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

[One_and_Done]

In terms of alternates, I haven’t seen anyone really justify why KD isn’t ahead of Malone and Dirk. Here are their per 100 stats.

KD from 2010-23, K.Malone 88-98, Dirk 05-11 (so we filter Nash out)

KD RS: 38.2pp100 10rp100, 6.3ap100, 120 Ortg/106 Drtg, 631 TS%
Karl RS: 36.6pp100, 14.5rp100, 4.5ap100, 116 Ortg/101 Drtg, 591 TS%
Dirk RS: 35.7pp100, 12.1rp100, 4.2ap100, 119 Ortg/104 Drtg, 586 TS%

So KD is clearly more impressive. But does it hold up in the PS? Pretty much.

KD PS: 36.9pp100, 9.8rp100, 5.3ap100, 115 Ortg/108 Drtg, 598 TS%
Karl PS: 35.2pp100, 14.9rp100, 3.9ap100, 109 Ortg/103 Drtg, 534 TS%
Dirk PS: 34.3pp100, 13.3rp100, 3.9ap100, 119 Ortg/107 Drtg, 586 TS%

In the case of D.Rob, the big argument in his favour is being a GOAT candidate on D, the fact he can also league the league in scoring is just a nice add on benefit that pumps him up even further. But with Dirk and Malone their case over KD is heavily reliant on how their offense holds up compared to his, and it’s a comparison they lose by huge margins. I think Dr J honestly has a better case over KD than those guys. I don’t buy his case, but at least it exists. KD is a solid defender when he wants to be too. Not as impactful as Karl, but certainly more than Dirk. I just feel there is not enough discussion about how KD should be in already.

I feel like KDs playoff results are better than these guys too, especially Malone.

[f4p]

Voting Post
1. Dirk Nowitzki

Won a title as an alpha over great competition. Impact metrics tend to really like him. Not a super riser in the playoffs but a small riser nonetheless. I think of his 2006 victory over the Spurs as arguably his best series and something I never saw from leading man Robinson. Too much of DRob's case is based on his time as a second fiddle. Even if he arguably has a case for first chair in 1999, it would be more like Pau in 2010. Some stats might say they were the best over Duncan/Kobe but heavy lies the head that wears the crown, and they weren't the ones wearing it. Shouldering all of the burden and coming through is still more important. Which is what Dirk did in 2011, even if he had other people taking care of specific parts of the team (Chandler on defense, Kidd running the offense). Simply too much from Dirk as a leader to put Robinson above him.

Code: Select all

Rank   Player Name             Career Avg       
1      Kawhi Leonard           0.4561           
2      Hakeem Olajuwon         0.3315           
3      George Mikan            0.3246           
4      Lebron James            0.2747           
5      Bill Russell            0.2548           
6      Walt Frazier            0.2318           
7      Jerry West              0.2142           
8      Michael Jordan          0.2081           
9      Tim Duncan              0.166             
10     Magic Johnson           0.0968           
11     Scottie Pippen          0.0963           
12     Oscar Robertson         0.0865           
13     Kobe Bryant             0.0856           
14     Charles Barkley         0.0779           
15     Kareem Abdul-Jabbar     0.0554           
16     Dirk Nowitzki           0.0534           
17     Jayson Tatum            0.0247           
18     Nikola Jokic            0.0205           
19     Shaquille O'neal        0.0179           
20     Moses Malone            0.0093           
21     Dwyane Wade             -0.0021           
22     Chris Paul              -0.0156           
23     Julius Erving           -0.0231           
24     Jimmy Butler            -0.0341           
25     Wilt Chamberlain        -0.0851           
26     Kevin Garnett           -0.1115           
27     Larry Bird              -0.1327           
28     Kevin Durant            -0.1435           
29     Patrick Ewing           -0.1446           
30     David Robinson          -0.1552           
31     Stephen Curry           -0.1613           
32     Bob Pettit              -0.1624           
33     Steve Nash              -0.1772           
34     John Stockton           -0.182           
35     Giannis Antetokounmpo   -0.1975           
36     James Harden            -0.1982           
37     Karl Malone             -0.2959           
38     Joel Embiid             -0.533           


[rk2023]

I am curious to find a pragmatic layout of evidence that shows (1) Durant is vastly better than Dirk prime for prime, (2) Durant has his longevity paralleled or beat, or (3) Durant is a better floor-raiser and offensive centerpiece than Dirk. The same goes for Malone when it comes to points (1) and (3)

[OldSchoolNoBull]

However as T-Rex has noted '98 Finals G6 features two objectively wrong clock calls that - if one holds all else equal - would swing the game and give the Jazz a fair chance to claim the title (Scottie's back isn't looking in a good way, it's on the Jazz home court). Obviously this doesn't mean it's a sure thing. One ring may or may not alter perceptions. For the narrative driven "through MJ" might help quite a lot.

As a last counterpoint to Malone's detractors, some would try to say that you can't win a title with him as your best player, but I don't believe that to be true. And as I've mentioned a number of times, I think we more or less saw this in '98 (even as Stockton arguably slipped OUT of his prime). In a more fairly/correctly officiated game 6 universe, the Jazz likely come out as champs more often than not [imo].

This thing about these clock calls doesn't hold as much weight for me and I'll tell you why.

The Jazz were still up one with one possession left in the game and they had the ball. Had they taken care of the ball on that possession, in all likelihood they're playing a game 7 in their own building against a Bulls team missing Scottie Pippen. But that didn't happen, because Malone allowed Jordan and Rodman to strip the ball from him. He crossed over under the basket to catch Stockton's pass with about 22 seconds left, and Jordan and Rodman doubled him. Malone could've held the ball up high while he decided what to do, but instead he tried to put the ball on the floor with those two guarding him and that was it. I mean, as a Bulls fan I'll give Jordan and Rodman all the credit in the world for being the defenders they were, but Malone still bares some blame.

