Quick post, sorry. Dirk and DROB can be taken into consideration after these 2, they are imo the 2 in the mix with my 2 nominations, then I'd have kd. Mikan was obviously the most dominant player out of the bunch but i have him around #20 for longevity and era difficulty. As I said west and robinson I think are top 12 players at worst. As far as picking one above the other I'm just not sure. Robertson was a way better playmaker and had better scoring percentages, west had way better defense. I tend to think that west's michael jordan, kobe bryant type of game is more conductive to winning and playoff resilient. It could honestly just be a preference vote, I'm not sure.
Nomination: Erving Alternate: Malone
I think you are mixing up Robinson and Robertson a couple times in this post.
One_and_Done wrote:You can't 'adjust for longevity'. It's too hypothetical. It would be like 'adjusting' for Bill Walton by saying with today's medicine he'd have played longer. Would he? We have no way to know. Maybe Mikan breaks down if he tries to play longer.
You only get credit for the games you actually played.
The Walton example doesn't say the same thing as the overall point you're trying to make (that we can't adjust for longevity).
Walton played 468 games with only 2 seasons of prime MVP level play. That's less than half of what a typical career was back then for a star, and that's not accounting for how short Walton's prime years were. He's a huge outlier for his own era, so adjusting him to other eras would reflect that.
No one is trying to time machine when they're adjusting longevity for era. It's just pointing out if players had more or less longevity than their peers/contemporaries.
The more hypothetical you get, the more in to the realm of imagination. This is fun but rarely a convincing argument for a project like this. If player x had 6 MVP level seasons and played 12 seasons in an era where the other best players had 3-4 MVP level seasons and played 9... that makes your longevity impressive, even if the actual totals pale in comparison to an era where guys all had longer primes and played way more seasons.
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."
1. David Robinson 2. Nikola Jokic 3. Giannis Antetokounmpo 4. Chris Paul 5. Dirk Nowitzki 6. John Stockton 7. Karl Malone 8. Oscar Robertson 9. Dwyane Wade 10. Kawhi Leonard 11. Jerry West 12. Kevin Durant 13. Charles Barkley 14. Joel Embiid 15. Steve Nash
Vote: Jerry West Alternate: Mikan Nominate: Durant
I voted for West last time, so I'll just summarize. Arguably the most versatile guard of all-time in terms of scoring, playmaking, defense, and athleticism. I think he's sneakily one of the best help defenders to ever play the guard position. I'm basing this off fairly minimal footage and too much anecdotal stuff (news paper clippings talking about him grabbing 7+ steals), so I'm not super fixed in that believe. More judging from what I can see and hear. While I like Oscar's size and ball control a little more on offense, I think there's too big a gap on defense for Oscar to close. Dropping these 60s legends into a modern game, I like West's athleticism more than I like Oscar's size. Though I think they'd both make great modern players.
I get that it's hard to discuss Mikan, but I'd like to see him on the board before we get too far away from the top 10, since we're talking about one of the most dominant stretches from any player ever in any era. I get why it feels better to put modern players higher because of the familiarity and that basketball improves over time, but with a large camp of voters casually pushing to dismiss older players, I have my foot firmly down on preserving history for projects like this. Doing stuff relative to era just makes sense unless we don't want this to be a historical project at all.
I had West/Mikan/Oscar in a tier here with Dirk and Robinson as more modern examples where I feel the overall package (prime, longevity, relative to era etc.) weighs similarly. Chris Paul, Durant, Dr. J, Giannis, Jokic, Moses, and Nash are in my next tier (I had Kobe there too but he's voted in. Sorry for being a hater!)
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."
Doctor MJ wrote:So, just to share some thoughts on the Nomination vote:
I'll probably be siding with Karl Malone with my 1st vote. My 2nd vote will probably go to either Julius Erving or Kevin Durant. Moses Malone, Steve Nash, Dwyane Wade & Chris Paul are also on my mind.
Particularly looking for more thoughts on Erving & Durant with respect to each other and other guys.
Erving’s on-off for his entire NBA career was, in chronological order: +6.0, +0.6, -0.1, +3.0, -6.7, +10.0, +10.3, +4.4, -3.2, +4.6, -3.8.
