GC Pantalones wrote:And I missed those posts by them so I'm about to go look for them real quick before I comment on them.
They might not be in this thread...I believe ElGee made his post in either the #3 or #4 top 100 thread, and ShaqAttack I believe made his post in the Duncan vs Hakeem thread.
And I would absolutely put 09-12 LeBron OVER 01-04 Duncan. 04 Duncan was a big disappointment, he might have been worse against LA than LeBron was against Dallas in 11. His defense struggled in that series, and his offense after the first game ranged from forgettable to downright bad.
And it's not like Duncan didn't have his own struggles in 01 and 02 (also against LA) either.
GC Pantalones wrote:Not true. His numbers plummeted in elimination games against everyone
That makes it worse. So you are saying his elimination game numbers are also sucked against mediocre defenses too? Kobe's track record in elimination games is bad
2003: lost by 28 2004: lost by 13 2006: lost by 31 2008: lost by 39 2011: lost by 36
Kobe played a big part in those losses.
Kobe averaged 24-3-2, .490 TS% in those games. He averaged just 2.3 assist per games.
Yeah but the argument was about his play against great defenses in the playoffs. Stop shifting the goalposts. If you want to talk about his play in elimination games I'm sure you'll get no arguments on how bad he's been but he performs against great defenses.
Duncan's support casts from 01-03 were rubbish for a contention level team. I haven't seen a single argument against this that doesn't do one of the following 3 things: 1) Distort the value of players based on their names (e.g. D.Quinn just called D.Rob, Parker and Manu "top 20, top 50 and top 100" players in 03, when in 2003 they were nothing remotely close to being on the same planet as that level). 2) Using advanced stats as the key/only argument (we get it, advanced stats like KG, they're not always right; nobody disputes that). 3) Creates a false dichotomy involving defense; e.g. "ok, such and such is bad, but they were good on D". I wonder how I would look if I made the same argument about Ricky Davis or Steve Novak. "Yeh, ok, they're bad players, but look how useful they are on O!"
therealbig3 wrote:And it's not like Duncan didn't have his own struggles in 01 and 02 (also against LA) either.
I refer to Duncan's 04 series extensively in my OP (and afterwards), in the circumstances he did fine. That's not what I wanted to make this post about. This post is about Duncan's "struggles" in LA in 02. I covered this in my OP, and it's completely untrue. For reference:
Spoiler:
Duncan put up 29ppg, 17.2rpg, 4.6apg on 517TS% Shaq put up 21.4ppg, 12.2rpg, 3.2apg on 487TS% Like I said, they were mostly matching up with each other, as seen here: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEThyAvSi3k[/youtube]
No idea how you can claim he struggled in 02. It's exactly the opposite.
Nor did he struggle in 2001. Tim posted stats of 23-12-4-4 on 539TS. It was D.Rob who struggled that year (along with many others), not Duncan (who had zero support this series whatever). Again, I covered this in my OP.
First off, thank you to Penbeast for adding me to the list.
I've finally gotten a chance to review the first 18 pages of this thread and the main candidates for myself would be Magic/Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan.
Shaq A insane mix of size, power, and blessed with an amazingly soft touch around the bucket. He shifted the game plan of entire defense to match up with him. I believe many have already outlined this thus far. However, there are many negatives too that you get with him.
A poor PNR defender that was constantly exposed as he got older, and this was already occurring in his Laker days. While I don't mitigate a player's impact if he's been blessed with a great supporting cast, one cannot ignore the contributions made by his elite co-stars on the perimeter in Penny/Kobe/Wade. These wing stars essentially covered up his late game weakness at the FT line and ability to create in crunch time. While Shaq isn't the only big to be less effective under these circumstances since a perimeter player can handle the rock and bigs dont have nearly the same space on the court to do this, it is a huge advantage nonetheless.
I consider prime Shaq (1993-2003) fairly consistent, and that peak Shaq also coincided with Kobe's steep rise in 2001 is often overlooked as a factor amongst their 3peat. When Shaq faced off with other elite centers during his already prime years in Orlando against Hakeem/Robinson/Ewing, was he ever so much better than all of them impact-wise? I find that part difficult to justify although if anyone has statistics to refute this please do enlighten me.
Magic Arguably the first player you'd want to draft if you wanted to build a great offense. But was his average defense and short career, coupled with a weaker Western Conference at the time a factor in inflating his legacy?
Hakeem At his peak, none of the four candidates mentioned has the combination of offense or defense at the same time in their careers. But was Hakeem an underachiever through much of his career before his peak years?
