Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
ShaqAttac wrote:scrabbarista wrote:ShaqAttac wrote:the rox fans here dont seem to like guys who play d
I love Kevin G. He's 14th on my list. Also, I'm not a Rockets fan.
Also, Dirk played defense.
and his d and o had less impact than kgs d and o?
are you just looking at per?
scrabbarista wrote:
I love Kevin G. He's 14th on my list. Also, I'm not a Rockets fan.
Also, Dirk played defense.
scrabbarista wrote:Owly wrote:scrabbarista wrote:Y'all did Dirk dirty.
He should be no lower than 13th and you don't even have him in your five nominees for 19th?
Disgraceful.
EDIT:
I see he's 18th (not yet posted in the main thread). My point stands. Dirk 18th and Kevin G 9th is laughable.
Suspect few agree exactly with the ranking (inherent in aggregation). And you may well not like the reasoning. But I would say:
1) Do check out the reasoning. You will then at least know why your view differed from the voting results and can more meaningfully engage with them, even if you think them wrong.
2) Criteria can reasonably differ.
3) The fairly forceful language ("disgraceful" and "laughable") ... perhaps moreso with the absence of reasoning ... might make it harder for you to get serious, substantive engagement on this, if that is what you want. Of course this is a matter for your own choice.
Who are the 12 players you think could reasonably be listed above Nowitzki?
The regular ten, Curry, and Kobe. But if I was in the mood for serious, substantive engagement, I wouldn't have come in how I did. I just wanted everyone to know they're wrong (disgracefully and laughably so) and leave it at that.
OhayoKD wrote:ShaqAttac wrote:OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
By your own admission, the last three of those are at the very end of his career where he wasn't what he had been.
Your points are taken, but I still think he has a four-year peak - his last three years in the ABA and first year in the NBA - that exceeds any of the other players on the ballot. He went to the Finals three times in four years, won two titles, and won three MVPs in four years. I also think the (admittedly limited) data we have suggests Doc was a clearly better two-way player than Mailman.
And when I reference Malone's playoff play, I'm not talking about team outcome, I'm talking about his individual stats, where his TS is the lowest of this bunch by a wide margin. In addition to that, playoff career averages:
Doc - .176 WS/48, 6.0 BPM, 3.78 RAPTOR
Giannis - .188 WS/48, 8.2 BPM 3.36 RAPTOR(but this season was a huge outlier because of his injury, without that it's 5.36)
Durant - .187 WS/48, 6.7 BPM, 3.94 RAPTOR
CP3 - .187 WS/48, 6.6 BPM, 7.04 RAPTOR
Malone - .140 WS/48, 4.1 BPM, 1.53 RAPTOR
Malone is well behind everyone.
(Though CP3's numbers do make me think a bit more about him.)
Then why not vote for him?
how good was malones teammates. he better have a really good excuse if we gonna vote someone who had to wait till everyone good was old and still lost
jokic and giannis and moses and erving all winning mvps and titles without supersquads. wade won without pulling a kd. harden took 73-wins +kd to 7.
what karl do to go this high
ewing literally played chi to 6 and 7 when they were winning 65+ i dont see anyone talking about him
Erving won exactly one title against the best competition of his time and he was probably not the best player.
Granted, he was almost certainly past his peak and i'd say "at his peak" he was possibly the third best best player of the decade(kareem, walton, wilt, maybe 79 moses) and he certainly had impressive runs with very limited aba casts...but this is not apples to apples.
Also probably worth considering thurmond if you're this high on a defensive specialist for team wide overperformance
penbeast0 wrote:Sorry, when was Nate Thurmond the key to team wide over performance?
My memory of him was team wide underperforming their talent on teams built around Barry's scoring and playmaking and Thurmond's rebounding
then they traded Thurmond for Cliff Ray and won a title but that's memory and anecdotal rather than stat based.
penbeast0 wrote:Thurmond has some excellent head to head series defensively against other ATG bigs; there's a reason he's often mentioned as the GOAT man defender at center.