It's like the 2002 Lakers/King series. We always say the Kings lost because of the officiating. But they still had Game 7 in their own building and they lost that all by themselves by missing 14 free throws as a team. Even with the bad officiating, the series was still right there for them and they didn't get done.

Even with the bad clock calls, the game was there for the Jazz if Malone hadn't made a poor decision. And that poor decision very well could've flipped a championship given Pippen probably wasn't playing in Game 7.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

That's before you remember Malone was really good on defense, and Dirk just was not.

You've said this twice in this thread, and others have said it too, but the numbers just do not seem to bare it out. Dirk's D-RAPM season-by-season:

1998-99: -0.92
1999-00: -0.49
2000-01: 2.4
2001-02: 1.17
2002-03: 2.41
2003-04: 1.45
2004-05: 2.17
2005-06: 1.29
2006-07: 0.88
2007-08: 0.79
2008-09: 0.89
2009-10: 1.6
2010-11: 2.67
2011-12: 2.49
2012-13: 2.21
2013-14: 1.3
2014-15: -0.3
2015-16: 1.41
2016-17: 0.22
2017-18: -0.08
2018-19: -1

The ones I've bolded are all the D-RAPMs that are higher than any Malone ever had. There are twelve of them. Here are Malone's(the first three seasons are via Squared):

1987-88: -2.36
1990-91: -2.01
1995-96: -2.56
1996-97: 0.14
1997-98: 0.14
1998-99: -0.44
1999-00: -1.42
2000-01: -0.3
2001-02: -1.85
2002-03: -2.52
2003-04: 0.27

The ones I've bolded are the D-RAPMs that are lower than any Dirk ever had. There are six of them.

In J.E.'s 1997-2022 cumulative RAPM, it looks like this:

Dirk: -1.4
Malone: +0.9

So Dirk comes out 2.3 points ahead of Malone.

The Jazz did have some good DRtgs with Malone, but I would be sooner to attribute that to guys who had higher D-RAPMs like Eaton, Greg Ostertag(people make fun of the guy but he had good DRAPMs), and Stockton.

If anyone can show me any statistical evidence that Malone was a better defender than Dirk, I'll eat crow, but right now, I don't see anything to suggest it.

And I say this as someone who has been genuinely surprised by Dirk's defensive numbers as as I study them because I expected them to be much worse given his reputation. In the run-up to his HOF induction, Dirk has poked some fun at his own defense, and I'm thinking 'don't be so hard on yourself man, maybe you weren't great, but you weren't bad.'

[rk2023]

Tallying at the moment:

Code: Select all

HBK: Robinson, Erving

OaD: Robinson, Durant

RK: Dirk

Trex: Malone, Robinson

PB: Robinson, Malone

HCL: Dirk

Doc: Robinson, Malone

Gold: Robinson, Dirk

Enigma: Dirk

Samurai: Robinson, Paul

Trelos: Robinson, Durant

LTJ: Robinson, Malone

Iggy: Robinson, Paul

Joao: Malone, Dirk

OSNB: Robinson, Dirk

F4P: Dirk

Robinson has 10 1st places and 1 alternate
Dirk has 4 1st places and 3 alternates
Malone has 2 1st places and 3 alternates

[OhayoKD]

I don't know. I think more often I've seen the opposite where because they have the mantle of "greatest team ever" and "dynasty" people inflate how much total-credit there is to be thrown around so they can justify placing everyone involved as better than those who had the misfortune of not getting an invitation.

And I think we can illustrate this with Harden who, filtering out garbage time, played the KD Warriors to a dead-heat in back to back postseasons with chris paul on the floor. That combination also won the majority of the games between the duos, yet it seems "greatest team ever" does not offer much of a positive boost for the reputation of the players who ran into them more than it's cited as a potential excuse.

People hated the KD move largely because barring an injury to the core, no one --should-- be able to challenge them and be it from a box-production or a team-success approach, they anticipated it would be practically impossible for anyone not on those teams to distinguish themselves positively from Durant/steph. The Warriors were fated to crush everyone....except they didn't crush the harden-cp3 rockets. And them winning at all is not really something that can be tied to Durant. The Houston Rockets proved to be the challenger for the greatest team ever everyone else was not yet mysteriously no individual involved is generally held in similar regard to any of the key individuals involved with the Warriors.

while i heavily agree with the points about the rockets, the warriors literally did not win the year before KD got there, had 2 of the best teams ever with him, and then didn't win without him in 2019. like i don't see how to untangle KD from them winning just because of some plus/minus numbers. winning one 3 years later when big bad lebron and the 2018 rockets are gone doesn't mean they could have done it in 2017 and 2018 without durant.

I was specifically talking about the rockets. Do they need another piece for the Cavs? Maybe. The cavs arguably solved the warriors to a degree during the 2016 finals taking a decisive advantage once lue had them go showtime and lebron had them hunt curry in isolation(did not really help them too much offensively, but tired him out on the other end). Is being that piece indicative of KD deserving special treatment relative to other superstars? No, I don't think so.

FWIW, I'd also speculate that the 2019 Bucks had good chances vs the 2019 Warriors with KD. I do not think the Warriors had the personnel to successfully execute what the Raptors managed and in lieu of that, the Bucks were looking to be an all-time juggernaut in their own right. Alas, Nurse, Kawhi, and Gasol had other plans.

i mean looking like juggernauts and then losing is kind of the bucks thing, with three #1 seed losses in 5 years.

They've also improved in the playoffs most of the years since giannis hit stardom and that specific year, despite getting outshot on open 3's by the celtics and the raptors from the outset, they were on the verge of 3-0ing a 7 srs team that replaced derozan with your "reseliency king", casey with nurse, and added an all-time great defender. They were stopped because of a scheme involving a big-man devourer and three elite man defenders. The Warriors had neither.

is that how you're describing a 49/17/10 playoff game on 82 TS%? as "left in single coverage". also, the 10 assists make it seem hard to think he wasn't seeing some doubles.

Are you under the impression that players can't rack up assist counts without being doubled? KD is like, the textbook example of that assumption being dumb...