Duncan The eye test and statistics support Hakeem as a superior version of Duncan, but Duncan has one of the most portable games that one can expect from someone mentioned at this level. His ability to impact the game consistently on both ends and blend that in with his team success is almost unparalleled. Of course, being in a great organization and playing for a coach that preaches team as much as anyone doesnt hurt.
Duncan could get you go-to buckets for a big quite well but his inconsistent FT shooting (earlier in this career), decreasing efficiency when forced to volume score are his main drawbacks. While he was never super athletic, Duncan has shown he can make a significant impact to winning even at an advanced age. When you have a 38-year old being able to deter peak Lebron on forays to the basket, you have someone special. In short, Duncan's ability to help teams win cannot be understated, but players like Shaq may be able to lead more 'dominant' teams when the conditions are right and optimal.
What happened to Shaq's teams from 95-99? You set this up in a way that if I bring up Kobe's success from 00-04, then you can just mention Shaq, which makes this criteria pointless.
96- 72 win Bulls 97- 64 win Jazz 98- 62 win Jazz 99- 61 win pace Spurs
Those teams averaged 65 wins. 4 60+ win teams. Tell me, how many wins does Kobe have against 60+ win teams without Shaq. I'll give you a hint: it's less than 1.
If you really want to break it down, lets break it down. Here's a complete 95-99 vs 06-10 competition comparison, and the results. ------------------------------------ 95-99 Shaq led teams: 9-5 playoff series record, against teams averaging 4.04 SRS 06-10 Kobe led teams: 11-3 playoff series record, against teams averaging 5.02 SRS ^ So even though i included the 06-07 sqaud with crappy support, Kobe still outperformed Shaq. What's even more striking is that he did it against competition that was a much tougher.
------------------------------------- But wait...there's more.
The average SRS of teams Shaq's teams lost to was 6.99 SRS. Which too be fair is tough competition. The average SRS of teams Kobe's teams lost to was 7.35 SRS. Even tougher.
The average SRS of teams Shaq's teams beat was 2.40 SRS. The average SRS of teams Kobe's teams beat was 4.39 SRS. ^ A significant difference. Clearly the 06-10 squads were facing and beating tougher foes.
Shaq's offense was dominant, no doubt. he put up some nice boxscores in the playoffs....but defensively, his impact staggered. if his impact is greater, why does Kobe have better success with the same support(actually it was worse)? And against better competition, no less.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
I’m ready to change my preliminary vote for LeBron to an official vote. I’ll summarize the main points from my initial post comparing my 5 candidates (LeBron, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem and Garnett) for the #5 spot.
Peak and Prime Stats (Shaq, LeBron, Duncan, Hakeem, KG)
I ultimately came to the conclusion that LeBron’s longevity issue and weak 2011 Finals performance was not enough to overshadow his superior prime, peak and overall skill set.
I'd like to see an epic Magic Johnson or Larry Bird post, so I'm looking forward to seeing what El Gee does for Bird. I'm really surprised that Magic hasn't gotten more run thus far...in the last project I remember arguing for him over Kareem at #3. I would have done so here as well, but Kareem ended up getting in at 2. I also would have voted Magic over Wilt, but he's off the board as well.
I do have a small personal anecdote about Magic. My wife's cousin Ron had a cup of coffee with the Lakers in the early 80s, and her dad lived with that cousin at the time. Apparently they were all friends with Magic and Norm Nixon. But they don't call him "Magic"...they call him "Buck", which apparently is his nickname among friends. I've heard so many stories about "Buck" in the last several years, that I almost think of him that way myself.
Anyway, about Buck, the player. He was always my second favorite player in the 80s...first behind Dr. J, then after Doc retired, Magic was second behind my hometown favorite Ron Harper. In some ways, 80s NBA was kind of like mid-90s hip hop...the same way that everyone had to decide whether they were with Pac or with Biggie, you had to decide whether you were a Magic or a Bird guy. I was with Pac and Magic, which I guess puts me in the West Side.
The Showtime Lakers were ubiquitous. As Dr. J got older and the 76ers started sliding, I still always had a playoff team to pull for because I knew the Lakers would be in it until the end. I remember being flat out stunned in '86 when Sampson made that crazy over-the-head backwards tip to put the Lakers out.
So, the Lakers were always epic. The West was generally terrible in the 80s. The Lakers won 5 titles and made 9 FInals. But what does this tell me about Magic as an individual player?
For one thing, I got to see more of Magic and Larry than any other players in that era because their teams were televised the most and they were always in the playoffs. My memories from that era was that I knew that Magic and Larry were the best. I wanted it to be Dr. J, but he was fading. I was scared it was Bird, but as Dr. J was fading, Magic just kept getting better and better until I could say with some confidence that Magic was the best.
