RealGM Top 100 List #9 -- Post Shot Clock Only (No Mikan)

[Gongxi]

But we know that they didn't play on identical teams with identical coaches in identical situations, so let's focus on the players themselves and not worry about comparing the small variations in mediocrity between two teams that they played on for a short time in their careers.

Would you agree that two players, of identical ability, would perform much differently on a team depending on who is surrounded around them and who is sitting on the sideline?

Yes.

But we know that they didn't play on identical teams with identical coaches in identical situations, so let's focus on the players themselves and not worry about comparing the small variations in mediocrity between two teams that they played on for a short time in their careers.

where was this mentality when Wilt was being ranked?

Umm...right here?

[colts18]

The 2006 Lakers finished 7th in the league in SRS because of Kobe. KG's team finished 21st in SRS and 12 games behind W-L column. Do you really think that Lamar Odom is the difference of 10-12 games? Because other than Odom, the teams are pretty much the same.

Smush (34 MPG)
Kobe
Odom
3 head trio of Cook/Mihm/Brown

The bench featured Devean George, Luke Walton, Sasha Vujacic, Laron Profit, Aaron Mckie, Jim Jackson, and Rookie Bynum.

10 players on that team played 10+ MPG. Kobe and Odom are 2 of them. I will examine the other 8:

Smush Parker: Plays 34 MPG and starts all 82 games in 2006 while averaging 12-4. He averaged 3 PPG the previous year. In 2007 he averaged 11-3 on 30 MPG and 82 starts with Kobe. Then in 2008 without Kobe he plays in 28 games (2 starts) and sucks. That was his last season in the NBA. So 2006 Smush was just 2 years away from being out of the NBA.

Chris Mihm: Scores a career high 10.2 PPG and 6.3 Reb. Starts 56 games and plays 26 MPG. He also started 75 games in 2005. He doesn't play in the 2007 season and for the rest of his career he plays in just 41 games and averages about 10 MPG. Certified scrub

Kwame Brown: I don't even have to go in depth about this fool. Plays 72 games (49 starts) and averages 7-7. In 2007 he averages 8-6 on career high FG% and TS%. Obviously Kobe lifted this bum up. In 08 he starts 15 games for the Lakers before getting traded to the Grizzlies. He starts just 32 games in the next 2.5 years while averaging 3.5 PPG, 4.2 PPG, and 3.3 PPG.

Brian Cook: He averages 8-3 while starting 46 games and playing 19 MPG. This season was a career high for him in MPG and FG%. In 2007 he averaged 7-3 in 15 MPG and shot 45%. He was so bad after that he shot .388 since 2008. After the Lakers got rid of him in 2008, he started 0 games in his career.

Devean George: Averages 6-4, .400 FG%, in 22 MPG. He leaves the Lakers and joins the Mavs in 07 and averaged 6-4, .395 on 21 MPG. After taht he averaged 3.7 PPG (.357), 3.4 PPG (.380), 5.4 PPG (.432) and he hasn't played in the NBA since 2010.

Luke Walton: Averages 5 PPG in 19 MPG. He sports an embarrassing .477 TS%. In 2007 he has a career year of 11-5-4 in 33 MPG. Since then his PPG have declined to 7.2 PPG, 5.0 PPG, 2.4 PPG, and 1.7 PPG. He has 1 good year and he has Kobe to thank for that plus a $30 contract.

Sasha Vujacic: plays 18 MPG and averages 4 PPG on .346 shooting. In 2007 he plays just 13 MPG and averages 4.3 PPG on .392 shooting. He broke out a bit after that, but he was clearly too young from 05-07.

LaRon Profit: plays 11 MPG and averages 4.2 PPG on a career high .476 FG%. He never plays in an NBA game after this season.

See the constant theme? Lots of bums who either played like bums or had career years because of the attention Kobe attracted. Not one of those 8 guys was a solid player at any moment except for Luke Walton's fluke 2007 season.

Looking at the 2006 T-Wolves, I think they might have even had a better supporting cast. They had 3 19+ PPG players, 6 10 PPG players, and 10 8 PPG players. The Lakers had 1 19+ PPG player, 4 10 PPG players, 5 8 PPG player, and 8 5 PPG players (Minnesota had 13).

Wally- 20-5-3 with 50-40-90 shooting. He played better than Odom.

Ricky Davis- averages 19-5-5 on 43 FG%. He is clearly better than Kobe's 3rd option

Marcus Banks- Averages 12-5 on 48 FG% and gets a good contract because of this season.