There’s a couple solid numbers in there, but it’s overall pretty unimpressive. And I’ll note that in the season with that highest number (i.e. +10.3, in 1982-83), Erving only had the 4th highest on-off on the team, so it’s not really all that impressive in context. It’s hard for me to get to a place where I’d vote highly for someone with that sort of plus/minus data.
1. David Robinson 2. Nikola Jokic 3. Giannis Antetokounmpo 4. Chris Paul 5. Dirk Nowitzki 6. John Stockton 7. Karl Malone 8. Oscar Robertson 9. Dwyane Wade 10. Kawhi Leonard 11. Jerry West 12. Kevin Durant 13. Charles Barkley 14. Joel Embiid 15. Steve Nash
What’s your criteria in ranking them in this order?
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.
iggymcfrack wrote: He was still the best player in the league but he was putting up worse RS numbers than peak Robinson with nowhere near the defensive dominance. When the difference in competition is so vast and you have to ask questions like “how do you weight the regular season vs. postseason” or “how do you value offense vs. defense” to decide who was more dominant in era (after the basic rule change of a 12 foot key) to decide who was better, then it’s a slam dunk.
By worse RS numbers you mean PER that it calculated differently for either player?
How do you know that Mikan didn't have comparable defensive impact? Lakers defense was extremely dominant, way more than Spurs in fact.
I mean, it’s not like he was trying to fulfill a typical modern rim protecting role. The film I was watching the other day of the ‘54 Finals, it didn’t seem like he was active at all. Wasn’t he basically just waiting for rebounds at the expense of contesting shots?
Going to respond here - though I'll acknowledge 70s post with link that is definitely a quality response.
I struggle with understanding the scale of Mikan's defense. In the NBA, the dynasty was largely built on defense and I do think of that as Mikan-led - and give him the DPOY for those year - but:
1. The fact that contemporaries make such a point to talk about Russell's shot-blocking-based defense as something completely new makes me cautious about using the whole "defensive anchor makes defensive dynasty" thing.
2. When Mikan retired the first time, while there was a drop off, they were still the 2nd DRtg in the league according to bkref, and that was with Clyde Lovellette - known for being bad on defense - taking Mikan's spot.
3. In that year, the team goes 40-32...but when Jim Pollard is out, the team goes 4-5. And the following year with Pollard now retired, the defense fall to 7th out of 8 by bkref's DRtg.
Now, Mikan does come back for part of the year playing smaller minutes and helps some, so there are still positive indicators for Mikan...but I definitely think we're seeing indicators for the value of Pollard's defense.
4. This is where I'd point out that a) all agree that Pollard was a better athlete than Mikan, and b) it was frequently stated that Pollard was a better all-around player than Mikan. That second statement is something we should roll our collective eyes at when considering the literal truth of the statement, but I think it's clear what people meant when they said that: The big man was more valuable, but in terms of being able to be great at all aspects of the game, when such a statement was made about a non-big man, they were saying he was great like that.
5. There's also the matter that John Kundla tended to use his guards as actual guards - focused on defense. I don't think Slater Martin was as valuable defensively as Mikan, but I think it likely that the defensive dominance of the Lakers was dependent on great defenders at most positions, and once there were enough weak links, it's not something that one defensive anchor could be expected to save.
ijspeelman wrote:Where I struggle most for Robertson v West is while Robertson is more efficient (+1.2% rTS% compared to West), West shot more (+2.6 estimated FGA/75 possessions). Robertson, similar to Magic Johnson, shot very nearly volume-wise like a league average player. whereas West was taking the load of the offense even with Elgin on the team with him. I can see either West > Oscar or West = Oscar in regards to scoring.
Only one measure but I think I covered in a previous thread that Oscar has the top TS add season, then 2 West seasons then Robertson has 4th-11th and through that amasses a substantial career TS add lead. Part of that is staying on the court, only one measure but still ...
Also with regard to "taking the load ... even with Elgin", my understanding is the Royals offenses were better. Taking the load isn't a virtue in and of itself, rather the goal is an efficient offense.
This is where the playoffs loom large for me.
My recollection is that the Lakers tended to be the better playoff offense, and that West tended to have been the better volume/efficiency scorer in the playoffs.