What first stands out about Magic, obviously, is his absurd size for the point guard position. My dad used to tell me that he reminded him of Oscar Robertson (another somewhat local product, in Cincinnati) but Oscar was before my time and I couldn't see how he could be better than Magic. Magic was HUGE. And he had this high, awkward looking dribble but no one ever stole the ball from him. And he ran like both of his knees were hurting, but he still managed to be on the frontline of the fastbreak all game every game. And his passes...oh my goodness, his passes!
Kids growing up in the 90s used to holler "Jordan!" as they attempted crazy layups at the playgorund. But in the 80s, me and my friends would holler "Magic!" as we proceeded to throw no-look passes that ended up completely missing the target and ending up off in the field somewhere. Our no-look passes were to stare down our intended target, then look away at the last second when throwing the ball. But what made Magic's passes insane was that he appeared to NEVER look at his target. He'd dribble down the court staring right the whole way, directing the player on his right to where he wanted him to be...only to whip a bounce-pass to a cutter on the left that you'd swear he shouldn't be able to see. Bird was an artist with the passes as well, but even he didn't have the flair and wizardry at distributing the rock that Magic did.
Back to his size. Because Magic played point guard on offense but was the size of a power forward, I remember his dribble back-down game as vicious. There was no real defense for it, because what was a team going to do? Leave someone open to double-team him? That was suicide. But if you left the point guard on an island, he was going to patiently work him in for an easy shot in the paint. There's a reason that Magic's TS% was always among the best in the league. While the identity of Showtimer was the fast-break, it was with this high-efficiency half court approach that Magic formed the real back-bone of those Lakers. There's a reason why Magic, along with Oscar and Steve Nash, are the names that come up most often in conjunction to running the historic offenses.
Now don't get me wrong, those Lakers teams were really talented on offense, so Magic can't get all of the credit for those squads. But he was certainly the engine, especially as Kareem got older. And he was certainly the most consistent member of changing casts that consistently ended up at the top of the league in offense. Anyone have any In/Out data for him, or attempted to quantify in any way his individual impact? It seems like I've seen some things like that before, and I'd love to see them again.
Anyway, this post was mainly a ramble. I don't really have any cutting edge analysis of my own for Magic, just more my anecdotes about him defining an era for me. I look forward to seeing more moving forward
Magic and bird keep getting the bone for short careers, but were they that much shorter than, say, West, Russ or Wilt?
Has someone done a longevity check? MJ played 12 full seasons with the Bulls, 2 BS seasons with Washington and like another half-season beside. The standard isn't Kareem/Malone, and a lot of guys like Shaq or Kareem and what-not had extended careers as role players. How much does that really matter?
I think this is important. Barring 09, Shaq's relevance ended after 06, after 14 seasons. Not too different, really.
I don't want to recycle old posts -- don't think that's the spirit of the project. There are few points worth addressing that I don't think I've seen brought up here though vis a vis KG-Duncan:
Duncan 03 Cast
Spoiler:
Average GmSc of supporting cast:
08 Celtics PS 55.6 (18.0 std) -- 106.1 opp D 00 Lakers PS 51.3 (13.9 std) -- 101.4 opp D 03 Spurs PS 50.1 (12.3 std) -- 101.9 opp D 06 Heat PS 47.2 (13.5 std) -- 103.5 opp D 04 Wolves PS 46.5 (10.6 std) -- 103.1 opp D
(03 Magic RS 49.2)
The whole narrative around that Spurs team was that they were young and needed to come together. They did.
They had a guy in Stephen Jackson who they basically brought along behind the scenes for the 2002 season -- no one had heard of him. He played big minutes off the bench until around xmas when he became a starter, you know, because he was a pretty good player.
Tony Parker by the playoffs looks like peak Tony Parker (just when his shot was on), only he was all over the place in the PS. Manu looks like an unpolished version of Manu. etc. What happened as the year progressed?
First 32 games: 3.2 SRS Last 50 games: 7.2 SRS
Keep in mind they lost David Robinson for 16 of those final 50 games and didn't miss a beat (~9 SRS without him). What changed?? The offense! The final 50 games of the year, the Spurs were a +5.4 oRtg team BECAUSE of the development of the "cast by committee." Averaging GmSc of the cast was 49.3 in those first 32...then up to 56.3 in the last 50g. It was exactly what would happen in the PS, although I think Parker was more inconsistent in the PS, and maybe Jackson.
Jackson
10% of Jackson's RS games were 20pt games 25% of Jackson's PS games were 20pt games His PS and RS averages were nearly identical.
