RealGM Top 100 List #6

[An Unbiased Fan]

Well I don't know where you have been living the past few years but yes..yes poster's do. That was the point of me bringing it up. But I was clear in stating that once you're in the league and a free agent, you can chose whichever destination you want. And of course, the other part of why you won't place stock into it is because your boy did the same thing. So again, as I've made it perfectly clear and I will again.

Threatening to go back to college unless drafted to LA who happened to have the leagues best player on it, deserves mention. I am not saying that this takes away from what he did on the court but to me he avoided what could have been a much different career than the one he had.

And I am perfectly fine if you don't see it that way or don't agree. To me, it's all part of 'attitude' that we've been discussing.

This is absurd. So Shaq can leave from Orlando to a 50+ win Laker team...then demand a trade and go to Miami....then burn that bridge and go to Phoenix....then ring chase with the Cavs...and eventually Boston. But god forbid Magic say he would stay in college(as if that's a bad thing) if he feels he might be drafted by the Lakers.

I mean, really?? Let's skip over actual on court play, and downgrade Magic for this. Unbelievable.

[Owly]

Can someone explain to me how Magic is 'the greatest offensive player ever'?

The 1987 Lakers had the highest O rating in history for the regular season. Then in the playoffs they upped that and broke the record for highest O rating in a playoff.

In Dean Oliver's Basketball on Paper (published 2004, but written early enough I think that no 2003 or 2004 teams were in the data for any comparisons) he lists the top offenses by offensive rating over league average, which places Dallas ('02), Chicago ('97), Utah ('98), Chicago again ('96), Denver ('82), Chicago again ('92) and Boston ('88) as superior to the '87 Lakers (p37).

Then by a different method (standard deviations above league average), whilst others move around them the Lakers remain 8th, this time behind
'82 Nuggets
'97 Bulls
'02 Mavericks
'97 Jazz
'92 Bulls
'78 76ers
'96 Bulls

I see James has beaten me to this point with relative O Ratings (more up to date and with approximates for pre '74 teams). In any case one year (of team performance) is fairly slim evidence for an individual as "the greatest offensive player ever".

Equally playoff performance is contigent on the level of opposition
'87 playoff oppositon

3 games versus Denver; Drtg 110.2 (1.9 worse than league avg)
5 games versus Golden State; Drtg 111.2 (2.9 worse than league avg)
4 games versus Seattle; Drtg 110.3 (2 worse than league avg)
6 games versus Boston; Drtg 106.8 (1.5 better than league avg)

As such LA's superficially remarkable playoff Ortg (119.9) is very still very impressive, but perhaps not that much above what you'd expect based on their regular season performance in particular it is boosted by the non-competitive series against the Nuggets (LA, 125.1 Ortg in that series) and Golden State (LA, 121.7 Ortg).

[E-Balla]

Can someone explain to me how Magic is 'the greatest offensive player ever'?

The 1987 Lakers had the highest O rating in history for the regular season.

But that season is 19th(!) in relative O rating. The 2004 Mavs have the best relative O rating of all time, so why not call Dirk or Nash the greatest offensive player ever? In fact, if we're attributing team offensive success to the guy who runs the offense, Nash would be the clear favorite here - 5 of his teams are in the top ten relative O ratings ever.

They're 8th in standard deviations which is the best way to measure. The 07 Suns are on extreme not expected to be replicated level (3.25 standard deviations putting them in the 99.88th percentile). The top 3 ORTGs in playoff history belong to Magic led Lakers teams (87, 85, 89) and on 2 of those teams he was the main scoring threat.

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

[MacGill]

Well I don't know where you have been living the past few years but yes..yes poster's do. That was the point of me bringing it up. But I was clear in stating that once you're in the league and a free agent, you can chose whichever destination you want. And of course, the other part of why you won't place stock into it is because your boy did the same thing. So again, as I've made it perfectly clear and I will again.

Threatening to go back to college unless drafted to LA who happened to have the leagues best player on it, deserves mention. I am not saying that this takes away from what he did on the court but to me he avoided what could have been a much different career than the one he had.

And I am perfectly fine if you don't see it that way or don't agree. To me, it's all part of 'attitude' that we've been discussing.

