#23 Highest Peak of All Time (Barkley '93 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

At #22, Chris Paul has been enshrined. He's also the first player to be enshrined at the number of his age (he was 22 years old) which makes him the youngest player on the list so far.

[bastillon]

bastillon, I don't think that the issue scorer vs. shooter is such a big one, because neither of those player types is really hard to get. There is constantly talent available, which can score 10 to 15 ppg on good enough efficiency, while there are also good enough shooters. So, I can basically assume that each player can get the necessary shooter or scorer rather easily. Obviously, it gets tricky, if I have a player who is in need of a better skilled shooting big or in desperate need of a constant 20 ppg as his 2nd option, neither of those is as easy to get. Maybe there is some need to provide hard facts for the availability of certain player types in order to make some of the things more clear.

I'm sorry I didn't specify. what I meant in particular is that your impact can be screwed more if you're playing with inside/midrange scorers rather than spot up shooters. one example that comes to mind is LeBron vs Kobe, and their supporting casts. I'm not saying Kobe is better, he's not, the gap on the defensive end is just too much to overcome. but in terms of their offensive impact I don't think Kobe's teammates were better than spot up shooters LeBron enjoyed playing with. so my point wasn't as much about the availability of those players as it was about determining star's value. Gasol-Bynum might seem overwhelming defensively or on their own, but they're just not a good fit to perimeter player. they ruin spacing, it's harder to attack the paint, or draw FTs, forcing you further away from the basket, making you take more tough shots etc. I think someone pointed out at some point that last year's Kobe had a 58% without one of Gasol/Bynum on the court... considering he had a total of like 53% TS, that'd mean he was down to sub-50% TS with both on the floor. I think that's the most underrated thing about Kobe, how he's able to sustain his high efficiency not playing next to shooters who spread out the floor.

Regarding how much a shooter depends on the star player, we can look at Radmanovic 2008. With Radmanovic and without Bryant the Lakers had 120 ORtg, with Bryant and without Radmanovic they had 112 Ortg, while with both they had 118 Ortg. In regards to the overall team offense, a shooter might be more valuable than you think, but that obviously also depends on the used offensive settings. The Lakers TPO when Bryant was off, really helped a lot of players to get into good positions to succeed offensively, and especially weaker offensive players can take advantage of that. Someone like Radmanovic was an easy one, because he knows how to move into positions without the ball to keep the spacing. Horry looked to me as having the same ability, whether it was in LA, Houston or on the Spurs. Overall I would say that the value of the shooter depends as much on the offensive system as it depends on the star player.

the bolded number is irrelevant because it's not sustainable level. in the long run I doubt Lakers would even be a 110 ORTG with Radmanovic and without Bryant. sample size is a huge issue here. Radmanovic playing stretch four is no doubt a valuable offensive piece but there's just no logical case to be made that you can take your by far the best offensive player off the court and offense improves. they only played at 120 ORTG because of variety. I'm surprised that you brought up this number several times with your knowledge about stats and all.

One even more extreme example would be Jason Collins on the Nets. [...] We can compare that a bit to Nene on the Nuggets:

appreciated info

Moses Malone was indeed a perfect fit and the 76ers a perfect fit for him. Keep in mind that they needed players with high bb-iq around who are willing to take a step back and focus on other things than scoring. Erving's willingness to sacrifice his "numbers" in order to put more focus on the defensive end is huge here. Malone's playing style required players to be able to defend better in transition and Erving's abilities as a help and weakside defender was crucial for the 76ers in order to accommodate Malone's skillset. Moses Malone himself as a weak passer and ball handler while occupying the inside position made it tough to get easy scoring opportunities for other players, while they had to take the tougher shots.

that narrative doesn't seem all right. there's an article that Moses Malone let Erving roam defensively so what I'm thinking is that Erving didn't engage himself as much on the boards but rather made better effort as a help defender. but I don't think Erving's improved help-D was a result of him cutting down on his scoring.

I also think you're underrating Sixers 83 just looking at their SRS. as Mufasa pointed out the Sixers started like 58-7 and then coasted to end the season after clinching a 100% sure #1 seed. then they proceeded to dismantle their playoff opposition. it's not just a regular 7.5 SRS team, they were probably closer to 8.5-9 SRS in reality. so Moses made some big impact on that team comparing them to 82 Sixers (but 82 Sixers might've been coasting a bit as well since they were 7.7 SRS team in 81). also Sixers lost some key bench players in 83 so their depth was a big issue. I'm starting to think Moses was significantly more than just a +3 player on that particular team.

Nuggets were in no shape or form in the "ballpark" or one of the best teams of all time. their offense was perfectly built for being exposed in the playoffs (rng without enormous chaos, everybody was doing what he wanted). even if you put Nene on that team, I'd still take several western teams over them that year, despite possibly Nuggets being a better RS team from the standpoint of SRS.

back to Moses though, my bigger issue with Moses is that he needs specific players around him to make that big impact. I mean it took a good defensive coach and possibly the best combo of perimeter defenders in history to make him more engaged on D. his impact was FAR lower on his other teams. those Rockets should've been regularly posting +3-4 SRS at least, not hover around .500.

[therealbig3]

Vote: 03 T-Mac

I guess realistically, it's between him, K. Malone, M. Malone, and Barkley. To start off, I think T-Mac, due to his versatility on both offense and defense, was more portable than any of them. I think the only one of that group that challenges him offensively is Barkley, but T-Mac is clearly the better defensive player. Neither guy actually played great defense during their peaks, but Barkley couldn't actually do anything about it, due to the limitation of his size...he was always going to be a sub-par defensive player. T-Mac actually had the physical tools to be a great defensive player, and actually did play great defense for stretches when he had the energy to do so. With a championship-caliber supporting cast, I think T-Mac would not only play All-D caliber defense, but would have a great offensive impact as well. Like I said, he's an extremely versatile player both offensively and defensively. He can play both on-ball and off-ball at an elite level, he's a very willing and talented passer, he rarely turns the ball over, and he's an elite volume scorer. Decent enough on the glass, and he's shown that he can really turn that aspect of his game up another notch when needed, and like I said, I like him as a defensive player when he has help around him.

[ElGee]

vote: Charles Barkley 1990

Have Barkley and Karl Malone as very clearly my next two. Almost forgot Barkley hasn't been voted in. I've said a lot about him in the past but here's the gist:

Barkley was a pseudo-savant on offense -- amazing passer, amazing feel for the game and calling his own number (super high efficiency shot attempts). I see great fit with all kinds of players, and look at the multiple ~ +7 offenses with KJ he put together. KJ is a ball-dominant, really good offensive player. These results are encouraging to me. He also does wondrous things in his best year, 1990, with some shooters and various scraps in Philly (another +5 offense). His offensive track record is really just short of the greats in that regard.

Defensively he's a question, creating a ceiling on what kind of defensive team can be built around him. But let's anchor him to another viable vote coming up here: Moses Malone. Was Moses a better defensive player at the 5 IMO? Yes. But Barkley at the 4 at least presents the opportunity for a solid defensive team with an excellent defensive center. Phoenix played a slim Oliver Miller/Mark West, Dumas and Majerle around Barkley when he arrived and they were a -1.3 defensive team their first year. I do think there's a ceiling for how good a Barkley defense can be, but I wonder if that can be circumvented slightly by playing him against certain small forwards when he was still athletic back in 1990...

So if you're wondering "hey, if I can't really get better than -2 on D and maybe +7 or 8 on O, doesn't that cap quality Barkley teams at 9 or 10 SRS?" I'd say yes, but (1) That's not a bad cap at this point in the project and (2) look at Moses...his offensive rebounding value is a constant like Rodman's, you hope he doesn't eat shots as a black hole on an excellent team, and as you fill up the roster with quality players and you'd need an AS team to hit 9 or 10 SRS because unless you have a DPOY-level PF (and maybe SF) you aren't getting that defense much past -4 or so, right? Then you need the same good defensive players to also be good on offense ITO of basic roles (shot creator, shooter, etc). Essentially, you are in just as big of a team-building pickle with Moses as Barkley, only I think Barkley's incredible offensive genius gets you to slightly higher places (random trivia note: Charles Barkley is the only American ever to lead the Olympic team in scoring twice.)

The other viable guy here could be Karl, who I've posted extensively about. The question with him is how large is his positive defensive impact. I look at his great work in 2004 in LA defensively and think in a slightly better circumstance than Utah (of all places -- they didn't have a TV contract at one point in time -- could we see very similar offensive results with him shouldering slightly less load and increased defensive activity. Be clear, Malone is a Bruce Bowen of PF's to me -- not an amazing team defender -- but I think his strength/rebounding coupled with his man defense make for a very strong defensive player. Also note his quick grasp of the triangle, how good of a passer he was, and I think it says some very good abstract things about him. The idea that he took too many jumpers is a bit weird because he averaged 10 FTA/g late in his career, and at his most vulnerable he was still a 6-7 FTA/g guy. I would very much lean toward 98 as I think he's offensive game was it's most evolved, making up for any loss of explosiveness, and his defense was still as stout as it was in the immediately preceding years.