Doctor MJ wrote:So, just to share some thoughts on the Nomination vote:
I'll probably be siding with Karl Malone with my 1st vote. My 2nd vote will probably go to either Julius Erving or Kevin Durant. Moses Malone, Steve Nash, Dwyane Wade & Chris Paul are also on my mind.
Particularly looking for more thoughts on Erving & Durant with respect to each other and other guys.
I nominated Dr. J based on his sterling resume(I know we are not supposed to consider importance to the history of the sport or influence on the sport, but it's hard not to with someone like him), but looking deeper at his numbers, it's not overwhelmingly impressive. He does have some eye-popping box impact numbers in his ABA years, but I'm thinking there's some kind of inflation going on there...he went from .321 WS/48 and 13.6 BPM in the 76 ABA playoffs to .215 WS/48 and 7.4 BPM in the 77 NBA playoffs. His peak ABA years are really hard to get my head around.
Will point out those 1976 averages were against two teams which mostly carried over into the NBA and immediately made the playoffs, and those 1977 averages were against three top 8 defensive teams — including the defending champions and the would-be champions (and also the would-soon-be champions, but not counting that as much because Dandridge’s addition was famously the difference in their ability to handle Erving).
The on/off numbers for Erving are uninspiring, but I am not too compelled by them without anything more comparative or without anything more specific to the postseason. Doc expressed some surprise that Erving fared notably better in Moonbeam’s R-WOWY than Gervin did, and it is entirely possible that more complete data would be similarly underwhelming for other superstar scorers of the time. To me, it reflects well on Erving in contrast to see high-peak guys like David Thompson and Walter Davis and Marques Johnson derail their careers, and Bernard King… having his history… Even Gervin seems to have ended up affected by off-court distractions, but to my knowledge, Erving mostly stayed above that. I say that not to proselytise (I only really care in an off-court sense about King), but to simply comment that one provided a long career of basketball value to his teams while most of the other spectacular wings burned out or cost themselves full engagement in the sport.
Yeah, this hits some of the big things for me on the pro-side of Erving.
1. I think his New York Nets years are pretty much unimpeachable and more impressive than anything Malone or KD did.
2. As damning as the on/off numbers from the 76ers years look, we're still talking about Erving being the focal point of a very successful team and apparently looking pretty good by WOWY. Lots of uncertainty here.
To dive a little bit deeper here, let me go through year by year based on what I think Moonbeam's threshold (18 minutes in a game) was:
'75-76: pre-Erving, RS 46-36 - 1-2 in playoffs '76-77: RS 50-30 when Erving plays 18+, 0-2 when he doesn't - 10-9 in playoffs 77-78: RS 48-25 when Erving plays 18+, 7-2 when he doesn't - 6-4 in playoffs '78-79: RS 44-33 when Erving plays 18+, 3-2 when he doesn't - 5-4 in playoffs '79-80: RS 56-22 when Erving plays 18+, 3-1 when he doesn't - 12-6 in playoffs '80-81: RS 62-20, Erving plays 18+ in each game - 9-7 in playoffs '81-82: RS 57-24 when Erving plays 18+, 1-0 when he doesn't - 12-9 in playoffs '82-83: RS 55-15 when Erving plays 18+, 10-2 when he doesn't - 12-1 in playoffs
Note that Erving never misses or plays less than 18 MPG in the playoffs in this time period.
Looking at that, sigh, gotta say it doesn't make me feel more confident in Erving's impact.
1. David Robinson 2. Nikola Jokic 3. Giannis Antetokounmpo 4. Chris Paul 5. Dirk Nowitzki 6. John Stockton 7. Karl Malone 8. Oscar Robertson 9. Dwyane Wade 10. Kawhi Leonard 11. Jerry West 12. Kevin Durant 13. Charles Barkley 14. Joel Embiid 15. Steve Nash
What’s your criteria in ranking them in this order?
Basically who had the most impact on winning adjusted for the competition they faced. In the era where we have them, I value impact metrics and advanced stats very highly as the highest signal indicator for this, but in other eras, I work with what I have. I guess I do kind of a mix between career value and what's the highest level they've maintained for 3 years or so. I feel like when people try to do CORP type analysis, they tend to undervalue the elite seasons and overvalue the role player ones. For instance, if I go to Ben Taylor's analysis of LeBron he gets 27% for what I would consider the single best season in the history of the NBA and 3% for his rookie year when he had a TS% of .488 and the Cavs were -2.6 with him on the floor. I don't think 9 seasons of slightly above average play come remotely close to one season of being the best of all-time. If anything, a ratio of 3 to 100 would be more accurate. Superstars win championships.
