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. Nomination vote now works the same way.
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):
I believe given the nature of their positions you often want the absolute best offense you can usually get from a point guard. I am not sure if West and Oscar are THAT close in terms of offense. I believe playmaking and floor generalship is much more underlooked than shooting these days, and even defense.
Oscar was very close to West as a scorer based on what I've seen. They both have highly resilient games, can score large in mass, and can create their own shot. West does kill Oscar as an off ball player, but given their positions I think it's not much of a big deal (extra points for West due to positional versatility though).
We have data that suggest that the Royals were the best offense pretty much every year, even when they were butt. It didn't help that their margin for error was very small because they were in the tougher conference. 1964 could have been their year but peak Celtics said "uh uh".
I have been very impressed with what I have read and seen from Jerry West defensively. I have given West my vote and nominations over Oscar up until now. But I do think fundamentally I love the "idea" of West more than what he may have actually been. There just isn't enough evidence to properly rate how powerful his defensive impact is in a direct comparison with another player of his caliber. I fully buy him being a top 3 defensive PG, but again, given what we know about the nature of point guards I find myself wondering "isn't better to just get the premium on offense?".
I use this line of thinking to often put Bill Russell over defensive giants with better scoring like Robinson and Olajuwon. I think to myself, getting a 10/10 in defense over a 9/10 is worth it if you're a center, even if you're giving up volume scoring. That's because I believe outlier capabilities that try to "break" basketball are what makes superstars, superstars (see Steph Curry who was just voted in).
However, I will be conflicted later because I often go back and forth between Nash and Paul. Nash is the better offensive player, isn't that more valuable than a sizable gap in their defense given their positions?
Not really sure about that, but for now it's Robertson time!
Alternate Vote: David Robinson
It's between Robinson and Nowitzki. I'll look into this for the next couple days so if anyone wants to comment on this feel free to reach out. Up until recently I had Dirk over Robinson but the past few arguments have looked convincing for me for D-Rob.
I don't think Mikan or Malone are 'good' enough to put it bluntly.
My nominations is for Nikola Jokic(I'm very peak oriented and he has enough seasons where it is pretty easy to see he is no fluke, he is probably better than some of the players on the top 10 list already)
Alternate nomination is for Julius Erving (I think Dr.J's skill set on paper makes it easy to rip him him apart, but he clearly made it work. If you start treating ABA titles as "world titles" he is a 3 time champion...who was the anchor on 2 of them, including an underdog run, and pretty much 1a/1b for his last one. He went to the NBA ECF/Finals a million times also, he's plenty successful despite being branded a loser).
Vote for #15 - Oscar Robertson Alternate Vote - Dirk Nowitzki Nominations - Kevin Durant (Main), Chris Paul (Alt)
I've mentioned my $.02 on Oscar in past threads before, same goes with how Dirk and him stack up prime for prime (will add more on Dirk at some point). It's very close between the two, where I think Dirk's longevity gives him the edge in a vacuum for a career's sense.. but it gets closer adjusting for era and the MPG load Oscar was able to sustain in his prime years. I also would reckon the average season of 1961-67 for Oscar would be a tick over the average season from 2005-11 for Dirk. IMO, both beat out Robinson when it comes to longevity - and believe both's prime quality trumps Malone to the point where his slight longevity advantage (all three of them are excellent in this regard) doesn't make up for it personally.
Spoiler:
The original on-ball quarterback, shattering and re-setting the standard for heliocentric basketball as he reached his apex with a combination of unparalleled facilitation and hyper-efficient scoring. I posted a more in depth "cover page" of his impact and production in past threads, will link right below. https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2309163&p=107712390&hilit=oscar#p107712390
As mentioned on this post and as comes off as general intuition, quite nearly of Oscar's career value was accrued through offense - where the box paints him as a very proficient player. When looking at his Royals tenure on offense, he stands out a ton from a team-result standpoint as well.
As one further step pragmatically - relative team offenses [where over a holistic sample, the Royals crumbled in Oscar's absence] for Cincy each of Oscar's years as well as the two before his drafting: -2.7, 0.2, (Oscar drafted ->), 3.5, 4.7, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4, 2.6, 2.3, 4.3, 4.7.
