RealGM Top 100 List #6

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

Vote: Garnett

First off, just wow drza! What I would give to see breakdowns of everyone else in such detail.

With Duncan inducted now I don't know how Garnett discussion will go but my worry is this: that Garnett has a link to Duncan in how people see his strengths and people will tend to put that out of mind when comparing him to other players with less in common, and that this will let people rationalize a major gap between the two players despite the fact that they can't directly justify anything so drastic.

So just try not to let yourself do that. Think on Duncan when you now consider Garnett, and think of what drza and others have said. If you have any tendency at all to dismiss Garnett's defense, I would urge you to actually try typing up your reasoning and see if you really think it stands up to the depth people have gone into showing the staggering depth and breadth of KGs work over the course of his career.

To those fixated on Garnett not being "the man" in terms of scoring, you need to shift your perspective to be more holistic. To win a team needs scoring sure, but it needs lots of other things too. Entering into player comparisons looking first at scoring is an unjustifiable bias.

And finally just circling back to Duncan, remember that his teams' best offensive results were not based on his peak as a volume scorer. Don't let the fact that Duncan happened to play in a more traditional offensive model earlier in his career fool you into putting these guys into entirely different categories.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Im confused why we need to link KG with Duncan at all. Why not Dirk? Why not David Robinson, both of whom I think are better comparisons to KG than Duncan is. I think that by suggesting we link them its attempting to get us to think of KG in better terms based on who he's being compared to.

That's fine for those of you who believe KG to be Duncan's equal or superior, but that's not the majority view by any means and Im certainly not planning on looking at KG through any kind of Duncan filter.

[JordansBulls]

Here are the players that have a shot at this spot and there records while having the HCA.

Code: Select all

 vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams 
Magic:    9-2 (82%)/   20-1 (95%)
Bird:     10-6 (63%)/  14-1 (93%)
Olajuwon: 4-0 (100%)/  5-2 (71%)
Shaq:     11-3 (79%)/  13-2 (87%)
Lebron:   3-3 (50%)/   15-0 (100%)
Kobe       18-2 (90%) / 7-0  (100%)


Magic 29-3 with HCA
Bird 24-7 with HCA
Hakeem 9-2 with HCA (amazing he only had so few series with HCA)
Shaq 24-5 with HCA
Lebron 18-3 with HCA
Kobe 25-2 with HCA

Code: Select all

Playoff Series Record with HCA against teams with a +2 SRS:
Magic 80-91'14-2 87.5%
Bird 80-91' 13-5 72.2%



Playoff Series Record with HCA against teams with a +4 SRS:
Magic 80-91'4-1 80.0%
Bird 80-91' 6-5 54.5%


Here are those guys without HCA

Code: Select all

 
              Road(50+)/non-50
Shaq:         8-6 / 0-0
Magic:        3-4 / 0-0 
Olajuwon:     7-8 / 1-1
Bird:         0-4 / 0-0
Kobe:         5-5 / 0-0
Lebron:      2-3 /0-0


Leaning towards Magic Johnson for the #6 vote.

Finished top 3 in MVP for 9x times which is the 2nd most in NBA History. Has 3 league mvp's, 3 finals mvp's, only other players with that was MJ and Russell would have that if finals mvp's existed at the time.

Vote: Magic Johnson

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote: Garnett

Spoiler:

First off, just wow drza! What I would give to see breakdowns of everyone else in such detail.

With Duncan inducted now I don't know how Garnett discussion will go but my worry is this: that Garnett has a link to Duncan in how people see his strengths and people will tend to put that out of mind when comparing him to other players with less in common, and that this will let people rationalize a major gap between the two players despite the fact that they can't directly justify anything so drastic.

So just try not to let yourself do that. Think on Duncan when you now consider Garnett, and think of what drza and others have said. If you have any tendency at all to dismiss Garnett's defense, I would urge you to actually try typing up your reasoning and see if you really think it stands up to the depth people have gone into showing the staggering depth and breadth of KGs work over the course of his career.

To those fixated on Garnett not being "the man" in terms of scoring, you need to shift your perspective to be more holistic. To win a team needs scoring sure, but it needs lots of other things too. Entering into player comparisons looking first at scoring is an unjustifiable bias.

And finally just circling back to Duncan, remember that his teams' best offensive results were not based on his peak as a volume scorer. Don't let the fact that Duncan happened to play in a more traditional offensive model earlier in his career fool you into putting these guys into entirely different categories.

A couple problems.

1) KG was not the reliable 1st option Duncan was, particularly in the playoffs. That's a pretty big knock for any elite player.

2) Duncan was a better defensive anchor. KG was an extremely versatile defender, but Duncan was the whole package.

3) Impactwise, what does KG give you over the other greats? Shaq is a dominant offensive anchor/crazy peak. Kobe is also a great offensive anchor in both scoring/facilitating, and adds great perimeter D. Dirk is a versatile offensive anchor who is a walking mismatch. Hakeem is better on offense AND defense than KG, IMO. Magic is the GOAT offensive anchor, ATG mismatch, and extremely versatile. Lebron has superior overall impact.

KG is a 2nd option guy/good passing big, with incredibly versatile defense. Is he better than DRob? I think its hard to see the impact outside of RAPM numbers to put him at #6.