Spoiler:

KD's assists and ast% went up going to Golden State. Stockton literally built his whole legacy of passing, out of single-coverage, to a guy who didn't have any assist-cancelling moves. Extra defensive attention is important for creation, not assist-racking. While a teammate is more likely to score while more open, It's easier to pass by a single guy than multiple. And KD often sees his assisting go up when the opposing team isn't keying in.

In fact the very next postseason, with a Celtics team that was keying in, his raw assists barely went up while his ast% dropped from 26 to 22.

Great playmakers consistently see a trade-off as they can pass by multiple defenders consistently. KD sucks vs doubles so the opposite often happens...

yeah, if you have numbers showing 2012 KD as an ineffectual role player, it's definitely time to stop using those numbers.

Or maybe you should stop cherry-picking? I said "non-scoring" and even by box that's pretty indisputable:

Not shown by box is Kd being a tertiary ball-handler. Also not shown by Box is Miami focusing their attention on Harden. Also not shown by box is KD being a non-factor defensively. Let's see what happens to KD's epic scoring when he's asked to be a secondary as opposed to a tertiary on-ball guy:



Well, hmm, maybe KD ramped up his volume?



Volume does not go up, efficiency plummets...wanna direct me towards what numbers I should be looking at?

Bonus Round: What happens when KD gets back to being third in touches, third in passes attempted, and third in touches per-possession?




Gee, I wonder what happened...

it's also built on leading a team to the finals and going toe to toe with lebron as a 23 year old

"Toe to Toe"

how did okc hold up after durant?

A little bit worse than +9 OKC held up without Westbrook?

the warriors couldn't win the 2019 finals and missed 2 straight playoffs after KD the irrelevant left.

That's one way to phrase it. I'd go...
-> Made the finals(3rd straight time without Durant)
-> gave up on the playoffs after losing three starters and four key rotation pieces
-> comfortably >.500 despite marginal replacements and steph missing a bunch of games
-> championship replacing kd, iggy, and the klay-that once was with wiggins and poole.

Using this cruder wowy approximation...

Chris Paul and the suns
-> suns miss playoffs
-> suns add chris paul, win at 60 win pace and make the final
-> chris paul worse, suns win at 60 win pace and lose in the 2nd
-> chris paul worse, suns add kd and lose...in the 2nd round

Hmmm...

and lol on the clear second fiddle who dominated the finals that the first fiddle couldn't?

"dominate". You mean score more while the first fiddle did almost everything else more? Wow.

i don't know why this seems so irrelevant to you and others.

Or maybe we just don't think KD plausibly not being outplayed in 1 of 4 playoff rounds against a favorable defensive matchup is so relevant it outweighs 3 rounds of the playoffs, the entire regular season, the previous 2 playoffs, and the previous 2 regular seasons?

How about you drop the silly narrative beats("omg lebron mental block, toe to toe!") and explain to me what exactly about the series vs cavaliers made it more meaningful than the other 3 playoff rounds(1 against a better defense) when trying to assess Durant as a basketball player? Did Durant overcome something he was not supposed to overcome? Did you think he was not capable of putting up numbers in single coverage? He proved that against a better defense in the Spurs

we can't just skip the final boss fight

So the "boss final fight" is the team where a 32 year old non-big had to carry a bunch of negatives to being okay defensively while also carrying them to higher offensive heights than kd and steph?

No. Curry did not go toe to toe with Lebron. Durant also did not go toe to toe. Durant and Curry went toe to toe against Lebron and then the best defensive player of the decade broke the tie.

There was no "boss final fight" in 2017. You don't get to cherrypick Durant's easiest matchup and ignore everything else to pretend KD was secretly the alpha because in one of four series, a guy who was basically asked to do nothing but score, finally scored better than his teammate who was doing all the other stuff we know KD can't do without his effeciency collapsing.

The best defense they played was the jazz and Curry scored as much on better effeciency. It should have been the Spurs who Curry scored against at higher volume and higher effeciency. In the first round KD was more effecient scoring 8 less points.

Curry was literally a better scorer than KD for 75% of the postseason. He also sent Durant packing the previous playoffs fresh off the injury that people use to excuse his finals loss. You don't get to be better at the one thing you are supposed to do better for 5 games and pretend you were the #1.

If there was a "boss fight", it was the Harden and CP3 Rockets and KD did not win that matchup.

also, while KD has certainly had good teammates, KD's "cast" in OKC once harden left was basically westbrook, who finished i think 43rd in the last project, so not exactly kareem playing with magic or anything.

I mean there was strong defensive support and rebounding from adams and ibaka...but i guess defense also isn't a thing when we need to pretend "two-way" wings are doing everything...

And yeah, Westbrook had a pretty short prime, but Durant got all but one of his best years. Maybe the real takeaway is the player everyone dragged to prop up KD should be going higher?(at least in the peaks project...)

and of course, westbrook didn't play in 2 of their 4 playoffs after they made the finals in 2012 so can't really count as a supporting cast if you are in street clothes. and in the ones where he was healthy they went to the WCF in 2014 and then knocked off a 10 SRS team in 2016 and almost knocked off another 10 SRS team in the conference finals. for okc to win in 2016, they would have had to easily eclipse the combined opponents SRS record (and that's with cleveland only being a +5.5) and there's a reason that every playoff run by everybody that would have required a +25 combined opponents SRS has ended in failure.

Yeah, but the issue here is by pretty much any statistical approach that isn't "just look at the ppg and ts", Westbrook was the driving force in those playoff runs, and he ramped up in the "boss fights" while KD "ramped up" in a 7-game squeaker against a non-contender when Westbrook was fresh off his injury.

Even by box the scoring gap is alot closer than the creation gap except for the first round in 2015 and the 2016 WCF where Westbrook is being tripled and all his teammates are super-effecient despite being outshot from deep. It's what you were trying to argue for KD vs Steph except here, we're dealing with actual boss fights. Not make-believe ones.

so like 3 strong supporting casts before he got to the warriors?