Open to where the thread goes though...

(Apologies to realbig3, who must be frustrated that McGrady hasn't caught yet. and while I'd vote for him soon, I can't select him over guys like Barkley and Malone while they are still on the board.)

[Doctor MJ]

(Apologies to realbig3, who must be frustrated that McGrady hasn't caught yet. and while I'd vote for him soon, I can't select him over guys like Barkley and Malone while they are still on the board.)

Echoed for both the TMac and Moses supporters. That's rough.

[ardee]

vote: Charles Barkley 1990

Have Barkley and Karl Malone as very clearly my next two. Almost forgot Barkley hasn't been voted in. I've said a lot about him in the past but here's the gist:

Barkley was a pseudo-savant on offense -- amazing passer, amazing feel for the game and calling his own number (super high efficiency shot attempts). I see great fit with all kinds of players, and look at the multiple ~ +7 offenses with KJ he put together. KJ is a ball-dominant, really good offensive player. These results are encouraging to me. He also does wondrous things in his best year, 1990, with some shooters and various scraps in Philly (another +5 offense). His offensive track record is really just short of the greats in that regard.

Defensively he's a question, creating a ceiling on what kind of defensive team can be built around him. But let's anchor him to another viable vote coming up here: Moses Malone. Was Moses a better defensive player at the 5 IMO? Yes. But Barkley at the 4 at least presents the opportunity for a solid defensive team with an excellent defensive center. Phoenix played a slim Oliver Miller/Mark West, Dumas and Majerle around Barkley when he arrived and they were a -1.3 defensive team their first year. I do think there's a ceiling for how good a Barkley defense can be, but I wonder if that can be circumvented slightly by playing him against certain small forwards when he was still athletic back in 1990...

So if you're wondering "hey, if I can't really get better than -2 on D and maybe +7 or 8 on O, doesn't that cap quality Barkley teams at 9 or 10 SRS?" I'd say yes, but (1) That's not a bad cap at this point in the project and (2) look at Moses...his offensive rebounding value is a constant like Rodman's, you hope he doesn't eat shots as a black hole on an excellent team, and as you fill up the roster with quality players and you'd need an AS team to hit 9 or 10 SRS because unless you have a DPOY-level PF (and maybe SF) you aren't getting that defense much past -4 or so, right? Then you need the same good defensive players to also be good on offense ITO of basic roles (shot creator, shooter, etc). Essentially, you are in just as big of a team-building pickle with Moses as Barkley, only I think Barkley's incredible offensive genius gets you to slightly higher places (random trivia note: Charles Barkley is the only American ever to lead the Olympic team in scoring twice.)

The other viable guy here could be Karl, who I've posted extensively about. The question with him is how large is his positive defensive impact. I look at his great work in 2004 in LA defensively and think in a slightly better circumstance than Utah (of all places -- they didn't have a TV contract at one point in time -- could we see very similar offensive results with him shouldering slightly less load and increased defensive activity. Be clear, Malone is a Bruce Bowen of PF's to me -- not an amazing team defender -- but I think his strength/rebounding coupled with his man defense make for a very strong defensive player. Also note his quick grasp of the triangle, how good of a passer he was, and I think it says some very good abstract things about him. The idea that he took too many jumpers is a bit weird because he averaged 10 FTA/g late in his career, and at his most vulnerable he was still a 6-7 FTA/g guy. I would very much lean toward 98 as I think he's offensive game was it's most evolved, making up for any loss of explosiveness, and his defense was still as stout as it was in the immediately preceding years.

Open to where the thread goes though...

(Apologies to realbig3, who must be frustrated that McGrady hasn't caught yet. and while I'd vote for him soon, I can't select him over guys like Barkley and Malone while they are still on the board.)

I'm leaning toward Barkley as well, but I'd like to hear why you picked 1990 over 1993, which had the much superior Playoff performance and wasn't exactly a bad regular season either.

[fatal9]

Yea, I was leaning towards '93 Barkley over '90. If Barkley ever had a year where he wasn't horrible defensively, '93 would be the best candidate (everything from his post defense to activity to effort were better that season). But how much of that is just motivation from playing on a better team? '90 was more explosive for sure, but '93 had a little better midrange shooting and is generally a more polished player.

One thing I hold against '93 is how close the Suns were to losing in the first round, probably should have if Lakers didn't get shafted at the end of game 5. He may have also started settling a little bit too much for jumpshots, there were a good amount of playoff games where he shot poorly because of that. Suns were also 1-5 without Barkley that season (KJ played in 4 of those games, only win was against the worst team in the league, only 1 of those games appears to be where they were resting starters, but overall really small sample size), wonder if that had impact on sealing the MVP for Barkley over Hakeem.

Overall I don't feel THAT strongly either way, and will go with the year that gains momentum. '93 deserves fair consideration though.

[PTB Fan]

Vote: '83 Moses Malone

I will get two days off from school due to playing a game in youth championship and school trip in Friday later on, which means I'll have some time to write something new (Baylor, Charles posts that I've planned) and not to keep copy paste the same thing all over...

Another reminded.. have to finish that as well.

[C-izMe]

I'm voting McGrady 03 again.

[JordansBulls]

--------- RS PER, WS48, --------- PER, WS48 playoffs
Moses Malone 1983: 25.1, 0.248 -----25.7, 0.260 (13 playoff games, title)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... nces-11-20

MOSES MALONE FINALS STATS
Points per game: 25.8
Boards per game: 18.0
Blocks per game: 1.5
PER: 26.0



VOTE: Moses Malone 1983.

[mysticbb]

I'm sorry I didn't specify. what I meant in particular is that your impact can be screwed more if you're playing with inside/midrange scorers rather than spot up shooters. one example that comes to mind is LeBron vs Kobe, and their supporting casts. I'm not saying Kobe is better, he's not, the gap on the defensive end is just too much to overcome. but in terms of their offensive impact I don't think Kobe's teammates were better than spot up shooters LeBron enjoyed playing with.

I think you are making the same mistake as a lot of people are doing by trying to devide impact into an individual offensive and defensive impact, while ignoring the fact that surrounding Bryant with better shooters but worse defenders would not lead per se to more "impact" for Bryant. The Lakers cast allowed Bryant to work best for his strength, while there is for sure a limit in terms of individual offensive efficiency numbers, but that isn't even the important thing here. How much Bryant adds to a team in order to improve playing level is actually the key here and at that the overall difference is important, not the one on offense or defense. And given the Lakers' success I can hardly see any case to look at the Lakers' support and think, oh well, what a bad cast in order to make Bryant shine.

so my point wasn't as much about the availability of those players as it was about determining star's value.

Actually, I don't think that you can assess "star value" without taking the availability of the needed supporting casts player into account. Thus, it will always come down to answering the question: How far can I get with that player when I just have an average supporting cast in terms of fit and playing level.

Gasol-Bynum might seem overwhelming defensively or on their own, but they're just not a good fit to perimeter player. they ruin spacing, it's harder to attack the paint, or draw FTs, forcing you further away from the basket, making you take more tough shots etc.

I'm not quite sure I fully understand your argumentation here, because if you mean Gasol+Bynum on the court at the same time, I agree, while I don't agree with anything you said about a Gasol+Bryant combination. Gasol's passing abilities are actually something which is usually helping a perimeter player. For Bryant the issue just comes with bad shot selection from the perimeter and rather not consistent 3pt shooting. And he actually made it worse when he worked on his postgame, completely ignoring the fact that this wasn't an area where the Lakers needed improvement.

I think someone pointed out at some point that last year's Kobe had a 58% without one of Gasol/Bynum on the court... considering he had a total of like 53% TS, that'd mean he was down to sub-50% TS with both on the floor.

You rely on false information here, Bryant had 56 TS% without Bynum on the court and 55 TS% without Gasol, so while it is better without either one, the difference isn't as huge as you suggest. But that isn't even the important thing here, because in both cases the team performance with Bryant+Gasol and Bryant+Bynum was better than just with Bryant.

I think that's the most underrated thing about Kobe, how he's able to sustain his high efficiency not playing next to shooters who spread out the floor.