Such results certainly came at the expense of slanting offensively as a team and trading off size/defense at the same time, but for what it's worth - those team results came at the hands of Oscar's on-ball control. He's the more durable out of the two 1960s superstar guards, so there's less of a "WOWY" sample - but some data to put pieces together from nonetheless.
1961: Missed 9 games -> 36 win pace to 9 1965 & 66: Missed 9 games -> 46 win pace to 33 1968: Missed 10 games (pre Hairston trade) -> 46 win pace to 17 1968: Missed 7 games (post trade) -> 60 win pace to 17 1970: Missed 12 games -> 42 win pace to 18.
Most signals point to the Royals not being a great basketball team and Oscar having a profound impact on their success - where it becomes the case one could rationally assume a lot of the offensive slanted supporting cast in Cincy relied on Oscar's table-setting and volume creation amidst springing together a slate of top-tier offenses. I think this also could explain why Cincy's offenses yielded somewhat questionable playoff results (listed below), though I'm not the highest in the room on Oscar's PS translation.
29.3/8.5/10.3 on 57.2% TS (+8-9), .224 WS/48 29.7/9.3/9.4 on 56.5% TS, .197 WS/48
Furthermore, his team offenses aren't exactly bullet-proof, though it seems silly to make this an 'Oscar thing' (seems more reasonable to guess this to be a team indictment) without further context - hard to find with the lack of film present:
I think regardless, Oscar came into the league much more ahead of the curve than any other rookie to play on offense (perhaps excluding Mikan here). Despite being in a pretty mediocre situation, he maintained such level of play for a decade before scaling down and adding a few more quality seasons as a Buck. Curving longevity for the era he was in gives him a career in the heart of the teens all time for me.
All-Time+: West (2), Dirk & Oscar (0) Fringe-All-Time+: West (2), Oscar, (1), Dirk (0) MVP+: Dirk & Oscar (7), West (6) Fringe-MVP+: West & Oscar (8), Dirk (7) Weak MVP+: Dirk & Oscar (11), West (10) All-NBA+ : Dirk & West (13), Oscar (11)
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
I think this one is an easy David Robinson vote for me.
I do think Malone rises up above Oscar Robertson as my nomination, but I will need to do more deep diving before I make that decision.
I am still struggling on where to place Mikan. I am sticking with defending him and his era, but I am struggling to put him in yet. However, I think I like him in this Dirk-ish tier.
ijspeelman wrote:I think this one is an easy David Robinson vote for me.
I do think Malone rises up above Oscar Robertson as my nomination, but I will need to do more deep diving before I make that decision.
I am still struggling on where to place Mikan. I am sticking with defending him and his era, but I am struggling to put him in yet. However, I think I like him in this Dirk-ish tier.
Why do you like K Malone over Big O? Longevity is an obvious one though he has that advantage over everyone.
ijspeelman wrote:I think this one is an easy David Robinson vote for me.
I do think Malone rises up above Oscar Robertson as my nomination, but I will need to do more deep diving before I make that decision.
I am still struggling on where to place Mikan. I am sticking with defending him and his era, but I am struggling to put him in yet. However, I think I like him in this Dirk-ish tier.
Why do you like K Malone over Big O? Longevity is an obvious one though he has that advantage over everyone.
I like his longevity as well as his consistency over that period.
He's a high volume, high efficiency MVP to high All-NBA scorer over a 14ish season sample. I think he also brings a lot of value on the defensive end (I've said before, but he doesn't provide as much as impact as these other "two-way" bigs we've nominated already). These "two-way" big archetypes tend to have more impact for me in general than one-way/two-way, but dynamic guards.
The argument for Big O is that his ability as a playmaker (scoring and passing) trumps Malone's scoring and defense. Its probably close, but for now I have Malone.
ijspeelman wrote:I think this one is an easy David Robinson vote for me.
I do think Malone rises up above Oscar Robertson as my nomination, but I will need to do more deep diving before I make that decision.
I am still struggling on where to place Mikan. I am sticking with defending him and his era, but I am struggling to put him in yet. However, I think I like him in this Dirk-ish tier.
Why do you like K Malone over Big O? Longevity is an obvious one though he has that advantage over everyone.
