RealGM Top 100 List #5

[Doctor MJ]

I hate to draw the discussion back to KG, who I feel is getting discussed way too early, but to say "basketball is a team game" is really not a sufficient analysis IMO. The NBA is a star game, and time and again we see examples of stars showing they could carry bad teams into contenders. Pretty much everyone who is in the discussion for the top 10 (I mean serious candidates, not Kobe, Karl Malone, etc) demonstrated that ability. KG didn't. He did well, enough that I have him in the top 12-14 players, but he never showed he could carry teams in the way top 10 guys could.

Just to focus on one example- KG had a perfectly solid support cast in 2002. KG led them to a good result, but not a Tim Duncan/Lebron/Walton/insert-top-10-player-here type carry job. There seems to be no real explanation for this. He had sufficiently good players (some other years too, but 2002 is the most obvious example), his coach was good too. I know it's fun to hate on Flip, but he proved he was a good coach (especially on X's and O's), he coached the Pistons to a 64 win season that nobody saw coming. I am sure I will get a reply that features a lengthy citation of obscure advanced stats, which are KG's best friend, but you know what? Advanced stats can be wrong, and are wrong. It's too easy to find examples where everyone agrees they didn't reflect player value accurately. There really should be an argument that can exist without advanced stats, and I never see it. I don't have any doubt that a support cast of Brandon/Billups, all-star Wally, prime Joe Smith and Rasho, plus a few other solid role players like Peeler, was better than the hand Duncan got dealt in 01-03. Yet those Duncan teams won 58-60 games and won a title (and would have won two if the 2001 Lakers didn't exist).

I've said it plenty if times before: if you think NBA stats are willing a bunch if Girl Scouts to 50 wins, you're naive. nBa stars have huge impact compared to baseball players but we have a clear sense of there limitations nine the less.

So many times I get the impression people are really just saying "Yeah in theory a stat could get unlucky, but what are the odds that Garnett just happened to be the unlucky one?" To which I say that if hadn't been Garnett, then I'd be bringing up someone else to you right now.

You say that his supporting cast were fine, I say they were nit. I'm going by what they actually did when they had to play together without Gatnett, and clearly you think some other method is the better way to judge them. All I'll say is that I wouldn't be making this case based in a season or two. After well over a decDe if data analysis I'm pretty confident that I can spot the consistent trends in the guys career.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[SactoKingsFan]

Just to focus on one example- KG had a perfectly solid support cast in 2002. KG led them to a good result, but not a Tim Duncan/Lebron/Walton/insert-top-10-player-here type carry job. There seems to be no real explanation for this. He had sufficiently good players (some other years too, but 2002 is the most obvious example), his coach was good too. I know it's fun to hate on Flip, but he proved he was a good coach (especially on X's and O's), he coached the Pistons to a 64 win season that nobody saw coming. I am sure I will get a reply that features a lengthy citation of obscure advanced stats, which are KG's best friend, but you know what? Advanced stats can be wrong, and are wrong. It's too easy to find examples where everyone agrees they didn't reflect player value accurately. There really should be an argument that can exist without advanced stats, and I never see it. I don't have any doubt that a support cast of Brandon/Billups, all-star Wally, prime Joe Smith and Rasho, plus a few other solid role players like Peeler, was better than the hand Duncan got dealt in 01-03. Yet those Duncan teams won 58-60 games and won a title (and would have won two if the 2001 Lakers didn't exist).

What was so good about KG's 2002 supporting cast? Terrell Brandon starting 28 games, pre-breakout Billups, one-dimensional Sczerbiak, Rasho, Joe Smith, Anthony Peeler and old Sam Mitchell isn't anything to get excited about.