[Doctor MJ]

On Magic & Bird:

We're clearly seeing a trend of many of us reluctantly lowering out ranking of these two based on new perspectives on longevity. For those still insisting on ranking them this high, while I'm not technically with you I'm actually glad to see the disagreement.

When I think if basketball as an art, a source of beauty and joy, I think of the twin geniuses of the 80s. So salient are they in what basketball is to me that as they slide on my official GOAT list it makes me want to make other lists to trumpet them.

Okay now getting to something a bit less whimsical: I see that it's really only Magic at this point who is getting any run. 2 things:

1 I think people need to seriously think about the fact that for the first 7 years of their career Bird simply did much more than Magic. Maybe Magic could have done as much as Bird, but he just didn't. With this in mind I've never understood how anyone can see any kind of substantial gap with Magic over Bird overall. A virtual tie with the breaker going to Msgic? Sure, but anything more decisive than that I just have no idea how that is justified.

As such if you're one of the folks championing Magic now, I really hope you'll be championing Bird next even as I'll be trying to convince you of Gatnett.

2 for anyone who puts much thought into how players would work in different eras - which should include absolutely every single person here who voted Wilt - Larry Bird should be occupying a large place in your mind right now.

tactical advancement in the NBA has resulted in:

1 increased value in playmaking over volume scoring

2 increased value in spatial distortion due to perimeter shooting

3 increased value in intellectual defense (Gasolwon a DPOY!)

All of these things would make Bird better today than he was back then. I think there's a very real possibility that a prime Bird today is the
Most devastating force since peak Russell playing in that 60s era ideally suited for him.

I think it's worth contrasting this with Wilt who is essentially presumed to be more effective today with modern coaching but whose strengths don't align with modern tactical advances anything like Birds do.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

Vote: Garnett

First off, just wow drza! What I would give to see breakdowns of everyone else in such detail.

With Duncan inducted now I don't know how Garnett discussion will go but my worry is this: that Garnett has a link to Duncan in how people see his strengths and people will tend to put that out of mind when comparing him to other players with less in common, and that this will let people rationalize a major gap between the two players despite the fact that they can't directly justify anything so drastic.

So just try not to let yourself do that. Think on Duncan when you now consider Garnett, and think of what drza and others have said. If you have any tendency at all to dismiss Garnett's defense, I would urge you to actually try typing up your reasoning and see if you really think it stands up to the depth people have gone into showing the staggering depth and breadth of KGs work over the course of his career.

To those fixated on Garnett not being "the man" in terms of scoring, you need to shift your perspective to be more holistic. To win a team needs scoring sure, but it needs lots of other things too. Entering into player comparisons looking first at scoring is an unjustifiable bias.

And finally just circling back to Duncan, remember that his teams' best offensive results were not based on his peak as a volume scorer. Don't let the fact that Duncan happened to play in a more traditional offensive model earlier in his career fool you into putting these guys into entirely different categories.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Im confused why we need to link KG with Duncan at all. Why not Dirk? Why not David Robinson, both of whom I think are better comparisons to KG than Duncan is. I think that by suggesting we link them its attempting to get us to think of KG in better terms based on who he's being compared to.

That's fine for those of you who believe KG to be Duncan's equal or superior, but that's not the majority view by any means and Im certainly not planning on looking at KG through any kind of Duncan filter.

Well if you can see very clear cut differences separating KG from Duncan then I'm not really targeting you (although it would be good if you shared your thoughts). What I want is to make sure those who can't really justify a gap between the two players don't passively allow a separation to occur.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Garnett

Spoiler:

First off, just wow drza! What I would give to see breakdowns of everyone else in such detail.

With Duncan inducted now I don't know how Garnett discussion will go but my worry is this: that Garnett has a link to Duncan in how people see his strengths and people will tend to put that out of mind when comparing him to other players with less in common, and that this will let people rationalize a major gap between the two players despite the fact that they can't directly justify anything so drastic.

So just try not to let yourself do that. Think on Duncan when you now consider Garnett, and think of what drza and others have said. If you have any tendency at all to dismiss Garnett's defense, I would urge you to actually try typing up your reasoning and see if you really think it stands up to the depth people have gone into showing the staggering depth and breadth of KGs work over the course of his career.

To those fixated on Garnett not being "the man" in terms of scoring, you need to shift your perspective to be more holistic. To win a team needs scoring sure, but it needs lots of other things too. Entering into player comparisons looking first at scoring is an unjustifiable bias.

And finally just circling back to Duncan, remember that his teams' best offensive results were not based on his peak as a volume scorer. Don't let the fact that Duncan happened to play in a more traditional offensive model earlier in his career fool you into putting these guys into entirely different categories.

A couple problems.

1) KG was not the reliable 1st option Duncan was, particularly in the playoffs. That's a pretty big knock for any elite player.

2) Duncan was a better defensive anchor. KG was an extremely versatile defender, but Duncan was the whole package.

3) Impactwise, what does KG give you over the other greats? Shaq is a dominant offensive anchor/crazy peak. Kobe is also a great offensive anchor in both scoring/facilitating, and adds great perimeter D. Dirk is a versatile offensive anchor who is a walking mismatch. Hakeem is better on offense AND defense than KG, IMO. Magic is the GOAT offensive anchor, ATG mismatch, and extremely versatile. Lebron has superior overall impact.