Parker
17% of Parker's RS games were under 10pt games 38% of Parker's PS games were under 10pt games His PS and RS scoring was almost identical, with a big drop in TS%
Ginobili
30% of Ginobili's RS games were 10pt games 54% of Ginobili's PS games were 10pt games
And the team won, of course, because of defense. Which meant in one series Bowen's value stopping a wing was huge or Rose's minutes (and Rose was playing very well off the bench for them during this period) would be huge.
[People] don't think the flexibility or versatility of the Spurs supporting cast is a good thing, they actually view it as a negative.
KG v Duncan 03-04 PS Scoring:
Spoiler:
Some quick context about 02 Duncan: The supporting cast's GmSc for the Lakers series was 36.2. THIRTY SIX! Interestingly enough, Minnesota's last 3 games against LA in 2003 were a 40.1. These are baaaaaaad performances on offense from these teams outside Timmy and KG.
I'll then add what drza noted about what happens when you don't have help and everything has to go through you offensively. In 2002 against LA Duncan was
One thing you should notice is Tim Duncan could shoot free throws in 2002. (A mark in his favor as a player over 2003, IMO.) The next thing you should notice is "holy crap, he turned it over a lot." Yeah, when your usage basically goes to 35%+ and you aren't used to that, crazy stuff happens. This all happened bc the team fell apart. In the lone win, Antonio Daniels and bruce Bowen were the 2nd and 3rd leading scorers (14 and 13, respectively). One player (Tony Parker) eclipsed 16 points a single time in the 5 games.
A year later Garnett and Duncan played LA. KG had a banged-up Joe Smith, Rasho, Peeler and Hudson and Wally were the main offensive guys. Only Wally went in a shooting slump and really struggled on the perimeter against LA (21% 3's). Garnett's games looked like this in 03:
In 04, his team around him by the LA series was arguably worse than 03, with Cassell going down. 7-15 (2-2) 4 TOV 10-20 (3-5) 2 TOV 9-21 (3-4) 4 TOV 12-24 (3-4) 4 TOV 10-23 (10-11) 0 TOV 9-20 (4-6) 8 TOV
By G5 they were a MASH unit. I will say Sprewell played well at times, and that makes a big difference Duncan didn't have. But still, a 30 pt, 4 ast, 0 TOV 54% TS play-some-PG game on a weak offensive team is monstrous stuff. You'll notice Duncan consistently got to the line more...but Garnett consistently created more and consistently shot the ball better from the floor.
So to recap:
"Shoulder all load" 03 Duncan v LA: 29.0 ppg 51.7% TS 25.1% ast 14.1% TOV 103 ortg "Shoulder most load" 03 KG v LA: 27.0 ppg 53.9% TS 23.4% ast 10.7% TOV 105 ortg "Shoulder most load" 04 KG v LA: 23.7 ppg 51.8% TS 22.1% ast 13.8% TOV 100 ortg
Out of curiosity, I looked at Duncan's 16 wins in 2003:
Of course, Duncan's on a better team (as you'll notice by his weaker numbers in wins, for example), which you can argue helps his scoring stats AND helps his rebounding (because KG has a 31 to 27% DRB% edge). You can argue that KG would have done work against Kenyon Martin despite New Jersey's 98.1 DRtg or that his numbers would look nicer if he played Dallas and Phoenix. You can argue that Duncan had to spend less energy on defense. Etc. But note Duncan's statistics.
You brought up pace too. Just so people can understand what we're looking at here: Wilt 1962 28.7 pts/75 (estimated) KG (03-04 PS) 27.4 pts/75 Duncan 03 PS 26.6 pts/75
The notion that Kevin Garnett wasn't a scorer, or capable of being a big scorer, is just absolutely fallacious. [Edit -- he can still fall short of Duncan in this as carrying a team, while these scoring skills would be better suited for a stronger or more balanced offensive environment.]
KG/Duncan 03-04 PS Opp Quality
Spoiler:
Unfortunately they lose Cassell in the PS...the Lakers were a 6.2 SRS team with the big 4 in (Malone missed half the year) heading into the Minny series, and they won in 6. Minny beat a 5 SRS Sac team in the round before. So the 03 Spurs beat a 4 SRS team (Shaq in) in LA, the Mavs w/out Dirk and the Nets. Garnett's Wolves in 04 beat a 5 SRS Sac team, lose Cassell and bow to the 6.2 Lakers (with big 4 in) in 6. All with a supporting cast that, statistlcally, was clearly worse in the PS than the 03 Spurs that everyone loves to hate
Boston's 08 PS defense v LA
Spoiler:
[quote]since the 08 Lakers with Gasol were 10.5 SRS to close the year and 11.7 SRS in the WC playoffs. The offense with Gasol in (42g) to that point was 115.7...which would be the GOAT offense. They scored 103.8 pts/100 pos against Boston. That's a freaking lockdown.