[Baller2014]

You claim his support cast was not fine, but you're basing that on advanced stats that a lot of people don't put much faith in. I'm basing it on other stuff, and not just the eye test. Wally made the all-star team that year in the West. Clearly people thought he was good. Joe Smith continued to be a highly sought after role player big after this season. Billups looked amazing once he started, and put up big stats in the playoffs. He obviously kept that up in the following seasons, and got offered a MLE contract and (the clincher) a promise to start with the Pistons, precisely because they were so impressed with him. Rasho got a pretty generous contract from the Spurs 1 offseason later because of how impressive he looked, and not just in 03. Even some advanced stats are bad for this claim, Brandon has almost as many win shares per 48 as KG, and Billups is doing awesome on that score too (especially once he started). The ordinary stats certainly tell us these guys were playing good.

You knock down the straw man of "a team of girl scouts", but in reality the NBA is full of examples of top 10 stars carrying junk teams to success. It happens. For KG it did not, despite many opportunities, and I draw some obvious conclusions from that.

[Baller2014]

What was so good about KG's 2002 supporting cast? Terrell Brandon starting 28 games, pre-breakout Billups, one-dimensional Sczerbiak, Rasho, Joe Smith, Anthony Peeler and old Sam Mitchell isn't anything to get excited about.

It wasn't "so good", but it compares very favourably to the support cast of [insert-top-10-player-here] when they carried a team of rubbish to contention, whether that's Lebron in 09 and 10, Duncan in 01-03, Walton in 77, Dr J in 74 and 76, Bird in 1980, Kareem in 1970, etc, etc. KG couldn't do it, and that counts against him.

[ThaRegul8r]

Shaq's postseason numbers are actually underrated. According to Elgee, Shaq played the hardest postseason defensive competition among star players during his prime.

PS Prime Avg. Opp Drtg ▾
Shaquille O’Neal 101.9
Kobe Bryant 102.6
Kevin Garnett 103.5
Tim Duncan 103.7
Dwyane Wade 103.7
Karl Malone 103.9
Dirk Nowitzki 103.9
Steve Nash 103.9
LeBron James 104.4
Michael Jordan 105
Larry Bird 105.5
Charles Barkley 105.8
Hakeem Olajuwon 105.8
David Robinson 106.5
Magic Johnson 106.7

http://web.archive.org/web/201107230920 ... on-part-i/

His normalized prime playoff numbers would be 27.3 PPG on .582 TS%

What makes me not take such stats as gospel is the human factors that influence them.

For example, Shaq may have faced the toughest Drtg, but Kobe lightened the load to succeed against those Drtg as he's #2 on that list, as well as his other team support. Those reduced defensive pressures aren't quantified imo and provide greater room for error.

Does anyone have a link for this?

1997 Non-Prior Informed RAPM
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.bl ... -rapm.html

1998 non-prior informed RAPM:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.bl ... ormed.html
1998 Prior-informed RAPM:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.bl ... d-rpi.html

1999 RAPM:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.bl ... ormed.html

2000 RAPM
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html

this is good stuff, but I want to point out something.

1997: someone already pointed out Laettner over Jordan

1998: Mookie Blaylock 6.48 Michael Jordan 6.15

1999: Brian Grant 4.06, Shaq 3.89, Derek Fisher 3.68 Tim Duncan 3.00

2000: Rodney Rogers 5.70 Shaq 5.16

I think people are taking RAPM as gospel when it clearly has flaws like other advanced stats.I understand the value in it, but especially the older ones, many human factors on the court still can't be quantified.

Just like FG% was found to have flaws from years ago, years from now these advanced stats will seem flawed as well.

Also playoffs are twice weighted, I agree with that, but it also brings up error if a guys prime isn't shown or sample sizes and the errors could be magnified. The same thing with RS, you can't quantify positional defense or match-ups. There is a lot of room for error and you have to use human judgement imo, every variable (including missing errors unaccounted for) can't always be quantified with so many factors in a basketball game.

More information is always a positive. There is never an instance in which more information is a bad thing.

It's one more piece of information to be weighed and considered. No more, no less.

And with all the emphasis on "team support," in the interest of fairness, I submit two names we should be talking about:

Rick Barry and Moses Malone

Look at Rick Barry's team support in 1975. He led a team to a title over a team with two Hall of Famers on it in the Finals, something neither Hakeem nor Duncan did in '94 and '03. If he could do that lacking team support, imagine how his career would have gone if he'd had it!

