RealGM Top 100 List #8

[mysticbb]

Same as last time.

Vote: Tim Duncan
Nomination: Dirk Nowitzki


David Robinson's boxscore numbers are looking good, because he was afraid to take the difficult shot. Dean Oliver has a nice paragraph about that, when he compared the performance level of a player with the overall team performance level. And for star players with a higher impact level those numbers were closer together, most times, because they weren't afraid to take the difficult shot in order to help the team winning. Oliver showed that there is a nice correlation between the individual win% and the team win% for the players who are considered the team leaders. A team can be as good as the best player. In Robinson's case that isn't true. Robinson performed above that, which led to the conclusion that his impact wasn't as big overall. For other players like Jordan, Malone, Duncan or Nowitzki Oliver showed that they are individuell win% is close to the team performance level.
That can also explain why Robinson got worse in the playoffs, because all of the sudden he couldn't hide anymore.

Nowitzki on the other end is performing better in the playoffs, he is doing it for more minutes against better opponents. In comparison to the league history, Nowitzki goes from the 15th highest PER in the regular season to the 7th highest in the playoffs, he goes from 12th highest WS/48 in the regular season to the 5th highest in the playoffs. And his high boxscore numbers are backed up by the individual +/- numbers.
Now, David Robinson goes from 4th highest PER in the regular season to the 14th highest in the playoffs, he goes from the 2nd highest WS/48 to the 8th highest in the playoffs.

[ronnymac2]

Wow. I finally won't be nominating LBJ.

What I want to look at is Dirk vs. D-Rob. I think less of Robinson's game than most, and I'm not even sure if he belongs clearly over Ewing anymore, let alone Nowitzki (who I have over Ewing as well).

I'm thinking Barkley is getting my nomination. Dude was a straight up beast and a consistent playoff performer.

I'm not putting in anything official yet, but my vote is pretty clear cut as well.

[lorak]

But I am one that subscribes to the utility of APM data as a measure of impact, and I don't think it's a fluke that Garnett's defense breaks the APM scale over whatever time range that you care to study for the last decade and is an oulier compared to even the best defenders of his generation. My personal opinion is that Garnett was slightly better than Robinson in a close match-up, and the differences in their individual postseason performances just reiterates that.

The thing is that even APM seems to depend on quality of teammates (2011 Heat is the best example) so KG's APM results for last decade should be taken with a grain of salt.

[mysticbb]

The thing is that even APM seems to depend on quality of teammates (2011 Heat is the best example) so KG's APM results for last decade should be taken with a grain of salt.

Not so much about the quality of teammates, but rather the skill level. James and Wade had a similar skill level and didn't complement each other very well. Garnett's skills are very unique and much less prone to such overlapping like James and Wade. That shows up by Garnett's still high numbers on the Celtics regarding APM. His playing style is working with a lot of different players, because he doesn't exactly need the ball in order to be effective. He can provide spacing on offense with his midrange shot, and he provides an incredible amount of flexible defensive impact. None of those things is something Wade, James and Bosh are capable of. All three are much better suited to be involved in on-ball action. Whether it is P&R for Bosh or isolations for Wade or James. Especially Wade and James are pretty much useless in a halfcourt set without the ball. Their movement without the ball is too weak, which lowers their individual impact in those situations. Obviously they are still incredible talented with the ball, but going 1on1 with the finish is not helping much overall. Their biggest contributions comes in transition, the Heat were the best team at converting those open court opportunities due to Wade and James. But the game is also decided by the ability to score in halfcourt sets, which is much more difficult when the players don't move well without the ball. That is something Garnett has not a problem with.

It is also the reason why Nowitzki has such a high impact, he can move without the ball and provides ridiculous spacing due to him forcing the opponent to use their most agile big defender, the is forcing the help out to the perimeter, an area in which the best help/weakside defenders are way less effective. We saw that in the playoffs with guys like Collison, Ibaka, Odom or Haslem. That opened up opportunities for penetrations (Barea went from 24 FG% without Nowitzki to 45 FG% with Nowitzki, for example). That is a part of the game which is highly underrated by casual fans. Phil Jackson and Tex Winter pointed out that the key elements for efficient halfcourt offenses are spacing and ball/player movement. But I have to admit that this is hard to evaluate, because most people are focussing on the ball much more. That leads to an overrating of the ball handlers and underrating of off-the-ball players. Players using screens or being able to move well without the ball are very impactful on offense. If those players have the size and quickness to force the opponent to use their bigger and agile defender on them, it opens up opportunities for everyone else too.