This is absurd. So Shaq can leave from Orlando to a 50+ win Laker team...then demand a trade and go to Miami....then burn that bridge and go to Phoenix....then ring chase with the Cavs...and eventually Boston. But god forbid Magic say he would stay in college(as if that's a bad thing) if he feels he might be drafted by the Lakers.

I mean, really?? Let's skip over actual on court play, and downgrade Magic for this. Unbelievable.

Anyway my friend. I'll take that as you don't agree, which I've stated I am fine with.

But a few points: Yes, Shaq as a free agent could have went to whichever 50+ team he wanted to join. And the other, well we all know what happened in LA, and I am sure Baller24 will bring all the quotes back up when we get to Kobe. I've already admitted where Shaq was immature etc etc. This isn't anything new except something | felt of importance given the context of attitude we were all talking about. People thrive better in a winning environment, same as how Kobe demanded a trade when he felt his organization was wasting his prime. I don't see a difference whether you're in or almost into the nba as Magic made it so he never had to go through what some other players had to endure. It actually happened so it can't be changed. And I'll say it one more time to you.....how much stock you put into that is all up too you.

[Texas Chuck]

Because the 04 Mavs werent a very good basketball team. Who cares about some arbitrary offensive rating if your team is mediocre?

First off, Offensive rating is not arbitrary. Second, they were a very good offensive team which is all that matters in this discussion. Good enough that they are in the discussion for the greatest offense in history.

And of course you can have a great offense if you literally care about nothing else. Sorry if Im not impressed with a great offensive rating when it leads to a very mediocre team and believe me that was by far the worst Mavs team over a decade long span. Its just like you can build an elite defensive team, but if they can't compete offensively why should we get all worked up?

Now the Nash Suns teams are a little different in that they had some really strong teams to go with those great offenses. And the 03 Mavs were a pretty good team with a great offense, but one-dimensional teams with no chance to really compete for anything should not be overly romantized.

Im willing to get behind the stats, but not when the stats become more important than the game.

[DQuinn1575]

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

1. You are saying Magic's offense is better because Nash's teams played bad defense
2. Pretty well documented the west conference Magic played in the playoffs were weak.
3. Magic played on a loaded team on the Lakers. How much credit does he deserve versus his teammates?

[HeartBreakKid]

It's become clear over the last few years that garnett is one of the most polarizing players. People are so split on the guy (to extremes in my opinion) that there's not much of a common ground.

I scanned the GOAT lists here (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1329010) and the RealGM voting threads and found these highest and lowest rankings for these players.

Player....High, Low
Jordan.....1, 2
Kareem....1, 4
LeBron.....5, 9
Shaq.......3, 10
Hakeem...2, 11
Duncan....4, 11
Bird........5, 11
Russell.....1, 12
Wilt........2, 13
Magic......3, 13
Oscar......3, 16
Kobe.......9, 17
KG..........5, 21


Unanimous top 15 players
Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Bird, Russell, Wilt, Magic

Unanimous top 10 players
Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Shaq

Least variance in ranking
Jordan, Kareem, LeBron

Most variance in ranking
KG, Oscar, Wilt, Russell

Wow, someone didn't have KG in their top 20, tough critic right there.

[Owly]

Well I don't know where you have been living the past few years but yes..yes poster's do. That was the point of me bringing it up. But I was clear in stating that once you're in the league and a free agent, you can chose whichever destination you want. And of course, the other part of why you won't place stock into it is because your boy did the same thing. So again, as I've made it perfectly clear and I will again.

Threatening to go back to college unless drafted to LA who happened to have the leagues best player on it, deserves mention. I am not saying that this takes away from what he did on the court but to me he avoided what could have been a much different career than the one he had.

And I am perfectly fine if you don't see it that way or don't agree. To me, it's all part of 'attitude' that we've been discussing.

This is absurd. So Shaq can leave from Orlando to a 50+ win Laker team...then demand a trade and go to Miami....then burn that bridge and go to Phoenix....then ring chase with the Cavs...and eventually Boston. But god forbid Magic say he would stay in college(as if that's a bad thing) if he feels he might be drafted by the Lakers.

I mean, really?? Let's skip over actual on court play, and downgrade Magic for this. Unbelievable.

This is an odd post in terms of consistency. It's raking O'Neal over the coals for percieved off-court failures than seems to conclude that it's silly to "skip over actual on court play". Is it part of the argument or not.