But he's an offense killer through most of his GS time, averaging almost 16 shots a game for a decade plus in Golden State on .425 shooting in an era where big men were the most efficient shooters.
Ray came in, only averaged 7 shots but on .522 shooting, freeing up Barry for that hot playoff run in 75.
OhayoKD wrote:Erving won exactly one title against the best competition of his time and he was probably not the best player.
Granted, he was almost certainly past his peak and i'd say "at his peak" he was possibly the third best best player of the decade(kareem, walton, wilt, maybe 79 moses) and he certainly had impressive runs with very limited aba casts...but this is not apples to apples.
Also probably worth considering thurmond if you're this high on a defensive specialist for team wide overperformance
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
Colbinii wrote:You come in here and cry because your list has Dirk 13th and KG 14th?
You and Sign4 are a dynamic duo.
scrabbarista wrote:Colbinii wrote:You come in here and cry because your list has Dirk 13th and KG 14th?
You and Sign4 are a dynamic duo.
I have Dirk five spots higher and Kevin G five spots lower than the RGM goons who are making this travesty a reality. This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
scrabbarista wrote:Colbinii wrote:You come in here and cry because your list has Dirk 13th and KG 14th?
You and Sign4 are a dynamic duo.
I have Dirk five spots higher and Kevin G five spots lower than the RGM goons who are making this travesty a reality. This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
Colbinii wrote:You come in here and cry because your list has Dirk 13th and KG 14th?
You and Sign4 are a dynamic duo.
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.
AEnigma wrote:OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I still think [Erving] has a four-year peak - his last three years in the ABA and first year in the NBA - that exceeds any of the other players on the ballot.
This is not a peaks project, and I do not think that version towers over the competition even if we agree (and I would take Giannis and maybe Durant over him there).
He went to the Finals three times in four years, won two titles, and won three MVPs in four years.
Would that have been true in a merged league? I give him credit for his accomplishments in the ABA, but we are talking a period where two teams could win titles, and two players (technically three in 1975) could win MVP.
I also think the (admittedly limited) data we have suggests Doc was a clearly better two-way player than Mailman.
I strongly see it the other way around. Erving’s defensive effect outside of the ABA does not look high at all.
And when I reference Malone's playoff play, I'm not talking about team outcome, I'm talking about his individual stats, where his TS is the lowest of this bunch by a wide margin.
He also had the worst scoring support of the bunch by a wide margin.
I really could not care less about the BPM and RAPTOR stuff and have said as much on multiple occasions.
I have made mention of Erving having his best series in the Finals, but for whatever that is worth, I also give credit for Malone for consistently upping his performance in immediate rematches, as seen with the Suns, Trail-Blazers, Rockets, Bulls, and Jail-Blazers. He is not a great postseason performer — but in the NBA neither was Erving, and he had his blemishes in the ABA too. If Erving gets in this round, great. I like him more than Malone, and he at least has a notable peak case. However, the reason he is down here is because he faltered plenty, just like Malone.
Then why not vote for him?
Because I think Malone had the more valuable total career and do not think Erving has any notable extenuating circumstances to justify me looking past that. If anything, his extenuating circumstances — playing in the ABA — are what keep him competitive.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:In today's league a team of meh players led by Moses Malone would likely miss the playoffs. A team of meh players led by prime Chris Paul would be a 50+ win contender.
I don't love Moses skill set today.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:AEnigma wrote:OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I still think [Erving] has a four-year peak - his last three years in the ABA and first year in the NBA - that exceeds any of the other players on the ballot.
This is not a peaks project, and I do not think that version towers over the competition even if we agree (and I would take Giannis and maybe Durant over him there).
It's not a peaks project, but the practice of voting someone with a lower peak in over players with a higher peak on the basis of longevity leaves a bad taste in my mouth, particularly when everyone on the ballot with the exception of Giannis has at least fifteen years in the league.