SactoKingsFan wrote:I’m ready to change my preliminary vote for LeBron to an official vote. I’ll summarize the main points from my initial post comparing my 5 candidates (LeBron, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem and Garnett) for the #5 spot.
Peak and Prime Stats (Shaq, LeBron, Duncan, Hakeem, KG)
This is great, although missing the same stats for career?
Since I don't believe that anyone is actually voting for Kobe at this point, can we drop any mentions of him except with regards to the fact that he was part of Shaq's supporting cast? This thread seems to be getting off track a bit and moving in circles.
To return to the topic at hand, I'll cast my vote for Shaq.
To me, greatness is synonymous with bestness, and I believe that at the height of their powers, none of the remaining candidates were as good as Shaq was at his best. I believe that I am alone in basically looking at peak for my vote, but that is simply my criteria, so unless you can convince me that peak Magic/Duncan/LeBron is better than peak Shaq, my vote will remain as it is.
That all being said, I'll try to help in the discussion for people who use different criteria (everybody).
Anyways, for some brief analysis, Peak Shaq lead his team of Kobe+a bunch of over 30 roll players like Rice, Harper, Green, Harper, and Shaw to have an 8.41 SRS (1st in the league) the best defense and 5th best offense.
In the playoffs, he lead this team through the 3.04SRS Kings, the 5.24SRS Suns (featuring Kidd, Penny and rookie Matrix), the 6.43SRS Blazers (one of the deepest teams in NBA history), and the 4.16SRS Pacers. This is a pretty tough run they had to go through, especially those Blazers, who matched up extremely well, with a huge number of strong, skilled bigs to throw at Shaq, and Scottie to cover Kobe, but they still took them down.
Shaq went through these guys averaging 30, 15, 3 and 2 on 56.5TS%.
I'm not posting anything groud-breaking here, but I just want to remind everyone just how good he was and how good that season was. Peak Shaq was an unstoppable monster. He could not be handled without a double team, and even then he could score, if he didn't immediately find a shooter. He dominated the glass and the paint, and utterly terrified everyone facing him. He was just incredible.
tsherkin wrote:Magic and bird keep getting the bone for short careers, but were they that much shorter than, say, West, Russ or Wilt?
Has someone done a longevity check? MJ played 12 full seasons with the Bulls, 2 BS seasons with Washington and like another half-season beside. The standard isn't Kareem/Malone, and a lot of guys like Shaq or Kareem and what-not had extended careers as role players. How much does that really matter?
I think this is important. Barring 09, Shaq's relevance ended after 06, after 14 seasons. Not too different, really.
Good point. If we used Top 5 MVP finishes as an acid test for an elite season, Magic/Bird fair very well
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Shaq's offense was dominant, no doubt. he put up some nice boxscores in the playoffs....but defensively, his impact staggered. if his impact is greater, why does Kobe have better success with the same support(actually it was worse)? And against better competition, no less.
I'm not sure why you are comparing peak Kobe to non-peak Shaq. At best 06-10 Kobe was slightly better than 95-99 Shaq but doesn't make up for the giant gap where Shaq was much better from 00-04.
You should be comparing peak Kobe (06-10) cast to 98-04 Shaq's cast.
3rd option: 06-10 Odom: 13-10-3, .548 TS%, 17 PER, .128 WS/48, 111 O rating Shaq didn't have a true 3rd option
Kobe's cast during his run was better than the supporting cast that peak Shaq had. Peak Shaq won finals with his 2nd option scoring 16 PPG on 41 TS% and 3rd option averaging 12 PPG. Peak Kobe never won a series with support that bad.
john248 wrote:Being in a weaker conference isn't a huge deal in this case mainly because we're talking about a player who went to the Finals 9 times, so we're not talking about a team that was involved in upsets.
This is incorrect. While he did lead an upset over Portland in '91 in order to get the Lakers to the Finals against Jordan that year, he has been on the wrong side of several upsets.
I can see why someone would say that. In 81, they lost to eventual WC champs Houston where it helped that the Suns were bounced by the Kings. Magic had just come back from injury (torn knee) for this series where he had a good game 1, meh game 2, and was really terrible in that closing game 3. Even still, hard for me to pin it on Magic who just came off an injury and expect him to have his legs under him.
86, twin towers would go against an aging Kareem who was unreliable on defense. Hakeem was going off. Ralph hits a 1 second shot on the left side from an inbound pass from the half court. Yea ok, this would be an upset. I think it was fatal9 who said something to the effect of...do you have Magic guard Hakeem? What about putting Duncan on Kobe?
