RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #17 (David Robinson)

[HeartBreakKid]

OP has a weird disdain for Wade so these threads aren't in good faith these days.

Even if that were true, what does his opinion have to do with anything? It's not like we're mind controlled.

[Doctor MJ]

OP has a weird disdain for Wade so these threads aren't in good faith these days.

This is such strange timing with me being the first one in the project to give him a nomination vote just last thread.

I'm trying to figure out if you read my posts and think I'm being disingenuous in my support of Wade, or whether you just assumed you knew how I voted because you classified me as a Wade-disdainer after hearing me bring up things about Wade you don't like focused on.

[OhayoKD]

Is fatigue affecting free-throw shooting just semi-plausible?

Because if fatigue does effect free-throw shooting than how those free-throws were earned(as well as the volume) would probably be relevant

Fatigue affecting anything if there's enough of it is plausible.

And yes the manner earned would matter. But neither is measured by opponent team level regular season defense. That would be physiological and the manner of the foul.

For the broader picture see the full response that's taken from. If this were a real thing, I'd imagine we'd see greater variance at a career level in free throw shooting, especially on the downside. Based on the evidence cited above, I believe it isn't there and bucket variations, like yearly variations, are noise from small samples (in this instance a single player, playoff only, partial career, 621 attempts split into smaller buckets, exact size of each bucket not given).

If you actually do this analysis with all players, look at their RS splits between defense levels because you think fatigue-based free throw team level defense is real and significant thing and you have the evidence I'm willing to listen. (Or if you now find it a compelling theory and want to try it now, perhaps compelled by the theory of David Robinson being 85% against bad defenses and 65% against good ones as sustainable ...)

However my suspicion is that you don't do this and this theory is, per above, an ad hoc back-fitting of a rationalization onto noise.

I said I won't engage anymore, but I have seen this discussion in the last thread and I actually made such calculations for defense faced production in RS for 5 years stretches and I did 1992-96 Robinson. Here are the results:

Against bad (+2.0 or better per Basketball-Reference) defenses: 27.6/10.9/3.6 with 2.7 tov on 55.2 FG%, 75.3 FT% and 61.5 TS% (+7.8 rTS%) in 136 games and 37.1 mpg
Against good (-2.0 or better per Basketball-Reference) defenses: 25.1/11.5/3.3 with 2.8 tov on 49.4 FG%, 73.7 FT% and 56.5 TS% (+3.0 rTS%) in 114 games and 39.8 mpg

Don't have pace adjustments unfortunately, but for per36 here are the differences:

-4.1 points p36
-0.2 reb p36
-0.5 ast p36
-0.1 tov p36
-5.8 FG%
-1.6 FT%
-5.0 TS%
-4.8 rTS%

If you want to see any other center in comparison, please let me know.

could you do ft attempts too?

and uh...how about shaq

[DraymondGold]

Voting Post
Vote: David Robinson
Alternate: Dirk Nowitzki

Really struggling with this one. I have Robinson as the superior player to Dirk, both in absolute goodness and in context-dependent value. I have Robinson with the better 1 year peak, the better 3 year peak, the better 5 year extended peak, and the better 8–10 year prime. Adjusting for the shortened 99 season, Robinson was on pace to play 716 games in his 10 year primes, while Dirk played 782 games in his 10 year primes — i.e.e Dirk only 9% more prime games even with Robinson’s missed season, and I have prime Robinson as more than 9% better than prime Dirk.

But Dirk has significantly more longevity. Even with Robinson’s superior prime, he still missed a full season in 1997. He was injured in the 1992 playoffs (although Dirk was injured in 2003). Dirk played *5* seasons before age 24 when Robinson was a rookie, and Dirk played *3* more seasons after age 37 when Robinson retired. Some of this is explainable by era: high-minutes players played an average of 10% more games in Dirk’s era than Robinson. Some of this is also explainable by context: Robinson played all 4 years of college, and lost 2 years to military service, while Dirk had neither. Both of these (along with Robinson’s Top 10 level play as a rookie in 1990) suggest that Robinson was capable of having greater longevity in another situation, which makes me weight Robinson’s poorer longevity slightly less. But Dirk’s raw longevity advantage is massive, so even adjusted for context, it’s still clearly a point for Dirk.