If you think not, then fine mention the Shaq things briefly in passing (or not at all, we all know the situation anyhow, and you'd be arguing it isn't relevent) but the above is quite a partial take on things.

If off court is in play then why moan about it being applied to Magic.

And if it is in play you'd have to take issue with

(a) Skipping to a 50 win team. A highly partial picture. The team Shaq arrived on would miss many of the stars of that campaign (Ceballos swiftly traded for Horry, a role player; Divac traded; Magic retired) indeed their of their top 9 in minutes only Jones, Campbell and van Exel remained (Peeler, Lynch and Threatt also left). On paper, at that time Grant, Scott, Anderson and Hardaway (coming off a magnificent year) was probably the safer bet. Whether that makes his move better or worse (if we care at all) is up for questioning but it's oddly framed here.

(b) Demand a trade (from LA)? Is that what happened? LA probably made the right choice in terms of wanting Kobe of the two because he was younger, but did Shaq demand a trade? Or were they just looking to appease Kobe.

(c) The "ring-chasing" stuff, who cares? Are Cleveland and Boston a factor for anyone in evaluating Shaq's career?

I understand criticisms for his behaviour "off-court" (using inverted commas because one might include "Pay me!" in this category) but the framing of it here seems unusual.

[90sAllDecade]

I think this Magic vs Nash discussion on offense interesting.

Quick question, how do people think no handcheck rules in 04-05 or similar rules put in place 00-01 helped those Nash teams? Magic also played in an era of a higher Ortg, can that be due to higher pace or other factors?

Not picking a side just curious.

[Mutnt]

Can someone explain to me how Magic is 'the greatest offensive player ever'?

— He might be the greatest transition offensive player in NBA history because of his awesome finishing ability and GOAT passing/creative playmaking.
— GOAT offensive rebounder for a non-big
— Ridiculous foul draw rate because he was such a mismatch, and became a 90 percent free throw shooter
— GOAT passer/playmaker in the halfcourt, could make any pass from any position on the court
— Created opportunities with his low post game, which he could initiate himself because of his ball-handling
— Ultra-efficient scorer on strong volume, could have scored more if need be
— Used his teammates optimally
— Developed a potent 3-point shot by 1990

— That's an interesting point, and even though I don't necessarily disagree with it, I think it's arguable. I'll say that what makes Magic's case more compelling than some of the other candidates is the fact that most of Magic's career, the game was played in an uptempo style against weak defenses, and Magic had some great running mates to boot. Going by the eye test, I'd say someone like LeBron is definitely a better transition player, but it's kinda hard to gauge it because he doesn't nearly get as many transition opportunities as Magic did.
— This doesn't seem that important to me. I'd rather have my guards in position to stop the ball, stop a fastbreak, or even be in position to catch and shoot from the perimeter than have them trying to outrebound big guys. I believe the aforementioned things yield greater overall results
— I don't see how his 'ridiculous foul rate' favorably stacks up with other great offensive players like Kareem, Shaq, Jordan, LeBron, even Kobe or Durant... Am I missing something? And Magic was a 90% FT shooter for about 2 or 3 years. Throughout most of his short career he hovered around 82%FT, not bad, but certainly not elite.
— Generally, I agree about him being the GOAT passer/playmaker, although don't let the flashiness and huge volume numbers sway you. Guys like Stockton, Nash & CP3 all ranked comparable in AST%. Well, Stockton never showed that he could be as big of a scoring threat as Magic for example but Nash & CP3 definitely did, although not as consistently.
— True, but that's his usual advantage over smaller guards. Not against guys like Jordan or LeBron for example
— Umm, not really. Ultra-efficient scorer on strong volume is a guy like Durant with 32 ppg on 64%TS or LeBron at 28 ppg on 67%TS, not Magic, who topped at around 22 ppg on 62%TS.
— Not the only one who has this case.
— Took him about 10 years to max out at 38% from three, and even then he couldn't sustain it in the playoffs.

[Jim Naismith]

Wow, someone didn't have KG in their top 20, tough critic right there.

JordansBulls's list:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic Johnson
5. Tim Duncan
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Shaquille O'neal
8. Larry Bird
9. Lebron James
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Wilt Chamberlain
12. Moses Malone
13. Julius Erving
14. Jerry West
15. George Mikan
16. Oscar Robertson
17. Karl Malone
18. Dwyane Wade
19. Dirk Nowitzki
20. David Robinson
21. Kevin Garnett
22. Bob Pettit
23. Charles Barkley
24. Isiah Thomas
25. John Stockton

[shutupandjam]

The top 3 ORTGs in playoff history belong to Magic led Lakers teams (87, 85, 89) and on 2 of those teams he was the main scoring threat.