Hakeem may very well be the best two-way center of all-time, legendary peak/prime, underrated longevity (he played 15 seasons at All-Star level, with probably more than 10 of those on a superstar level, over 40000 RS minutes, and over 5500 PS minutes), second best defensive player ever (I guess it might be debatable, but top 5 for sure), awesome playoff performer, and a player who basically didn't have any weaknesses once he entered his true prime (before 1993 his passing wasn't good, but that's probably the only thing that he could really be criticized for, in terms of his skillset) - and I generally disagree with the notion that many posters here seem to have - sometimes it's almost like Hakeem's career lasted just for a few seasons in the mid 90s, while in reality, he was a very consistent and dominant force on both ends of the court. It is certainly true that he played better during his peak years in '93, '94 and probably also '95, than ever before or after that, but that can be said about literally every top 10 player - everyone had a few year stretch that was better than the rest of their career. Okay, Hakeem's "peak" stretch was probably the shortest (3 seasons), but he was a top tier superstar in a lot more seasons than that, just a bit worse than in his peak years.
My post from an other thread. My vote is still Hakeem, just like he was for #4. So, my argument is based mostly on his GOAT-ish peak and prime, but also an underrated longevity, and the fact that he might've been the GOAT two-way player.
I was away on vacation and both wifi and my phone had no service. Here are some random thoughts:
A comment on Hakeem as a "GOAT" because he won without another all-star/superstar: -Jordan retired and thus the reigning team was out of serious contention. -The Sonics, who led the league in wins, somehow lost in the first round. They also seemed to have Houston's number. Call them chokers if you want, but two years later they dispatched the Rockets in the playoffs and gave the best team ever a good fight in the finals. -Otis Thorpe is very underrated and was an all-star not that long before '94. -Besides Thorpe, it was a deep and balanced team with good players like Horry and young Cassell. -Rating a team based on how many stars they have and not how good they are as a whole is absolutely ridiculous. It should serve as a glaring reminder that when they imported Drexler, they were a worse team than in '94. Rate a supporting cast based on how they are as a whole, not just the pretty headlining names. -Portland added Robin Lopez and shot up 21 wins. It's not easy rating supporting casts, but it's more complicated than, "Hakeem has no other obvious stars and won a title; therefore, he's the best center ever." -It took them seven games to beat the Knicks. It's not like their title was ironclad. There is easily a universe that exists in which Hakeem has no titles because they lost in game 6 or 7 in '94 and lost one of their many game 7's in '95. There is always luck involved in titles. They were lucky both years.
I know people here love to say he won without another star, but it's really misleading.
Adjusting for strength of schedule is normal for teams, but not for individuals on any consistent, quantitative level. Duncan's prime, for example, coincided with an extremely competitive western conference and a defensive era in which scoring efficiency was at his lowest. So his scoring totals, for example, shouldn't be viewed without any sort of adjustment in the early 00's. The effect is pretty small usually (strength of schedule in the NBA accounts for a difference of one win, on average, in comparing a team from the west versus the east when the conferences have different strengths.) But we should at least consider it.
Try not to rate players based on all-star appearances. All-stars are based on only *half* the season and are prone to stupid fan votes (BJ Armstrong started at guard in '94), position irregularities (Magloire is an all-star because they had no one else at center), and weird coaching whims (the parliamentary system of proportional representation argument from Hollinger: Mo Williams.) At least all-NBA teams don't have fan voting and a full season....
RAPM has noise and the prior-informed version can carry on "errors" one year to the next. It's certainly not perfect, but it does as well as PER/WS, sometimes better, while giving a completely different, PPG-neutral evaluation of the league. Yeah, Laettner looks great one year, Terry Mills too, but look at the patterns. If a guy is showing up high in RAPM (including NPI) year after year, it's a sign of significant impact. (Garnett, for example, or old man David Robinson.) Do a composite of RAPM, PER, and WS if you want something more stable. Or....
I wanted to finish my ASPM model because those are more reliable and have less Terry Mills-type goofs. If you get a good statistical prior, your RAPM output can be pretty amazing. Talkingpractice's top 20 list (2014) is remarkable for a numbers only ranking.