KG is a 2nd option guy/good passing big, with incredibly versatile defense. Is he better than DRob? I think its hard to see the impact outside of RAPM numbers to put him at #6.

I'm afraid this is another situation where your response to me leaves us at an impasse. I think on how I'd respond and it just leaves me concluding that I'd be repeating what I just said.

I'm sorry. I understand where you're coming from and you're far from alone. Your viewpoint is legit, it's just from my viewpoint I have already addressed it and I don't know what else I could say to propel out conversation.

Tangent: apologies for my sportiness here as I operate solely via phone. Did you respond somewhere to my request of you to give examples where you consider regression analysis is a reasonable approach to data analysis in contrast to the issues you believe there to be in applying it to basketball?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Owly]

Not talking about RealGM, I mean general ATLs you see from writers and other people.

And I personally see a good case for it. He was the second most efficient 60s player besides Wilt, second best rebounding guard behind Oscar, basically ran the offense for the Lakers even if you consider him an SG, best defensive guard of the era besides Hondo, put up monster Playoff numbers every year... He's considered neck and neck with Oscar, and if Oscar has a case for top 10 shouldn't he too?

I have him at 12, right behind Hakeem.

Ardee, (and I mean this in a respectful tone ) what's your reasoning for Hakeem being so low on your list? (And note I am fine with the ranking as it's your list).

But for what I have seen you value - I would think he was a shoe-in for top 10.

I think of my top 11 as other people think of their top 10. People see 10 as their imaginary bench mark, for me it's 11.

Hakeem has a top 3-5 peak, that's for sure. '93-'95 are better than anyone's best 3 year stretch except Wilt, Jordan, Shaq and maybe LeBron/Bird.

But when I look at the rest of his career, I just don't see the same value. He put up great numbers from '86-'92 but he was a worse offensive and defensive player. His offensive game lacked the polish that Tomjanovich helped with, he was a face-up player not unlike David Robinson (and we all know how much this board rags on David for relying so heavily on his faceup game). This showed in the Playoffs... '89, '90, '91, he just wasn't the dominant force you associate with Hakeem. Maybe this was because of the implosion of the Rockets with Sampson's injuries and the drug problems they had, I don't know.

And it shows doesn't it? He's only ever finished top 3 in MVP voting twice. I know people hate awards here but if a guy was never really considered to be on par with the other greats of the time until he noticeably improved his game, it might say something.

And honestly I'm splitting hairs here... Like I said, 11 is as good as 10 for me. He's a great player nonetheless, but with the other greats someone has to fall to the bottom. I just can't rank a guy who was truly among the league's best players for only 3 years of his career over guys who were in the discussion for much longer, ala Bird, Magic, LeBron, Kobe, Shaq, etc.

Cases for Olajuwon outside the top 10 (mostly) that I've seen/heard (with some details from myself) would include...

- Boxscore metrics: Very good but perhaps not great. PER peak '93 27.31 (2nd in the league that year, 23 players have posted a better single season PER in meaningful minutes, though this is from a database that could be out of date), 23.6 career PER (16th all-time, but with the likes of Neil Johnson, D-Rob, Pettit, Wade, Barkley, Karl Malone, Paul and Durant above him - with era and longevity and playoffs factored in this might me considered a strength or at least not a weakness in a case for the top 10). Win Shares and WS/48 is really not a fan, only 5 seasons in the top 10 (for that season). Peaking with 15.82 Win Shares and .234 WS/48 (2nd and 4th in '93, 28 players have had a better Win Share total for a season, again number not fully updated so may be off by a place or two). He has 162.77 career Win Shares, 20th on the NBA/ABA combined list. One reason Win Shares isn't a fan is for a player with such a fabled post game his offensive efficiency is relatively pedestrian. WARP likes him better, accumulating 267 WARP over his career, he's 3rd amongst WARP era players (behind K Malone and Stockton), but Kevin Pelton argues due to a lower peak/prime he's not quite as good as Robinson or Shaq from that era ( http://www.basketballprospectus.com/art ... icleid=415).


- Potential Counterpoints: Even with some gambling for steals and some epic boxscore D numbers, the metrics don't fully appreciate Olajuwon's defensive value (intimidation, deterence from driving, rim protetection). Or just distrust in these metrics. And WARP overall is favourable and PER looks pretty good too. And then check the playoff metrics.

- Potential Counter-counterpoint: even a "pro-big", trying to capture defense (some might argue too strongly looking at some of the bigs near the top of xRAPM lists) metric like xRAPM never has him as the best player in the league (Not an expert on other RAPM varients, or if any others go that far back with full methodology). Playoff metrics are less reliable and playoff numbers are subject to things outside a players control (e.g. teams couldn't scheme for Hakeem during the title runs, because he had reliable outside shooters, they would for other bigs) - see later points.


- Bill Simmons argues that Hakeem was better equipped to play with shooters (and defenders) than with other stars, because he needed time in the post to make his moves and was/would have been less effective with other stars.

- Potential Counter: Clyde Drexler's numbers look about as good in '95 with Houston as with Portland. And it's basically conjucture. Also whilst it might put a cap on how great you can get if Hakeem plays as he ususally does in the playoffs that cap is raised pretty high. And whilst it can be framed as "might not work well with stars" it could also be framed as "works well with relatively cheaper role players who are more likely to able to be acquired".