Dirk vs Robinson: Perusing the stats

What do the box stats and box-estimates of plus-minus stats say? Our best 3 box stats are Backpicks BPM, PIPM, and RAPTOR.
-Backpicks RS + PS VORP: Dirk > Robinson
-Career PIPM: Dirk > Robinson
-Career RAPTOR: Robinson > Dirk

So Dirk’s longevity wins out in 2/3 stats, although it’s not universal.

What about WOWY based metrics?
-Prime WOWY: Robinson +4.7 (13th all time) >> Dirk +1.8 (94th all time)
-Prime Adjusted WOWY metrics: Robinson +9.1 > Dirk +6.1. Dirk would have to be +3.34 better than Robinson in his non-prime years to surpass him in career adjusted WOWY. Unlikely, but possible.
-Moonbeam’s RWOWY: Robinson > Dirk.
Robinson: 4 samples over 95th percentile, 11 over 90th percentile, 16 over 75th percentile, 16 over 50th percentile (18 total).
Dirk: 0 samples over 95th percentile, 9 over 90th percentile, 15 over 75th percentile, 18 over 50th percentile (24 total)

So WOWY based metrics favor Robinson. Although Robinson is the type of player that WOWY would overrate: 1) he *is* the system, both offensively and defensively through much of his prime, and 2) the Spurs tanked in their year without him. Regardless, he’s clearly better than Dirk here, possibly for his career.

What about plus minus based metrics? Let’s start with AuPM, since we have a greater portion of Robinson’s prime (though we’re still missing 4 years in 90–93).
-Robinson (missing 90–93): 3 years over +6.0, 3 years over +5.0, 3 years over +4.0, 6 years over +3.0
-Dirk: 1 year over +6.0, 3 years over +5.0, 9 years over +4.0, 12 years over +3.0

So this supports Robinson having a better peak and… not much else. Robinson does have 4 missing years, and given his box performance, his 1991 on/off and Squared2020 RAPM, and 1994 on/off and AuPM, I’d say it’s likely Robinson had at least three more (perhaps four more) 4.0+ AuPM years… which would get him to 6–7, compared to Dirk’s 9.

What about RAPM? Rather than looking at the actual value across different metrics (Squared2020 RAPM in 91 and 96, AuPM estimates of RAPM in 94–96, Goldstein RAPM post 97)… let’s look at league ranking.

-Robinson (missing 90, 92, 93): 1st two times, Top 3 four times, Top 5 six times, Top 10 nine times
-Dirk (no missing years): 1st one times, Top 3 4 times, Top 5 eight times, Top 10 fourteen times

So Robinson looks better in peak by Top 1 and Top 3 appearances, they look about the same in Top 5 appearances (if you predict Top 5 in 91 and 1st in 94 to mean Top 5 in 92 and 93, and possibly 90). Predicting out for the missing years, Robinson would have twelve Top 10 appearances to Dirk’s fourteen.

All in all, the plus minus stats were closer for their whole career. Robinson has the better peak, Dirk the longer prime.

Dirk vs Robinson: Some Contextual Considerations

What about resilience and scalability? I tend to think resilience / playoff improvement is an overrated quality. People in this project have valued how much a player improved in the playoffs more than the actual playoff value itself, which just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t care if Hakeem improves more in Playoff BPM than Jordan if Jordan still has 10/10 of the best playoff runs according to Playoff BPM.

Still, resilience is still a factor to consider, especially since we’re discussing Robinson. Robinson declined in the playoffs during the heart of his prime. But interestingly, he actually improved quite a bit once he got a better fitting team. Post 1997, Robinson improved by 29% in the playoffs in AuPM! Now much of this is boosted by an ideal fit, some issues of collinearity in lineups, perhaps some coasting in the regular season as an older player. I don’t expect Robinson to be a true 29% playoff improver. He might even be a negative if we had the data for the majority of his prime. But! It does suggest Robinson might have declined significantly less throughout his prime if he had a better fitting situation around him.