Might be useful: I projected finals MVPs pre-'69. Here are all the multiple time finals MVP winners with those years estimated: FMVPs Player 6 Michael Jordan 5 Bill Russell 5 George Mikan 3 Magic Johnson 3 Shaquille O’Neal 3 Tim Duncan 2 Bob Cousy 2 Hakeem Olajuwon 2 John Havlicek 2 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 2 Kobe Bryant 2 Larry Bird 2 LeBron James 2 Willis Reed
Pre-'69 here (odds are listed on the right):
Spoiler:
1967-68 John Havlicek BOS 72.0 1966-67 Hal Greer PHI 32.1 1965-66 Bill Russell BOS 67.8 1964-65 Bill Russell BOS 59.8 1963-64 Sam Jones BOS 67.3 1962-63 Bill Russell BOS 55.2 1961-62 Bill Russell BOS 77.3 1960-61 Bob Cousy BOS 66.3 1959-60 Bill Russell BOS 55.0 1958-59 Tom Heinsohn BOS 43.3 1957-58 Bob Pettit STL 55.6 1956-57 Bob Cousy BOS 57.4 1955-56 Paul Arizin PHW 80.0 1954-55 Dolph Schayes SYR 90.5 1953-54 George Mikan MNL 93.8 1952-53 George Mikan MNL 49.8 1951-52 George Mikan MNL 77.2 1950-51 Arnie Risen ROC 41.5 1949-50 George Mikan MNL 99.1 1948-49 George Mikan MNL 97.6 1947-48 Connie Simmons BLB 39.6 1946-47 Joe Fulks PHW 98.0
Take that as you will.... (Wilt lost in '67 by a hair largely because he was outscored by a good amount by his teammate.) By the way, West and Baylor regularly had amazing finals when losing. Rick Barry had a good finals series too in the 60's. And if we're going to talk about the no shot clock era, I'm going to champion Joe Fulks even with his Penny Hardaway-like short peak. He was the first superstar.
There are some outliers in here with Shaq's defense ... I'm sorry, but he wasn't consistent and he wasn't great. Growing up, he was my favorite player, actually, and I know him as well as anyone. He was not an "elite' rim protector. He was too lazy for that. He could get some flashy blocks and push people around, but the pick and roll killed him, he saved himself for the offensive end, he didn't commit, and in his prime people loved to talk about how he had no peer who could go at him on offense too (like 98 to 04, not earlier.) Defensive metrics and team ratings are in agreement with this. For a center, Shaq was average or above average on defense, sometimes great, but that was rare (mostly 2000.) I know one stat people love to use is how opposing centers scored less versus the Lakers, but Shaq was far and away the best scoring center, and he never had to defend himself. That made it look a lot better.
Food for thought: Garnett was called a good stats on a bad team guy for a while. People said his impact and game wouldn't translate to a winning club. There's also a reasonably valid criticism about RAPM that being a +6 guy on an average team isn't the same as being a +6 guy on a 60 win team. But Garnett, a bit past his prime, finally got good teammates in Boston in 2008, and they ripped off a historic season and blew out many teams in the playoffs while his RAPM numbers were sky-high...
I have a feeling a lot of people here put a ton of weight into longevity. That your "career wins added" or title odds added is what matters. But is there anything wrong with weighing peak more heavily? Basically, I feel like LeBron from 2009 to 2014 is an unreal player I might vote for (if I had a vote.) I see him as better than Duncan over a 5/6 year stretch, and I don't think it's that close. I remember Duncan's prime. He wasn't *that* scary, and the metrics back it up. Years later, we have all probably realized Popovich is the guy who's underrated. I'm not sure what to do with LeBron's age, but I think the separation is clear enough for me. And please don't bring up the supporting cast crap. Bosh was injured in the 2012 playoffs, Wade has played terribly in the playoffs to the point where they're actually better off without him at times, and Bosh has not given much help when healthy. Add in a mostly weak role player collection outside of 2013, and it's remarkable he's won anything. His 2012 or 2013 title run is as impressive as 2003, honestly. How do you win when your second best player has a sub 50 TS% on 15 shots a game and your third best player averages 12 a game on below league average efficiency? His best players beside him were arguably Chris Andersen and old man Allen. Add in two solid years in 2007 and 2008, and LeBron's at least on par with Bird and Magic now.
Bird's longevity is overstated here. It's not that bad. He actually has more MVP shares than Magic, although that's partly due to Magic peaking later when Jordan was being Jordan.
I'm leaning toward an order like this: LeBron/Duncan/Shaq/Magic/Bird/Olajuwon but I have no idea what to do with Garnett, who I think is really close to Duncan.
RayBan-Sematra wrote:Shaq's presence in the paint alone deterred opposing teams from scoring in the paint. I don't think you realize how much value that has. Opposing players were scared to come into the paint when the Diesel was patrolling. He single handidly forced teams into taking more low percentage shots and altered/blocked many of the high percentage shots they did take.
ElGee wrote:There is a figure hoopstats records that might be of interest here (since 1998). It is defense in the paint. For the Lakers, the numbers were:
In 2005, Shaq went to Miami and the Heat jumped to 2nd in the league in FG% against in the paint. The Lakers dropped to 21st. [...]