3 if we don't count when he himself gets hurt, 4 with the logic used against cp3, and we're left with 5 or 7 pre-acl where he picks up 2 titles with the most overpowered help ever with one as the arguable best player where the he was down 3-2 vs a boss. If the bar for "strong" is 2014/2016 okc, most superstars are lucky to have that twice.

We also don't need to be reductionist about this. 2013 OKC winning it all would be a big ask, being competitive against a non-contender is not. Winning it all in 2022 is a big ask, taking a couple games from the Celtics is not. Winning it all in 2023 is a big ask. Not being the least competitive of the Nuggets playoff opponents(all of whom had significant injury issues) is not.

In all these series, KD's scoring falls off, and he doesn't find ways to compensate. He doesn't make the opposing team's offense collapse or drag-down the numbers of their superstar wing. He doesn't create a bunch on or off ball. He doesn't slow the game down to turn it into a defensive slugfest, and he isn't even putting up more shots to offset less effecient teammates.

No. Instead he's standing still in the corner and then the commentators start singing about his unselfishness when he completes a basic-ass read acres away from the basket while Booker still has to do x, y, z, and w to convert it into a score.

Is that a mental thing? Stephen A would say yes. I would say it's KD being a limited ball-handler and passer with limited court-awareness, but however you explain it, the end result is a guy who doesn't impact winning on the level his best stretches of ppg and ts would suggest. And you know, we don't have to be cute with this.

We have lineup-adjustment. And over extended samples KD doesn't look special in the rs or the playoffs. We have his on/off. Also not special in the rs or the playoffs. You know what is special? His box or box-hybrids on a 73-win team where he was the 3rd most involved player(or less) in pretty much everything that wasn't shooting 1 v 1. Take that away and he's just longetvity guy who was a distant 2nd best for a couple years during a lull(and i wouldn't be shocked if by strict impact cp3 rated higher...)

[LukaTheGOAT]

It is true. Karl Malone was mega famous in the 90s in the States, Dirk Nowitzki never was. Trying to make it seem like because Karl Malone played in Utah which is a small market so that must mean he had no media advantage is really lazy. Hakeem Olajuwon played in a big city and was overlooked. Damian Lillard plays in a tiny city and is incredibly and featured in the media.

I am American and was an avid basketball fan throughout both Karl Malone’s and Dirk Nowitzki’s careers. I don’t think Karl Malone had any substantial “media advantage” and certainly not one that would unduly cause as big of a gap in MVP voting as there was. Malone got more media focus once the Jazz made the finals and played the Bulls, but that was towards the end of his string of fantastic MVP finishes (which started in the 1987-1988 season). The gap in RS box metrics also is broadly-speaking similar to the gap in MVP voting by the way.

Saying that Karl Malone is as good or better than Dirk because he has more MVP votes is a circular argument. All you're doing is just citing people's opinion, and those people did not even know Dirk Nowitzki existed yet so it's not like Malone was voted over him.

Well, I do generally think we should have a baseline assumption about a player that is in line with how people saw them at the time. That’d get us to a baseline assumption that Karl Malone was a better player than Dirk Nowitzki. Then the question is just whether there’s reason to think that people at the time were incorrect. It’s possible to make the argument, and I specifically said as much. All I said is that it’s a “significant hurdle” for Dirk to climb to overcome that since the perceptions were genuinely legitimately different.

If anything 2011 would go against your premise because it shows that Dirk was objectively overlooked by the media. Dirk was actually crazy good in 2011 during the RS, and had been good for several years since the 07 upset. He simply just wasn't a story, and that affected his perception. Hence the Cinderella story in 2011.

I don’t think it showed that in any meaningful way. Everyone was aware that the Mavericks were a title contender. They’d been one for many years, and opinions on Dirk of course internalized that he was a star player leading a perennial title contender. Actually winning a title after many years as a perennial title contender doesn’t really show a player was overlooked, especially when the player in question already won an MVP award. It’s not some huge surprise that came out of left field.

Dirk's career doesn't revolve around 2011 but the fact that you are hyper-focused on it to the point where you did not mention anything else actually shows how overlooked most of Dirk's career is (I think you are likely not familiar with what happened with Dirk outside of the 3 seasons most people talk about).

No, I watched Dirk’s entire career. And Karl Malone’s too. I am not hyper-focused on 2011. It’s just the main thing I can see that I could use to put him above Karl Malone—who I think was a superior regular season player with greater longevity and whose playoff profile was broadly similar outside of that one year for Dirk (though I can see a solid argument for saying Dirk was a better playoff player even minus 2011—but 2011 is still definitely the elephant in the room in this regard).

Dirk carried a team to a title, but the things that he did in the 2011 run were things that he had done in several other seasons. He is a much better offensive player than Karl Malone. Defenses do not have ways to suppress Dirk Nowitzki with any meaningful consistency. Karl Malone is the polar opposite - he is the easiest player to shut down probably out of any MVP caliber player. Even Russell Westbrook is probably harder to stop on offense as he isn't reliant on scoring.

This is similar to the Robinson vs Nowitzki comparison where it seems like they are close on offense and thus the defense is the kicker, but they are not close on offense. Dirk is a significantly more efficient than Karl Malone is in the post season, and it is consistent from a season to season basis. While scoring isn't the only thing that matters, there is also correlation between Dirk and elite offenses, so it isn't like his lack of passing has any tangibles negative impact on the offenses the Mavericks had.

The difference between Malone and Robinson is that Malone is a top 3 defender of all time while Karl Malone is just a "good" one.

The correlation between Dirk and elite offenses is in large part a correlation between Dirk and having played several years with the greatest offensive player ever. Dirk never had a non-Nash RS rORTG as good as the best few Jazz offenses. And Dirk’s best three-year playoff rORTG’s without Nash were not better than the best Jazz three-year playoff rORTGs. I still tend to agree that Dirk was a better offensive player than Karl Malone (and Malone did have Stockton, who was very good, albeit not close to as good an offensive player as Nash), but I don’t really think it’s a particularly clear cut answer, and it is definitely clear cut that Karl Malone was a superior defensive player.