Compare that to Dirk who, on average, declined -1% across his full career in the playoffs. Like Robinson, I suspect some of this was a decline in his younger years, and improvement in a better situation and with more experience in his later years. I absolutely see late-prime Dirk as a playoff improver. But it does suggest that, over the course of his career, Dirk wasn’t a massive improver like we would want for him to gain some separation over Robinson, even if we give Dirk the slight advantage.

Scalability, I see as a slight point for Robinson. His prime defense might be Top 5 ever. You can — and the Spurs did — create an all-time defense around Robinson. Even if Dirk’s isn’t negative, I’d argue it could be slightly problematic from a team building perspective, particularly as a big man. Offensively, Dirk definitely has fantastic spacing and a strong off-ball game. He could play as a finisher. But he also had strong isolation tendencies, and wasn’t good as a creator. Robinson did not have the spacing, but he definitely had the off-bal game. He was fantastic as a screener, he could roll to the basket or pop for an efficient midrange jumpsuit. He was a much better offensive rebounder (peaking at +5.4 per 100 possessions to Dirk’s +2.3). And he was the better creator, drawing double teams and willingly passing out.

With another situation, I could see Robinson having a far different reputation among basketball fans. Say Robinson played for the Utah Jazz instead of Karl Malone. All of a sudden, he has a 2nd all star to help set up the offense. With Stockton, he would have to focus far less on isolation face-up offense in the playoffs and do what he was better at. He was a pick and roll monster -- great screener, great face-up roll man, ability to pop to the midrange. I did some film analysis of the 94 playoffs back for the Greatest Peaks project, and saw consistent double teams leading to missed open shots for Robinson teammates. The other option was for Robinson to shoot into the double team, which was not his forte. He would not have this problem on the Jazz. He could draw double teams constantly, he was a willing passer, and with Utah's shooting, he would have teammates who could actually make the shots. And of course defensively, Robinson would be a huge boost over Malone. I could absolutely see the Robinson Jazz winning a ring or two somewhere in 94, 95, 98, or 99. And what would we think of him then...

Hypotheticals aside, Robinson's scalability advantage is born out in the actual team performance. Robinson's best team was the 1999 Spurs, while Dirk's was the 2011 Mars. The 1999 Spurs were 17th ever in overall SRS (+10.37) while the 2011 Mavs 41st (+8.93). And Robinson was more valuable to the 1999 Spurs than Duncan was: Robinson had 35% better full-season Goldstein RAPM than Duncan, and Duncan did not play 35% more minutes than Robinson did.

…

In sum: this is a tough one. I’m not happy with it. I value peak and prime more than longevity. I tend to take longevity as (somewhat) era-relative, and I’m at least more forgiving when there’s a lack of longevity due to extenuating circumstances (like military) not related to the player’s goodness. I think scalability is as important as resilience.

So I’m going with Robinson, at least at the moment. But Dirk’s longevity advantage is significant, and I really don’t think it would require much change to my criteria or the evidence to vote for Dirk.

[AEnigma]

Dirk’s result is a bit interesting because while I knew he had a strong rate of success in Game 7s (4-1 is a top ten mark for superstars), he was 10-12 in game 5s and 4-8 in game 6s. I was actually planning to comment on how he might have a similar issue as you see with Shaq, where he may be resilient in a truly close series, in a more immediately imbalanced series, he has no real path to a comeback. With Shaq of course still being a substantial distance higher as an overall talent.

If you're just interested in Game 7's, it's easier for me to share certain queries from bkref.

Here's the leaderboard for total +/- in Game 7's.