Mark Blount- averages 10 PPG on 51 FG%

Hassell- averages 32 MPG and 9 PPG, but he is a defensive specialist.

Looking at that cast, I don't see how they are 12 games worse than the Lakers cast minus Kobe.

[JordansBulls]

But we know that they didn't play on identical teams with identical coaches in identical situations, so let's focus on the players themselves and not worry about comparing the small variations in mediocrity between two teams that they played on for a short time in their careers.

where was this mentality when Wilt was being ranked?

[JordansBulls]

That's insane. It means absolutely nothing. Nothing.

You think Blake Griffin winning 3-4 titles with the Clippers is going to rank the same as Blake Griffin winning 3-4 titles with the Lakers or Celtics if he performs the same? Hell no, he is going to go up the rankings quicker for putting a team on the map and winning with them. Just like Lebron would have went up higher on the rankings winning with Cleveland than winning with Miami. And just like Isiah is higher on the rankings because he won with a franchise that hadn't won before until he arrived.

Now I agree you rank guys on how good they were, but also that needs to be factored is how they won and what type of franchise did they win in. Did they go to one that had an established star already? Did they go to one that was known for winning already? Those things contribute to it as well.

[penbeast0]

I love the post shot clock idea. Not only do none of us know what to do with Mikan, but I'm really glad I don't have to vote in Neil Johnston

I'll make a suggestion. After the top 100 is done, we spend the last week or just one thread ranking the top 5 pre shot clock guys. Then under the top 100 we put them under the heading "Pre Shot clock rankings"

I change my nomination to Dirk Nowitzki, if this holds

Sorry, Neil Johnston is one of the greats in the post shot-clock 50s. He played up Russell's 2nd year (and by at least one account, facing Russell what convinced him his day in the sun was up and it was time to retire). He's still a factor, just not as big a one as Mikan.

[Gongxi]

That's insane. It means absolutely nothing. Nothing.

You think Blake Griffin winning 3-4 titles with the Clippers is going to rank the same as Blake Griffin winning 3-4 titles with the Lakers or Celtics if he performs the same? Hell no, he is going to go up the rankings quicker for putting a team on the map and winning with them. Just like Lebron would have went up higher on the rankings winning with Cleveland than winning with Miami. And just like Isiah is higher on the rankings because he won with a franchise that hadn't won before until he arrived.

Now I agree you rank guys on how good they were, but also that needs to be factored is how they won and what type of franchise did they win in. Did they go to one that had an established star already? Did they go to one that was known for winning already? Those things contribute to it as well.

Are you drunk?

[penbeast0]

Amazing how much Dirk has moved up people's lists. A couple of months ago, I was being ridiculed (not necessarily by people here) for saying he was better than Kevin McHale. I have him as the next outstanding PF but not as my nominee. With Mikan out, I have to rethink my nomination.

C David Robinson -- yes, his playoff numbers are down but he was still a monster, particularly defensively and he was better than Hakeem, who we are voting in here, in the regular season. Gilmore is better than Patrick Ewing and should be the next nominated center after the Admiral.

PF Pettit -- was far more dominant in his era than Dirk is in this one, even taking into account the extra teams. He was the greatest player in the NBA pre-Russell and was still top 5/6 right up until his retirement (I have him rated over Baylor during that period plus he was the best pre-Baylor). I'd rate him over Kevin Garnett too, quite possibly, and certainly over Barkley though Garnett is a much tougher call. Mailman, Pettit/Garnett, Dirk, Barkley is how I rate the top PFs.

SF Pippen -- over Baylor and Barry though it's another very tough call; Baylor was so much more dominant but it was a Wilt lite kind of dominance it seems. Much easier to put Pippen over Havlicek.

SG Wade -- over Drexler. Much as I want to put Sidney Moncrief in this category because his peak was close to those guys, it wasn't better and they have better career arcs (even Wade).

PG Frazier -- over Payton and Stockton. It's WAY too early to be talking about Isiah, he's in the next level with Nash and Kidd. Frazier was at least as important to the Knicks' two championships as Isiah to the Pistons and he was a better scorer (similar volumes but much more efficient) and much better defender.

It's between Robinson and Pettit for me and although Pettit was more dominant for his era, I go with David Robinson because I still believe that championships are won by controlling the middle (at least through most of NBA history).

[Doctor MJ]

-Kobe doesn't have 1 year that really stands out from his others.