Honestly, that contradicts your previous statement, because you just argued how Bynum/Gasol would negatively effect his efficiency, thus he couldn't sustain his level. Also, when he played with O'Neal he had a higher TS% in games with O'Neal than without him (from 99 to 04, seasons in which Bryant started).

the bolded number is irrelevant because it's not sustainable level. in the long run I doubt Lakers would even be a 110 ORTG with Radmanovic and without Bryant. sample size is a huge issue here.

About 700 total possessions in 2008 were with Radmanovic and without Bryant, while it is not the biggest sample, it is for sure not just an outlier and thus not "irrelevant". You are also awfully wrong about your assumption that the Lakers couldn't have kept a level over 110 ORtg without Bryant, but with Radmanovic, because from 2007 to 2009 they had in average 112 ORtg with those lineups. Sustaining 120 ORtg would likely be very tough, but a lineup with Gasol-Odom-Radmanovic or with Bynum instead of Gasol could have very well played at a higher level offensively for an extended stretch than you might be willing to accept.

Radmanovic playing stretch four is no doubt a valuable offensive piece but there's just no logical case to be made that you can take your by far the best offensive player off the court and offense improves.

That wasn't my point at all. Look through my posts and tell where I said that this would be the case? I just simply used it to illustrate that the Lakers high level offense was NOT triggered by Bryant, but by the better working offense with Radmanovic in. You and someone else already used the high offensive rating with Bryant on the court as evidence, while the ORtg of the Lakers with Bryant and without Radmanovic did not suggest that Bryant was the lonely catalyst for that. In the long run taking Bryant out would for sure not help the Lakers, that should be clear and when I say that Bryant was a consistent +6 player, it should be really obvious that this means, without him the Lakers are really, really worse. It is just highly unlikely to find a good enough replacement player to make the Lakers play championship level basketball from 2006 to 2010.

that narrative doesn't seem all right. there's an article that Moses Malone let Erving roam defensively so what I'm thinking is that Erving didn't engage himself as much on the boards but rather made better effort as a help defender. but I don't think Erving's improved help-D was a result of him cutting down on his scoring.

That article is wrong. Erving did not show a significant decrease in terms of DRB% or an increase in STL% or BLK%.
Erving from 1980 to 1982: 13.5 DRB%, 2.8 STL%, 2.8 BLK%
from 1983 to 1984: 13.7 DRB%, 2.4 STL%, 3.0 BLK%

And frankly, watching him play did not suggest anything of that sort, he showed increased energy in terms of help defense, the rest looked basically the same to me (granted, I just have seen game snippets).

On the other end, we see a different kind of shot selection for Erving, taking more shots outside and attacking the basket less. Also, Moses Malone in the middle decreased Erving's opportunities for an offensive board and putback (9.3 ORB% in average from 80 to 82, 8.1 ORB% from 83 to 84). Overall Erving had to deal with less easy opportunities, which explains perfectly the decrease in scoring efficiency, while also had to focus more on transition defense and help. Both were incredible valuable traits in order to accomodate Moses Malone's playing style.

I also think you're underrating Sixers 83 just looking at their SRS.

Indeed, I did. They had 9.06 SRS over the first 68 games, far better than I anticipated.

as Mufasa pointed out the Sixers started like 58-7

They started 50-7 or 58-10, but they never had 58-7.

I'm starting to think Moses was significantly more than just a +3 player on that particular team.

On that 76ers team in particular? Yes, with the increased SRS, I would say +4, while the boxscore contribution would make him a +5 player overall for that season. So, I can see that I probably underrated Moses Malone in 1983, while the difference between my earlier estimate and the current value is 0.5.

Nuggets were in no shape or form in the "ballpark" or one of the best teams of all time.

I NEVER said anything like that. I explicit stated that the Nuggets SUPPORTING CAST (Nuggets minus Iverson) was probably in the ballpark of the 1983 76ers without Moses Malone or the 1993 Suns without Barkley. Sorry, but you have misunderstood the point I made, if you think I said anything close to the statement by you I just quoted.

back to Moses though, my bigger issue with Moses is that he needs specific players around him to make that big impact. I mean it took a good defensive coach and possibly the best combo of perimeter defenders in history to make him more engaged on D. his impact was FAR lower on his other teams. those Rockets should've been regularly posting +3-4 SRS at least, not hover around .500.

I don't think that Moses Malone's impact was far lower on the Rockets, it just looked that way. His skillset is just not something which help elevating average cast to a much higher level. So, I agree with you about that part, at least.

[bastillon]

I think you are making the same mistake as a lot of people are doing by trying to devide impact into an individual offensive and defensive impact, while ignoring the fact that surrounding Bryant with better shooters but worse defenders would not lead per se to more "impact" for Bryant. The Lakers cast allowed Bryant to work best for his strength, while there is for sure a limit in terms of individual offensive efficiency numbers, but that isn't even the important thing here. How much Bryant adds to a team in order to improve playing level is actually the key here and at that the overall difference is important, not the one on offense or defense. And given the Lakers' success I can hardly see any case to look at the Lakers' support and think, oh well, what a bad cast in order to make Bryant shine.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying surrounding Bryant with poor defense shooters will make them better. I'm saying it will make it seem like Bryant is more valuable because they will be disgraceful offensively without him. think about a team with Fisher-Kobe-Korver-Radmanovic-Ilgauskas. they would be one of the best offenses ever with Bryant in the game, but if you replace Bryant with Tony Allen they'll stink offensively because there's nobody who can create his own shot. Bryant will seem like he's making some insane offensive impact, maybe 125 on court/95 off court or smth in this ballpark. defensive +/- wise nothing changes. they will suck regardless of Bryant's presence. I don't think impact varies greatly on defense depending on the fit but offensively there are surely some issues that I think you're overlooking.

Actually, I don't think that you can assess "star value" without taking the availability of the needed supporting casts player into account. Thus, it will always come down to answering the question: How far can I get with that player when I just have an average supporting cast in terms of fit and playing level.

I agree 100%. but I was talking about assessing star value in terms of his actual impact on the team. if LeBron was playing with Wade since 09, I don't think he'd be looked upon as such impactful player because nobody would think he could take a bunch of role players to 66 wins.

I'm not quite sure I fully understand your argumentation here, because if you mean Gasol+Bynum on the court at the same time, I agree, while I don't agree with anything you said about a Gasol+Bryant combination. Gasol's passing abilities are actually something which is usually helping a perimeter player. For Bryant the issue just comes with bad shot selection from the perimeter and rather not consistent 3pt shooting. And he actually made it worse when he worked on his postgame, completely ignoring the fact that this wasn't an area where the Lakers needed improvement.

I was talking about both of them at the same time in the game. really seems like a great supporting cast but it isn't a great fit. spacing is a huge issue and Bryant's impact would seem greater if say Radmanovic would be playing instead of Bynum. their offense would vastly improve with Bryant on the court and their collapse would be more noticeable without Bryant.

Honestly, that contradicts your previous statement, because you just argued how Bynum/Gasol would negatively effect his efficiency, thus he couldn't sustain his level. Also, when he played with O'Neal he had a higher TS% in games with O'Neal than without him (from 99 to 04, seasons in which Bryant started).

I meant that Bryant is still playing at very high level (sustaining high level of play) despite playing mostly with guys who clogg up the lane. he would seem even more impressive if he was playing with only one of them. his ability to anchor the offense would also be more pronounced then. doesn't it seem strange that Lakers 06 offense was somewhat similar to their 10 offense ?

as for Shaq's presence I agree it helped him a little but I think Shaq was replaced in the s5 by someone like Samaki Walker and Bryant was then basically surrounded by 4 non-offense players and had to put up some crazy amount of shots. I don't think it was Shaq making Bryant better as it was just overall offensive cast improving and Bryant's volume returning to more reasonable level.

can you post the data with Kobe + Bynum and Gasol, Kobe + Bynum only, Kobe + Gasol only, Kobe without either, Kobe with Shaq, Kobe without Shaq ?

About 700 total possessions in 2008 were with Radmanovic and without Bryant, while it is not the biggest sample, it is for sure not just an outlier and thus not "irrelevant". You are also awfully wrong about your assumption that the Lakers couldn't have kept a level over 110 ORtg without Bryant, but with Radmanovic, because from 2007 to 2009 they had in average 112 ORtg with those lineups. Sustaining 120 ORtg would likely be very tough, but a lineup with Gasol-Odom-Radmanovic or with Bynum instead of Gasol could have very well played at a higher level offensively for an extended stretch than you might be willing to accept.