I'll share the Top 10 and then some other relevant names:

1. Marcus Smart +77 (8 games)
2. Raja Bell +70 (5)
3. Al Horford +70 (10)
4. Steve Nash +67 (4)
5. Chauncey Billups +64 (5)
6. Jayson Tatum +57 (7)
7. Steph Curry +55 (5)
8. Jason Terry +55 (4)
9. Michael Finley +51 (5)
10. Ray Allen +50 (11)

Kevin Garnett +42 (7)
Pau Gasol +42 (3)
Manu Ginobili +42 (6)
Kevin Durant +40 (5)
Ben Wallace +38 (6)
Dwight Howard +36 (3)
LeBron James +36 (8)
Dirk Nowitzki +16 (5)
Shaquille O'Neal +11 (4)
Tracy McGrady -53 (3)
Chris Paul -61 (8)

This is actually a decent example of why I am more interested in record than plus/minus in these smaller samples. I have a tough time caring that the Mavericks went on a +13 run in the 3.5 minutes Dirk was off the court in 2006 Spurs Game 7, that he was merely +26 in a 40-point win over the 2005 Rockets, or that he was -30 in a 23-point loss to the 2014 Spurs. None of that in itself has any real bearing on how I assess Dirk when I know who was the engine of those teams:

Spoiler:

Here's the leaderboard for number of all-seasons (RS & PS) a player has led his team in +/- (back through when we have data):

LeBron James 15 (in progress)
Dirk Nowitzki 10
Kevin Garnett 10
Chris Paul 10 (in progress)
Steve Nash 9

To me, Game 7 blowouts may be more likely when a team underperforms, so accumulating a higher plus/minus in a game that probably should not have been necessary is not itself worth much to me. The Smart/Jaylen/Tatum/Horford Celtics have been extraordinarily impressive… but I am not sure I would brag about being taken to seven games that regularly by the competition in question. Similar for the 2003-06 Pistons, who won 108-93 against a weak 2003 Magic team, won 90-69 against a mediocre 2004 Nets team, and won 79-61 against a mediocre 2006 Cavaliers team.

As an individual result, I am more impressed by Curry’s +2 against the 2014 Clippers than I am by his +25 against the Kings or his +13 against a Rockets team missing Chris Paul (and 27 consecutive threes). And similarly, Dirk’s +0 against a more talented Spurs team in between two titles is one of the two or three most impressive Game 7 performances I can recall from the past twenty-five years.

There is certainly room to question Dirk in the postseason outside of 2011 and that 2006 Spurs series. One hypothesis with which I am fiddling is that his outlier scoring inelasticity made him a tougher matchup for elite defences than for elite offences. Still, he and Malone are the players with the most aggregate career value here, and I would rather roll with Dirk’s highs — exemplified by the 2006 conference semifinals and the entirety of 2011 — than with Malone’s relatively consistent play. Put in place of Malone, Dirk may have some worse upsets or clearer postseason failures, but I also suspect he would be more likely to win a title in that 1995-98 period.

VOTE: Dirk Nowitzki

[Doctor MJ]

Dirk’s result is a bit interesting because while I knew he had a strong rate of success in Game 7s (4-1 is a top ten mark for superstars), he was 10-12 in game 5s and 4-8 in game 6s. I was actually planning to comment on how he might have a similar issue as you see with Shaq, where he may be resilient in a truly close series, in a more immediately imbalanced series, he has no real path to a comeback. With Shaq of course still being a substantial distance higher as an overall talent.

If you're just interested in Game 7's, it's easier for me to share certain queries from bkref.

Here's the leaderboard for total +/- in Game 7's.

I'll share the Top 10 and then some other relevant names:

1. Marcus Smart +77 (8 games)
2. Raja Bell +70 (5)
3. Al Horford +70 (10)
4. Steve Nash +67 (4)
5. Chauncey Billups +64 (5)
6. Jayson Tatum +57 (7)
7. Steph Curry +55 (5)
8. Jason Terry +55 (4)
9. Michael Finley +51 (5)
10. Ray Allen +50 (11)

Kevin Garnett +42 (7)
Pau Gasol +42 (3)
Manu Ginobili +42 (6)
Kevin Durant +40 (5)
Ben Wallace +38 (6)
Dwight Howard +36 (3)
LeBron James +36 (8)
Dirk Nowitzki +16 (5)
Shaquille O'Neal +11 (4)
Tracy McGrady -53 (3)
Chris Paul -61 (8)

This is actually a decent example of why I am more interested in record than plus/minus in these smaller samples. I have a tough time caring that the Mavericks went on a +13 run in the 3.5 minutes Dirk was off the court in 2006 Spurs Game 7, that he was merely +26 in a 40-point win over the 2005 Rockets, or that he was -30 in a 23-point loss to the 2014 Spurs. None of that in itself has any real bearing on how I assess Dirk when I know who was the engine of those teams.