Because he was (maybe still is) great player and have several such years! But during every season he was doing it as volume scorer, he had great impact on offense as a volume scorer.

-Kobe's cluster of top offensive RAPM seasons are below those of Nash and James and Wade.

Not really. If in "advanced" metrics difference between players is small we can't say that one is better than another. Numbers like APM show us they are on similar level and we have to look at other things, context, to evaluate better. And Kobe is definitely in the discussion "the best perimeter offensive player of XXI century".

Okay, I'm honestly having trouble following where exactly you are going with all of this.

Below is the post that started the RAPM discussion.

I'm not sure why this is brought up, other than to overstate value. Yes, it was an historic scoring season. So was Wilt's 1962. So was Barkley's 1988 or Dantley's 1982. None of them were GOAT offensive level seasons,

I'm not so sure: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking06
So that year Kobe offensively was even better than Nash!

If you want to say Kobe's a great offensive player, that's fine.

If you want to use the 2006 offensive RAPM numbers to say Kobe had one of the great offensive seasons in history though, this is silly.

Stating it as such would imply that there's may a handful of seasons in history that are in the discussion with it. My reply was stating, among other things, that just between Nash, James, and Wade, using the metric you brought up, I can name 8 superior seasons within the last half-decade or so.

If I literally used those things and said "Yeah, Kobe at his best had seasons among the top dozen or so of the past decade", ElGee would almost certainly not have a problem with that. So to the extent that you are trying to prove ElGee wrong, you are really grasping at straws.

[Doctor MJ]

Amazing how much Dirk has moved up people's lists. A couple of months ago, I was being ridiculed (not necessarily by people here) for saying he was better than Kevin McHale. I have him as the next outstanding PF but not as my nominee. With Mikan out, I have to rethink my nomination.

Well just speaking for myself personally. I had definitely Dirk in my Top 25 before the season started. For Dirk to now be perhaps 18 on my list, is him moving up maybe 5 spots. Granted, when you're at such great heights 5 spots is a big deal, but not *that* big of a deal.

By contrast, McHale is typically a guy for me who is in the 40s.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Kobe was hurt in 2005, and LA was in the playoffs until their coach left mid-season and the injury bug hit. That's a far cry from KG missing the playoff 3 straight years in his prime. I don't know how you can spin this.

If KG didn't go to Boston in 08', there's a good chance that he never even sees the playoffs again.

I find it pretty irritating that you're saying I'm spinning things when you're still talking about "3 straight years" after I've just shown the numbers. It makes ZERO sense to knock Garnett dramatically for the team results of '04-05 relative to Kobe when they are right in the same level.

We're talking about 2 bad teams seasons relative to 1. That's the clear no-spin truth, and people have somehow used that 1 season difference to extrapolate some drastic difference between the two players. In terms of actual team achievement, this makes no sense.

Now, clearly you feel that the Lakers '04-05 was just a total fluke, where as the Wolves doing it twice in a row means that that's simply what they were. That's not an indefensible position.

Where I think people haven't really thought this through is in going back and re-analyzing what happened back when Minny was good. Clearly, people see the win totals in the low 30s and they think "Okay, that's what Garnett looks like with poor help." When they think this, and use that to knock Garnett, that clearly implies that when Garnett was actually leading strong Minny teams, he must have had some special supporting casts.

And that's the trouble. Garnett led a team to 55+ wins with really only one other strong player on his team. That would be a 34-year old Sam Cassell, a player who isn't exactly light years beyond Lamar Odom. There's simply no defensible argument that explains the success that year as one of a team loaded with talent. Garnett was doing amazing things with really a modest supporting cast.

If you assume that Garnett was not a totally different player over the next few years, then this should really tell you quite a bit about how basketball teams work in general. Basketball is not additive. Each player isn't adding X wins to the team, it's far more complicated than that. And so you can have a player with a seemingly not too different supporting casts have drastically different team results.

Of course, if you're actually arguing that Garnett WAS great, and then played not nearly as well, that's something different. There's a little something to that, but Garnett was still putting up huge box score numbers and huge +/- numbers. The idea that he had become a tiny fraction of his old self is really without any kind of basis.

Doc, you're the one who said KG "got screwed" in comparison to Kobe during those years.It's perfectly fair to point out that Kobe outperformed KG with an equally bad supporting cast. Considering that LA's coach left mid-season, and that both Kobe & Odom were hurt in 05, yes, I would call that a fluke year. KG was healthy and in his prime from 05'-07. The Wolves went from the #1 seed to never making the playoffs again. I'm not sure why you're pointing out Cassell's age. Sam was 19.8 PPG/7.3 APG on 57% TS, and All-NBA 2nd team in 2004. Are you really trying to compare the 04' Wolves talent to the 05-07' Lakers? How did Minny do without that 34 year old PG? Again, it would seem that the narrative is that Minny's success all goes to KG, while it's failures go to the supporting cast.