Take Jokic and Kevin Durant for instance. People might assume that Durant has to have more value because of his longevity, but what's his best season? 2014 where he won the MVP, then had kind of a meh playoffs with a 22.6 PER and a 6.4 BPM? Does that kind of season really add half the championship probability of a peak Jokic year where his team's -10 with him on the bench and he carries them to a dominating championship with some of the best numbers of all-time? Of course not! Looking at the Backpicks CORP analysis, the KD seasons is worth approximately 2/3 as much as the best season of all-time. That's not differentiating and evaluating. That's just counting.
I guess I do kinda get to a point sometimes with modern guys too where I feel like they've just proven that they've reached a certain level and until they give me reason to doubt that they're going to be able to maintain due to injury or something, I kinda let them hold the place they've earned. Jokic has played at an MVP level for 3 years in a row now with maybe the best 3 year offensive run in the history of the game and he answered every doubter in the playoffs too. He's proven he's that guy. You need something pretty extraordinary to beat that. In the case of Robinson, he had an elite all-time peak as well and he maintained it for a full career so he gets that spot. Chris Paul's had a tremendous career, but he's never had a season on the level of any of Jokic's last three and he hasn't shown that his years of very good, but not elite play could result in the same level of championships that Jokic has already earned. Magic has the championships, but all of them were on very good teams and a skill vs. skill analysis, he falls far behind CP3 even before accounting for longevity so with the longevity edge I have to give it to Paul.
I don't know my actual criteria are kind of amorphous and I might rely more on one thing than another in a given situation, but if breaking things down into the different parts of the game, it's very clear one player is ahead, I'm always going to give it to the better player over the more accomplished one. Like Chris Paul is close enough on offense to Magic that he actually has better peak/prime numbers meaning that the difference is very minute there. Meanwhile, we know there's a chasm of value defensively, Paul did it in a tougher era, and he had more longevity. With players that play the same position in similar eras, it's easier to make direct comparisons. Likewise, modern players are very easy to compare due to the wealth of data available. If I'm comparing Dr. J to Joel Embiid, it gets a lot murkier and at some point I just have to go with my gut on what factors to weight more.
1. David Robinson 2. Nikola Jokic 3. Giannis Antetokounmpo 4. Chris Paul 5. Dirk Nowitzki 6. John Stockton 7. Karl Malone 8. Oscar Robertson 9. Dwyane Wade 10. Kawhi Leonard 11. Jerry West 12. Kevin Durant 13. Charles Barkley 14. Joel Embiid 15. Steve Nash
What’s your criteria in ranking them in this order?
Basically who had the most impact on winning adjusted for the competition they faced. In the era where we have them, I value impact metrics and advanced stats very highly as the highest signal indicator for this, but in other eras, I work with what I have. I guess I do kind of a mix between career value and what's the highest level they've maintained for 3 years or so. I feel like when people try to do CORP type analysis, they tend to undervalue the elite seasons and overvalue the role player ones. For instance, if I go to Ben Taylor's analysis of LeBron he gets 27% for what I would consider the single best season in the history of the NBA and 3% for his rookie year when he had a TS% of .488 and the Cavs were -2.6 with him on the floor. I don't think 9 seasons of slightly above average play come remotely close to one season of being the best of all-time. If anything, a ratio of 3 to 100 would be more accurate. Superstars win championships.
Take Jokic and Kevin Durant for instance. People might assume that Durant has to have more value because of his longevity, but what's his best season? 2014 where he won the MVP, then had kind of a meh playoffs with a 22.6 PER and a 6.4 BPM? Does that kind of season really add half the championship probability of a peak Jokic year where his team's -10 with him on the bench and he carries them to a dominating championship with some of the best numbers of all-time? Of course not! Looking at the Backpicks CORP analysis, the KD seasons is worth approximately 2/3 as much as the best season of all-time. That's not differentiating and evaluating. That's just counting.