- Accolades: Basically covered elsewhere in this thread, Hakeem didn't do great in MVP voting, or that well in All-NBA First Team once he had serious competition (Robinson and O'Neal and to a lesser degree 90s Ewing). Published rankings have rarely had him top 10 (Pat Williams '10 has him at 9, the first edition of Simmons' TBoB has him 10, Slam in '97 has him 10 - with players like Shaq, Duncan, LeBron coming on since).

- Potential counter: Awards aren't what went on. They're opinions of performance, but they are falible, you need to look at on court stuff.


- Regular season: Playoffs are a relatively small sample size, there's luck in matchups (mooted recently that Houston was fortunate to avoid Seattle in it's title runs, and also that the years that they came out of the West are the years MJ was out/rusty); luck in injuries; metrics are less reliable; level of competition can vary enormously. Playoffs are designed so that everyone has an interest 'til deep in the season, but if you want the best team/player a larger sample (against a balanced schedule) is/would be fairer.

- Potential Counterpoint: Playoffs is, for better or worse "what matters", what decides championships. Hakeem has been incredible in the playoffs. There's a large enough sample to say it wasn't fluky.

- Potential counter-counterpoint: 4721 prime (approx, say '85-96 is prime) minutes seems a lot but 33981 RS minutes in the same span is 7.2 times bigger. That's what you should expect from him.


fwiw, personally (and admittedly I don't have a set of rankings) I wouldn't have thought Hakeem as top 10 was a given. Just because there have been a lot of really good players.

[E-Balla]

My vote is for Magic Johnson

I'm noticing a lot of people mentioning doubt a about his early career but I feel he was being misused for his first 4 seasons. Even then he was still playing amazing overall averaging 18/9/9/3 while barely having a jumper. He invented a new position in that time (or "Rover" depending who you asked) and defensively he pressured the ball very well (he was definitely a plus defender in this time), forced turnovers, and rebounded extremely well (especially for a forward). So this is a plus guy on both ends who's impact is being halted mainly because he does so much right its hard to just tell him to play one role. In 81 he missed a ton of games but in that role that limited his impact the team didn't miss him much. By 84 when he missed time the team went from a 56 win team to a 44 win team (they were 8-7 without him, 46-21 with him and they lost the game he got hurt in). Here's where I change my look on his early years though: I don't think Magic in 84 was better than Magic from 81-83. Looking at his advanced stats they stay about even through all 4 of those years so if Magic was on that level (I think 84 compares favorably to a peak Pierce/Melo/Scottie all of who are top 5 level guys) for 3 years sure he was a top 5 level guy for the beginning of his career.

Now in 85 Magic developed a reliable midrange jumper and he played the 7 seasons at top 3 level.

Now many say magic's early years are underwhelming but I think many underrate his prime years. There isn't another player with as perfect a track record over 7 years straight as Magic. He never played bad to lose a playoff series (I'll compile his numbers in losing series soon), he barely lost to underdogs (and when he did it was never his fault) and the only slight hiccup he has is a freaking injury (in the 89 Finals where he was already averaging around 19/6/11 before going down). If you gave me the choice of any one player for 6-7 consecutive seasons Magic would be my choice and that is why I choose him over other guys who's peaks I place over his.

[shutupandjam]

Statistically, for instance, LeBron is Bird’s equal or superior as a passer. As a watcher of games, I disagree with that.

Is this clear cut to you (and others)? To me, LeBron is an absolutely brilliant passer who, every time I watch him, amazes me with his ability to find open teammates no matter where he is or they are on the court. Bird is an incredible passer too, but I wouldn't call him clearly superior to LeBron in this respect.

[90sAllDecade]

If we're going to use that silly "win a title without another star" argument, like that's the best way to evaluate teams, and it isn't, then we're going to have to add 2013 LeBron.

His two best players:
-Wade had a sub-50 TS% and was so bad he actually became a liability and the other teams began hiding bad defenders on him (Lowe pointed this out.)
-Bosh averaged 12/7 and had problems guarding Hibbert. That does not look like superstar help to me.

The Heat's second best player was almost Chris Andersen, but he only played 15 minutes a game.

So yes, I submit that LeBron belongs in this group of one-man title teams. And just remember how he lifted those Cleveland teams:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/lebr ... ah-better/

LeBron didn't go to 4 straight finals at Cleveland or win a championship before joining those stars in Miami and posted similar or better individual numbers at Cleveland with better records.

Cleveland:

04-05: 42 wins (no playoff berth) *side-note: the no hand-check rule begins, to help perimeter player impact
05-06: 50 wins (2nd round loss)
06-07: 50 wins (loss in finals)
07-08: 45 wins (2nd round loss)
08-09: 66 wins (loss in ECF)
09-10: 61 wins (2nd round loss)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CLE/

One finals appearance loss with teams of role players built strictly around LeBron to emphasize his play.

Now what happens when he finally gets additional star talent (however you like to define it) and arguably better coaching in Miami?

LeBron in Miami w/ Wade & Bosh
10-11: 58-24 (finals loss)
11-12: 46-20 (Championship) *side-note: Lockout year for the team record, played only 66 games.
12-13: 66-16 (Championship)
13-14: 54-28 (finals loss)

Now despite LeBron having role players built around him and similar or better regular season records in certain years, he never had the full team success until had added stars and arguably better coaching in Miami. Why? The answer is obvious, he added more talent in stars like Wade and Bosh. To deny this is spin imo.