He went to the Finals three times in four years, won two titles, and won three MVPs in four years.
Would that have been true in a merged league? I give him credit for his accomplishments in the ABA, but we are talking a period where two teams could win titles, and two players (technically three in 1975) could win MVP.
I don't know, but the subject of how competitive the ABA was in those years has been discussed in recent threads and people more knowledgeable about the subject than I am have argued that the ABA was competitive enough by 74-76 that Doc's accomplishments there shouldn't be dinged too much.
I also think the (admittedly limited) data we have suggests Doc was a clearly better two-way player than Mailman.
I strongly see it the other way around. Erving’s defensive effect outside of the ABA does not look high at all.
What can I say when the stat the backs my position up - D-RAPTOR - is the one you claim not to care about?
And when I reference Malone's playoff play, I'm not talking about team outcome, I'm talking about his individual stats, where his TS is the lowest of this bunch by a wide margin.
He also had the worst scoring support of the bunch by a wide margin.
I really could not care less about the BPM and RAPTOR stuff and have said as much on multiple occasions.
Is it because they're box(or hybrid in the case of historical RAPTOR)? I don't know why else you'd outright dismiss them.
Then why not vote for him?
Because I think Malone had the more valuable total career and do not think Erving has any notable extenuating circumstances to justify me looking past that. If anything, his extenuating circumstances — playing in the ABA — are what keep him competitive.
Yeah, that phrase "more valuable total career" goes back to the longevity over peak thing that I dislike.
My constant arguing against Malone in recent threads makes it sound like I have no regard for him. The truth is I would vote him in probably within the next five threads. I just think there are fairly obvious flaws with him that are being shoved under the rug in the name of longevity.
AEnigma wrote:OldSchoolNoBull wrote:AEnigma wrote:This is not a peaks project, and I do not think that version towers over the competition even if we agree (and I would take Giannis and maybe Durant over him there).
It's not a peaks project, but the practice of voting someone with a lower peak in over players with a higher peak on the basis of longevity leaves a bad taste in my mouth, particularly when everyone on the ballot with the exception of Giannis has at least fifteen years in the league.
Well then you basically want a peaks project with some mild penalties for current players or short-run guys like Walton.
The fact Malone (and Dirk previously) went this low already signifies there are limits to the collective valuing of longevity. The disparity here is that you seem to place Erving’s peak well above Malone’s, whereas those voting for Malone see the gap as much more moderate. For me, peak Erving is somewhere in the 20-25 range, and peak Malone is hovering around 30. At that point, yes, tough to look past an extra three seasons plus a comfortable advantage in seasons 13-16. 1972-83 Erving probably tops 1988-1999 Malone for me, and on that basis I understand people preferring Erving, but I myself am not ignoring that 2000-03 Malone offered more to his teams than 1984-87 Erving did.Would that have been true in a merged league? I give him credit for his accomplishments in the ABA, but we are talking a period where two teams could win titles, and two players (technically three in 1975) could win MVP.
I don't know, but the subject of how competitive the ABA was in those years has been discussed in recent threads and people more knowledgeable about the subject than I am have argued that the ABA was competitive enough by 74-76 that Doc's accomplishments there shouldn't be dinged too much.
Sure, but they also should not be equated to winning the typical NBA title. I see those ABA titles as roughly equal in value to the 1975 titles in both leagues.I strongly see it the other way around. Erving’s defensive effect outside of the ABA does not look high at all.
What can I say when the stat the backs my position up - D-RAPTOR - is the one you claim not to care about?
Nothing, because it is not real. It sees Erving grabbing stocks and metaphorically starts salivating.