I guess I do kinda get to a point sometimes with modern guys too where I feel like they've just proven that they've reached a certain level and until they give me reason to doubt that they're going to be able to maintain due to injury or something, I kinda let them hold the place they've earned. Jokic has played at an MVP level for 3 years in a row now with maybe the best 3 year offensive run in the history of the game and he answered every doubter in the playoffs too. He's proven he's that guy. You need something pretty extraordinary to beat that. In the case of Robinson, he had an elite all-time peak as well and he maintained it for a full career so he gets that spot. Chris Paul's had a tremendous career, but he's never had a season on the level of any of Jokic's last three and he hasn't shown that his years of very good, but not elite play could result in the same level of championships that Jokic has already earned. Magic has the championships, but all of them were on very good teams and a skill vs. skill analysis, he falls far behind CP3 even before accounting for longevity so with the longevity edge I have to give it to Paul.
I don't know my actual criteria are kind of amorphous and I might rely more on one thing than another in a given situation, but if breaking things down into the different parts of the game, it's very clear one player is ahead, I'm always going to give it to the better player over the more accomplished one. Like Chris Paul is close enough on offense to Magic that he actually has better peak/prime numbers meaning that the difference is very minute there. Meanwhile, we know there's a chasm of value defensively, Paul did it in a tougher era, and he had more longevity. With players that play the same position in similar eras, it's easier to make direct comparisons. Likewise, modern players are very easy to compare due to the wealth of data available. If I'm comparing Dr. J to Joel Embiid, it gets a lot murkier and at some point I just have to go with my gut on what factors to weight more.
Thanks for the share, I'll get back at some point - am tied up for the day.
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.
What can I say? I'm absolutely sold that Oscar & West were astonishing outliers at the guard position. I had skepticism at one time. I did not believe that they were that great just because folks back in the day said they were. Oh, I figured they probably were the best guards of the period, but how good were they really?
Whatever stats I've found though, these guys always end up being more impressive than I was expect, not less. While there are plenty of modern legends that only look great from certain measures, these two stack out by any way I can see to evaluate them other thing rangz.
As folks know, I've gone back and forth between the two. The general shape of my evaluation remains roughly the same:
Oscar's more valuable sooner. Oscar plays more. Oscar seems to natural take control of whatever situation he's in. Oscar plays a style that fits in with how many of the big offensive stars play today, so we know it would work today. West seems to surpass Oscar as their career goes along. West is the better shooter and scorer, particularly in the playoffs. West is certainly the more active defender, and likely a much better defender. West proved an utter natural to a read & react scheme when van Breka Kolff brought the Princeton lineage to LA.
We can debate which of those should matter more, but I must admit that my basketball heart wants to side with West. I'm more impressed by what I see of him. I'd draft him first if I had the option to choose one or the other, and I don't think era would actually be a factor there. So when others start making compelling arguments for West, it's hard for me not to side with him.
Nomination 1: Karl Malone
I have to acknowledge that it's hard for me to muster much passion advocating for Malone. Ugly game with an ugly biography.
But he also literally has an argument as the regular season GOAT if you're impressed enough by his longevity, and while the Jazz at times disappointed in the playoffs, Malone mostly didn't. In another universe, we're talking about a man with one or more chips and a Finals MVP for everyone one of those chips.
Additionally, while it's easy to look at the Sloan offense and roll our eyes at both a) how predictable it was, and b) how focused it was on exploiting ridiculous illegal defense rules that don't exist today, in the end, Malone is one of the most powerful players in NBA history and he had excellent touch. Realistically I can't argue that he wouldn't be great in any era. I think he would be.
Put all that together, and you've got a guy with less blemishes - on-court - that the other superstars I was focusing on.
Nomination 2: Kevin Durant
So I said before that I was debating between KD and Dr. J here. I mentioned a few other guys that I'd welcome arguments for, but honestly, these two were the guys I spent most of my time thinking about.
I've posted above about my analysis of Erving. In the end, that on/off data is really, really not what I was expecting before we got access to it. Doctor J is the primary inspiration for my handle, I think he had the most graceful athleticism I've ever seen in basketball, I think his ABA run is something everyone should be very impressed by...and when I started participating in these projects I advocated for Erving ahead of Oscar & West.
But when new information comes to light, it changes my assessment. I have to say that I think I need to consider Erving even further.