That wasn't my point at all. Look through my posts and tell where I said that this would be the case? I just simply used it to illustrate that the Lakers high level offense was NOT triggered by Bryant, but by the better working offense with Radmanovic in. You and someone else already used the high offensive rating with Bryant on the court as evidence, while the ORtg of the Lakers with Bryant and without Radmanovic did not suggest that Bryant was the lonely catalyst for that. In the long run taking Bryant out would for sure not help the Lakers, that should be clear and when I say that Bryant was a consistent +6 player, it should be really obvious that this means, without him the Lakers are really, really worse. It is just highly unlikely to find a good enough replacement player to make the Lakers play championship level basketball from 2006 to 2010.

I'd have to see more data to believe that Lakers could come close to 120 ORTG without Bryant regardless of what lineup they'd be putting up. Bryant is an elite offensive player. Kobe to me was clearly the catalyst of that offense, Radmanovic might have made a big impact, especially as a stretch four, but Kobe was the more impactful player. if Radmanovic seems better offensively in that lineup data, it's only because of sample/opposition/variety etc. those possessions were probably played against benches/garbage time. when the game was being decided, Bryant was on the floor. he didn't even miss any games those years. I just have a hard time trusting that limited sample. not saying Radmanovic wasn't a very good offensive player over Walton/Ariza, especially when he was playing PF, as I said, but his impact is being overstated.

That article is wrong. Erving did not show a significant decrease in terms of DRB% or an increase in STL% or BLK%.
Erving from 1980 to 1982: 13.5 DRB%, 2.8 STL%, 2.8 BLK%
from 1983 to 1984: 13.7 DRB%, 2.4 STL%, 3.0 BLK%

And frankly, watching him play did not suggest anything of that sort, he showed increased energy in terms of help defense, the rest looked basically the same to me (granted, I just have seen game snippets).

On the other end, we see a different kind of shot selection for Erving, taking more shots outside and attacking the basket less. Also, Moses Malone in the middle decreased Erving's opportunities for an offensive board and putback (9.3 ORB% in average from 80 to 82, 8.1 ORB% from 83 to 84). Overall Erving had to deal with less easy opportunities, which explains perfectly the decrease in scoring efficiency, while also had to focus more on transition defense and help. Both were incredible valuable traits in order to accomodate Moses Malone's playing style.

why do you think that Erving's decreased offensive responsibilities made him a better help defender ? (effort I suppose ?) doesn't that contradict your earlier point about Erving's STL/BLK rates not improving ? how was he a more impactful help defender ?

Indeed, I did. They had 9.06 SRS over the first 68 games, far better than I anticipated.

what do you think was their true SRS RS + PS ? how do you think they would do without Moses and with 82 centers instead ? how much the loss of bench players might've impacted the Sixers SRS if Moses wasn't there to pick up the slack ?

I'm trying to establish what was his true value to that team. if he was taking a +5 SRS team to +9 SRS, he does seem VERY impactful and impressive. far more impactful than he had been on the Rockets.

I NEVER said anything like that. I explicit stated that the Nuggets SUPPORTING CAST (Nuggets minus Iverson) was probably in the ballpark of the 1983 76ers without Moses Malone or the 1993 Suns without Barkley. Sorry, but you have misunderstood the point I made, if you think I said anything close to the statement by you I just quoted.

I still disagree. I don't even think Nuggets WITH Iverson were in the ballpark of 80-82 Sixers or 89-92 Suns. those were already elite teams without Moses/Barkley. they had some seriously deep postseason runs and just lost to better teams. Nuggets were a dysfunctional gimmick team bound to fail in the playoffs. iirc that was the year their own fans were booing them in the PS and there was a huge initiative to fire George Karl by Nuggets fans (firegeorgekarl.com or smth like that). it was laughable, embarassing and painful to watch them struggle in the playoffs. Nuggets were definitely not a true +6 team with or without Iverson.

I don't think that Moses Malone's impact was far lower on the Rockets, it just looked that way. His skillset is just not something which help elevating average cast to a much higher level. So, I agree with you about that part, at least.

so how much impact do you think Moses would make on the Rockets ? how good would they be without him ? 82 Rockets having the worst record in the league was a blatant tank job (fatal mentioned their 2nd best player mysteriously retired due to religion... only to come back after they got Sampson in the draft, when that happens it's just something to laugh about). but how do you think they'd go without Moses ? because if Moses with fitting supporting cast could take a +5 team to +9, him playing on .500 team would mean they would be about -7 without him (eye estimation).

[Lightning25]

Right now, I'm between Moses, Karl, and Sir Charles. I think I might wait until we got more votes in before I get my vote in but right now I am leaning towards Moses.

What would you guys consider to be Malone's peak? 92? 97? 98? It's always tough to find the peak season of an iron man type player like Malone.

I would consider Barkley's peak to be either 1990 or 1993. It's a toss up either way. Barkley had his most success in 1993 but Barkley put up better individual numbers in 1990. If Barkley wasn't really better at anything in 1993 than he was in 1990 then I don't know how you go with 1993. Fatal9 did mention how Barkley was much better defensively in 1993 though and his impact was much bigger since they were 1-6 without him.

I would lean towards 1993 but if the majority goes to 1990, I wouldn't argue much against it.

[mysticbb]

I'm saying it will make it seem like Bryant is more valuable because they will be disgraceful offensively without him.

For whom? Not for me.

think about a team with Fisher-Kobe-Korver-Radmanovic-Ilgauskas. they would be one of the best offenses ever with Bryant in the game, but if you replace Bryant with Tony Allen they'll stink offensively because there's nobody who can create his own shot.

I think you really underrate the advantage a TPO gives to lesser skilled players. Also, WHO In hell would run such lineup?

I understand the point you wanted to make, but I think it is not that important for the kind of analysis I try to make.

I was talking about both of them at the same time in the game. really seems like a great supporting cast but it isn't a great fit. spacing is a huge issue and Bryant's impact would seem greater if say Radmanovic would be playing instead of Bynum. their offense would vastly improve with Bryant on the court and their collapse would be more noticeable without Bryant.

No doubt, that's why having Odom was so valuable, because you could play any kind of variation of Gasol, Odom and Bynum.
But part of the problem is indeed Bryant's perimeter play in terms of shot selection and 3pt shooting consistency, especially now with his lost athleticism. Improving the post game is pretty useful and can increase the length of the career, but on a team like the Lakers that wasn't really helpful, neither for the team nor for Bryant. Bryant should have rather take lessons from Ray Allen here in order to fit the frontcourt better.

I meant that Bryant is still playing at very high level (sustaining high level of play) despite playing mostly with guys who clogg up the lane. he would seem even more impressive if he was playing with only one of them. his ability to anchor the offense would also be more pronounced then. doesn't it seem strange that Lakers 06 offense was somewhat similar to their 10 offense?

No, not really. Bryant was awesome in 06 and played with a team fitting his skills better. On the other end the defense of the 2010 Lakers was superior.

can you post the data with Kobe + Bynum and Gasol, Kobe + Bynum only, Kobe + Gasol only, Kobe without either, Kobe with Shaq, Kobe without Shaq ?

Unfortunately not that detailed right now, I look into the data to see how easy that is possible.

I'd have to see more data to believe that Lakers could come close to 120 ORTG without Bryant regardless of what lineup they'd be putting up.

No, regardless of the lineup is a weird and unreasonable assumption, because that depends on fit (a topic we are just discussing) as well. Radmanovic doesn't work in all possible lineups, and that was never my point to say something like that. Just that the incredible high ORtg was not triggered by Bryant in 2008, but the spacing advantage Radmanovic added. That neither makes Radmanovic a better offensive player nor does it make Bryant obsolete. Maybe I should have made that more clear before, which would have saved us some time.

why do you think that Erving's decreased offensive responsibilities made him a better help defender ? (effort I suppose ?) doesn't that contradict your earlier point about Erving's STL/BLK rates not improving ? how was he a more impactful help defender ?

Better help and transition defense doesn't reflect in either of those numbers, but the freedom to roam around should. And yes, less energy used on offense frees up more on defense. It is not like Erving had to take all the tough shots now, because the 76ers played smart team ball anyway. Pretty fast, always go out in transition, good ball movement.

what do you think was their true SRS RS + PS ?

9 sounds about right.

how do you think they would do without Moses and with 82 centers instead ?

A similar level as in 1982, I guess, which would be in agreement with the +4 for Moses Malone.

how much the loss of bench players might've impacted the Sixers SRS if Moses wasn't there to pick up the slack ?

Pretty big, I think. The 76ers would have had trouble inside and rebounding-wise. Erving would have needed to play a different role, but I have hard time seeing them play better than +2 to +3 here, hell, maybe even worse. Moses Malone was the perfect match for that team, while the team was the perfect match for Malone. It is really not very likely to get such a cast. So, great job by the 76ers FO to trade for Malone (probably an easy decision anyway :)).

I still disagree. I don't even think Nuggets WITH Iverson were in the ballpark of 80-82 Sixers or 89-92 Suns.