People should check data before posting. That way they would avoid spreading misinformation. Hoopstats page doesn't have "real" (based on pbp) in the paint data, they just assume that if you are PF or C, then it means you score in the paint. Notice, that under "in the paint" they have 3PA(!). For example 2002 Lakers opponents averaged 2.3 3PA in the paint.... http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fa ... /4/eff/1-1
Real in the paint data is available on stats.nba.com and for example 2002 Lakers opponents were shooting 51.5 FG% in the paint (so much more than hoopstats data tells), good enough to be ranked 7th overall. (source)
Hakeem is my vote as well. I've been watching as much tape as I can of his playoffs post-86 run and pre-peak, and he seems incredibly active defensively. Posts by fatal9, 90salldecade, and others have been very helpful in fleshing out Hakeem's pre-peak years. I feel like I have a pretty decent sense of where his game was at for those seasons. Regarding his "peak" play, there's not much to say. His rebounding wasn't as impressive as it was in the preceding seasons, and while it seems (need to watch more regular season games) he's not as active consistently on the defensive end as he was in the 80s, his floor game is very disciplined. Not much wasted motion, and he was a threat to every player on the floor, for every possession.
I'm not sure where I'd place his peak defensively, but it probably would be a few years removed from his offensive peak (which, for the record, was certainly enabled by Olajuwon's renewed commitment and Rudy T's offensive philosophies and schemes). Dipper 13's breakdown was a huge help, and allowed me to skim through games again, with some datapoints to keep in mind. Hakeem was tremendous a in the post and with his midrange jumper, two shots that will generally be there against top playoff defenses (trainwreckog left an impression on me a few months ago with this discussion, from a game theoretic POV it makes sense), and Hakeem was a great passer so you can't key in on him too much. As tsherkin said earlier in this thread, I don't think Hakeem would have to change a thing today.
I considered KG at this spot (and probably will continue to do so in the next thread), because of the strong RAPM argument and some of the points ElGee made a few pages ago (I think it is indeed possible that KG had a superior defensive floor game to Olajuwon, but I need to watch a ton more tape to get an idea). I would definitely like to see RAPM numbers for 01 and 02 produced from complete datasets (since at the very least, we know J.E.'s missing chunks of the first couple of seasons, possibly more); if someone is interested in parsing the play-by-plays to produce complete matchup files for their RAPM calculations, it would be an incredible asset to the community. Duncan was also a consideration, with his mobility, ability to create from the post, and great paint protection. I keep going back and forth on him and KG, not sure who I'd pick between the two of them.
I looked at Shaq here (who I expect to be voted in), and while I think he has an excellent case, defensive inconsistency is a huge deal for me. I understand that this would be a concern with Wilt, my pick at #4 as well, but the playoff defensive numbers seemed more consistent for Chamberlain, and he was always a willing rebounder; I do think that Shaq was the superior scorer to Wilt—in no small part due to his commitment to the power game, which Chamberlain did not demonstrate consistently over the course of his career— and a very capable passer, but the rebounding/paint protection was big for me. Again, he's certainly a good choice here though.
Admittedly I probably didn't consider Bird/Oscar/Magic here enough, but longevity has become a pretty big deal for me recently. I think LeBron has a strong case as well, but I just have great difficulty considering wings when there are still dominant bigs on the board. True, MJ was voted in at number 1, and while I think he is one of two players with a strong GOAT case (Russ being the other, they were 1-2 in my pre-project list), I'm somewhat relieved he didn't fall to a lower spot, because I'm not sure at what point I'd pick him over a center. I'm also a little confused as to why Kobe has been mentioned so often in this thread, but I think it was mostly peripheral discussion (like my exchange regarding RAPM last thread, apologies again for derailing), so I'm not as concerned. In general though, if we're going to elect a guy on the basis of scoring (and I know that's not his entire game, but it's a huge part of it), IMO we certainly have to take into account whether a guy was the first option, and what his role was on the offensive side of the ball.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
lorak wrote:Real in the paint data is available on stats.nba.com and for example 2002 Lakers opponents were shooting 51.5 FG% in the paint (so much more than hoopstats data tells), good enough to be ranked 7th overall. (source)
Good find!
I haven't played around with stats.nba.com as much as I'd like to so far, but do you know if the following can be accessed, and if so, how?
1) The stats linked above (by zone), with players on and off the floor? 2) Zone diagrams against specific opponents in a season (or for specific playoff series, or for an entire playoff run in general)? 3) Assisted % for different zones? I think on player pages I saw it for different shot distances, but not by zone.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
Duncan was also a consideration, with his mobility, ability to create from the post, and great paint protection. I keep going back and forth on him and KG, not sure who I'd pick between the two of them.