Like the 94 Rockets, Cleveland had better records some years but in Miami he added stars and won the championship despite lesser regular season records. So looking at team record and saying one is automatically better than the other is silly imo.

Of course Miami became more efficient. They had three stars so you couldn't double team all of those players, all those players made each other better. But to point to that and not look at how thier FGA and other stats took a hit with LeBron is not putting everything in context imo.

Bosh:

Spoiler:

Bosh at age 26 took a sharp hit on his rebounds, usage, Per, less FGA, points, less assists and just about all advanced percentages. After an adjustment period he became more efficient. Did Bosh get worse overnight at age 26 in his prime or did he take a lesser role with LeBron reducing his statistics on average?

Pointing to one match-up with a true center in Hibbert, while Bosh is more finesse PF and had his rebounds and points decreased on average isn't a strong argument to say LeBron didn't have star support imo. Bosh's true ceiling of play was still higher.

Wade:

Spoiler:

Wade also takes a hit in just about every major statistical category with LeBron the year before and after LeBron, although he did decline with age, he was healthy in that year and played 76 games. But his team based advanced stats like Win Shares goes up. Again why? Because Win Shares are team based stats and added talent helps inflate or deflate them by getting more team wins around the star player.

Someone could use circular logic and say Wade provides less team support. When actually he's taken on a lesser role and his stats have been reduced on average to provide greater usage to thier best player, LeBron James. Again, however he did experience a decline with age but still provided star support during James' four finals runs in a reduced role from age 29-32 while James was age 26-29.

When he joined the heat the volume usage of those stars decreased to adjust for the better player taking up more of that volume.

However, I really hate RealGM's obsession with title winners without any all-stars. It's to basketball evaluation as stick figures are to classical art. We all know that you can win with deep, balanced teams. From the '77 Blazers to the Pistons (of both eras) back to the late 90's Blazers, you don't need a bunch of stars crammed onto a roster. It's about the whole.

Here's the best example: the '94 Rockets were a lot better than the '95 Rockets despite ADDING a star. Shouldn't that prove how silly it is to revere players for winning on "limited" teams?

Hakeem's defensive prime was ending at age 32 in 1994. That decline in defensive prime affected the 95 Rockets regular season record, as well as Mad Max getting suspended ten games for going into the stands to fight with a fan and Drexler getting traded to the team midseason. The team had to adjust to a losing Thorpe, Max's behaviour and adding Drexler on the fly. This of course affected the regular season record.

Mad Max:

Behavioral incidents
1995: In a game at Portland on February 6, he ran into the stands to punch a fan, later claiming the fan had heckled him for reasons undisclosed. The NBA suspended him for 10 games and fined him $20,000.[5]
1995: Feigning a hamstring injury, he was given a leave of absence after the 1st game of the playoffs. Maxwell later admitted he was frustrated with not playing; the incident was hyped as Maxwell being disgruntled at the team's recent acquisition of Hall-of-Fame guard Clyde Drexler. His actions led to the Rockets ending his tenure with them.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Maxwell

Using that RS record and saying there were better without accounting for those things creates a picture without context imo.

[spoiler]We shouldn’t be flummoxed at the success of a team without a superstar (or one in his prime at least.) Stars don’t make the team; the players do.

Ten years ago, a star-studded Lakers team — not too far from three straight titles — led by a Hall of Fame coach and two of the best players in the game aided by two aging stars who were Hall of Fame locks met an upstart from Detroit

Including Karl Malone, and they have three of the top six scorers in NBA history by total career points. With Gary Payton they had four guys with 20,000 career points

Detroit dispatched them unceremoniously in five games. It didn’t matter that Kobe and Shaq were better than anyone on the Pistons. Detroit’s starting five was, as a whole, simply better.

Detroit had a HOF coach in Larry Brown who is on the short greatest coach ever list after the top 4, this is team support. As well as Ben Wallace, Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace, Rip Hamilton and even Prince getting all star selections or Defensive selections after that year. It's not just about PPG, star defensive contributions count as team support as well.

Also your listing Payton and Malone's career numbers when they were ages 35 and 40 with that Laker team.

Thorpe had one selection for his career years before and Cassell was a rookie and got one all star berth for his career ten years later, neither had defensive selections. None of the 94 Rockets reached that ceiling of play compared to the Pistons.

The NBA has seen this before.

For years, actually, people assumed alpha scorers held teams back from titles. The 1970′s were a run of well-balanced teams taking championships, like the Halvicek-Cowens Boston Celtics or Washington Bullets, who won a title with a Finals MVP under ten points a game, and the 1980′s were dominated by two deep teams with stars who were amazing passers in Magic and Bird. There was a 20-year span in which the league’s leading scorer won a title — from Kareem in 1971 to Jordan in 1991.

One of the most famous championship runs was Portland in 1977.

There’s no universal law that you need a superstar to be the best team in the league. Never mind how difficult it can be to determine the best players, all that matters is that your team outscores the opposing team.