Spoiler:

Here's the leaderboard for number of all-seasons (RS & PS) a player has led his team in +/- (back through when we have data):

LeBron James 15 (in progress)
Dirk Nowitzki 10
Kevin Garnett 10
Chris Paul 10 (in progress)
Steve Nash 9

To me, Game 7 blowouts may be more likely when a team underperforms, so accumulating a higher plus/minus in a game that probably should not have been necessary is not itself worth much to me. The Smart/Jaylen/Tatum/Horford Celtics have been extraordinarily impressive… but I am not sure I would brag about being taken to seven games that regularly by the competition in question. Similar for the 2003-06 Pistons, who won 108-93 against a weak 2003 Magic team, won 90-69 against a mediocre 2004 Nets team, and won 79-61 against a mediocre 2006 Cavaliers team.

As an individual result, I am more impressed by Curry’s +2 against the 2014 Clippers than I am by his +25 against the Kings or his +13 against a Rockets team missing Chris Paul (and 27 consecutive threes). And similarly, Dirk’s +0 against a more talented Spurs team in between two titles is one of the two or three most impressive Game 7 performances I can recall from the past twenty-five years.

There is certainly room to question Dirk in the postseason outside of 2011 and that 2006 Spurs series. One hypothesis with which I am fiddling is that his outlier scoring inelasticity made him a tougher matchup for elite defences than for elite offences. Still, he and Malone are the players with the most aggregate career value here, and I would rather roll with Dirk’s highs — exemplified by the 2006 conference semifinals and the entirety of 2011 — than with Malone’s relatively consistent play. Put in place of Malone, Dirk may have some worse upsets or clearer postseason failures, but I also suspect he would be more likely to win a title in that 1995-98 period.

VOTE: Dirk Nowitzki

Okay, thought you'd be interested in the data based on your prior post. Feel free to present your own data analysis.

[AEnigma]

No need to be snippy, Doc. I found the data interesting. However, just because it interests me does not mean I am going to suddenly reassess based off some low plus minus averages over five games.

I at least felt (with all bias) that the post I made in response to that data had some interesting thoughts in it — thoughts which I would not have covered without that type of prompt. I am sorry that you seem to disagree, but part of me wonders whether you would have complained if I gave a one-sentence reply along the lines of, “Wow, that makes it really tough for me to justify Dirk at #17!”

[Colbinii]

OP has a weird disdain for Wade so these threads aren't in good faith these days.

You have said nothing in the first 16 threads only to pop up and accuse someone of being biased against Wade...yet they are the only one to nominate Wade so far?

Do us all a favor and do what you did the first 16 threads...

"crickets"

[Sign5]

OP has a weird disdain for Wade so these threads aren't in good faith these days.

You have said nothing in the first 16 threads only to pop up and accuse someone of being biased against Wade...yet they are the only one to nominate Wade so far?

Do us all a favor and do what you did the first 16 threads...

"crickets"

Oh stfu I dont frequent realgm every 2 seconds like some of you. Im also entitled to post whatever I please in parameters of the rules on this board. If you don't like my post so much then place me on ignore. You don't control what I post on here pal.

Warned. trex

[Sign5]

OP has a weird disdain for Wade so these threads aren't in good faith these days.

Even if that were true, what does his opinion have to do with anything? It's not like we're mind controlled.

I figure he's the one who controls nominations based of

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

If not then it's my bad.

I've seen OP discuss Wade multiple times in bad faith and disingenuous nature and a lot of folks here tend to be hiveminded and easily swayed especially when the poster has a blue coloring on his name. I just expected he and Giannis to be nominated by now, though we're all entitled to our opinion.

wth, on so many levels (in light of prior posts). Warned and so on, see post #53. trex

[JimmyFromNz]

So I’m going with Robinson, at least at the moment. But Dirk’s longevity advantage is significant, and I really don’t think it would require much change to my criteria or the evidence to vote for Dirk.