With Nene! I really think that improved frontcourt situation leads to a +2 to +3 overall improvement, making it a somewhat 5.5 to 6.5 team. And at that, as I said, they are clearly on the lower end of the championship spectrum. Nonetheless have we seen champions like that.

so how much impact do you think Moses would make on the Rockets ? how good would they be without him ? 82 Rockets having the worst record in the league was a blatant tank job (fatal mentioned their 2nd best player mysteriously retired due to religion... only to come back after they got Sampson in the draft, when that happens it's just something to laugh about). but how do you think they'd go without Moses ? because if Moses with fitting supporting cast could take a +5 team to +9, him playing on .500 team would mean they would be about -7 without him (eye estimation).

As I said, I see him in the same ballpark as in 1983, with about +4. The In/Out data is in that ballpark anyway. Is that a surprising answer?
To make one thing clear, only because I'm very critical of a player, doesn't make me think the player sucks. I just have the clear impression that Moses Malone's boxscore values are making him seem better than he really was. The flaws were discussed. And then putting him on the level of Barkley or Karl Malone doesn't seem that unreasonable at all.

[bastillon]

For whom? Not for me.
I think you really underrate the advantage a TPO gives to lesser skilled players. Also, WHO In hell would run such lineup?

I understand the point you wanted to make, but I think it is not that important for the kind of analysis I try to make.

I used that lineup to illustrate my point. some players are more valuable on the floor with the star, other players lose some of their value with the star in the game. again my original question is how you view this issue of shooters vs scorers. Lakers 09-10 vs Cavs 09-10 seemed like the most glaring example to me. [just talking about the offense now] the first cast does seem a lot better on their own but I'd rather have 2nd cast if I was a star of Kobe/LeBron caliber. spacing to me is far more important than Bynum/Gasol being able to create their own shot. I simply think if you reversed their roles LeBron would struggle a lot more offensively and Bryant would thrive like he never had. that's what this whole thing comes down to. LeBron looks like far more impactful player than Bryant in that case because he's leading the Cavs to higher level with a cast that looks like a joke compared to Kobe's. but that's not necessarily the case given the spacing effect shooters provide and their fit with the star. I felt like you disagreed with that stance when you questioned the importance of fit on championship teams, as if fit didn't have any impact on team offense, that's why I picked it up. I think that's in part what tsherk was refering to. I don't know if you feel fit is unimportant anymore... because of this comment:

No, not really. Bryant was awesome in 06 and played with a team fitting his skills better.

you're clearly someone who understands the value of spacing, off ball play (great discussion on Dirk vs LeBron with ElGee back in the day), HCO, fit instead of overlapping skills etc. so I'm not sure why you were questioning whether champions fit well. there is a clear pattern you could see. defensive rebounding, interior defense, spacing around stars, efficient low-usg role players and some dedication to defense and team play.

But part of the problem is indeed Bryant's perimeter play in terms of shot selection and 3pt shooting consistency, especially now with his lost athleticism. Improving the post game is pretty useful and can increase the length of the career, but on a team like the Lakers that wasn't really helpful, neither for the team nor for Bryant. Bryant should have rather take lessons from Ray Allen here in order to fit the frontcourt better.

you're overlooking how much Bryant has to create for himself and others. keep in mind that Lakers were not a classic triangle team anymore. they broke out of their sets a lot of times and Kobe was doing some instant iso offense. Kobe's 3pt shooting would have marginal value to me, because he never shoots uncontested 3pters anyway. Gasol/Bynum, especially together on the court, just can't create easy looks for their teammates. they play well off each other because opp frontcourts can't boxout both of them and they're able to get to the glass easier than on their own, but their playmaking skills off set offense are very limited, their usefulness in that regard drops DRASTICALLY against stronger frontcourts. I don't have any stats to back it up with, it's just an observation. Kobe has to shoot those midrange shots because it's hard to get to the line/score inside with the paint packed with bodies/shotblockers, and he can't be a 3pt shooting specialist because there's no one who could create for him. that'll change now, obviously, so we'll see. the value of 3pt shooting is in its off ball play, Bryant had to create way too much offense for those teams to play much off ball.

Unfortunately not that detailed right now, I look into the data to see how easy that is possible.

I'd be very interested in that data. really kinda tells you a lot about basketball in general. you often see posters trying to build superteams around 2 centers and with perimeter players who all score inside. I always found it pretty funny.

No, regardless of the lineup is a weird and unreasonable assumption, because that depends on fit (a topic we are just discussing) as well. Radmanovic doesn't work in all possible lineups, and that was never my point to say something like that. Just that the incredible high ORtg was not triggered by Bryant in 2008, but the spacing advantage Radmanovic added. That neither makes Radmanovic a better offensive player nor does it make Bryant obsolete. Maybe I should have made that more clear before, which would have saved us some time.

well I'm questioning that high ORTG was "triggered" by Radmanovic's spacing effect rather than Bryant's playmaking. Radman may have been valuable part but he was clearly having worse impact on Lakers offense than Kobe. I know lineup data pictures Radman as the trigger but as I said, I think those numbers are largely skewed because of competition, sample size and garbage time. I just don't think you can put a non-Kobe Lakers lineup that would consistently sustain 120 ORTG. I don't even think they would get close. that gap would be even greater in the playoffs (and I started this whole thing with Bryant's postseason offensive impact), because unstoppable and versatile shot creation becomes so much more important. I don't see Farmar/Vujacic/Radman/Odom/Gasol close to 120 ORTG vs playoff level opposition (even if you adjust for the strength of their defense). do you ?

Better help and transition defense doesn't reflect in either of those numbers, but the freedom to roam around should. And yes, less energy used on offense frees up more on defense. It is not like Erving had to take all the tough shots now, because the 76ers played smart team ball anyway. Pretty fast, always go out in transition, good ball movement.

when I first brought up that this article said Moses rebounding presence made Dr J better help defender due to more freedom to roam, you said it's not true pointing to the boxscore stats that didn't capture the change in his defensve stats. but when your narrative is saying that Erving's changed offensive look is the reason for his improvement and I mention lack of change in boxscore stats, you point to freedom to roam. seems like inconsistency, no ?

A similar level as in 1982, I guess, which would be in agreement with the +4 for Moses Malone.

Pretty big, I think. The 76ers would have had trouble inside and rebounding-wise. Erving would have needed to play a different role, but I have hard time seeing them play better than +2 to +3 here, hell, maybe even worse. Moses Malone was the perfect match for that team, while the team was the perfect match for Malone. It is really not very likely to get such a cast. So, great job by the 76ers FO to trade for Malone (probably an easy decision anyway ).

I don't know if you missed my point so I'll re-phrase. I'm saying excluding center play Sixers 82 were a better team than Sixers 83 because of their depth and more quality perimeter players. I'm asking you how much do you think they'd be worse in 83 if center play from 82 was the same. I'm asking because the argument against Moses was that he didn't make much impact considering Sixers were 5.7 without him and 7.5 with him. as it turns out they were really more like +9 with him and possibly they might've been worse outside of Moses because of worse depth so +5.7 might not be accurate either. what makes this even more complicated is that Sixers were even better before 82 so they may have been coasting that year in the RS. I'm trying to establish how good the Sixers really were without Moses to see his real impact. so how strong do you think 82 Sixers really were ? were they coasting ? were they maybe a true +7 team ? and after that you have to consider weaker bench, older core and then you can start from ground zero, ie how much impact did Moses make ?

With Nene! I really think that improved frontcourt situation leads to a +2 to +3 overall improvement, making it a somewhat 5.5 to 6.5 team. And at that, as I said, they are clearly on the lower end of the championship spectrum. Nonetheless have we seen champions like that.

as I said, they might've been a +6 RS team with healthy Nene but I just can't consider them a true +6 playoff team. their offense was chaotic, relied too much on isolations when sets broke down, defensively nobody was really committed, they wouldn't pass the ball at times, choking random shots instead. that total collapse in the playoffs wasn't just about Lakers playing at very high level with Gasol. it was also because Nuggets were so overrated.

As I said, I see him in the same ballpark as in 1983, with about +4. The In/Out data is in that ballpark anyway. Is that a surprising answer?

yes, it's somewhat surprising but I don't know if we're on the same page. that +4 number, I'm assuming you're talking about lifting a .500 team right ? so if Moses was +4 player on .500 team, he must've been some crazy +6.5 player if that team was .500 after his addition, right ? do you believe Moses-less Houston was this bad ? because those rosters didn't seem like they were that bad at all.