And what about Moses Malone? Led a sub-.500 team to the Finals, knocking off the Showtime Lakers in the process. And when he got some support, he led one of the greatest single-season teams in NBA history, which steamrolled through the postseason with only one loss. Imagine if he'd had that kind of support sooner!

I think those two have risen for me. I need to rethink.

[ardee]

I will be voting for Earvin Magic Johnson here. Saving this spot to make my case.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[magicmerl]

What makes me not take such stats as gospel is the human factors that influence them.

Wait, you don't trust DRtg, but think that all-star selections are objective evidence of player quality?

[Baller2014]

And with all the emphasis on "team support," in the interest of fairness, I submit two names we should be talking about:

Rick Barry and Moses Malone

Look at Rick Barry's team support in 1975. He led a team to a title over a team with two Hall of Famers on it in the Finals, something neither Hakeem nor Duncan did in '94 and '03. If he could do that lacking team support, imagine how his career would have gone if he'd had it!

And what about Moses Malone? Led a sub-.500 team to the Finals, knocking off the Showtime Lakers in the process. And when he got some support, he led one of the greatest single-season teams in NBA history, which steamrolled through the postseason with only one loss. Imagine if he'd had that kind of support sooner!

I think those two have risen for me. I need to rethink.

Rick Barry and Moses will certainly be two guys I will be talking about in the top 20. However, that said, what Rick Barry did hardly compares to Duncan. Duncan beat a team with a prime Shaq and Kobe in 03 (and a team with a prime Shaq and all-nba Kobe in 99, plus another all-star). The guys Barry beat in 1975 (Hayes and Unseld) hardly compare. I don't know that I'd have either of those guys in my top 50 players of all time, where we're discussing Shaq in the top 5-7 and Kobe will be in the top 15.

Moses did well, but doing it for one series isn't the same as doing it for a whole playoffs and winning the title.

[Baller2014]

What makes me not take such stats as gospel is the human factors that influence them.

Wait, you don't trust DRtg, but think that all-star selections are objective evidence of player quality?

Certainly a weird position, given he says we should completely ignore what MVP voters were saying about Hakeem.

[90sAllDecade]

What makes me not take such stats as gospel is the human factors that influence them.

Wait, you don't trust DRtg, but think that all-star selections are objective evidence of player quality?

I said all star selections can provide broad strokes of a player's play relative to competition in the league that season.

I also look at the player's output that year among other things, because they are imperfect as well. But they are still stronger and more objective than a poster's subjective opinion when you confirm that production.

If a guy made the all star team one year and I see he produced, that is more objective than a poster saying "I don't think he's good" without any evidence themselves.

What I disagreed with was using advanced stats or RAPM as gospel and heavily weighting it without looking at the human factors behind what drive those stats.

George Mikan has GOAT winshares and PER, if Drtg and RAPM existed he'd blow Garnett and Shaq away. But if you analyze the other factors and limitations in that rigid thinking, you won't take those advanced stats as gospel.

Yes they have value, but you have to look at the context of these stats and not just follow them blindly or use them without understanding their flaws imo.

[ThaRegul8r]

Difficult decision as I'm looking at the pros and seeing where everyone's coming from. Though there are still some things about Shaq that's nagging at me, and as I re-read The Last Season, I'm remembering a lot of things I didn't like. It could factor as a tie-breaker, particularly when I refer back to my criteria.

[ThaRegul8r]

What makes me not take such stats as gospel is the human factors that influence them.

Wait, you don't trust DRtg, but think that all-star selections are objective evidence of player quality?

I said all star selections can provide broad strokes of a player's play relative to competition in the league that season.

Why not just look at how a player plays? Like I added in my criteria:

There are only 12 spots available, so not everyone who plays All-Star caliber ball will make it onto the team. There are snubs and omissions every year. And the starting lineup is literally a popularity contest. Therefore, what is important as far as that goes is whether a player played at an All-Star level during a given season, not whether he was selected to a team with limited spots from which deserving players will always be excluded. An All-Star selection is not needed in order to determine if a player played at an All-Star level. The latter is more important than the former. In other words, performance > awards.