Lets use Vladimir Radmanovic as an example. When he was on the Lakers in 2008 and on the court, the Lakers had the best offense in the whole league. He opened up opportunities for Gasol in the post and Bryant on the perimeter by him being such a 3pt threat and having his size. The same can be said about him being on the Warriors in this season. When Radmanovic was on the court they played better offensively, a team which is defined more by the offensive strength of the players. When we look at Radmanovic' APM numbers, we can see him being nearly on par with a guy like Carmelo Anthony or above someone like Amar'e Stoudemire. Obviously, Radmanovic can only be used in a certain amount of minutes, but he still provides something which is very, very helpful for teams.

And now you add the abilities and size of Nowitzki to it, and we can easily understand why the Mavericks were so much better with him on the court. Let alone Nowitzkis ridiculous numbers in clutch minutes over the last 7 years. No player has a higher improvement in +/- per 36 from the normal minutes to the clutch minutes than Dirk Nowitzki. The Mavericks are going from +5.1 per 36 with Nowitzki on the court in regular minutes to +18.0 per 36 in clutch minutes. The closest non-Maverick (obviously Terry's numbers are effected by his minutes with Nowitzki) is LeBron James, going from +4.4 to +15.6. And the Mavericks were overall for that timespan at -3.2 per 36 without Nowitzki on the court. We are talking about a +12 per 48 minutes difference between 20.3k minutes with Nowitzki and 7.4k minutes without him for 7 years, which cumulated into the best +/- numbers in the league in this season and winning the title.

[Doctor MJ]

Going to flip it around this time. This post will be my official vote, and I'll edit it if I change my mind.

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

Nothing against Duncan. Frankly Duncan would be my #7 vote ahead of Wilt or Shaq. However, I think Hakeem's a touch more outstanding. I think anyone who picks Duncan needs to make sure they are really asking themselves how things would be different if Duncan & Hakeem played in the same era. Despite the fact Duncan got to play with Robinson, and had basically as good a management as anyone in history, if that whole team gets shifted back in time a decade, how many titles do you think they'd win?

Nomination: Dirk Nowitzki

Don't look now but Dirk has at this point been an All-NBA level player for 11 years, and just had his best season. He's done all of this while being a completely stand up team guy.

The championship this year is of course big. While one can overblow "doing it alone", 1) It really is more impressive to win a title with less talent around you, 2) A superstar working to gradually build such great chemistry should count for something, no?

[ronnymac2]

Going to flip it around this time. This post will be my official vote, and I'll edit it if I change my mind.

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

Nothing against Duncan. Frankly Duncan would be my #7 vote ahead of Wilt or Shaq. However, I think Hakeem's a touch more outstanding. I think anyone who picks Duncan needs to make sure they are really asking themselves how things would be different if Duncan & Hakeem played in the same era. Despite the fact Duncan got to play with Robinson, and had basically as good a management as anyone in history, if that whole team gets shifted back in time a decade, how many titles do you think they'd win?

Nomination: Dirk Nowitzki

Don't look now but Dirk has at this point been an All-NBA level player for 11 years, and just had his best season. He's done all of this while being a completely stand up team guy.

The championship this year is of course big. While one can overblow "doing it alone", 1) It really is more impressive to win a title with less talent around you, 2) A superstar working to gradually build such great chemistry should count for something, no?

Hmm...why Dirk over Barkley?

[mysticbb]

Don't look now but Dirk has at this point been an All-NBA level player for 11 years, and just had his best season. He's done all of this while being a completely stand up team guy.

The championship this year is of course big. While one can overblow "doing it alone", 1) It really is more impressive to win a title with less talent around you, 2) A superstar working to gradually build such great chemistry should count for something, no?