[bastillon]

*Karl and Barkley are right on the horizon for me. I probably tend to lean towards Karl slightly more, because I do think he gives a significant defensive presence at the big man slots which is important to me. But I was more of a Barkley fan, thought Barkley was better at the time, and he was certainly more dynamic and fun to watch, so it's close. Again the decision that I need to make is how much to put into the available impact stats we have on Barkley, which don't paint him in as dominant of a light impact-wise as his numbers would have suggested. And on Karl's side I have to decide how much the playoff drop in scoring efficiency bothers me, how much I think was a function of how his team was built, and whether he contributed in enough other ways that he could still be big despite the scoring drop.

I'll just re-post some of the stuff on Malones and Barkley:

I feel pretty strongly about voting peak Ewing over peak Moses in this project (leaning towards '93 Ewing btw unless someone can convince me the '90 version was as impactful defensively). I'd prefer to build around Ewing, where you set your defense up pretty well and also get solid offense, vs Moses having more offense but a shaky defensive record. While Ewing having an uglier offensive skillset than his numbers worries me, Moses' offensive game isn't exactly pretty either, so it's hard to knock him for it. I think Moses is better offensively just... not by enough of a margin

Btw I dug up a post from last year when I looked at the DRB ranks of Moses' teams, because I was thinking heavily at the time about how big men who excel at getting offensive rebounds more than defensive ones, may be using their high skill of "tracking" the ball on the glass on the defensive end, thus chasing after rebounds instead of boxing out. Moses of course has one of the highest ORB to DRB ratios of all players in history, such as in 1982 having 47% of his rebounds on the offensive glass, 53% DRB. A guy I compared him to as on the opposite end of ORB/DRB ratio, Dirk, had 10% of his rebounds offensive in 2011, 90% defensive, and his team managed to have a lot of good defensive rebounding years. Here are Moses' team rebounding stats:

Moses
Rockets 77 - 5th
Rockets 78 - 15/22
Rockets 79 - 9/22
Rockets - 80 - 21/22
Rockets 81 - 11/23
Rockets 82 - 17/23
Sixers 83 - 13/23
Sixers 84 - 18/23
Sixers 85 - 15/23
Sixers 86 - 17/23 - This is a Barkley/Moses frontcourt year. WTF?
Bullets 87 - 22/23
Bullets 88 - 21/23
Hawks 89 - 22/25
Hawks 90 - 26/27
Hawks 91 - 7/27
Bucks 92 - 23/27

That's rough. I also looked at what happened to the team's after his moves - Rockets move from 17th in DRB in 82 to 18th in 83, Sixers move from 22nd DRB in 82 to 13th DRB in 83. So that's not a bad impact, though he was also replacing Daryl Dawkins, who has probably the worst size of human being to rebounding ratio ever. The Sixers are 17th in both 86 and 87, the Bullets are 20th in 86 and 22nd in 87. The Hawks go from 13th in 88 to 22nd in 89, the Bullets go from 21st in 88 to 12th in 89. The Hawks go from 7th in 91 to 8th in 92, the Bucks go from 21st in 91 to 23rd in 92. So the overall changing from team to team doesn't support Moses being an impact defensive rebounder.

Against Barkley, or the way he was utilized?

You see, I know that players are the ones playing the games, but we can't act as if coaching/coaching strategy/systems don't exist. They do, and they matter.

See, the issue is that you are implying the coaches would have just used Barkley wrong, while I say that the coaches used Barkley in order to achieve maximum team success. A player like Barkley, with his skillset and height, makes it really difficult to find fitting teammates to build a really, really good team. You need an incredible skilled big who can defend not only in the post, but is also capable of stepping out to compensate for Barkley's mistakes. Now what? The 76ers did not fall apart without Barkley, neither in 1987 nor in 1991. And when we look at the 1993 76ers, we see that they played -2.38 SRS ball for the first 40 games, just to collapse with internal trouble, coaching changes, etc. to -7.98 SRS for the last 42 games. Now, coaching matters, no doubt about that, but do you really think it would have been easy to just use different offensive and defensive schemes for the coaches in order to make a better team? Or isn't it the case that Barkley himself was the cause for the coaches to put him into that post position, because it would have been worse, if Barkley played a different position?

I see a similar thing with Moses Malone. Imagine Erving wouldn't have had the versatility to play differently with less touches, how would that have effected the 1983 76ers? The team had to change in order to accommodate Moses Malone. That's why we haven't seen such big impact by Moses Malone despite his massive numbers. When the clearly less productive Erving in 1983 was missing, the team lost a lot of it strength. As for 1983, I can see a couple of players replacing Moses Malone and the 76ers wouldn't lose much of their strength, while it would be tougher to replace Erving. If we would have the 1983 pbp data, I wouldn't be surprised, if we find that Erving was some sort of +6 to +7 player per 100 possessions, while Moses Malone was rather a +3 to +4 player. Obviously, it is important to have production and efficiency for a team, and Moses Malone was able to provide a lot of that production. I have him with +7.01 SPM during the playoffs, which is most certainly an impressive value. But that is hardly a value others, not selected players haven't achieved, while we actually saw a bigger impact by them.

I think in 1983 we just see a 76ers team, which is a good fit for Moses Malone, because they are unselfish with high basketball IQ, a team with Erving as their most impactful player. Moses Malone could play to his strength and was able to collect the boxscore numbers. And I agree with Doc MJ's assessement as well, we don't hear people raving about Malone's skillset, transcendent abilities, high basketball IQ, great decision making, whatsoever, people liking Moses Malone most times bring up raw ppg and rpg numbers, that is all. That he turned it over quite often even though he didn't pass often, is somewhat ignored, that Malone had limitations defensively seems to be ignored (heck, there were some people recently claiming he was a defensive anchor, which means they really had no clue how Malone even played). I don't think that Moses Malone had a great peak in the context of a 5on5 game, were his skill level and playing abilities would have allowed to build a great team with a great variety of teammates.

I see Malone and Barkley as players, who were able to produce and be efficient, which means they had for sure positive impact on the game, but even if we want to assume that their teammates for a big part were just not good enough, we have seen other players pushing similar weak casts to much more than those two players. And some of those players are still not voted in.

I actually tend to lean towards mysticbb's stance regarding Barkley, to be honest. Big box score numbers...but production like that is really not that useful when it's not leading to impact. The whole point is to make your team better.

I mean, yeah, but why is this always on the player? You can be a great player and be used incorrectly in the team context or not be in the ideal team environment (as a Heat fan, I would think that LBJ didn't forget how to play basketball on the offensive end between 2010 when he "impacted" his teams and when he joined the squad). Do the words "Jim Lyham" and "offensive genius"/expert" occupy the same sentence when you type your posts?

Ok but we have multiple instances of Barkley with a strong supporting cast, and not doing THAT great with them. I mean, when a player has different, but talented, supporting casts throughout his career, and the result isn't anything super amazing (or at least, isn't any better than what we've seen from other players, like Dirk or Nash), why does he HAVE to be voted soon?

Let's look at the offenses he's been a part of throughout his career, starting in 86 (when he became a 20+ ppg player):

86: +1.4
87: +0.0
88: +0.8
89: +5.2
90: +5.4
91: +0.0
92: +0.1
93: +5.3
94: +5.4
95: +6.2
96: +2.7
97: +2.1
98: +2.7
99: +3.2

So let's analyze some of these teams. From 86-88, he's a part of very average offenses, despite playing with still very productive versions of Moses, Dr. J, Mo Cheeks, and a plethora of double-digit scorers. The offenses are pretty elite in 89 and 90 finally, but again, he has quite a few very good scorers on his team. Impressive stuff, but nothing that some of the other players haven't done to a greater degree. The offenses once again become quite mediocre in 91 and 92...he does miss 15 games in 91, and using ElGee's SIO, we see that the Sixers were -1.2 without him, and +0.0 with him.

It's during 93-95 when his team offenses once again explode to elite levels, while playing next to KJ, who was injury-prone during this time.

KJ misses 33 games in 93, and the Suns were +4.5 without him, and +8.2 with him (+3.7). Also keep in mind that they had Dan Majerle on the team as well.

Both Barkley and KJ miss a bunch of games in 94, much of the same ones. The Suns played with KJ and without Barkley in 4 games (so very small sample size). In those games, the Suns had a 113.4 ORating vs an average 107.6 DRating (+5.8)...technically better than with Barkley. Like I said, very small sample size, and that wouldn't have held up for a whole season, but those Suns were clearly more than just Barkley, and they could sustain elite offense without him...kind of like they did with a healthy KJ in 97.

In 95, the Suns played 8 games with KJ and without Barkley, and in those games, they had a 110.2 ORating vs an average DRating of 107.9 (+2.3). Again, a very talented supporting cast that could certainly play strong offense with Barkley on the bench.