As I say that: It's generally agree that Erving was a class act and an inspirational leader - and even though his 76ers value-add clearly seems to be less than I thought, he still functioned as a successful franchise player around which the 76ers built a long time contender that eventually broke through and won a title.
Take all that positive stuff...KD is the opposite. I'll try to refrain from an extended rant, but suffice to say I absolutely knock KD for being KD, enough that I have to question whether I should really rank him ahead of Dr. J. Would I draft KD ahead of Erving? Don't think so. To me, getting in the KD business means eventually dealing with him blaming you for his intrinsic insecurity and unhappiness and then blowing the whole thing up. That surely seems unfair to many, but hey, just my opinion.
On the other hand, KD's not just a superstar on the court, he's the other classical superstar on the greatest team in the history of basketball, with the first one already voted in. I think we did a major disservice to the Warrior super-team when we analyzed them as if none of the players were achieving that much simply because they had a lot of help.
From Wilt joining the Lakers onward to whatever team LeBron joins after he uses up his latest team, we've seen many, many attempts to create the best team ever. The guys who actually succeeded at this shouldn't be getting knocked for it relative to those who try and fail.
While I do think that the Warrior stint has allowed an overly enthusiastic vein of thought that KD was "plug and play" leading any team to greatness if they simply had decent stuff around - that's really not what we saw, the Warriors were the Warriors, and KD was merely one part of them - the fact remains that when you're that tall, that mobile, and that good of a shooter, you're an incredible force.
Tying a bow on all of this: The fact that what I see from Erving in Philly leaves me thinking that KD was the more consistently valuable player by a significant margin makes me give KD the nod here...but for subsequent threads, I think I also need to think more about KD relative to other players who didn't have either a) Erving's outright negative on/off tendencies, nor b) KD's self-righteous team-destructiveness tendencies. Paul is the clearest contrast here - consistent impact in basically any situation, but not someone who I have as much faith in competing against the cream of the crop in competition.
70sFan wrote:By worse RS numbers you mean PER that it calculated differently for either player?
How do you know that Mikan didn't have comparable defensive impact? Lakers defense was extremely dominant, way more than Spurs in fact.
I mean, it’s not like he was trying to fulfill a typical modern rim protecting role. The film I was watching the other day of the ‘54 Finals, it didn’t seem like he was active at all. Wasn’t he basically just waiting for rebounds at the expense of contesting shots?
Going to respond here - though I'll acknowledge 70s post with link that is definitely a quality response.
I struggle with understanding the scale of Mikan's defense. In the NBA, the dynasty was largely built on defense and I do think of that as Mikan-led - and give him the DPOY for those year - but:
1. The fact that contemporaries make such a point to talk about Russell's shot-blocking-based defense as something completely new makes me cautious about using the whole "defensive anchor makes defensive dynasty" thing.
2. When Mikan retired the first time, while there was a drop off, they were still the 2nd DRtg in the league according to bkref, and that was with Clyde Lovellette - known for being bad on defense - taking Mikan's spot.
3. In that year, the team goes 40-32...but when Jim Pollard is out, the team goes 4-5. And the following year with Pollard now retired, the defense fall to 7th out of 8 by bkref's DRtg.
Now, Mikan does come back for part of the year playing smaller minutes and helps some, so there are still positive indicators for Mikan...but I definitely think we're seeing indicators for the value of Pollard's defense.
4. This is where I'd point out that a) all agree that Pollard was a better athlete than Mikan, and b) it was frequently stated that Pollard was a better all-around player than Mikan. That second statement is something we should roll our collective eyes at when considering the literal truth of the statement, but I think it's clear what people meant when they said that: The big man was more valuable, but in terms of being able to be great at all aspects of the game, when such a statement was made about a non-big man, they were saying he was great like that.
5. There's also the matter that John Kundla tended to use his guards as actual guards - focused on defense. I don't think Slater Martin was as valuable defensively as Mikan, but I think it likely that the defensive dominance of the Lakers was dependent on great defenders at most positions, and once there were enough weak links, it's not something that one defensive anchor could be expected to save.