There are only a limited amount of spots on the All-Star team, and the idea that only 12 players in each conference is playing at an All-Star level is silly. There are always deserving players left off every year. Every season there are more players playing at an All-Star level than there are roster spots on the All-Star team to accommodate them. Surely it's possible to determine if a player is playing at an All-Star level without needing them to be selected to an All-Star team?

Not to mention the fact that All-Star selections are only for the first half of the season anyway. Presumably, since over half the season has been played at that point, that's enough of a sample size that one should be able to assume they'll maintain it, but it's also possible to play poorly the rest of the way while someone who was left off steps it up after the break. Which is why I believe whether or not a player is playing at an All-Star level is more important that they were selected to the team. And since the fans vote the starters, some players are guaranteed to get in every year on popularity alone whether they deserve it or not.

[ronnymac2]

Not to mention the fact that All-Star selections as only for the first half of the season anyway. Presumably, since over half the season has been played at that point, that's enough of a sample size that one should be able to assume they'll maintain it, but it's also possible to play poorly the rest of the way while someone who was left off steps it up after the break. Which is why I believe whether or not a player is playing at an All-Star level is more important that they were selected to the team. And since the fans vote the starters, some players are guaranteed to get in every year on popularity alone whether they deserve it or not.

Calling Mr. Hibbert, come in Mr. Hibbert.

[ThaRegul8r]

Not to mention the fact that All-Star selections as only for the first half of the season anyway. Presumably, since over half the season has been played at that point, that's enough of a sample size that one should be able to assume they'll maintain it, but it's also possible to play poorly the rest of the way while someone who was left off steps it up after the break. Which is why I believe whether or not a player is playing at an All-Star level is more important that they were selected to the team. And since the fans vote the starters, some players are guaranteed to get in every year on popularity alone whether they deserve it or not.

Calling Mr. Hibbert, come in Mr. Hibbert.

I actually wasn't thinking about any particular player when I wrote that, but, yes, he's the perfect example. He proves my point.

[ronnymac2]

Can those who don't trust Olajuwon pre-93 seasons give any reasons why 1986-1990 shouldn't be considered part of a GOAT prime, or on par with non-peak years of Magic, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, LBJ, etc.? He's giving you dominant defense and a versatile, efficient offensive attack with skills 99% of post players never had, free throw shooting, etc. Just because his moves weren't quite as sharp, quick, and effective when compared to himself in 1993/1994/1995 doesn't mean he still wasn't better than everybody else in terms of the repertoire.

The man faced down the GOAT frontcourt in the 1986 NBA Finals and held his ground.

[Baller2014]

He fails both the stat test and the impact test. His stats clearly rose 93 onwards, and impact wise it's pretty obvious it wasn't the same. If it was then the Rockets from 87-92 wouldn't have looked the way they did. The 1986 Celtics are the GOAT front court? If it is it's because Bird is being counted as part of it. But Hakeem wasn't matched up against Bird (or impacting the game like him), he was being guarded by Robert Parish. Is Parish somehow the GOAT big man defender now?

[MacGill]

If Shaq was better than Duncan, why did he have less success in his career, despite: better team mates, a better peak, and a slightly longer prime? That's a simplistic question, but a telling one IMO.

Define less success specifically?

We know basketball isn't a one on one game.....same as strange to me why Duncan never won a DPOY award Doesn't make him any less of an elite defensive player though?

Duncan's teams exceeded or met expectations every year of his prime. Shaq's often didn't. That's it in a nutshell. Look at those talent heavy Lakers teams in 97-99. How were they losing every year? And there are plenty of other disappointments- 03, 04, etc.

Ok, so tell me, since we're not voting in the top 100 teams....here Where did Shaq as an individual disappoint you? Probably had his worst playoff series versus Utah...but, his track record as a playoff performer is at an all-time high level.