I am fine with you calling them similar. I am fine with you saying Erving is better than the average small forward by more than Malone is better by the average power forward — but then that in turn is true in reverse for offence, so I suspect that is not the direction you want to take. But it is not clear, no. Opposing forwards tended not to inordinately struggle when he was the lead perimetre defender. Like his stylistic successor, he fared better on teams with strong defenders who could allow him to roam safely. Malone was an excellent defensive rebounder, strong in the post, good hands, impressive man-to-man results against opposing bigs… Neither is a defensive anchor, but for the most part this takes us back to real impact indicators, where Erving is the one who falls short in general.
Again, on its own that does not mean Malone is “better” than Erving, but Erving is not providing notably superior results despite having what I would call notably superior teams in the NBA. He did provide impressive results with often (but not always) limited talent in the ABA, yet without a belief those results would have been equaled in the opposing league, that too only goes so far.He also had the worst scoring support of the bunch by a wide margin.
I really could not care less about the BPM and RAPTOR stuff and have said as much on multiple occasions.
Is it because they're box(or hybrid in the case of historical RAPTOR)? I don't know why else you'd outright dismiss them.
To my knowledge RAPTOR is not pulling from the 76ers Pollack data; if it did, that might lend it a little more comparative credibility. However, in general I think it is a garbage metric devoid of meaningful information. None of them capture real basketball context. Erving is not individually penalised for any time his attention lapses and he loses his man, or any time he fails to make a pass that late career Malone probably would have found. Malone is not given a break because an elite defence is keyed in on him and Sloan is not interested in pushing the pace to create some easier transition opportunities, or because his man could not manage to find a good scoring position. If people want to glance at those numbers as a start for their analyses, I do not mind. But they are merely indicators, not arguments nor analyses in themselves.Because I think Malone had the more valuable total career and do not think Erving has any notable extenuating circumstances to justify me looking past that. If anything, his extenuating circumstances — playing in the ABA — are what keep him competitive.
Yeah, that phrase "more valuable total career" goes back to the longevity over peak thing that I dislike.
My constant arguing against Malone in recent threads makes it sound like I have no regard for him. The truth is I would vote him in probably within the next five threads. I just think there are fairly obvious flaws with him that are being shoved under the rug in the name of longevity.
And “longevity over peak” takes us back to this not being a peaks project and Malone not being far enough behind as a peak to erase the fact he played at a top ten level for thirteen or fourteen years.
Most of us are not shoving his flaws under the rug. This is not a David Robinson scenario where they are being waved off. They are known, and they are why he has not received major support until now — the lowest he has ever been (even excluding Curry moving up the ranks as an active player). The problem is that there are also obvious flaws with the other players, and they do not comparatively differ too much from Malone’s flaws. Again, how many series did Malone lose his team that you would expect him to have won? For me, it is literally just the 1987/89 Warriors series. Some others may fairly argue for more, but my contention there is that any other series could only have been won if Malone were more like a definite top fifteen guy. When I look at Erving by comparison, and I consider all those demonstrable failures and disappointments, I do not see a lot of separation once we move past a peak I already do not see as being insurmountably ahead of Malone.
I voted for Dirk ahead of Malone in part because I could see him winning some of those series Malone lost, but they would still be upsets. What upsets did Erving specifically generate. I would say the 1976 Nuggets… and maybe the 1980 Celtics, although as I have said before, that team was not built for playoff resilience yet, so as an accomplishment, it is right on par with all of Malone’s nominal upsets. A lot of people tried to argue Dirk was coasting off his 2011 postseason, but Erving seems to be coasting even harder off a single series. Great series, no doubt, and it definitely makes up for that historic 1975 upset loss… but I feel we are asking a lot for it to make up for all the other upsets or relinquished leads. Two more of them? No problem, that may as well just be 1972-77. But the more you add, the more lacklustre he starts to look, and that is why we go beyond peaks.
Again, how many series did Malone lose his team that you would expect him to have won? For me, it is literally just the 1987/89 Warriors series. Some others may fairly argue for more, but my contention there is that any other series could only have been won if Malone were more like a definite top fifteen guy.