Not only this. We are talking about a guy going to the conference finals with 3 complete different teams. The 2003 Mavericks were completely different than the 2006 and the 2011 were different again (except for Terry, who was also part of the 2006 team). All three teams were capable of winning a championship, teams build around the strength of a 7ft jump shooter. Without Nowitzki's knee injury in 2003, they could have won against Duncan's Spurs. The team had to replace Nowitzki with Walt Williams and was still able to be somewhat competitive. And against the Nets they would have a field day, outscoring that team by an average of +9 in those 2002 and 2003 games, in which those teams were looking rather similar to their 2003 playoff squads.
In 2006 they were basically a bad call and a slightly better shooting night by Terry and Howard (both combined for 12 of 41 in game 6, while they missed a lot of open shots they usually made) away from winning a championship.

Three different teams carried to a stage were they didn't belong without Nowitzki (in all 3 seasons the team got outscored without Nowitzki on the court, meaning basically being a lottery team in the West!).

I think Nowitzki warrants a nomination above Barkley, basically the only other player left to challenge him. Both with 11 All-NBA seasons and improved play in the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

Nomination: Dirk Nowitzki

Don't look now but Dirk has at this point been an All-NBA level player for 11 years, and just had his best season. He's done all of this while being a completely stand up team guy.

The championship this year is of course big. While one can overblow "doing it alone", 1) It really is more impressive to win a title with less talent around you, 2) A superstar working to gradually build such great chemistry should count for something, no?

Hmm...why Dirk over Barkley?[/quote]

Well, I did mention the team stuff ya? Love Barkley and he's certainly on my short list, but at this point, hard for me to see taking his total body of work over Dirk's.

[Bucksfans1and2]

Vote: Duncan

Nominate: Barkley

[Gongxi]

I'm leaning heavily on Hakeem here, but this is where things start to get very interesting and cases can be made for several players. I can literally see an argument for pretty much every player on the list right now. I want to say "Except Kobe and LeBron", but I could even see decent arguments for them, too.

Although it seems pretty obvious that Duncan/Hakeem will be the #8/#9, after that it's really anyone's ballgame.

Moses? West? Dr. J? Karl? KG? Seems like any of them can win and I really can't stress enough that I'm not even sold on Hakeem here anyway, although as I said I'm leaning towards him and will almost certainly vote for either him or Duncan.

Karl's longevity is really speaking here.

[penbeast0]

Don't count your chickens Gongxi. While I think this spot is between Duncan and Olujawon, we could see an interesting debate about Hakeem v. Kobe for some of the same reasons people are voting for Duncan.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Going to flip it around this time. This post will be my official vote, and I'll edit it if I change my mind.

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

Nothing against Duncan. Frankly Duncan would be my #7 vote ahead of Wilt or Shaq. However, I think Hakeem's a touch more outstanding. I think anyone who picks Duncan needs to make sure they are really asking themselves how things would be different if Duncan & Hakeem played in the same era. Despite the fact Duncan got to play with Robinson, and had basically as good a management as anyone in history, if that whole team gets shifted back in time a decade, how many titles do you think they'd win?

I don't quite follow here. Duncan's career beats Hakeem's out by good margin. He's more decorated, had more playoff success, has equal offensive & defensive output too. It's baffling how Hakeem could go this high, when there are two guys(Kobe/TD) who were just as talented, just as impactful, and who had better careers.

You want us to ask ourselves would it be different if Duncan & Hakeem played in the same era...well I just did, and I still see Duncan doing quite well. I mean all due respect to Hakeem, but his 2 titles came in a MJ-less era if we look at things in this way. How would Hakeem have done in the 00's? How many titles do you think he would have won?

But let me flip that question around. How would Russell have done if he played in the same era as these guys? I mean if that's the litmus test, then was Russell really #2? He had a better cast than all the bigmen we are mentioning. Would the 90's Rockets have won with Russell in place of Hakeem, or the 00's Spurs with Russ?

Hakeem really doesn't have a strong argument career-wise being #8, and I'm not sure if he's even #10. He's my 2nd favorite player ever behind Magic, but really, he's being overrated.