Karl Malone was a better RS player than Dirk, I will not deny that. But Dirk outside of 2011 still impressed more.

Like Dirk from 08-10 in the PS,

Averaged an adjusted 28.4 pts per 75 (rTS% of 9.5%)

PER-27.8
BPM-8.6
WS-.242


Correct me if I am wrong, but Malone doesn't have a 3-year peak in the PS, touching any of those markers. It's not like these metrics are inherently against Malone in this comparison, as if you look at their 3-year RS peaks, the metrics would suggest that Malone has a legit argument over Dirk. But it is clear, there seems to be an actual flip in performance because of reasons already laid out.


Per PS PIPM, Malone doesn't have a single PS touching 06, 09, 10, not to mention 2011 in PS.

Per PS RAPTOR, Malone doesn't have a PS run as good on a per-possession basis, as Dirk in 01, 04, 06, 08, 09, and 11.

A couple of these PS runs are shorter, but we do see a trend of Dirk potentially reaching heights that Malone never did in the 2nd season.

[rk2023]

Spoiler:

It is true. Karl Malone was mega famous in the 90s in the States, Dirk Nowitzki never was. Trying to make it seem like because Karl Malone played in Utah which is a small market so that must mean he had no media advantage is really lazy. Hakeem Olajuwon played in a big city and was overlooked. Damian Lillard plays in a tiny city and is incredibly and featured in the media.

I am American and was an avid basketball fan throughout both Karl Malone’s and Dirk Nowitzki’s careers. I don’t think Karl Malone had any substantial “media advantage” and certainly not one that would unduly cause as big of a gap in MVP voting as there was. Malone got more media focus once the Jazz made the finals and played the Bulls, but that was towards the end of his string of fantastic MVP finishes (which started in the 1987-1988 season). The gap in RS box metrics also is broadly-speaking similar to the gap in MVP voting by the way.

Saying that Karl Malone is as good or better than Dirk because he has more MVP votes is a circular argument. All you're doing is just citing people's opinion, and those people did not even know Dirk Nowitzki existed yet so it's not like Malone was voted over him.

Well, I do generally think we should have a baseline assumption about a player that is in line with how people saw them at the time. That’d get us to a baseline assumption that Karl Malone was a better player than Dirk Nowitzki. Then the question is just whether there’s reason to think that people at the time were incorrect. It’s possible to make the argument, and I specifically said as much. All I said is that it’s a “significant hurdle” for Dirk to climb to overcome that since the perceptions were genuinely legitimately different.

If anything 2011 would go against your premise because it shows that Dirk was objectively overlooked by the media. Dirk was actually crazy good in 2011 during the RS, and had been good for several years since the 07 upset. He simply just wasn't a story, and that affected his perception. Hence the Cinderella story in 2011.

I don’t think it showed that in any meaningful way. Everyone was aware that the Mavericks were a title contender. They’d been one for many years, and opinions on Dirk of course internalized that he was a star player leading a perennial title contender. Actually winning a title after many years as a perennial title contender doesn’t really show a player was overlooked, especially when the player in question already won an MVP award. It’s not some huge surprise that came out of left field.

Dirk's career doesn't revolve around 2011 but the fact that you are hyper-focused on it to the point where you did not mention anything else actually shows how overlooked most of Dirk's career is (I think you are likely not familiar with what happened with Dirk outside of the 3 seasons most people talk about).

No, I watched Dirk’s entire career. And Karl Malone’s too. I am not hyper-focused on 2011. It’s just the main thing I can see that I could use to put him above Karl Malone—who I think was a superior regular season player with greater longevity and whose playoff profile was broadly similar outside of that one year for Dirk (though I can see a solid argument for saying Dirk was a better playoff player even minus 2011—but 2011 is still definitely the elephant in the room in this regard).

Dirk carried a team to a title, but the things that he did in the 2011 run were things that he had done in several other seasons. He is a much better offensive player than Karl Malone. Defenses do not have ways to suppress Dirk Nowitzki with any meaningful consistency. Karl Malone is the polar opposite - he is the easiest player to shut down probably out of any MVP caliber player. Even Russell Westbrook is probably harder to stop on offense as he isn't reliant on scoring.

This is similar to the Robinson vs Nowitzki comparison where it seems like they are close on offense and thus the defense is the kicker, but they are not close on offense. Dirk is a significantly more efficient than Karl Malone is in the post season, and it is consistent from a season to season basis. While scoring isn't the only thing that matters, there is also correlation between Dirk and elite offenses, so it isn't like his lack of passing has any tangibles negative impact on the offenses the Mavericks had.

The difference between Malone and Robinson is that Malone is a top 3 defender of all time while Karl Malone is just a "good" one.

The correlation between Dirk and elite offenses is in large part a correlation between Dirk and having played several years with the greatest offensive player ever. Dirk never had a non-Nash RS rORTG as good as the best few Jazz offenses. And Dirk’s best three-year playoff rORTG’s without Nash were not better than the best Jazz three-year playoff rORTGs. I still tend to agree that Dirk was a better offensive player than Karl Malone (and Malone did have Stockton, who was very good, albeit not close to as good an offensive player as Nash), but I don’t really think it’s a particularly clear cut answer, and it is definitely clear cut that Karl Malone was a superior defensive player.

Karl Malone was a better RS player than Dirk, I will not deny that. But Dirk outside of 2011 still impressed more.

Like Dirk from 08-10 in the PS,

Averaged an adjusted 28.4 pts per 75 (rTS% of 9.5%)

PER-27.8
BPM-8.6
WS-.242


Correct me if I am wrong, but Malone doesn't have a 3-year peak in the PS, touching any of those markers. It's not like these metrics are inherently against Malone in this comparison, as if you look at their 3-year RS peaks, the metrics would suggest that Malone has a legit argument over Dirk. But it is clear, there seems to be an actual flip in performance because of reasons already laid out.


Per PS PIPM, Malone doesn't have a single PS touching 06, 09, 10, not to mention 2011 in PS.