I like his longevity as well as his consistency over that period.
He's a high volume, high efficiency MVP to high All-NBA scorer over a 14ish season sample. I think he also brings a lot of value on the defensive end (I've said before, but he doesn't provide as much as impact as these other "two-way" bigs we've nominated already). These "two-way" big archetypes tend to have more impact for me in general than one-way/two-way, but dynamic guards.
The argument for Big O is that his ability as a playmaker (scoring and passing) trumps Malone's scoring and defense. Its probably close, but for now I have Malone.
They're not very close on offense though, even as scorers. Karl Malone's playoff numbers leave a lot to be desired and it's a big enough sample size (understatement) to know it's not a fluke. That's even with the benefit of a lot of his offense getting created for him.
HeartBreakKid wrote: Why do you like K Malone over Big O? Longevity is an obvious one though he has that advantage over everyone.
I like his longevity as well as his consistency over that period.
He's a high volume, high efficiency MVP to high All-NBA scorer over a 14ish season sample. I think he also brings a lot of value on the defensive end (I've said before, but he doesn't provide as much as impact as these other "two-way" bigs we've nominated already). These "two-way" big archetypes tend to have more impact for me in general than one-way/two-way, but dynamic guards.
The argument for Big O is that his ability as a playmaker (scoring and passing) trumps Malone's scoring and defense. Its probably close, but for now I have Malone.
They're not very close on offense though, even as scorers. Karl Malone's playoff numbers leave a lot to be desired and it's a big enough sample size (understatement) to know it's not a fluke. That's even with the benefit of a lot of his offense getting created for him.
That is good food for thought and I'll have to look into it more.
I am seeing that 14ish year sample I like in the RS has about a -6% rTS% drop in the PS (with volume going up). That still keeps him slightly above average TS% in that period on even higher volume, but that does have less impact to me than his monstrous high rTS%, volume RS.
I am fairly lower on Stockton than I imagine others are. I find Malone to be the bigger driver of the Jazz's offense than Stockton (without the numbers to back it up )
I know Big O had some drops in the PS too, but not to this extreme.
Vote for #15: Oscar Robertson Alternate Vote: Karl Malone Nomination: Moses Malone Alternate Nomination: Nikola Jokic
To me, this vote really comes down to Oscar Robertson, David Robinson, and Karl Malone. I’m honestly pretty torn between them. The main reason I’m going for Oscar Robertson here is that I think he’s got less of a noted playoff drop-off than the other two. In the last thread, I voted for Jerry West over Oscar Robertson in part because I thought Jerry West had an extra gear in the playoffs that Oscar may not have had. But I think Robinson and Karl Malone often downshifted in the playoffs to an extent that I don’t think it’d be fair to say Oscar did.
Anyways, the argument for David Robinson is mainly that he has some eye-popping impact numbers. But I find it hard to put him above Oscar Robertson on that basis, when the impact data we have on Oscar (WOWYR and Moonbeam’s stuff) looks incredible for Oscar too. And once we strip that away, it feels to me like Oscar has a bit better longevity and was probably a better playoff performer. In terms of Karl Malone vs. David Robinson, Malone does have some great impact signals (specifically raw on-off), though his RPM in the years we have it for (which still includes some prime years) isn’t anything particularly special. I’ll note that Karl Malone’s WOWYR-type of stuff doesn’t really look special, but I find that essentially completely meaningless, since he basically didn’t miss games (and neither did Stockton), so those sorts of models have almost no way to deduce his impact. Anyways, I’d say the overall evidence suggests that David Robinson was probably a more impactful player, but there really is a vast gulf in longevity here, where Karl Malone is exceptional and Robinson is kind of just below my line where I find longevity to be a serious issue (particularly when it comes to number of years as a *really* top player). I’m not a big longevity guy, but I think it tips the balance for me here.