[34Dayz]

@ UAF I can see how you could make an argument Kobe was just as impactful or maybe even more impactful on the offensive end when compared to Duncan and Hakeem, but please explain to me how you believe his impact on the defensive end is equal to those two players.. or relatively close.

I am sure you believe this and im interested to hear why.

You say Kobe was just as impactful.. and I guess I can atleast respect that opinion although personally I feel his impact on the court was significantly lower then Duncan, Hakeem, and Shaq.

I would say in order for him to be just as impactful he would need to be either far better offensively or close to them defensively wouldn't you agree?

[Baller 24]

Vote: Tim Duncan

(As a Rockets fan it's hard to keep putting Olajuwon down, but I've already explained my case for Duncan in the prior thread)

Nominate: Dirk Nowitzki

D-Wade is right after Dirk for me. He's very clearly established himself as a top 25 player all-time.

[penbeast0]

But let me flip that question around. How would Russell have done if he played in the same era as these guys? I mean if that's the litmus test, then was Russell really #2? He had a better cast than all the bigmen we are mentioning. Would the 90's Rockets have won with Russell in place of Hakeem, or the 00's Spurs with Russ?

Spread the scoring out losing the dominant inside pivotman (though Thorpe plays inside too), improve the rebounding and passing significantly plus an improvement in team defense presumably from Russell's impact and coach on the floor headgames . . . yeah, I think both the 90s Rockets and 00s Spurs improve if Russell's game translates. But we have a thread on this so my apologies for sidetracking this discussion.

[An Unbiased Fan]

@ UAF I can see how you could make an argument Kobe was just as impactful or maybe even more impactful on the offensive end when compared to Duncan and Hakeem, but please explain to me how you believe his impact on the defensive end is equal to those two players.. or relatively close.

I am sure you believe this and im interested to hear why.

You say Kobe was just as impactful.. and I guess I can atleast respect that opinion although personally I feel his impact on the court was significantly lower then Duncan, Hakeem, and Shaq.

I would say in order for him to be just as impactful he would need to either need to be either far better offensively or close to them defensively wouldn't you agree?

Kobe's offensive impact is comparable to Hakeem's defensive impact. He had a direct hand in creating 40-45 PPG for LA during his prime. As a volume scorer, facilitator, and closer, his offensive impact is huge. Like Hakeem & TD, Kobe was 2-way player,and while a perimeter player doesn't have the effect on team defense that a bigman anchor does, Kobe's defense was still certaily critcal in LA's 5 title runs.

All 3 were highly impactful players, in differing ways. But for me, Kobe & TD's career resumes give them a clear edge over Hakeem in rankings.

[An Unbiased Fan]

But let me flip that question around. How would Russell have done if he played in the same era as these guys? I mean if that's the litmus test, then was Russell really #2? He had a better cast than all the bigmen we are mentioning. Would the 90's Rockets have won with Russell in place of Hakeem, or the 00's Spurs with Russ?

Spread the scoring out losing the dominant inside pivotman (though Thorpe plays inside too), improve the rebounding and passing significantly plus an improvement in team defense presumably from Russell's impact and coach on the floor headgames . . . yeah, I think both the 90s Rockets and 00s Spurs improve if Russell's game translates. But we have a thread on this so my apologies for sidetracking this discussion.

Both Hakeem & TD were putting up around 28% PTS% during their runs. How is Russell going to replace the scoring? He might give you 2 or 3 more RPG based on the era rates, but I don't see how they stay as competitive. Would Russell have done any better against Shaq for example in 03"? Without TD's scoring, does SA win that series?

[ElGee]

Don't count your chickens Gongxi. While I think this spot is between Duncan and Olujawon, we could see an interesting debate about Hakeem v. Kobe for some of the same reasons people are voting for Duncan.

What exactly is the argument for Kobe there? He doesn't have a longevity edge, 3-year prime edge or peak season edge. Do you think he's easier to build around or something?

I still have Kobe behind a few more guys (K Malone, KG, Dr J), but at least ITO of career he's close with KG and Dr. J (using ABA years). But what's the argument/evidence for his peak being better than any of these guys (I think it's at least comparable with Malone's)?