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

I assume you're going back to raw ortg for the playoff numbers (i.e., not adjusting for opponent avg drtg)?

Anyway, I think we're straying from the point I was trying to make, which is that you can't just anoint Magic as the greatest offensive player ever based on his teams' offenses alone. There are lots of factors in play here (for example, he played with some incredible offensive players). Ftr, I think Magic has a great case for GOAT offensive player (along with a few others), but I don't think it should be taken as a given, which is how many posters here treat it. And if he is the best offensive player ever, it's not like it's by some huge margin.

[E-Balla]

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

1. You are saying Magic's offense is better because Nash's teams played bad defense
2. Pretty well documented the west conference Magic played in the playoffs were weak.
3. Magic played on a loaded team on the Lakers. How much credit does he deserve versus his teammates?

1. No but Nash's teams put all focus into offense. They never trotted out defensive sets, used guys that couldn't at least hit jumpers at an elite level, etc. That leads to a boosted ORTG and a very good team overall but not a winning team (also this is a criticism I used to hate about Nash but I'm seeing where it works. You need a team that can get stops or you'll fail). If Nash ran with a more balanced team with better defensive capabilities his average ORTG would probably be under Magic's.

2. Notice the numbers are given in a +4.0 form. The opponents have been accounted for already. Without that Magic is first by far.

3. This is a great question and I think he deserves most of the credit. From 83 to 85 his supporting cast got noticeably weaker with Kareem hitting a hard decline, LA losing a starting PG, and Worthy not coming into his own yet but the Lakers stayed just as good as they were before overall and their offense was way better. It happens that 84 and 85 are Magic's first 2 years running point too. You can say the same thing with the late 80s teams compared to the early 90s teams. In 88 and 89 he had a better supporting cast than in 90 and 91 but those teams were around the same in strength anyway. For such a great dynasty Magic's teams had a ton of changes around him but at no time did the team drop in quality and he kept taking a bigger and bigger role.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Anyway my friend. I'll take that as you don't agree, which I've stated I am fine with.

But a few points: Yes, Shaq as a free agent could have went to whichever 50+ team he wanted to join. And the other, well we all know what happened in LA, and I am sure Baller24 will bring all the quotes back up when we get to Kobe. I've already admitted where Shaq was immature etc etc. This isn't anything new except something | felt of importance given the context of attitude we were all talking about. People thrive better in a winning environment, same as how Kobe demanded a trade when he felt his organization was wasting his prime. I don't see a difference whether you're in or almost into the nba as Magic made it so he never had to go through what some other players had to endure. It actually happened so it can't be changed. And I'll say it one more time to you.....how much stock you put into that is all up too you.

My point is that zero stock should be put into it because it has nothing to do with on court play. It's literally a madeup criteria to downgrade players. Magic wasn't even in the NBA yet.

1979 Lakers before Magic = 47-35
1996 Lakers before Shaq = 53-29
^
Yet Magic's on court career is being knocked because he would ahve stayed in college if not going to a 47 win team, and a franchise that had only 1 title in the last 30 years.

...But Shaq can bolt to a 53 win team headed by West, and that's just fine. Oh, and you've already said you're going to use this on Kobe for going to the Lakers at the very SAME time Shaq went there. Strong double standard

No, this seem totally legit for a Top 100 NBA player list......

[shutupandjam]

And of course you can have a great offense if you literally care about nothing else.

This is actually an important point and one that doesn't come up enough. If you focus especially on one side of the ball (i.e., expend more energy on one end than the other), it's likely easier to succeed on that end even if your overall rating doesn't change much.

On the flip side, an offensive team that makes its living off of fast breaks like Magic's Lakers or steal run outs like Jordan's Bulls use their defense to create efficient offense and might not be as successful offensively without that defensive success.

There's a lot to be said about one side influencing the other in basketball. A good example is the Big 3 Celtics, who didn't go for many offensive rebounds and instead focused on getting back on D (Zach Lowe has written about this extensively I believe). As a result, their defensive numbers were inflated and their offensive numbers suffered to some extent.