Personally, Barkley to me is someone whose box score stats overrate how good he was...he played with different supporting casts that were all quite strong, and the offenses were never truly historic (at least in the regular season, haven't checked the playoffs), like we've seen with players like Dirk or Nash, who aren't as impressive by the box score.

I think at some point, when a player is playing with different talent and the results just aren't at the level that's expected, it's time to start looking at the player (Barkley has poor portability imo) and to stop assuming that the coaches or the teammates just don't allow him to play an ideal role.

To be clear, Barkley did lead some really strong offenses, but at this level of peaks, Dirk and Nash have led stronger offenses on a routine basis. Furthermore, this doesn't even get into the fact that Barkley was worse as a defensive piece than either of them.

I see some of Barkley's awesome offense but poor defense arguments to be similar to some of Nash's. However, this issue at the 4 is very large when compared to the defense that is needed by the pg. PG's effect on the defense has been shown to be small when compared to that of the front-court.

And that's where the issue with Barkley basically comes from. His weak defense while occupying the inside position makes it tough to find the fitting frontcourt partners for him. Essentially, you need a bigger guy who can defend, but is still skilled enough to step out of the zone and make things happen. Ilgauskas would have been a pretty good complementary player next to Barkley, but those kind of players just aren't available that often.
It is a limitation and a clear problem, which is why it shouldn't be such a big surprise to not see as big of a difference between Barkley in and Barkley out. But it seems as if that kind of reasoning is offensive to some people and thus it should be ignored specifically for Barkley.

That obviously doesn't mean that Barkley sucks, especially under the light that we expect an average player to have 0 as in/out or on/off, in order to have someone "sucking" we would need to see a huge negative value. But that seems to be not that easy to grasp for some people around here.

I think the issue in this discussion is related to the same issue in Iverson discussion, while it is not the same group of people, there are still some people giving Iverson more credit, because he is smaller than an average player (even guard). As if being small and accumulate stats is making the stats more valuable. The same thing I see with Barkley, were his build is actually used to prop him up, making it seem as if a rebound by a 6'6'' PF would be worth more than the rebound by a 6'10'' PF. It is not, and while the 6'10'' can take rebounds away from his teammates, a 6'6'' can do the same. Matter of fact is that some of Barkley's production and efficiency advantage over his replacement players was compensated by the 76ers, that puts his numbers into a context. It is essentially similar to Moses Malone or Kevin Love today, and be assured, if Kevin Love would have played on the Spurs in 2012, while Spurs then would go on to win the championship, we would see a myriad of people pushing Love 2012 for a much higher peak level than he really had. In the end, Love could be the same +3.5 player he was last season, but people would likely be convinced that Love was the most valuable player in 2012, because of ppg and rpg.

Moses, Barkley - I'd like some evidence that they had all time high impact on their teams. both were poor defenders (major flaw for bigs) and greatest offensive rebounders ever while offensive rebounding is probably the least important stat of all (the weakest correlation to scoring margin). I loved Mufasa's breakdown of Moses rebounding, how little he impacted his team's DRB%. why didn't Moses and Barkley run through the league in 1986 ? both were really in their physical primes. they were overrated, that's why. why else would they post 16/23 DRB% as a team if Moses and Barkley were such great rebounders ? IMO Dr J was just as impactful or even moreso in 1983, the same case can be made for 90s KJ (people constantly overlook how good he was in the postseason, he had several explosions in the postseason).

Malone - also overrated to some extent by his raw boxscore stats. particularly because of his scoring. his ppg numbers REALLLYYYY overstated how good he was as a scorer. he had like couple reliable moves, his jumpshot was pretty good (though inconsistent at times) and he could draw tons of FTs and pass very well. but his 1 on 1 scoring skills were lacking and this is why he regressed so often in the playoffs (that + John Stockton taking a lesser role resulting in Malone carrying too much). his consistently lower playoff scoring averages and efficiency were somewhat similar to D-Rob. he's another guy whose scoring numbers overstated his abilities and that was exposed in the playoffs. IMO Kevin McHale was a better scorer in terms of abilities than Karl Malone, D-Rob OR Moses. I don't like fundamentally flawed players.

Dirk is a guy whose scoring skills are far better than his ppg averages and that is why his offensive impact is so incredibly big. I just don't see any of the guys previously mentioned carrying so much of a load on that offensively depleted team (11 Mavs). this is also why Dirk improved in the playoffs consistently and delivered when he was asked to do more and more. Malones or D-Rob simply can't do that.

Dirk is better than several players already in and I actually think he's close to KG/Walton/Dr J ballpark.

I actually think Moses is a solid post defender. He had the strength to keep guys away from getting good position, this really bothered KAJ at times, and in general doesn't give up anything too easy one on one.

But why was he a bad defender?

- Moses was relentless on the offensive boards, which sounds like a good thing, but at a certain point, this also kept him from getting back on defense. This is something that's pretty clear to me after watching his games.
- He was consistently the most turnover prone center in NBA history. He had 8 (!) NBA seasons where he averaged more than 3.5 TO/game (by far more than any other C). Sometimes these were turnovers which don't hurt you defensively (like offensive fouls) but a lot of times it was him forcing plays which ended up creating very easy fast break points for the opponent. He also did not handle double teams well, forced a lot of bad shots which again resulted in leak outs for the opponent. So his offensive game fundamentally hurts his teams on defense.
- He doesn't protect the basket well, his team defense can be lackadaisical (possibly tied to the enormous amount of energy he spent on the offensive boards) and he doesn't cover for his teammates like a good defensive center should. The Sixers overcame this because of how dominant the defensive combination of Dr. J, Cheeks and Toney/Jones was (those guys were on some GOAT level **** with their defensive activity on the perimeter).

With all these factors combined, I'm trying to figure out if team defense wise he's at the level of a liability or if he's just mediocre.

And count me as someone who doesn't think it's at all obvious who the best player on the '83 Sixers was, which doesn't say a lot of good about Moses considering Doc was past his prime by then. People need to really get over Moses' raw stats because you're never going to assess him as a player properly if you let yourself get enamored with them (we saw this with Wilt in the past here). He's a flawed player on both sides of the ball whose game produces better numbers than it does impact.

Here is what I responded to:

I'd love to bring Karl Malone into the discussion as well, as I tried to do a thread or two ago, but I'm still not in a position to do it myself and so far no one else has picked up the gauntlet except for ElGee briefly. Barkley at least generated some conversation last thread, but so far nothing on Karl Malone

Malone - also overrated to some extent by his raw boxscore stats. particularly because of his scoring. his ppg numbers REALLLYYYY overstated how good he was as a scorer. he had like couple reliable moves, his jumpshot was pretty good (though inconsistent at times) and he could draw tons of FTs and pass very well. but his 1 on 1 scoring skills were lacking and this is why he regressed so often in the playoffs (that + John Stockton taking a lesser role resulting in Malone carrying too much). his consistently lower playoff scoring averages and efficiency were somewhat similar to D-Rob. he's another guy whose scoring numbers overstated his abilities and that was exposed in the playoffs. IMO Kevin McHale was a better scorer in terms of abilities than Karl Malone, D-Rob OR Moses. I don't like fundamentally flawed players.

Bastillon says "his 1 on 1 scoring skills were lacking." Now, if you think of Malone as having the historical level stats I posted, then it seems my point reinforces bastillon's. I was assuming (falsely?) that the PS numbers were being referenced, or at least were part of the reference, since this is all I heard about re: Malone's scoring these days. (This is why I say he was actually understated.) I cited the RS numbers to give people context for the PS numbers -- I definitely should have been clearer there. Let me expound.

What I'm saying is that this is not a 25 ppg 55% TS guy taking a dip bc of this skillset down to 20/50% without any team changes. Instead, the RS numbers need to be remembered in interpreting what happened to Utah in the PS. This is a 27 ppg/58% guy changing to 27 ppg/53%...but there are also circumstantial changes to consider.

I've written about the change in role in the PS, largely IMO bc Stockton was incapable of certain things for the heart of Malone's career. The rest of the team's turnovers plummet http://www.backpicks.com/2012/02/29/was ... -pressure/ (an indication they are "doing" less), for example, as Malone does more. (I'd call it unipolar, but I have a lot of respect for the Jazz offensive sets.) As a result, we see Malone in more iso situations, absolutely.

With jordan, Shaq and Hakeem as the only other better statistical PS scorers of the period (or perhaps Reggie Miller?)...

I've written about this before... http://www.backpicks.com/2012/02/07/joh ... -failures/ Most players will drop no more than 1.5% in TS% more than we "expect" in the PS based on their opponent strength. Malone drops more than any other notable star since the merger, at 3.9%.