This reflects where I'm at with the Robinson/Dirk/Malone matrix. It's a choice where I feel uncomfortable regardless of who I 'decide'.

[Samurai]

Glad Mikan got in last round, one because I think he is deserving and two hopefully we can get past so much of the vitriol and get back to a more civil discourse.

Vote for #17: David Robinson. With Mikan's peak dominance off the board, I see all of the remaining nominations to be in the same tier and for me it is almost a coin flip as to who to list and in what order. That said, DRob's elite defense at a time when a center's defense carried more impact than today's game is the deciding factor for me. And it makes no difference to me that his defensive superiority may have less impact today since my belief that time machines just don't exist and I won't vote on the fantasy of their usage hasn't changed. I look at how a player did in their own era, against their peers with everyone dealing with the same environment, rules, etc. Of course, DRob was more than just a one-dimensional defensive player who could score and dish as well. If his playoff performance was stronger, I would have voted for him sooner.

Alternate: Chris Paul. Again, no complaints with others choosing Dirk, Mailman, Doc or KD here - they are all very close for me. But I go back to my vote for Oscar at #15 and since I see CP3 as being the most stylistically similar player to the Big O, I ask myself 'if Oscar, then why not Paul?' They are both arguably the best quarterback in a set offense, both could run the break but are better in the half-court offense, both two of the best mid-range shooters among guards. CP3 is the better defender while Oscar is much bigger and stronger. I understand that some will knock Paul for the scarceness of his jewelry collection and his lack of durability compared to others. But I still feel that it just feels right to me that he be given serious consideration right around the Big O's level.

The Mailman was my coin flip alternate with CP3 so he will likely be getting my 2nd vote if DRob is voted in this round as he seems to be leading thus far.

[trex_8063]

OP has a weird disdain for Wade so these threads aren't in good faith these days.

Even if that were true, what does his opinion have to do with anything? It's not like we're mind controlled.

I figure he's the one who controls nominations based of

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

If not then it's my bad.

.

It IS your bad, considering the nominees are not decided by the OP, but rather by consensus of project participants.

That you pop in after 16 threads only to lay accusations [astonishingly incorrectly, as it turns out], only to then say "shut the f*** up" to the first poster who calls you out on this only accentuates the bizarre inappropriateness of this post. Warned and then some.

[Colbinii]

OP has a weird disdain for Wade so these threads aren't in good faith these days.

You have said nothing in the first 16 threads only to pop up and accuse someone of being biased against Wade...yet they are the only one to nominate Wade so far?

Do us all a favor and do what you did the first 16 threads...

"crickets"

Oh stfu I dont frequent realgm every 2 seconds like some of you. Im also entitled to post whatever I please in parameters of the rules on this board. If you don't like my post so much then place me on ignore. You don't control what I post on here pal.

You came in here without understanding anything, admitted to not understanding anything [About the nominations] and tried to call someone out.

Guess what? Doctor MJ has biases. I have biases. Miami Heat fans have Biases. YOU HAVE BIASES.

Yet, nobody here is calling out your biases. Why is that?

[trelos6]

How I view the current group + a few of the potential nominee’s

This is my voting post.

17. David Robinson

Good peak, many years as a strong MVP candidate. Borderline All-Time. Amazing defensively, perhaps a top 5 defensive player all time.

I've laid out this argument the last few rounds.

18. Kevin Durant

Ok, here's my KD case. He's one of the best scorers all time in terms of volume and efficiency. When Westbrook went out in 2014, the Thunder kept on dominating at a 6.5 SRS pace. Throughout his time in OKC, he played with Thabo, Westbrook, Perkins, basically guys who didn't space the floor at all. So yes, his efficiency drops in the PS.

Now, Warriors is like the dream scenario for any player. You're flanked by 2 all time shooters in Steph and Klay, one of the most cerebral and versatile defenders in Draymond. Yes, the Warriors were a juggernaut before KD, but he elevated them to the status of "greatest team of all time". I view KD as being a strong MVP level player from 2013, and although he's often missed time the last few seasons, his true shooting has been phenomenal. On D, he's actually decent most seasons, and can offer some rim protection also.