[E-Balla]

The top 3 ORTGs in playoff history belong to Magic led Lakers teams (87, 85, 89) and on 2 of those teams he was the main scoring threat.

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

I assume you're going back to raw ortg for the playoff numbers (i.e., not adjusting for opponent avg drtg)?

Anyway, I think we're straying from the point I was trying to make, which is that you can just anoint Magic as the greatest offensive player ever based on his teams' offenses alone. There are lots of factors in play here (for example, he played with some incredible offensive players). Ftr, I think Magic has a great case for GOAT offensive player (along with a few others), but I don't think it should be taken as a given, which is how many posters here treat it. And if he is the best offensive player ever, it's not like it's by some huge margin.

The numbers are compared to who he played. He's +4.0 against the average defense he played.

I personally think he's the best offensive player ever by about the same margin Russell has over Hakeem on the other end. I also think Oscar, Nash, and Magic are on a different level than everyone else offensively (maybe Jordan is at level 1.5) because they could lead any scrub team to a top 5 offense (the defense would be beyond ugly though).

[MacGill]

Anyway my friend. I'll take that as you don't agree, which I've stated I am fine with.

But a few points: Yes, Shaq as a free agent could have went to whichever 50+ team he wanted to join. And the other, well we all know what happened in LA, and I am sure Baller24 will bring all the quotes back up when we get to Kobe. I've already admitted where Shaq was immature etc etc. This isn't anything new except something | felt of importance given the context of attitude we were all talking about. People thrive better in a winning environment, same as how Kobe demanded a trade when he felt his organization was wasting his prime. I don't see a difference whether you're in or almost into the nba as Magic made it so he never had to go through what some other players had to endure. It actually happened so it can't be changed. And I'll say it one more time to you.....how much stock you put into that is all up too you.

My point is that zero stock should be put into it because it has nothing to do with on court play. It's literally a madeup criteria to downgrade players. Magic wasn't even in the NBA yet.

1979 Lakers before Magic = 47-35
1996 Lakers before Shaq = 53-29
^
Yet Magic's on court career is being knocked because he would ahve stayed in college if not going to a 47 win team, and a franchise that had only 1 title in the last 30 years.

...But Shaq can bolt to a 53 win team headed by West, and that's just fine. Oh, and you've already said you're going to use this on Kobe for going to the Lakers at the very SAME time Shaq went there. Strong double standard

No, this seem totally legit for a Top 100 NBA player list......

I don't know how I can simplify this anymore for you.

Free Agent = Go wherever you want to go too

What I am saying with respect to Magic is that he didn't end up on LA in the traditional way so because of that I hold it against him to a degree. Look I had Magic #3 all-time before this project started, but this and the Nixon incident hold water to me. You're making it sound like I am trying to say don't vote for Magic, or he shouldn't be talked about here etc. I don't really care what the team wins are when you're a free agent because you have the right to go anywhere you wish. It doesn't work the same on draft night, usually

So again, I'll ask you this and you give me your response and I am done with this point. If LBJ and agent in 03 did the same thing as Magic did with KAJ, to play with Duncan, you're going to tell me that you wouldn't be saying anything about it because it was off-court?

[E-Balla]

Anyway my friend. I'll take that as you don't agree, which I've stated I am fine with.

But a few points: Yes, Shaq as a free agent could have went to whichever 50+ team he wanted to join. And the other, well we all know what happened in LA, and I am sure Baller24 will bring all the quotes back up when we get to Kobe. I've already admitted where Shaq was immature etc etc. This isn't anything new except something | felt of importance given the context of attitude we were all talking about. People thrive better in a winning environment, same as how Kobe demanded a trade when he felt his organization was wasting his prime. I don't see a difference whether you're in or almost into the nba as Magic made it so he never had to go through what some other players had to endure. It actually happened so it can't be changed. And I'll say it one more time to you.....how much stock you put into that is all up too you.

My point is that zero stock should be put into it because it has nothing to do with on court play. It's literally a madeup criteria to downgrade players. Magic wasn't even in the NBA yet.

1979 Lakers before Magic = 47-35
1996 Lakers before Shaq = 53-29
^
Yet Magic's on court career is being knocked because he would ahve stayed in college if not going to a 47 win team, and a franchise that had only 1 title in the last 30 years.