Per PS RAPTOR, Malone doesn't have a PS run as good on a per-possession basis, as Dirk in 01, 04, 06, 08, 09, and 11.

A couple of these PS runs are shorter, but we do see a trend of Dirk potentially reaching heights that Malone never did in the 2nd season.

Precisely. While Malone is a solid defender, I don't think Dirk - when his situation wasn't a gimmick to pad offensive rating - is a negative himself (reflected in some of the RAPM data OSNB cited). And it's been empirically proven that Dirk had the ability to serve as the offensive floor for these more defensive slanted casts while making Dallas solid on both sides of the ball respectively. In spite of Malone being the better passer of the two, I would also add that it's my belief Dirk's offensive approach was more multi-dimensional because of the spacing & gravity brought to the table - and I view that as a more valuable foundation for a team than Malone's lesser offense (due to a more stoic, textbook, and less adaptable volume scoring game with little off-ball movement) with good, not great, defense to flank his total value.

70sfan posted Dirk and Malone (amongst others players, whom I filtered out due to being out of this convo's scope) box-score data against various defenses, FWIW.

Hi, I've been collecting stats for a while and I decided to make this post here. I separated some superstars offensive production in playoffs based on defense (RS ORtg) faced. Here are my (random) criteria:

Over +2.0 rDRtg - Bad Defense
From +2.0 to -2.0 rDRtg - Average Defense
From -2.0 to -4.0 rDRtg - Good Defense
From -4.0 to -7.0 rDRtg - Elite Defense
Below -7.0 rDRtg - All-Time Great Defense

Power Forwards

Dirk Nowitzki (2001-11):

Spoiler:

RS: 37.4 mpg, 8.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.0 tov, 24.3 ppg on 47.9% FG, 38.5% 3FG, 88.2% FT and 58.6% TS (+5.43% rTS)
Against Bad Defenses (4.03% of playoffs games): 42.4 mpg, 11.8 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.2 tov, 26.6 ppg on 45.0% FG, 46.7% 3FG, 85.7% FT and 56.1% TS (+4.53% rTS)
Against Average Defenses (48.39% of playoffs games): 41.7 mpg, 10.4 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.5 tov, 27.4 ppg on 46.7% FG, 39.1% 3FG, 88.4% FT, 59.4% TS (+6.08% rTS)
Against Good Defenses (19.35% of playoffs games): 40.6 mpg, 9.8 rpg, 2.6 apg, 2.5 tov, 25.8 ppg on 46.8% FG, 45.9% 3FG 94.5% FT and 57.8% TS (+4.38% rTS)
Against Elite Defenses (28.23% of playoffs games): 41.1 mpg, 10.6 rpg, 2.6 apg, 2.0 tov, 23.4 ppg on 45.5% FG, 29.3% 3FG, 88.4% FT and 57.4% TS (+4.41% rTS)
Against All-Time Great Defenses (0.00% of playoffs games): --

Karl Malone (1989-01):

Spoiler:

RS: 37.9 mpg, 10.4 rpg, 3.7 apg, 3.0 tov, 26.9 ppg on 52.6% FG, 75.9% FT and 59.1% TS (+5.98% rTS)
Against Bad Defenses (3.50% of playoffs games): 39.8 mpg, 12.6 rpg, 1.6 apg, 2.8 tov, 26.6 ppg on 46.1% FG, 83.0% FT and 54.2% TS (+1.81% rTS)
Against Average Defenses (33.57% of playoffs games): 41.0 mpg, 11.1 rpg, 3.0 apg, 3.0 tov, 28.6 ppg on 47.9% FG, 78.9% FT, 55.5% TS (+2.58% rTS)
Against Good Defenses (21.68% of playoffs games): 41.6 mpg, 11.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.9 tov, 26.5 ppg on 43.7% FG, 80.5% FT and 52.5% TS (-0.79 rTS%)
Against Elite Defenses (41.26% of playoffs games): 41.7 mpg, 11.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 2.7 tov, 25.4 ppg on 46.8% FG, 67.0% FT and 51.5% TS (-1.56% rTS)
Against All-Time Great Defenses (0.00% of playoffs games): --

All of this is more or less in line with what Luka's alluding to here. Sure, the two players look comparable in a RS setting. Regardless of defense faced, Dirk comes out as the more effective offensive center-piece when the calendar ticks to April onwards. Malone has more assists, I'm aware (mentioned him as a better passer), but I don't feel like his passing is that crazy a value-add when compared to Dirk's spacing, relocation, and gravity (though some fundamental attribution error could be in play here, as I see part of this drawback as resulting from Sloan's rigid "textbook" offense).

[One_and_Done]

And KD handily beats both on the stats, and isn't getting bounced in the 1st round every other year in his prime.

[f4p]

However as T-Rex has noted '98 Finals G6 features two objectively wrong clock calls that - if one holds all else equal - would swing the game and give the Jazz a fair chance to claim the title (Scottie's back isn't looking in a good way, it's on the Jazz home court). Obviously this doesn't mean it's a sure thing. One ring may or may not alter perceptions. For the narrative driven "through MJ" might help quite a lot.

As a last counterpoint to Malone's detractors, some would try to say that you can't win a title with him as your best player, but I don't believe that to be true. And as I've mentioned a number of times, I think we more or less saw this in '98 (even as Stockton arguably slipped OUT of his prime). In a more fairly/correctly officiated game 6 universe, the Jazz likely come out as champs more often than not [imo].

This thing about these clock calls doesn't hold as much weight for me and I'll tell you why.

The Jazz were still up one with one possession left in the game and they had the ball. Had they taken care of the ball on that possession, in all likelihood they're playing a game 7 in their own building against a Bulls team missing Scottie Pippen.

while i sort of agree, i sort of don't. the jazz could have just been up 6 with the ball. then malone could turn it over all he wants. but still, over the course of the game, there's probably enough time that we can't be completely certain this affected the game. however, "we completely screwed you out of an easy win, but hey, you can still try for the hard win" isn't much comfort. especially when it's pretty clear that the marketable team got 2 calls the unmarketable team is definitely not getting (i.e. it's not just random bad luck). the eisley one is particularly galling as it was obvious watching it live that it was out of his hands by a mile.