You can't say, "Garnett led a team to 55+ wins", in one sentence..and then dismiss all responsiblity when that team collapses. I still don't see how KG is even above DRob or maybe even Ewing impact-wise.

[pancakes3]

I still don't see how KG is even above DRob or maybe even Ewing impact-wise.

well... DRob at least.

i mean, statistically KG certainly is impressive, and his accolades include an MVP, DPOY, and a string of all-nba/all-d nods.

however, his postseason success - or the lack thereof? a litany of 1st round exits both with and without talent, one cinderella run (with an underrated sam cassell), 3 missed playoffs, a championship in boston as the debatable best player of a triumvirate ensemble + above average role players, and then a pair of past-prime-not-quite-there postseasons.

i have a hard time justifying that KG is the 11th best player of all time while the guard equivalent - AI is mucking away somewhere in the 30's (if he's lucky).

[Snakebites]

The guys I picked last time didn't get it, so this is fairly easy.

Vote: Olajuwon
Nominate: Robinson

I can frankly see the case for Dirk over Robinson and possibly any of the last few nominations, so I see no issue with him getting picked, should that come to pass.

[therealbig3]

Just curious, how much does the failure of the Rockets from 89-92 (3 1st round exits and 1 no playoffs) hurt Hakeem's legacy? I understand that he played great, and that a team makes the playoffs not an individual...but he did seem to have some talent on those teams. Why did they struggle so much during this 4 year stretch?

How much blame should Hakeem get for that? I know that in the past, I've held this against him.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc, you're the one who said KG "got screwed" in comparison to Kobe during those years.It's perfectly fair to point out that Kobe outperformed KG with an equally bad supporting cast. Considering that LA's coach left mid-season, and that both Kobe & Odom were hurt in 05, yes, I would call that a fluke year. KG was healthy and in his prime from 05'-07. The Wolves went from the #1 seed to never making the playoffs again. I'm not sure why you're pointing out Cassell's age. Sam was 19.8 PPG/7.3 APG on 57% TS, and All-NBA 2nd team in 2004. Are you really trying to compare the 04' Wolves talent to the 05-07' Lakers? How did Minny do without that 34 year old PG? Again, it would seem that the narrative is that Minny's success all goes to KG, while it's failures go to the supporting cast.

You can't say, "Garnett led a team to 55+ wins", in one sentence..and then dismiss all responsiblity when that team collapses. I still don't see how KG is even above DRob or maybe even Ewing impact-wise.

Well, I think the big thing I want everyone to really meditate on is how good Cassell was, as well as the rest of the supporting cast.

More generally, I think people need to come to the realization that they aren't any good at judging supporting casts for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are fit and coaching.

The Houston Rockets had McGrady and Yao and never managed to be a contender, then they lost them, replaced them with nobodies, and are still doing about as well as the '04-05 Wolves or the '05-06 Lakers. No one predicted this, yet people seem so confident about judging how good other supporting casts are. It's all ridiculous hubris.

[ElGee]

Doc, you're the one who said KG "got screwed" in comparison to Kobe during those years.It's perfectly fair to point out that Kobe outperformed KG with an equally bad supporting cast. Considering that LA's coach left mid-season, and that both Kobe & Odom were hurt in 05, yes, I would call that a fluke year. KG was healthy and in his prime from 05'-07. The Wolves went from the #1 seed to never making the playoffs again. I'm not sure why you're pointing out Cassell's age. Sam was 19.8 PPG/7.3 APG on 57% TS, and All-NBA 2nd team in 2004. Are you really trying to compare the 04' Wolves talent to the 05-07' Lakers? How did Minny do without that 34 year old PG? Again, it would seem that the narrative is that Minny's success all goes to KG, while it's failures go to the supporting cast.

You can't say, "Garnett led a team to 55+ wins", in one sentence..and then dismiss all responsiblity when that team collapses. I still don't see how KG is even above DRob or maybe even Ewing impact-wise.

Well, I think the big thing I want everyone to really meditate on is how good Cassell was, as well as the rest of the supporting cast.

More generally, I think people need to come to the realization that they aren't any good at judging supporting casts for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are fit and coaching.