...But Shaq can bolt to a 53 win team headed by West, and that's just fine. Oh, and you've already said you're going to use this on Kobe for going to the Lakers at the very SAME time Shaq went there. Strong double standard

No, this seem totally legit for a Top 100 NBA player list......

That's reminds me of the point I was going to make about his rookie season: the Lakers had a 13 game jump from 47 to 60 wins when he got there. They also added Coop and Haywood but they lost Dantley so it evens out IMO.

[DQuinn1575]

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

1. You are saying Magic's offense is better because Nash's teams played bad defense
2. Pretty well documented the west conference Magic played in the playoffs were weak.
3. Magic played on a loaded team on the Lakers. How much credit does he deserve versus his teammates?

1. No but Nash's teams put all focus into offense. They never trotted out defensive sets, used guys that couldn't at least hit jumpers at an elite level, etc. That leads to a boosted ORTG and a very good team overall but not a winning team (also this is a criticism I used to hate about Nash but I'm seeing where it works. You need a team that can get stops or you'll fail). If Nash ran with a more balanced team with better defensive capabilities his average ORTG would probably be under Magic's.

2. Notice the numbers are given in a +4.0 form. The opponents have been accounted for already. Without that Magic is first by far.

3. This is a great question and I think he deserves most of the credit. From 83 to 85 his supporting cast got noticeably weaker with Kareem hitting a hard decline, LA losing a starting PG, and Worthy not coming into his own yet but the Lakers stayed just as good as they were before overall and their offense was way better. It happens that 84 and 85 are Magic's first 2 years running point too. You can say the same thing with the late 80s teams compared to the early 90s teams. In 88 and 89 he had a better supporting cast than in 90 and 91 but those teams were around the same in strength anyway. For such a great dynasty Magic's teams had a ton of changes around him but at no time did the team drop in quality and he kept taking a bigger and bigger role.

1. They had the supporting cast they had and the offense they had. Nash may have been on a bad team, but they still had a good offense. If they used different players their offense would be different, but that holds true for everubody.
2. oops - my apologies
3. a) The Lakers added the #1 pick in the draft (Worthy) who got better and better.
b) They traded, not lost, a point guard, and they got a better fit in Scott, as it improved a weakness - outside shooting.
c) Kareem got older, but they added McAdoo, a scoring machine/supersub - and later Thompson
d) They also got 2 very good late picks in AC Green and Divac. Not many championship teams add this quality with a late round pick

The Lakers, Celtics, Sixers got better and better - the Sixers stopped getting better in 83, and couldnt keep up. The Celtics stopped getting better in 86, but the Lakers passed them in 87. The 88 team wasn't quite as good

It was a tremendous job by the organization to do what they did and add the talent that they did.

The best front office job in NBA history, and probably matches any in sport.

[E-Balla]

Anyway my friend. I'll take that as you don't agree, which I've stated I am fine with.

But a few points: Yes, Shaq as a free agent could have went to whichever 50+ team he wanted to join. And the other, well we all know what happened in LA, and I am sure Baller24 will bring all the quotes back up when we get to Kobe. I've already admitted where Shaq was immature etc etc. This isn't anything new except something | felt of importance given the context of attitude we were all talking about. People thrive better in a winning environment, same as how Kobe demanded a trade when he felt his organization was wasting his prime. I don't see a difference whether you're in or almost into the nba as Magic made it so he never had to go through what some other players had to endure. It actually happened so it can't be changed. And I'll say it one more time to you.....how much stock you put into that is all up too you.

My point is that zero stock should be put into it because it has nothing to do with on court play. It's literally a madeup criteria to downgrade players. Magic wasn't even in the NBA yet.

1979 Lakers before Magic = 47-35
1996 Lakers before Shaq = 53-29
^
Yet Magic's on court career is being knocked because he would ahve stayed in college if not going to a 47 win team, and a franchise that had only 1 title in the last 30 years.

...But Shaq can bolt to a 53 win team headed by West, and that's just fine. Oh, and you've already said you're going to use this on Kobe for going to the Lakers at the very SAME time Shaq went there. Strong double standard

No, this seem totally legit for a Top 100 NBA player list......

That's reminds me of the point I was going to make about his rookie season: the Lakers had a 13 game jump from 47 to 60 wins when he got there. They also added Coop and Haywood but they lost Dantley so it evens out IMO.