[34Dayz]

Just went and did a quick comparison of Kobe's and Hakeem's playoff scoring #'s.

Hakeem = 33PPG, 56%TS, ORTG 134, Assist % 22.6
Kobe = 32PPG, 56%TS, ORTG 115, Assist % 22.0

Certainly doesn't appear that Bryant has a big edge on him if any.

[Baller 24]

I don't quite follow here. Duncan's career beats Hakeem's out by good margin. He's more decorated, had more playoff success, has equal offensive & defensive output too. It's baffling how Hakeem could go this high, when there are two guys(Kobe/TD) who were just as talented, just as impactful, and who had better careers.

I've got Olajuwon right after Duncan. However, I can certainly see the case, I mean why not? He certainly established himself as the best center of the 90s pack. His impact is very well evident with a solid supporting cast in place --'85 season went from worst team in the league to a playoff team, and the season after upset the Lakers and went all the way to the Finals.

I've seen every single documentary out there out there of Olajuwon and he's been an utterly dominant player, is it his fault the Rockets management didn't cooperate? For example Kobe Bryant's always had it perfectly, from whining to get to the Lakers to whining to get traded if he didn't get solid players surrounding him..Olajuwon never did so until the early part of the 90s, he stuck there and played with the crap they gave him. Rockets organization is kind of like the Spurs, they don't like to spend money, they'd rather "try" and get lucky with some kind of home grown talent surrounding them.

One of the seasons Olajuwon went down, the Rockets claimed he faked the injury because it was a lost season anyway, as you know he's a very devoted Muslim, and that really pissed him off. He stated that he wanted out, either get him surrounding players, or he's out. Though you know what? He stayed, he stuck through the thick and thin with a new coach (Chaney…following Rudy T), and completely changed his game at peak form.

You want us to ask ourselves would it be different if Duncan & Hakeem played in the same era...well I just did, and I still see Duncan doing quite well.

I mean all due respect to Hakeem, but his 2 titles came in a MJ-less era if we look at things in this way. How would Hakeem have done in the 00's? How many titles do you think he would have won?[/quote]

Stop with the 2 titles. Here's my theory that makes absolute sense, it's hard to discredit when the credit is certainly due.

1) The '94 team might have not been the best against the '94 Bulls, but IF the '95 Bulls did reach the finals, they would have fallen quite easily to the '95 Rockets. No Horace Grant or Dennis Rodman makes their post-interior defense very weak which allows superior centers and power-forwards to just power their way to score (Shaq certainly did it).

2) ANYONE in the league could have won those championships, correct? I mean Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, Shaq, Robinson, Barkley, Payton, ETC all certainly had their chances to win, how are you going to discredit Olajuwon if he came out as the man and took care of the business? ( And I've already stated what would have happened in '95, Tsherkin actually has a very long post about this).

3) Olajuwon and Duncan accomplished similar things in '94 and '03, but aside from that Duncan's had a lot of great help. You don't think Olajuwon's teams would be just as powerful if not better with a top 7 PG and a top 5 SG? You're focusing too much on career if you're suggesting that Bryant and Duncan easily trumps him. Even though I voted for Duncan it was a very slight advantage, I already stated from the criteria that focus around career, but also look at how well they play basketball, and their accomplishments and dominance at peak form.

Hakeem really doesn't have a strong argument career-wise being #8, and I'm not sure if he's even #10. He's my 2nd favorite player ever behind Magic, but really, he's being overrated.

You're focusing too much on career, if that's the case Robert Horry will be coming up soon too. And if he was your 2nd favorite player of all-time, you'd understand and know how great and dominant of a player he was, he's easily on par with any of these players, are we going to take hits on Olajuwon because he didn't have a superior supporting cast? I stated the same thing in the arguments between Duncan v Shaq, it's easy to win championships when you've got it made in heaven for you, and when you've got a supporting cast that consist of the best of the best players in the league (Bryant).

BTW, Bryant's got the worst Finals numbers of either Duncan or Olajuwon, they've clearly performed at an absolute another level/tier.