Excellent post. I had no idea of the details of the other players on the team's respective defensive abilities and reputation at the time, but yeah it seems pretty clear to me that no one prior to Russell could have anything approaching the effect defensively of the top all-time centers who focused on blocking shots and protecting the rim. In the case of Mikan, I'd imagine that all in one box score metrics would likely tend to overrate him since in the absence of shot blocking data being available, they'll just assume that a big getting a lot of rebounds is affecting a lot of shots since most do. Honestly, Mikan's game defensively is probably really a lot more similar to Jokic's. He's gonna make some plays here and there because he's a quick athletic guy with size, but mostly he's just hoovering up the defensive glass. That's not an insult at all. I think Jokic is a solidly above average defender. But I would certainly think he would compare much closer to Jokic on D than an all-time defensive great like David Robinson.
70sFan wrote:By worse RS numbers you mean PER that it calculated differently for either player?
How do you know that Mikan didn't have comparable defensive impact? Lakers defense was extremely dominant, way more than Spurs in fact.
I mean, it’s not like he was trying to fulfill a typical modern rim protecting role. The film I was watching the other day of the ‘54 Finals, it didn’t seem like he was active at all. Wasn’t he basically just waiting for rebounds at the expense of contesting shots?
Mikan didn't play like a modern rim protector, I also wouldn't say he just waited for rebounds either.
Here is a big portion of the game from period when Mikan was a bit younger and closer to his peak:
He also faced legitimate competition at center that time.
Watching this film, the Jokic comparison defensively seems very apt. One on one in the post, he's an excellent defender. Uses his size well and makes excellent reads to anticipate which way the player's gonna go and shut him down. When he needs to do some lateral movement or recover though, he's often shockingly slow and gives up some very easy ole buckets. Also, the rare couple times he got put in a pick and roll, he looked completely lost.
I will say that with how much the game was played in the post at the time, he likely was a very good positively impactful defender. He blocked a lot more shots than I would have thought on postups and his rebounding would have tremendous value too, but there are too many glaring weaknesses for me to ever compare him to an all-time defensive great.
iggymcfrack wrote: I mean, it’s not like he was trying to fulfill a typical modern rim protecting role. The film I was watching the other day of the ‘54 Finals, it didn’t seem like he was active at all. Wasn’t he basically just waiting for rebounds at the expense of contesting shots?
Mikan didn't play like a modern rim protector, I also wouldn't say he just waited for rebounds either.
Here is a big portion of the game from period when Mikan was a bit younger and closer to his peak:
He also faced legitimate competition at center that time.
Watching this film, the Jokic comparison defensively seems very apt. One on one in the post, he's an excellent defender. Uses his size well and makes excellent reads to anticipate which way the player's gonna go and shut him down. When he needs to do some lateral movement or recover though, he's often shockingly slow and gives up some very easy ole buckets. Also, the rare couple times he got put in a pick and roll, he looked completely lost.
I will say that with how much the game was played in the post at the time, he likely was a very good positively impactful defender. He blocked a lot more shots than I would have thought on postups and his rebounding would have tremendous value too, but there are too many glaring weaknesses for me to ever compare him to an all-time defensive great.
To be fair, I don't think Mikan is top tier defender or anything like that. I mostly agree with Doc that the Lakers werte extremely good as a collective defensively.
Bolded part is important if you're talking about era relative impact though. Maybe Mikan doesn't have a better tools than Jokic on defense (I think he might be a bit quicker), but in his era his strength gave him tremendous value, which is why I don't agree that his boxscore composites (which basically don't exist for his era BTW) underrate his overall value.
We also have to acknowledge that Mikan was definitely a more impactful offensive player than Robinson in the playoffs. Mikan dominated the league for almost a decade and nobody could stop him in postseason, Robinson struggled against any playoff-level defense outside of his rookie year (which is very telling).
I have nothing agents Robinson ahead of Mikan on all-time list, but era-relative dominance isn't a good argument for Robinson.
Do we have Erving whole 1977-85 on/off calculated overall?
I've never done it.
I wonder how much worse he'd look vs Durant, though without playoff sample it wouldn't give us a clear picture either.
Anyway, although I also became less enthusiastic about Erving as my basketball knowledge grew, I still don't see Durant having a better career than him if you count ABA.
I'm not sure on '77-'85 in particular (very slightly better I think, but not a huge change from '77-'87), and there are some pace consistency assumptions to combine seasons where we don't have possessions, but there's a link.