Too many people place too much stock into individual talent and not about fitment when we talk about teams
If you're not convinced about what Shaq can do with a good team built around him, then I do not know what to say to you. Shaq can't hand select the players to play in Orlando and LA so in mgmt. we trust.

Using team success as a means to detract from O'Neal isn't really fair IMO unless you can state a specific trend of his individual performances not being on par. It's like when Shaq destroys.....oh competition was weak....when Shaq gets swept...oh he just doesn't impact his teams....has a mixture of players (albeit all-stars ) Shaq shoulda lead them to the title.

Makes me wonder than why Duncan's teams....could never win back to back. Maybe his teams....were only good for single playoff runs. Sorry man, one player can only do so much here and just because he is the teams best player, he shouldn't get the lions share of why those LA couldn't really make noise in the PS.

[Baller2014]

Ok, so tell me, since we're not voting in the top 100 teams....here Where did Shaq as an individual disappoint you? Probably had his worst playoff series versus Utah...but, his track record as a playoff performer is at an all-time high level.

Individuals affect team performance, and in no major sport do they do that more than in the NBA. When Shaq is supposedly the best player in a series, and he has as good a team as the best player on the other team (or better), then I expect his team to win that series. If they don't, I'll want to know why. Shaq has too many failures for it to just be a one off fluke.

It is pretty obvious Shaq's individual performance being less impactful than Duncan's individual performance was a big factor in some of those let down series- like 99 where Duncan was the most valuable player on the court, or 03 where Duncan was the most valuable player on the court. In both instances Shaq had the superior support cast, and lost. Heck, Shaq was matched up primarily with Duncan in the 02 series where D.Rob was hurt, and Duncan outplayed him individually. It was only Shaq's superior support cast that enabled the Lakers to win the series. Ditto 04 really. This all seems highly relevant given Shaq is being compared to Duncan.

I'm just going to link you back to my OP analysing this: viewtopic.php?p=40468675#p40468675

[DQuinn1575]

And with all the emphasis on "team support," in the interest of fairness, I submit two names we should be talking about:

Rick Barry and Moses Malone

Look at Rick Barry's team support in 1975. He led a team to a title over a team with two Hall of Famers on it in the Finals, something neither Hakeem nor Duncan did in '94 and '03. If he could do that lacking team support, imagine how his career would have gone if he'd had it!

And what about Moses Malone? Led a sub-.500 team to the Finals, knocking off the Showtime Lakers in the process. And when he got some support, he led one of the greatest single-season teams in NBA history, which steamrolled through the postseason with only one loss. Imagine if he'd had that kind of support sooner!

I think those two have risen for me. I need to rethink.

Rick Barry and Moses will certainly be two guys I will be talking about in the top 20. However, that said, what Rick Barry did hardly compares to Duncan. Duncan beat a team with a prime Shaq and Kobe in 03 (and a team with a prime Shaq and all-nba Kobe in 99, plus another all-star). The guys Barry beat in 1975 (Hayes and Unseld) hardly compare. I don't know that I'd have either of those guys in my top 50 players of all time, where we're discussing Shaq in the top 5-7 and Kobe will be in the top 15.
.

Duncan did it while playing with a Top 20/Top 50/Top 100 player/Top 20 Defensive player/Top 20 3 pt shooter

Barry had - rookie 190 lb power forward Jamaal/Keith Wilkes, Clifford Ray, Butch Beard, and Charles Johnson.

Has to be a strong contender for worst supporting cast to win a title.

[Baller2014]

None of those guys (Parker, Manu, D.Rob) was a top 100 player or remotely close to it while they were on the Spurs in 2003. What Duncan did is vastly more impressive. Your argument is like saying "can you believe Lebron didn't win a title with a top 10 player of all-time in 2010?" Except Shaq wasn't Shaq in 2010, no more than D.Rob, Parker or Manu were anything resembling the players they were in their primes. D.Rob was a shadow of his past glory if that, Parker was an inconsistent 2nd year guard who was losing minutes to Speedy Claxton in the playoffs, and Manu was a rookie who was being played 20mpg because he was still figuring out how to play in the NBA.