Boston's All star selections those years mentioned:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... _star.html

Portland's:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... _star.html

Portland had HOF coach Dr. Jack Ramsay:

John Travilla "Jack" Ramsay (February 21, 1925 – April 28, 2014) was an American basketball coach, commonly known as "Dr. Jack" (as he held an earned doctorate, see below). He was best known for coaching the Portland Trail Blazers to the 1977 NBA Title, and for his broadcasting work with the Indiana Pacers, the Miami Heat, and for ESPN TV and ESPN Radio. Ramsay was among the most respected coaches in NBA history[2] and a member of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ramsay

There’s no real star power here, but it would be a top-tier defense with some scoring punch off the bench. You don’t need an MVP-level player to reach 60 wins if you fill in the rest of the team with quality players.

Losing to San Antonio is not be a black mark on LeBron’s legacy. It’s a a loss to a team who won more games and had a larger point differential.

There are rumors and extended discussions on Carmelo Anthony joining the Heat, as if LeBron can’t get it done without multiple stars. But that’s not the problem. It’s how you fill in the rest of the team. After losing Mike Miller and watching players succumb to Father Time, their supporting players are lacking. LeBron needs help, but not superstar help.

There are other ways to win.

You don't need two +6 players if you have a bunch of +2 or 0 (average) players surrounding your superstar. It's simple math.

LeBron had a 66 win team with role-players built around him, 8.68 SRS and HCA and lost in the playoffs to Dwight Howard's Magic team who won less games, had lower SRS differential and no HCA.

08-09 Magic All star selections:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... _star.html

08-09 Cleveland Selections:


Both players had the team role players built around them, but Dwight's team had three playing at all star levels that particular year and a better coach in Stan Van Gundy imo. Again, team support imo.

Role players make a difference or course and there are exceptions, but the majority of championships are won by teams with stars, who have role players or some times HOF coaches helping them.

I do and it's why Garnett has always been one of my favorite players.

It's quite amazing how bad Minnesota was as a franchise. It took a lot to keep such a great player down. They lost first round picks so they could pay Joe Smith. What a well-run machine.

So the team support argument works for Garnett (who also never won without joining 2 all stars, 3 if you include Rondo and a potential HOF coach in Rivers) but not Hakeem?

[penbeast0]

On Magic & Bird:

We're clearly seeing a trend of many of us reluctantly lowering out ranking of these two based on new perspectives on longevity. For those still insisting on ranking them this high, while I'm not technically with you I'm actually glad to see the disagreement.

When I think if basketball as an art, a source of beauty and joy, I think of the twin geniuses of the 80s. So salient are they in what basketball is to me that as they slide on my official GOAT list it makes me want to make other lists to trumpet them.

Okay now getting to something a bit less whimsical: I see that it's really only Magic at this point who is getting any run. 2 things:

1 I think people need to seriously think about the fact that for the first 7 years of their career Bird simply did much more than Magic. Maybe Magic could have done as much as Bird, but he just didn't. With this in mind I've never understood how anyone can see any kind of substantial gap with Magic over Bird overall. A virtual tie with the breaker going to Msgic? Sure, but anything more decisive than that I just have no idea how that is justified.

As such if you're one of the folks championing Magic now, I really hope you'll be championing Bird next even as I'll be trying to convince you of Gatnett.

2 for anyone who puts much thought into how players would work in different eras - which should include absolutely every single person here who voted Wilt - Larry Bird should be occupying a large place in your mind right now.

tactical advancement in the NBA has resulted in:

1 increased value in playmaking over volume scoring

2 increased value in spatial distortion due to perimeter shooting

3 increased value in intellectual defense (Gasolwon a DPOY!)

All of these things would make Bird better today than he was back then. I think there's a very real possibility that a prime Bird today is the
Most devastating force since peak Russell playing in that 60s era ideally suited for him.

I think it's worth contrasting this with Wilt who is essentially presumed to be more effective today with modern coaching but whose strengths don't align with modern tactical advances anything like Birds do.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Bird might have been a solid or at least average defender if he had played more at the traditional 4; but with the Celtics personnel he was frequently used on 3's and they burned him a lot. His hypothetical defense might have been good, his actual defense was not. Same for Bob McAdoo or Dan Issel at center; maybe if they'd had centers next to him throughout their prime, their defense as a PF would have been fine. When forced to play center as both were most of their careers, it was weak.

On the flip side, this mismatch issue gave them an offensive edge in addition to that of their already superb skill sets. Bird was able to post or shoot over smaller SFs because the mismatch against McHAle (or even Cedric Maxwell, another excellent post scorer) was even worse. McAdoo and Issel got more space when guarded by Cs than when guarded by PFs. Look at Issel when Gilmore was playing next to him and you will see his offensive efficiency actually drops a bit despite having to deal with less defensive attention. It's one reason I'm a little skeptical of the efficiency of the D'Antoni Suns or Showtime Lakers too -- I don't know how much the offensive dominance of those teams is skill set and how much is deliberate choice, giving up defense for offense. I've read some interesting articles on it over on the APBR site but don't really have the statistical chops to break them down here.

So, generally I try to give full credit for the offense and defensive impact that the player actually produced in the role he actually played although I do credit weak v. strong eras and outliers based on factors like expansion and the shortened 3 point line.

[acrossthecourt]

When talking about Shaq's rebounding:

How his teams rank in DREB%
1995: 15/27
1996: 17/29
1997: 18/29
1998: 15/29
1999: 10/29
2000: 4/29
2001: 9/29
2002: 8/29
2003: 8/29
2004: 6/29
2005: 2/30

(Hope that's all correct.)

