school and playing in college). Kobe played in an era where a player had the medical advantage to still play after tearing an ACL; Bird did not play in an era where medicine would help him extend his career after injuries (Kobe played 3 seasons after ACL, 2 discounting 2014 which he mostly missed).



Isn't this usually taken into account one way or another? Kobe's first few years in the NBA and his last few years hardly make a difference in his longevity as they are relatively insignificant seasons for ATG standards.
I agree, they *shouldn't be*. But to all the people saying Kobe has a clear and large longevity advantage, I believe they're being biased by these extra seasons and total games. If we discount these seasons, Kobe played only 25% more games than Bird did in an 2000s era where players overall played 43% more games than the 1980s (which is likely an overestimate for stars, but still indicative of a large difference across eras).

I'm saying the longevity advantage for Kobe is smaller than people are saying. And if we turn to the impact metrics we have of them, Bird has an overall advantage in his prime that is greater than the advantage Kobe has for longevity.

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 5:19 pm
by Colbinii
DraymondGold wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:
edit: To emphasize, some of the era relative stuff is very real though! Kobe played in a time when players were starting to limit how much they went to college. Kobe didn't play in college at all; Bird played 3 years in college (and had 2 extra years between high school and playing in college). Kobe played in an era where a player had the medical advantage to still play after tearing an ACL; Bird did not play in an era where medicine would help him extend his career after injuries (Kobe played 3 seasons after ACL, 2 discounting 2014 which he mostly missed).



Isn't this usually taken into account one way or another? Kobe's first few years in the NBA and his last few years hardly make a difference in his longevity as they are relatively insignificant seasons for ATG standards.
I agree, they *shouldn't be*. But to all the people saying Kobe has a clear and large longevity advantage, I believe they're being biased by these extra seasons and total games. If we discount these seasons, Kobe played only 25% more games than Bird did in an 2000s era where players overall played 43% more games than the 1980s (which is likely an overestimate for stars, but still indicative of a large difference across eras).

I'm saying the longevity advantage for Kobe is smaller than people are saying. And if we turn to the impact metrics we have of them, Bird has an overall advantage in his prime that is greater than the advantage Kobe has for longevity.


It is much simpler than you are making it out to be.

From 2000-2011, Kobe played in 35K Minutes and 903 Games in the RS and 7.4K Minutes and 180 Games in the PS.
From 1980-1988, Bird played in 27K Minutes and 711 Games in the RS and 6.1K Minutes and 145 Games in the PS.

Kobe gets incremental value from 2012 and 2013 [off-prime, still all-star level].
Bird gets incremental value for 1990 and 1991 [off-prime, still all-star level]

Kobe also has 1998 and 1999 where he is a positive impact player [Missing a total of 4 games in these two seasons].

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 5:42 pm
by DraymondGold
Colbinii wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:

Isn't this usually taken into account one way or another? Kobe's first few years in the NBA and his last few years hardly make a difference in his longevity as they are relatively insignificant seasons for ATG standards.
I agree, they *shouldn't be*. But to all the people saying Kobe has a clear and large longevity advantage, I believe they're being biased by these extra seasons and total games. If we discount these seasons, Kobe played only 25% more games than Bird did in an 2000s era where players overall played 43% more games than the 1980s (which is likely an overestimate for stars, but still indicative of a large difference across eras).

I'm saying the longevity advantage for Kobe is smaller than people are saying. And if we turn to the impact metrics we have of them, Bird has an overall advantage in his prime that is greater than the advantage Kobe has for longevity.


It is much simpler than you are making it out to be.

From 2000-2011, Kobe played in 35K Minutes and 903 Games in the RS and 7.4K Minutes and 180 Games in the PS.
From 1980-1988, Bird played in 27K Minutes and 711 Games in the RS and 6.1K Minutes and 145 Games in the PS.

Kobe gets incremental value from 2012 and 2013 [off-prime, still all-star level].
Bird gets incremental value for 1990 and 1991 [off-prime, still all-star level]

Kobe also has 1998 and 1999 where he is a positive impact player [Missing a total of 4 games in these two seasons].
So Kobe played 30% more minutes and 27% more games in their meaningful years, which as I already mentioned is smaller than Bird's impact advantage.

And is Kobe a positive impact player in 1998 and 1999? I already mentioned he had negative RAPM in *both* years. His 1998 RAPM was -0.11 and his 1999 RAPM was -1.23 (Goldstein RAPM, the traditional source for RAPM). If you're going to claim something that disagrees with me, you might as well address the points I raised!

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Deadline 9:00A EST on 8/6/23)

Posted: Fri Aug 4, 2023 5:44 pm
by rk2023
Vote: Kobe Bryant
Nominate: Dirk Nowitzki

EDIT:
I have vouched for Kobe before, particularly at the #11 spot and including in comparison to Bird - albeit the latter at more of a higher level. I have my explanation linked below (ignore the Nom/Alt, as neither is relevant here).
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2312334&p=107859219#p107859219

As for Dirk, I have been comparing him to the likes of Oscar and West. I think he stacks up rather well side-by-side to them and sticks out to me as best player available, with very stellar longevity being a feather in his cap. Like Kobe, a pretty solid (eg. >= All-NBA level) player for a very long time. I am certainly not the highest in the room on his peak from conversations I have had with others on the board / in general when discussing basketball, but still think there's some goodness/impact being undersold by the box score / catch-alls as it pertains to Dirk and that he's a very consistent player through his prime. Furthermore, his floor raising ability due to stellar TOV%/shot-making and slower pace/spacing and flexibility to build around (especially when slanting a roster defensively) is something that is reflected upon when looking into team results.