But that didn't happen, because Malone allowed Jordan and Rodman to strip the ball from him. He crossed over under the basket to catch Stockton's pass with about 22 seconds left, and Jordan and Rodman doubled him. Malone could've held the ball up high while he decided what to do, but instead he tried to put the ball on the floor with those two guarding him and that was it.

that's not really what happened. malone thought jordan followed hornacek to the other side of the floor but jordan smartly snuck back and surprised malone while he thought he was single-teamed without malone ever making a move.

It's like the 2002 Lakers/King series. We always say the Kings lost because of the officiating. But they still had Game 7 in their own building and they lost that all by themselves by missing 14 free throws as a team.

so i'll buy the jazz had chances thing but absolutely won't buy this narrative for the kings. "we totally rigged the last game and screwed you out of a series win against a back to back champion, but don't worry, you can still try to win it for a second time" is not an acceptable compromise. you're basically asking the kings to win the series 5-2 and then saying they should have done more.

[iggymcfrack]

Secondary Vote: Dirk Nowitzki

I'm going to say this plainly: I don't really understand the votes for Malone over Dirk. Like, I'm not sure there's an argument here.

I would have to agree. Karl Malone is usually pushed by the longevity crowd but Dirk was a great player for a very long time. This must mean that a lot of the Karl Malone crowd thinks they are roughly equal or Karl is better on the court.

I have a hard time buying that but I would love to hear opinions because I am really low on Karl Malone.

This is a bit of a crude measure, but I’ll just note the following:

Karl Malone was top 8 in MVP voting for 14 straight seasons. And over those 14 years, his average MVP placement was 4.57. Dirk was only top 8 in MVP voting in 7 seasons in his career. And Dirk only had 3 seasons in his career in which he placed higher in MVP voting than Karl Malone averaged over 14 years.

I think there’s a good argument that the esteem in which Karl Malone and Dirk were held when they played was materially different, with Karl Malone being thought of substantially more highly. It doesn’t mean Karl Malone has to be ranked more highly here, but I do think there’s a significant hurdle for Dirk to climb to overcome that.

I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that Karl Malone was a better regular season player than Dirk. It makes sense that Malone would rank higher than Dirk in MVP voting for this reason. However, while Malone by some measures is the biggest playoff faller of all-time, Dirk is a postseason monster who consistently performed great in the postseason and had one of the most impressive rings in NBA history, beating 3 all-time duos without a strong #2.

If you just look at MVP shares, David Robinson ranks 16th all-time and Hakeem ranks 24th, but no one ranks D-Rob ahead of Hakeem because Hakeem outperformed him in the playoffs. James Harden ranks 12th all-time in MVP shares as a great regular season player, but no one’s even nominated him yet, because he underperformed in the playoffs. In the same way, Dirk makes his case on 2006 and 2011 when he dominated in the playoffs even if by MVP shares, the 2007 season where he lost in the first round was worth significantly more than both of those seasons combined.

[rk2023]

And KD handily beats both on the stats, and isn't getting bounced in the 1st round every other year in his prime.

What stats besides /100 stuff that aren't even adjusted for era, pace, DRTG, etc and BPM? One of the biggest mistakes I see made by multiple basketball fans is leveraging those as equivalent of baseball advanced stats (for example). Basketball is too team and nuance dependent for parallel logic to be had / value to be accrued from using such - as opposed to a holistic analysis with pragmatic and more accurate "advanced" / "impact" measures cited (while the latter are far from perfect in themselves too).

I've been critical of Durant going much earlier in this project and you can refer to my pros and cons for the players listed this round in particular, but he could be close here and might very well be my alt for round #18 (assuming D.Rob holds for 17, which I don't rationally agree with). Durant wasn't brought up, as the convo just transpiring was more a Malone vs. Dirk thing. Plus "not getting bounced in the 1st round every other year" is certainly a situation rather than player thing - as Durant has had a fair share of All-League/MVP+ caliber players by his side. Not using that as a "gotcha" to down him lower in the voting, but mentioning PS Winning/Advancement results here seems to be a moot point.

[iggymcfrack]

This is a bit of a crude measure, but I’ll just note the following:

Karl Malone was top 8 in MVP voting for 14 straight seasons. And over those 14 years, his average MVP placement was 4.57. Dirk was only top 8 in MVP voting in 7 seasons in his career. And Dirk only had 3 seasons in his career in which he placed higher in MVP voting than Karl Malone averaged over 14 years.

I think there’s a good argument that the esteem in which Karl Malone and Dirk were held when they played was materially different, with Karl Malone being thought of substantially more highly. It doesn’t mean Karl Malone has to be ranked more highly here, but I do think there’s a significant hurdle for Dirk to climb to overcome that.

Karl Malone was a significantly bigger presence in the media than Dirk Nowitzki was. I don't think him having more MVP votes means he is a better player.

I don’t really feel like that’s true. The man played in the media market of…Salt Lake City. He may have still had a bigger media presence, but perhaps that’s because he was a better player.

To me, it’s fairly obvious that Karl Malone was on a different tier as a player overall than Dirk Nowitzki, at least as it relates to the regular season. The question is just whether Dirk has an advantage in the playoffs that could overcome this. To me, it doesn’t—in large part because outside of 2011, the Mavs were not a great playoff team at all and Dirk was not considered a great playoff player. And while 2011 was really impressive, the late-1990’s Jazz played great in the playoffs (highest 3-year playoff rNetRTG of any non-champion ever), and met a team that was better even than the gauntlet of great teams the 2011 Mavs faced. I’m far from convinced that the 2011 Mavs would’ve beaten the Bulls or that the late-1990’s Jazz couldn’t have won in 2011.

You never know what would have happened in any individual series, but I’m quite confident that the 2011 Mavs had a tougher road to the title than either of the Jazz Finals teams.