The Houston Rockets had McGrady and Yao and never managed to be a contender, then they lost them, replaced them with nobodies, and are still doing about as well as the '04-05 Wolves or the '05-06 Lakers. No one predicted this, yet people seem so confident about judging how good other supporting casts are. It's all ridiculous hubris.

Amen. I've been floored by this method since I joined realgm. People can't figure out how good a star is -- the guy they focus on, have all the data on, and remember stuff about -- but they can perfectly judge the moving parts of 7-9 other relevant teammates and coaching scheme around him? It's whacky. This is like trying to measure the speed of a bullet by calculating the air displacement throughout its flight.

[Doctor MJ]

Just curious, how much does the failure of the Rockets from 89-92 (3 1st round exits and 1 no playoffs) hurt Hakeem's legacy? I understand that he played great, and that a team makes the playoffs not an individual...but he did seem to have some talent on those teams. Why did they struggle so much during this 4 year stretch?

How much blame should Hakeem get for that? I know that in the past, I've held this against him.

I used to be a lot more bothered Hakeem's seemingly double-humped career, but I think it's largely an illustion.

The team was bad before he got there despite having Sampson. With Hakeem & a healthy Sampson they still only ever achieved and SRS of +2.11, and then then didn't actually fall back all that much.

Now you're specifically mentioning the stuff a few years later, and I won't say Hakeem should get off scott-free. The team doing well in '90-91 with him missing some time is definitely relevant. In general though, we're talking about team mediocrity, and I think people are way too optimistic great players being able to always have great team results.

[Doctor MJ]

Amen. I've been floored by this method since I joined realgm. People can't figure out how good a star is -- the guy they focus on, have all the data on, and remember stuff about -- but they can perfectly judge the moving parts of 7-9 other relevant teammates and coaching scheme around him? It's whacky. This is like trying to measure the speed of a bullet by calculating the air displacement throughout its flight.

Preach on brother.

[ElGee]

The 2006 Lakers finished 7th in the league in SRS because of Kobe. KG's team finished 21st in SRS and 12 games behind W-L column. Do you really think that Lamar Odom is the difference of 10-12 games? Because other than Odom, the teams are pretty much the same.

Would it surprise you then to find out that in 2005, when Odom missed 18 games, the Lakers were -7.7 in point differential. With him they -1.6 (+6.1 for LO) If we exclude the 2 games Kobe missed, the Lakers were -6.5 with Bryant and without Odom.

Or that in 2007, when he missed 26 games, the Lakers were -3.7 in 26 games without Odom and +1.6 with him (+5.4 for LO). If we exlclude the game Kobe missed, they were -3.1...

Incidentally, the Timberwolves were -1.9 and -3.7 without Lamar Odom in 2006 and 2007.

[tclg]

I been loving the discussion so far.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Doc, you're the one who said KG "got screwed" in comparison to Kobe during those years.It's perfectly fair to point out that Kobe outperformed KG with an equally bad supporting cast. Considering that LA's coach left mid-season, and that both Kobe & Odom were hurt in 05, yes, I would call that a fluke year. KG was healthy and in his prime from 05'-07. The Wolves went from the #1 seed to never making the playoffs again. I'm not sure why you're pointing out Cassell's age. Sam was 19.8 PPG/7.3 APG on 57% TS, and All-NBA 2nd team in 2004. Are you really trying to compare the 04' Wolves talent to the 05-07' Lakers? How did Minny do without that 34 year old PG? Again, it would seem that the narrative is that Minny's success all goes to KG, while it's failures go to the supporting cast.

You can't say, "Garnett led a team to 55+ wins", in one sentence..and then dismiss all responsiblity when that team collapses. I still don't see how KG is even above DRob or maybe even Ewing impact-wise.

Well, I think the big thing I want everyone to really meditate on is how good Cassell was, as well as the rest of the supporting cast.

More generally, I think people need to come to the realization that they aren't any good at judging supporting casts for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are fit and coaching.

The Houston Rockets had McGrady and Yao and never managed to be a contender, then they lost them, replaced them with nobodies, and are still doing about as well as the '04-05 Wolves or the '05-06 Lakers. No one predicted this, yet people seem so confident about judging how good other supporting casts are. It's all ridiculous hubris.

Huh? How are did Houston replace those guys with nobodies???

Brooks, KMart, Scola, Ariza, Battier, are good players. Switch Kobe in for KMart on that team, and they would be making deep playoff runs.