In talking about centers and rebounding, it's pertinent to check those stats out. If you're with other great rebounders, there are less for you to collect.

Duncan's teams, for example, were often in the top 5 and sometimes first. So I wouldn't say Shaq's rebounding is a big strength. I don't think he has an advantage over Olajuwon. Just a small one on offense because he plays so close to the basket.

Using that RS record and saying there were better without accounting for those things creates a picture without context imo.

So the team support argument works for Garnett (who also never won without joining 2 all stars, 3 if you include Rondo and a potential HOF coach in Rivers) but not Hakeem?

Hakeem's defensive prime was ending at age 32 in 1994.

No, I've looked at that team post-Drexler including the playoffs too. They were better overall in '94. Thorpe is really underrated.

Minnesota's incompetence was greater than Houston's. Houston had some low moments too, like missing the playoffs in Olajuwon's prime, just like Garnett, but those mid-90 teams had a lot of talent. They do not compare to the incompetence (and sometimes bad luck, like Brandon's injury) of Minnesota.

Bosh's rebounding going down, by the way, is due to not playing next to Bargnani anymore, who could never grab a rebound. His splits in Toronto with/without Bargnani are crazy.

Wade's the wrong fit for LeBron. Another high usage player, but Wade has a bad outside shot. Even still, Wade played very well in 2011 and then the injuries started kicking in.

If he dropped off that sharply, then he has a really short prime: '94 and '93. But their slack couldn't have been from just that. And if Olajuwon's defense suffered that much, should we give less credit to him for that title since he's not playing as well? More to, say, Drexler or his teammates?


Using Bill James-ian method, I estimated LeBron's career totals:
36,079 points, 9645 rebounds, and 8954 assists.

It's a fairly conservative estimate too. For people who love raw stats, that's gotta stand out.

Even so, his career is already legendary now. His career in his 30's will determine just how high he'll go.

[acrossthecourt]

04-05: 42 wins (no playoff berth) *side-note: the no hand-check rule begins, to help perimeter player impact

I really hate this argument. Sorry. It's so absurd.

First of all, the rule changes helped *every* perimeter player, not just LeBron.

It's all about how you separate yourself from your peers. That's what I'm looking at. Rule changes don't matter.

There have been rule changes throughout all of history. If you complain about that, then complain about how zone defenses are used to defend LeBron, how the three-point line helps shooters like Bird or Miller, etc.

Or are we really rating every single player based on how they'd do in the 90's?

[colts18]

When talking about Shaq's rebounding:

How his teams rank in DREB%
1995: 15/27
1996: 17/29
1997: 18/29
1998: 15/29
1999: 10/29
2000: 4/29
2001: 9/29
2002: 8/29
2003: 8/29
2004: 6/29
2005: 2/30

(Hope that's all correct.)

In talking about centers and rebounding, it's pertinent to check those stats out. If you're with other great rebounders, there are less for you to collect.

Duncan's teams, for example, were often in the top 5 and sometimes first. So I wouldn't say Shaq's rebounding is a big strength. I don't think he has an advantage over Olajuwon. Just a small one on offense because he plays so close to the basket.

Shaq's rebounding was really good.

Here are some on/off rebounding numbers for Shaq and Duncan since 2001.

Shaq DRB%:
On: 74.5%
off: 72.4%
Diff: +2.1%

Duncan DRB%:
on: 75.3%
off: 73.9%
diff: +1.4%

Shaq TRB%:
on: 52%
off: 49.2%
diff: +2.8%

Duncan TRB%:
on: 51.5%
off: 49.8%
Diff: +1.7%

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01/on-off/

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01/on-off/

Here is how they ranked from 2001-2006 in on court Defensive rebounding% (min. 5000 MP):
5. Shaq 74.4% DRB%
21. Duncan 73.6% DRB%

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... by=drb_pct


Shaq was very comparable to Duncan in rebounding maybe even better when you account for playoffs. From 01-06 playoffs, Shaq had a 74.6% on court DRB% compared to Duncan's 73.3% DRB%.

[ElGee]

2 for anyone who puts much thought into how players would work in different eras - which should include absolutely every single person here who voted Wilt - Larry Bird should be occupying a large place in your mind right now.

tactical advancement in the NBA has resulted in:

1 increased value in playmaking over volume scoring

2 increased value in spatial distortion due to perimeter shooting

3 increased value in intellectual defense (Gasolwon a DPOY!)

All of these things would make Bird better today than he was back then. I think there's a very real possibility that a prime Bird today is the
Most devastating force since peak Russell playing in that 60s era ideally suited for him.

So I've only thought about this in the last few weeks...but the more I think about it, if you play the cross-era game, Bird comes out looking like a god today. He's a great post player. A great off-ball player (spacing) who can stretch 4's. (Speculating) The increase use of the 3-ball would make him more efficient. And his defense -- strong and underrated already -- likely improves because of his ridiculous IQ, anticipation and team concepts.

[90sAllDecade]

No, I've looked at that team post-Drexler including the playoffs too. They were better overall in '94. Thorpe is really underrated.