Nominations

1. Giannis Antentokounmpo
2. Steve Nash

Giannis has hit a decent peak and plays top level defense for a non-center. Nash was an all time creation guy. I give Nash the nod over Harden due to a few extra years in longevity.

[lessthanjake]

Vote for #16: David Robinson
Alternate Vote: Karl Malone

Will just repeat below what I said in the last thread. I’ll note that I find Chris Paul fairly compelling at this point, and I am considering him over Karl Malone, but I suspect it’s a pretty low-stakes question at this point, since I doubt either will go up this round.

Spoiler:

I’m very torn between David Robinson and Karl Malone. I wrote about this in the last thread. Basically, I think David Robinson looks superior in terms of impact, while Karl Malone has a very substantial longevity edge. David Robinson also has an edge in team achievements—having actually won two titles (though I only really put much value on one of them).

In the last thread, I went for Karl Malone above David Robinson for the alternate vote slot. But it was very close. I’m flip-flopping here. The reason is a tiny one, but a tiny reason can change a really close call: Squared posted a ton of plus/minus data for David Robinson for 1990-1991, and Robinson had around a +14 on-off in those games (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107977605#p107977605). It’s only around half the season, but it does go to a lingering question I had—which was whether the impact data we have for prime Robinson is really unrepresentative because it is from his best years. This data for 1990-1991 is not quite as high as his peak years, but it still looks really good! This gives me a bit more confidence in Robinson’s impact edge, which tips the balance for me here. But I don’t feel super confident on this vote. Not sure it really matters how I order these two guys, though, since I suspect Karl Malone won’t get much traction quite yet so my vote will go to Robinson regardless of how I order them here.

[HeartBreakKid]

How I view the current group + a few of the potential nominee’s

How did Dr.J have only 1 MVP season? He was the 2nd best player of the entire decade.

[trelos6]

How I view the current group + a few of the potential nominee’s

How did Dr.J have only 1 MVP season? He was the 2nd best player of the entire decade.

I view Dr.J seasons as being weak MVP level. 1976 being the exception, where he was at a strong MVP level.

[OhayoKD]

How I view the current group + a few of the potential nominee’s

How did Dr.J have only 1 MVP season? He was the 2nd best player of the entire decade.

that is to a degree a result of walton's injuries

[f4p]

2. Steve Nash

Giannis has hit a decent peak and plays top level defense for a non-center. Nash was an all time creation guy. I give Nash the nod over Harden due to a few extra years in longevity.

i'm not seeing how nash has a longevity advantage over harden. nash doesn't become a starter until his age 26 season so we can't start before then and his age 37 season is his last productive regular season. so that's 12 years. and his age 36 and 37 seasons see the suns miss the playoffs and finish with the 9th ranked offense (both times) so there's no particular team magic to point to that would make these anything other than some nice old age seasons.

harden starts putting up really good regular seasons at age 22 (last season in OKC, playing over 30 mpg) and his last season, his age 33 season, with 21.6 PER, 60.7 TS%, 0.188 WS48 and 5.4 BPM, surpasses plenty of steve nash seasons in those numbers and was a playoff season with a #4 ranked offense. so at the very least, he's matching nash in regular seasons. in longevity stats like WS and VORP, harden has fairly large advantages of 158.0 vs 129.7 in WS and 76.0 vs 48.2 in VORP.

and then in the playoffs, nash only has 9 prime playoffs and that's if i'm including 2001 with fairly weak numbers. even if we wanted to say he could have played well in all the seasons where he was good in the regular season, that's only 12 playoffs. meanwhile, harden actually got a jump on good playoff seasons compared to good regular seasons in his age 21 season. playing almost 32 mpg, his 19.1 PER would be 5th in nash's playoff career, his 63.4 TS% would be tied for 1st, and his 0.193 WS48 and 5.7 BPM would be nash's career high. and his numbers in these last playoffs, while not great, are easily comparable to (and even surpass) any number of nash playoff runs. and once again, in things like WS and VORP, harden almost doubles nash in WS (20.6 vs 11.9) and VORP (11.9 vs 5.6) while only playing 33% more games (160 vs 120).