Karl Malone and Oscar Robertson is a tough comparison. Obviously, Karl Malone has a serious longevity advantage over Oscar as well. I do value that, especially as I think Karl Malone was at an MVP level for a very long time. And I think these two players had similar status within their era, in terms of where they were (i.e. very consistently one of the top few players and at least arguably the top player for a short timeframe). I also find it pretty intriguing that Karl Malone was part of some of the highest rORTG, playoff rORTG, and rDRTG teams in history (though I think the rDRTG part was more about Eaton). The playoff performance does it for me, I guess, but I have to say I don’t feel super great about this vote. I suspect it probably won’t matter since, as the most recent nominee, I doubt Karl Malone will get much traction this round, so the order I put these two guys in probably won’t matter.
Candidly, I find these three to be extremely close, and it’s possible that I’ll change my vote strategically if it looks like David Robinson is the primary contender to Mikan or something. Besides impact, Robinson does have the advantage of being the one guy of these three who was at least *arguably* the best player on a title team (i.e. in 1999). I could convince myself to vote for Robinson on that basis.
As for the nominations, these are the same nominations I’ve made for the last couple threads, so I’d refer back to those votes.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
Vote for #15: Oscar Robertson Given how "joined at the hip" Big O and West were compared to each other when they played I guess it's poetic justice for me to vote Oscar after West was picked in round 14. Big O's post-up jumper was a thing of beauty; I tried to copy it when I played (with pitiful results). One of the most beautiful sights I've ever seen at a basketball game. I remember during pre-game warmups against the Dubs, I only watched Oscar the entire time - he didn't miss a single jumper in warmups. Absolutely fell in love with that shooting motion (unfortunately he missed a lot during the actual game as he had a bad game and Kareem turned into Superman). Oscar was like a big traffic cop on offense; he was constantly directing people where to go, when to cut, when to screen. It was clearly Oscar's show. Very few PG's could just take control of the offense like Oscar.
My biggest concern with Oscar is the lack of a real outside jumper. I never saw him take a jumpshot outside of 20 feet. Not a huge deal in his era with no 3-point line and the game was played close to the rim. There's a video clip of a bunch of Oscar and his contemporaries (Adrian Smith, Cazzie Russell, Calvin Murphy, Jack Marin, etc) just shooting around and even playing a bit of HORSE. Even then, you notice that when he did venture out near the 3-point line, he didn't shoot his jumper. He resorted to his one-hand set shot (same as he used for free throws). And you probably recall when the NBA used to show a bunch of gimmicky stuff during halftime (one-on-one contests, HORSE, etc). One time was some players playing Around The World. The first shot had to come from the top of the key. Since as I've said I never saw Oscar take a jumpshot from that distance, I wondered if he would for the Around The World contest. Nope, still went with the set shot (which he made). Could he develop a jumpshot from 3-point range if he wanted to? I have no idea, and since I do not believe in time machines, I can only evaluate based on what a player actually did. I can't see a set shot being used to shoot 3's in the modern era since it is too deliberate. But other than not having a deep outside jumper in his arsenal, Oscar is pretty much the total package.
Alternate: George Mikan. Serious questions about this since I always struggle with how much to penalize him for his era. If there were no penalty for era, I could see him as a top ten pick based on how much he dominated his era. Going in after #20 (he was #19 in the last project in 2020) feels too low. So this at least feels like the appropriate tier for me. Dominant offensive star of his time. I think his defense was good (not elite) for his time since it appears that basketball strategy used centers differently than after Russell came along and significantly shifted the status quo. But he seemed to largely do what was expected of him then as a strong low post defender and fortunately (for him) wasn't asked to do a lot of switching onto guards on the perimeter. My guess is that if there were such a thing as an All Defensive Team then he likely would have picked up a few such accolades. He was also the dominant rebounder of his time. Also finished first or second among centers in FT% from 49-54, so he was fairly proficient with the underhand method that was prevalent then. Nominate: Julius Erving
VOTE: Oscar Robertson Alternate: George Mikan Assuming one of these two is admitted — should be Oscar I think based on alternate votes, but guess we will see — next vote will be for Dirk. Nomination: TBD? At this point I may have been swayed back to Karl Malone. I have said it before, but if you added Tim Duncan to his team, he has a few titles — and that is metaphorically what produced an NBA title for Erving, and literally what produced NBA titles for Robinson. And now Karl Malone is in, so who next?