You know who else has an enormous drop? His teammate, Stockton (-3.4%). Chicken, meet egg. But if you believe that Stockton was helping Malone get better shots, only Stockton's own game limits the pressure he can put on a PS defense, then that shifts some of the role to Malone (which bastillon was saying). That we still see 27 ppg scoring and excellent offensive results (remember Malone was a fantastic passer) means it doesn't make much sense to say his scoring was "REALLLYYYY overstated."

The 94 Jazz had "second options" of Horny and Stock...but really Stock was a PG who wasn't going to take over the game scoring and he didn't have the same scoring threat we see today from guys like Paul or Nash (heck it wasn't close to the same as Penny.) Horny was a spacer/shooter, and a good one, and his arrival boosted the Jazz offense. So what you get is:

94 Malone 27 ppg 53% TS (Hornacek 15 ppg/59%, Stockton 14/52%)
95 Malone 30 ppg 55% TS (Hornacek 12/60%, Stockton 18/55%)
96 Malone 27 ppg 50% TS (Hornacek 18/65%, Stockton 12/60%)
97 Malone 26 ppg 50% TS (Hornacek 15/57%, Stockton 16/63%)
98 Malone 26 ppg 53% TS (Hornacek 11/53%, Stockton 11/57%)

Malone's A 27 ppg, 53% TSer who was carrying an enormous load. The Jazz postseason offenses in those years were:

Utah PS offenses
94 +4.5
95 +8.5
96 +6.7
97 +6.5
98 +0.1 (and that was +4.3 in the WC PS before the debacle in Chi)

So you're left with a scorer, who is the primary scorer, who is scoring at a rate that only the all-time best eclipse, and his team's ORtg changes correlate strongly (0.77 from 92-98) with his individual ORtg changes. Here are the players I consider to be better offensive post players and their PS numbers*:

Hakeem (93-95): 27/57%
Shaq (00-02): 30/56%
Kareem (77-80): 32/62%
Dirk (09-11): 27/62%
Barkley (89-93): 26/58%

And here's the crux of the point: If Malone could maintain his volume/efficiency (27/58%) despite the changes in what his teammates were doing in playoff series...he'd actually be raising his game significantly. Significantly! Heck, 27/56% would be raising his game a lot because that would simply be the "expected" TS% against those defenses. This is, in a statistical sense, what Hakeem did (and why he was voted in at No. 5). If Malone was doing this, he'd quite likely have multiple championship rings and we'd have voted him in a long time ago.

So I guess bastillon put me in an"overrated/underrated" subjective booth. If you think of Malone as a 30/60% guy, then that does really overstate him as an iso scorer. If you think of him as a 27/53% guy on a good team (or for some, a really good team), that understates him as a scorer. Who cares about the semantics here though, when the important point is that Malone is an excellent scorer who is just a cut below the all-timers.

*Malone 92-98 is 27/53% (103.9 opp DRtg). He's +1.6% aTS% gainst his opponent's, and when we incorporate how good of a passer he was, there just simply aren't any bigs left who are better offensively. Other bigs in their prime as PS scorers:

Duncan 23/55% v 103.7 DRtg teams
Moses 23/55% v 103.2 DRtg teams
Ewing 23/55% v 105.1 DRtg teams
Robinson 23/55% v 106.5 DRtg teams

This would me my assessment of Malone's scoring, I don't think "scoring without Stockton" is as much of an issue as other things...

- Amazing at getting the ball in traffic and either finishing or drawing fouls due to his strength. He had some of the best hands ever, doesn't matter who is throwing him the ball or what system he is in, he will always find a way to score off other players unless he plays on a team with literally zero ball movement.
- His ability to go to the right spots on the floor is a SKILL. The problem is, that sort of scoring can't be relied upon against a good set defense trying to make a stop. It's a good way to tack on the points when the defense lets up or makes mistakes however.
- In an iso situation, pretty much the only shot prime Malone was shooting was a 12-15 foot fallaway over a defender. He could mix it up over the course of a game, give you a little jump hook sometimes, face you up and drive, but 9 times out of 10, if you give him the ball and get out of his way, it's going to be that fallaway. I hate that shot, well not the shot itself but how many times he shot it. That sort of somewhat one dimensional iso-scoring is the reason he couldn't come through as a scorer in the playoffs at the rate you'd expect from someone with his averages. It's why when his jumper is on, he'll look unstoppable, shoot like 15/26 in one game but be 9/24 and 6/19 in the next two while taking the exact same shots. His consistency as an iso-scorer is just not where you'd like it to be.
- Stockton was responsible for a large number of late 80s/early 90s Malone's points. When people exagerrate and say Stockton spoon fed Malone, this is the version they are referring to. Malone became less and less dependent on Stockton as the years rolled by.
- As the 90s went on, his game progressed to being more finesse based (he could still make midrange shots when he was young, but didn't shoot them as often as later on), he also became a better one on one scorer (but again...I hate that fallaway) and with added experience he of course read defenses better and became a really good passer as well (over the shoulder no look pass being his trademark, great and hitting cutters and outlet passing).
- His conditioning was epic, he was probably the best forward ever at beating his man down the floor for an easy fastbreak basket. This again, is something teams can cut down when they adjust for it in the playoffs.
- PnR beast, in his younger days he attacked more off the PnR, in the MVP years he popped for the jumper.
- In general he got more easy baskets than any 25+ ppg guy I've consistently seen. Combination of playing with the best PG at delivering the ball, the offensive system Utah ran which creates lots of easy baskets off cuts and backscreens and to Malone's credit, him having a scorer's nose for where to be on the floor. Those easy baskets aren't quite as readily avaliable in the playoffs with better defensive teams so that contributes to decline in his playoff scoring as well.

This is why I don't see Malone's drop off in the playoffs as "choking", but as a drop off that can be naturally expected from him given his skills as a scorer. He was better at scoring on paper than a guy like Duncan...but he was better at things that are more likely to be taken away in the playoffs. That is why he's overrated as a scorer.

Another quick visual anecdote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bsuLF0DqzU[/youtube]

Great performance but this shows exactly what people already criticize about Malone's game. Too many jumpers! In a game he was "on", he's going to look amazing, but he didn't mix it up in these years, his iso-scoring is too dependent on them. The thing that bothers me is that I believe he had the talent and body to score in so many more different ways, but he just fell in love with that jumper. It's a non-attacking shot which bails out defenses, it kept him from utilizing all of his skills, it was an inefficient shot against playoff defenses in isolation and it's why he couldn't pace his scoring like truly great scorers who know they can get theirs in a variety of ways whenever they want at any point of the game.

I already know Karl can shoot a jumper for me on command, but your jumper can't be on every game (especially if you're not a pure shooter) so what then can Malone do for me when I need him to score on isos? It's not an efficient shot in isos especially when it's your only real "go to" move. In the game before that one he shot 6/21, in the game after he shot 7/21. Too many jumpers and the result is very erratic iso-scoring where he looks like a world beater one night and hopeless the next night.

[colts18]

I'd like to hear the argument of CP3 ahead of Malone? Malone led his team to the finals and almost beat MJ. The supporting cast Malone had was worse than CP3's and Malone's game 5 and 6 performances were ridiculously good. If Stockton makes that shot, I think Utah wins in 7.

[C-izMe]

I'd like to hear the argument of CP3 ahead of Malone? Malone led his team to the finals and almost beat MJ. The supporting cast Malone had was worse than CP3's and Malone's game 5 and 6 performances were ridiculously good. If Stockton makes that shot, I think Utah wins in 7.

Wait a second... You'll rather have David West and Tyson Chandler than John "f**king" Stockton and Jeff "the-first-Manu" Hornacek? His supporting cast was better by some distance.

[colts18]

After Hornacek and Stockton, the Jazz literally had nothing but scrubs. Stockton was older and banged up at that point so he wasn't effective vs. the Bulls. Of course Hornacek also sucked vs. the Bulls though that might be due to MJ. The rest of the Jazz couldn't do anything to help Malone. Don't forget about Peja and Mo Peterson who were solid offensive options that spread the floor for CP3.

[C-izMe]

After Hornacek and Stockton, the Jazz literally had nothing but scrubs. Stockton was older and banged up at that point so he wasn't effective vs. the Bulls. Of course Hornacek also sucked vs. the Bulls though that might be due to MJ. The rest of the Jazz couldn't do anything to help Malone. Don't forget about Peja and Mo Peterson who were solid offensive options that spread the floor for CP3.

All they could do was shoot. That doesn't make you better than Ostertag for example. Just two different types of one skill players. Calling them solid offensive options is laughable considering both are out of the peace only a few years after (and that 09 was the last time either of them saw the court much).