Minnesota's incompetence was greater than Houston's. Houston had some low moments too, like missing the playoffs in Olajuwon's prime, just like Garnett, but those mid-90 teams had a lot of talent. They do not compare to the incompetence (and sometimes bad luck, like Brandon's injury) of Minnesota.

Remember, we're also comparing Hakeem's team support to Shaq, LeBron and Magic as well. They have much more in comparison over thier careers to Hakeem.

I'll admit Minnesota was incompetent, but Houston suffered from losing thier top 3 guards in an 8 month span, Sampson's knee injury which cast a shadow on his career after that and terrible coacing in Don Chaney.

Hakeem is a better individual player than Garnett imo. People are using RAPM from when Hakeem was 35-39 and Garnett was at his prime. Who will naturally look better with younger years in that window?

People have spoken on the flaws of non prior informed RAPM used in certain years. This is a bad tool to measure these players from different decades due to lack of or incomplete data during their primes. It paints a picture using stats without context imo.

How do you measure Houston having a lot of talent in comparison to Magic, Shaq, LeBron and Garnett over thier careers? Does Boston's team support only count when it helps Garnett?

Besides incomplete or inaccurate RAPM in these comparisons, how is Garnett (who I respect) individually better overall than these players?

Bosh's rebounding going down, by the way, is due to not playing next to Bargnani anymore, who could never grab a rebound. His splits in Toronto with/without Bargnani are crazy.

Wade's the wrong fit for LeBron. Another high usage player, but Wade has a bad outside shot. Even still, Wade played very well in 2011 and then the injuries started kicking in.

That is an opinion and you have a right to it. But until LeBron joined those players he never won a championship or reached 4 straight finals. Looking at it that way uses stats without context and disregards other variables that can't be quantified to support an assertion.

I disagree with downplaying that and we can agree to disagree.

If he dropped off that sharply, then he has a really short prime: '94 and '93. But their slack couldn't have been from just that. And if Olajuwon's defense suffered that much, should we give less credit to him for that title since he's not playing as well? More to, say, Drexler or his teammates?

Ignoring Olajuwon's two way dominance in the 80s and painting a false picture Hakeem wasn't dominant for his entire career. Every player in history, including LeBron, Shaq, Magic and even Garnett all had peak years where they were at thier best versus others. Hakeem is no different and the idea he didn't play at an all time level before his peak like the others has been debunked several times. It's selective reasoning imo.

Using Bill James-ian method, I estimated LeBron's career totals:
36,079 points, 9645 rebounds, and 8954 assists.

It's a fairly conservative estimate too. For people who love raw stats, that's gotta stand out.

Even so, his career is already legendary now. His career in his 30's will determine just how high he'll go.

All these players careers are legendary. LeBron is an all time great, but defensively he's not on Hakeem's level, had a lower peak, did not win a championship without two all star HOFers and his career hasn't even played out yet statistically. Comparable two way bigs have also historically been more impactful than wing players who need more help.

[90sAllDecade]

04-05: 42 wins (no playoff berth) *side-note: the no hand-check rule begins, to help perimeter player impact

I really hate this argument. Sorry. It's so absurd.

First of all, the rule changes helped *every* perimeter player, not just LeBron.

It's all about how you separate yourself from your peers. That's what I'm looking at. Rule changes don't matter.

There have been rule changes throughout all of history. If you complain about that, then complain about how zone defenses are used to defend LeBron, how the three-point line helps shooters like Bird or Miller, etc.

Or are we really rating every single player based on how they'd do in the 90's?

Who said we're rating players strictly on the 90s? I never said that and that is a strawman argument imo.

Rule changes affect stats and play, just like zones, the three point line, wider lanes etc. It is another piece of information to put things like stats in context. Why should it be ignored? For selective reasoning to support an argument?

[shutupandjam]

People have spoken on the flaws of non prior informed RAPM used in later years.

Can you expand on this?

I noticed on colts's site he only has npi rapm up to 2006. Is there a place where people are getting post-06 npi rapm? If not, I can put it up somewhere.

Edit: typo

[colts18]

Can you expand on this?

I noticed on colts's site he only has npi rapm up to 2006. Is there a place where people are getting post-06 npi rapm? If not, I can put it up somewhere.

Edit: typo

There is no post-2006 NPI RAPM data except for the for the ones from 2012-2014.

[colts18]

For the KG guys, how do you account for the fact that KG's offense fell of quite a bit when facing good defenses?

This is him compared to David Robinson (another guy criticized for stat padding against bad teams):

DRob 90-98 vs. KG 97-08 vs. top 10 defenses:

DRob: 22.1 PPG, .536 TS%, 11.9 Reb, 3.1 AST/2.5 TOV, 1.2 Stl, 3.3 blk
KG: 20.1 PPG, .510 TS%, 11.4 Reb, 4.3 AST/2.9 TOV, 1.2 stl, 1.3 blk

vs. not top 10 defenses:
DRob: 24.9 PPG, .564 TS%, 12.4 Reb, 2.7 AST/3.4 TOV, 1.3 stl, 3.0 blk
KG: 23.3 PPG, .531 TS%, 13.4 Reb, 4.6 AST/3.0 TOV, 1.5 stl, 1.9 blk

KG's playoff numbers against teams with 15 or worse defensive ranking:
23.8 PPG, .527 TS%, 13.9 Reb, 4.5 AST, 1.8 STL, 2.1 blk