Erving’s top postseason accomplishments are that in 1974 he swept the Issel/Gilmore Colonels and comfortably defeated a Stars team with NBA-level talent, and in 1976 he defeated two teams that translated well to the NBA the following year. However, I understand the perspective that neither team is likely to defeat the Celtics in those years, so their value as title accomplishments might not extend too far.
Most of my perceptions of Erving were indexed on those league finals in 1976 and 1977. And they still impress. He was really, really, really great in those two series, and the 1977 Finals in particular was a fun watch. But the reality I have come to accept is that I cannot extend those performances to his entire career. He averaged 30 on 55.8% efficiency against Artis Gilmore in the postseason; cannot say that moves me too much either. However, all these nominations are so flawed, I think I might just abstain until I am comfortable making a push for Nash.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm left more impressed with Dirk and Oscar's ability against elite defense(s) and in the playoffs than I am for Malone and Robinson.
Colbinii made a great point last thread about how their unique, and tactically advanced, skill-sets gave them ability to serve as 'offensive catalysts' - where Oscar's facilitation + efficient scoring and Dirk's lower touch/T.O.P. style, excellent turnover economy and slower pace, & spacing ability give the two of them very impressive floor raising results. Oscar's is easier to detect in box score measures to begin, but Dirk's isn't too shabby in that regard - while being more detectable looking at pragmatic, team-based evidence sorts. I don't think either, for the most part within their meaningful primes, was a negative on defense either.
The latter two very well could be next best up for my All-Time list (along with Paul and Durant, my nominees here), but I can't quite entertain either as a top 15 player in basketball history. The URL(s) below, the first one being from #14's voting, has my view on Robinson's regular season to post-season puzzle. When keying in too much on the playoff results at face value, I think both Malone and Robinson could be overly scrutinized and picked apart - but there are concerns as to how good a #1 option either can be as the intensity of a playoff series ramps up imo. That said, I still think Robinson fares rather well theoretically and in proof of concept (as seen by 1998-2001, at an older and less athletic career phase) in a more supporting/complimentary piece on offense but a defensive anchor. Taking some median point of his obscene RS impact and playoff results as a lone star does, imo, give him a fair share of ~MVP caliber seasons through his prime as a lone star. I am unsure if Malone ever reached an all-time level of play - but this could be me being low on him. Offensively, I view him as a notch over Hakeem and Duncan at their best - for example. Malone is another case where there is a significant tail-off from Regular Season production to Playoffs in terms of box score measures and team offensive data. I think there are other tangible factors to blame (eg. Stockton's worse translation, Sloan's offense), but Malone's offensive approach strikes me as more 'textbook' than 'dynamic'. Defensively, he always was solid - and I think that all is good enough to make him a Fringe-MVP sort of guy decently frequently (all of the 90s essentially) with some other solid supportive years. Longevity is what aids Malone's case amidst this grouping of players. I'll link some more nuanced posts on him as I find them.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
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. 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: David Robinson I could have been swayed any of 3 different ways for this but in the end, I think Robinson's defense is top 5, probably top 3 in NBA history, and I don't think that is something that drops off in the playoffs. His playoff drop and his longevity of primacy issues are both real but as a Navy brat growing up, got to give it to the Admiral.
(a) Kevin Durant -- yes, his social media issues show a lack of maturity and leadership and many people hate him for going to the Warriors; if feels like bullying. But he is an incredibly efficient scorer with great size who has been one of the best in the league for a decade.
(b) Giannis -- short prime and I think that's a major issue, but I have his career as slightly better than Jokic's to this point though Jokic is more unique.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
AEnigma wrote:Most of my perceptions of Erving were indexed on those league finals in 1976 and 1977. And they still impress. He was really, really, really great in those two series, and the 1977 Finals in particular was a fun watch. But the reality I have come to accept is that I cannot extend those performances to his entire career. He averaged 30 on 55.8% efficiency against Artis Gilmore in the postseason; cannot say that moves me too much either. However, all these nominations are so flawed, I think I might just abstain until I am comfortable making a push for Nash.
Any thoughts on his defense in '77? Gross seemed very box productive in that series but haven't watched it in a long time or closely.
15. David Robinson. He came into the league playing MVP level basketball. The thumb injury set him back for a season, before he exploded in 1994 for what is a fantastic 3 year stretch. This was borderline all time level quality he produced.