[f4p]

as for the stockton argument, i totally agree he absolutely cannot be in the top 30 or even top 35 if malone is going to be in the top 20.

stockton over dwade in the last project just seems like a terrible misapplication of "longevity" over peak results. stockton could still be playing today and i wouldn't put him over dwade. one guy can throw a team on his back and be an alpha on a championship for like 5 healthy playoffs (but his supporting cast wasn't good all 5 years) and could still be the second best player on other championships for a few other years while the other guy is just proving that slow and steady does not win the race in the nba.

stockton does all the nice, aesthetically-pleasing things and doesn't take much off the table with big negatives in his game so the impact metrics like him, but 18 years being the second best player on his team, teammate to a top 20 all-time player, with nary a hangnail, much less serious injury, to ruin any of their playoff runs, and the best they can do is no championships and 2 finals appearances after basically just outlasting the stars of the west (and it's not like stockton was great in 1998 anyway)? a star duo in a conference bereft of superteams with only solo-star teams and they couldn't make the finals until year 12 together? and then had an offense 17 points per 100 worse than their regular season offense in the 1998 finals. they can't both be way up here.

[rk2023]

as for the stockton argument, i totally agree he absolutely cannot be in the top 30 or even top 35 if malone is going to be in the top 20.

stockton over dwade in the last project just seems like a terrible misapplication of "longevity" over peak results. stockton could still be playing today and i wouldn't put him over dwade. one guy can throw a team on his back and be an alpha on a championship for like 5 healthy playoffs (but his supporting cast wasn't good all 5 years) and could still be the second best player on other championships for a few other years while the other guy is just proving that slow and steady does not win the race in the nba.

stockton does all the nice, aesthetically-pleasing things and doesn't take much off the table with big negatives in his game so the impact metrics like him, but 18 years being the second best player on his team, teammate to a top 20 all-time player, with nary a hangnail, much less serious injury, to ruin any of their playoff runs, and the best they can do is no championships and 2 finals appearances after basically just outlasting the stars of the west (and it's not like stockton was great in 1998 anyway)? a star duo in a conference bereft of superteams with only solo-star teams and they couldn't make the finals until year 12 together? and then had an offense 17 points per 100 worse than their regular season offense in the 1998 finals. they can't both be way up here.

Whom are some other players, more or less akin to Wade ITO logic you cited, that you would take over Stockton? How about Zeke and Frazier, on a different note? I know you're big on guesstimating 'resiliency' (which appears to paint those two rather highly and Stockton, not so much).

[Dr Positivity]

Vote

1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. David Robinson

Well I've been voting Dirk forever, but he has a great resume to me, high impact on winning due to the halfcourt skill and spacing, I consider him in mid 2000s to have some of the least talent around him on 60 W teams after 09/10 Lebron. Great longevity, high peak in playoffs.

Nominate

1. Charles Barkley
2. Nikola Jokic

[One_and_Done]

If a team today was given the option of drafting KD, Dirk or Malone, and they knew they'd keep him his whole career, does anyone seriously think they're taking anyone but KD? It feel like KD is not being taken for stuff that has nothing to do with basketball.

[70sFan]

If a team today was given the option of drafting KD, Dirk or Malone, and they knew they'd keep him his whole career, does anyone seriously think they're taking anyone but KD? It feel like KD is not being taken for stuff that has nothing to do with basketball.

I have not being active recently on this project, but I have been reading it and I see you using this argument on the forum many times. I wonder - how do you know? Have you ever asked an NBA GM or coach? If not, then what value your argument has?

[Owly]

However as T-Rex has noted '98 Finals G6 features two objectively wrong clock calls that - if one holds all else equal - would swing the game and give the Jazz a fair chance to claim the title (Scottie's back isn't looking in a good way, it's on the Jazz home court). Obviously this doesn't mean it's a sure thing. One ring may or may not alter perceptions. For the narrative driven "through MJ" might help quite a lot.

As a last counterpoint to Malone's detractors, some would try to say that you can't win a title with him as your best player, but I don't believe that to be true. And as I've mentioned a number of times, I think we more or less saw this in '98 (even as Stockton arguably slipped OUT of his prime). In a more fairly/correctly officiated game 6 universe, the Jazz likely come out as champs more often than not [imo].

This thing about these clock calls doesn't hold as much weight for me and I'll tell you why.

The Jazz were still up one with one possession left in the game and they had the ball. Had they taken care of the ball on that possession, in all likelihood they're playing a game 7 in their own building against a Bulls team missing Scottie Pippen. But that didn't happen, because Malone allowed Jordan and Rodman to strip the ball from him. He crossed over under the basket to catch Stockton's pass with about 22 seconds left, and Jordan and Rodman doubled him. Malone could've held the ball up high while he decided what to do, but instead he tried to put the ball on the floor with those two guarding him and that was it. I mean, as a Bulls fan I'll give Jordan and Rodman all the credit in the world for being the defenders they were, but Malone still bares some blame.

It's like the 2002 Lakers/King series. We always say the Kings lost because of the officiating. But they still had Game 7 in their own building and they lost that all by themselves by missing 14 free throws as a team. Even with the bad officiating, the series was still right there for them and they didn't get done.

Even with the bad clock calls, the game was there for the Jazz if Malone hadn't made a poor decision. And that poor decision very well could've flipped a championship given Pippen probably wasn't playing in Game 7.

I don't really understand how these aren't separate things.

The Jazz and Kings made some errors.
They could have won those games (I don't think either quoted poster is calling it a fixing).
Games aren't decided on any one incident (or even missing 14 free throws) but an aggregate of everything.
If refereeing is a factor that -holding all else equal- swings a game ... I think it's significant. Now I haven't watched it closely for ref decisions as some have for 2002. So maybe it swings back. Or some other games do. But these are quite glaring, quite certain errors.

Don't see Jazz being in it late as a negative. And fwiw, a late game focus raises "the push" and whether what MJ did was within the rules.