Taking this from Ben Taylor’s back picks, D Rob is a small step below 00-02 Shaq on the offensive end regular season.
He did drop all his efficiency in the post season,
But that graph is comparing him to 4 guys already inducted into our top 10, another who’s been nominated and one soon to come. His teams were still ok on offence. Posting +4.1, +3.5, +2.5 rOrtg in the playoffs.
Now all that is on offense. David Robinson was arguably a top 5 player in NBA history on D.
After his back and foot injury in 1997, he came back and was still valuable defensively, and alongside Duncan, the Spurs were one of the best defensive teams of all time.
Looking at my big board:
I’m going with 16. George Mikan. The game has changed a lot over the years. It’s nigh impossible to compare a player like Mikan to a player like Steph Curry, thus we must compare them to their own era’s.
And Mikan dominated his era. I think 16 feels about right. There are players above who had long illustrious careers. Once we leave Mikan behind, there are only a one who reached such heights, and that is Jokic for me (who still needs more longevity, but should be considered around the 22-30 spot).
As I've outlined a fair bit, D.Rob has the highest peak of the remaining players, combining a GOAT level defensive player in his prime with a superb if slightly flawed offensive player. He's just so far above the remaining candidates in that respect, that I don't care about his longevity; he has "enough" longevity that I'm just not fussed. I do go back and forth between him, Dirk and Dr J. But only one of those other candidates is available to me here, and for now I'm sticking with D.Rob. Dirk and K.Malone are the only other modern players so it's them by far. Torn between the longevity of Erving and the peak of Giannis for the next nomination. I'll go into each's merits more in the future.
More on D.Rob:
Spoiler:
One_and_Done wrote:Since Dirk has just edged past D.Rob for the nominee, I want to say a few words about D.Rob's impact. I can see if people think he didn't have enough longevity. Personally I'd take KD over him if Durant had enough support, and I can see the Dirk/K.Malone/Dr J arguments too. However in terms of peak D.Rob, he's better than any of those guys.
D.Rob was one of the GOAT defensive players, combining incredible instincts and timing with pogo stick, quick twitch athleticism. The guy ran the floor like a deer. When Tony Parker came to the Spurs, D.Rob was old and slow. Parker assumed he had always been that way. One day after practise someone showed Parker a video of a young Robinson running the floor. He couldn't believe how fast he was. They told him about the time David Robinson claimed he could walk on his hands the length of the practise court, being gymnast in college. The coach, incredulous, told him if he could do it everyone would get practise off. D.Rob proceeded to walk the length of the court on his hands, and the team took the day off. His dexterity at over 7 feet tall was basically unheard of.
Robinson's impact was clear from the day he joined the league. He came into a 21 win team, and turned them into a 56 win team. The team had a 11 point SRS turnaround. The Spurs were a contender for the first 7 years of D.Rob's career, during which time they averaged 55 a wins a year. Then at age 31 D.Rob had an injury and was never wholly the same again, and gradually degraded in impact. But that first 7 year impact is right up there with the top peaks. If D.Rob was merely a GOAT defensive player, he would be worthy of discussion here even if he was just an average offensive player. Unfortunately he was superb offensive player, who even though he had his shortcomings still did more than enough to warrant inclusion here. I set out his stats on page 1.
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. We now have nomination preferences so there's no reason not to just nominate KD every time until he gets in, with an alternate.
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%
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.
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:
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%.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
As I've outlined a fair bit, D.Rob has the highest peak of the remaining players, combining a GOAT level defensive player in his prime with a superb if slightly flawed offensive player. He's just so far above the remaining candidates in that respect, that I don't care about his longevity; he has "enough" longevity that I'm just not fussed. I do go back and forth between him, Dirk and Dr J. But only one of those other candidates is available to me here, and for now I'm sticking with D.Rob. Dirk is the only other modern player left who actually plays like a modern player in most respects, and he's an easy #2 for me. If voting gets tight I'll switch, but on merit it's these two by far.
More on D.Rob:
Spoiler:
One_and_Done wrote:Since Dirk has just edged past D.Rob for the nominee, I want to say a few words about D.Rob's impact. I can see if people think he didn't have enough longevity. Personally I'd take KD over him if Durant had enough support, and I can see the Dirk/K.Malone/Dr J arguments too. However in terms of peak D.Rob, he's better than any of those guys.
D.Rob was one of the GOAT defensive players, combining incredible instincts and timing with pogo stick, quick twitch athleticism. The guy ran the floor like a deer. When Tony Parker came to the Spurs, D.Rob was old and slow. Parker assumed he had always been that way. One day after practise someone showed Parker a video of a young Robinson running the floor. He couldn't believe how fast he was. They told him about the time David Robinson claimed he could walk on his hands the length of the practise court, being gymnast in college. The coach, incredulous, told him if he could do it everyone would get practise off. D.Rob proceeded to walk the length of the court on his hands, and the team took the day off. His dexterity at over 7 feet tall was basically unheard of.
Robinson's impact was clear from the day he joined the league. He came into a 21 win team, and turned them into a 56 win team. The team had a 11 point SRS turnaround. The Spurs were a contender for the first 7 years of D.Rob's career, during which time they averaged 55 a wins a year. Then at age 31 D.Rob had an injury and was never wholly the same again, and gradually degraded in impact. But that first 7 year impact is right up there with the top peaks. If D.Rob was merely a GOAT defensive player, he would be worthy of discussion here even if he was just an average offensive player. Unfortunately he was superb offensive player, who even though he had his shortcomings still did more than enough to warrant inclusion here. I set out his stats on page 1.
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. We now have nomination preferences so there's no reason not to just nominate KD every time until he gets in, with an alternate.
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%
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.
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:
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.
Laziness in not taking it out. However, while I will remove it now, it's relevant in the sense that Kobe is in and these guys are better than him so should also get in.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:Laziness in not taking it out. However, while I will remove it now, it's relevant in the sense that Kobe is in and these guys are better than him so should also get in.
AEnigma wrote:Most of my perceptions of Erving were indexed on those league finals in 1976 and 1977. And they still impress. He was really, really, really great in those two series, and the 1977 Finals in particular was a fun watch. But the reality I have come to accept is that I cannot extend those performances to his entire career. He averaged 30 on 55.8% efficiency against Artis Gilmore in the postseason; cannot say that moves me too much either. However, all these nominations are so flawed, I think I might just abstain until I am comfortable making a push for Nash.
Any thoughts on his defense in '77? Gross seemed very box productive in that series but haven't watched it in a long time or closely.
Been several years myself, and will not claim to have kept an especially close eye on Gross. My hedged commentary would be that Erving was not impressive off-ball — which is really what you needed to be to handle those Blazers — but he also did not make himself a target or a liability. Again, going mostly off memory, and without having honed in on rigorous film assessment of Erving on that end. Recollection is also of Gross making a lot of… maybe not tough shots, but call them shots you would expect to miss more often than they did. There is room for criticism of Erving’s defence generally, but I do not see him as any particularly weak link on that team at least.
That is a good question to bring up those because I have never been overly impressed by Erving’s defence… Not unimpressed either, and not beyond being occasionally wowed by his athleticism, but not the guy who seemed to be — certainly not used as — a highly disruptive individual figure against dynamic teams. But on the other hand, if at that point they had Bobby Jones instead of McGinnis, or maybe other defensive forwards like Bob Dandridge or Jamaal Wilkes, maybe that would have been enough to slow down the Blazers and flip the results of Games 5 and/or 6.
A large part of me increasingly wants to reframe Erving relative to Baylor. Erving comes across better… longer career… more success… but similarly flawed, and just as people may find themselves focusing in too much on the 1962 Finals, perhaps I have been making the same error with Erving out of some ingrained sense that those best games were a proper representation of his usual level. And we know they were not, because he has plenty of disappointments outside of that period (abysmal 1975 upset, arguably outplayed by Bob Dandridge in 1978, inability to close out 1981, consistent postseason dropoffs after 1982)…
Again, looking for something anchoring, will highlight that he consistently raised his scoring in the Finals. That should be to his mild credit, although its worth is open to question and is largely tied to a recurring Lakers team not winning foremost with its defence.
)
