RealGM Top 100 List #9

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

David Robinson also deserves some traction.

Robinson joined a Spurs 21 win Spurs team for the '89-'90 season and they improved by 25 wins from the previous one. One of the best 2-way bigs of all-time. 2nd All-Time in WS Per 48 behind only Michael Jordan and the 4th all-time leader in PER behind only Jordan, Lebron and Shaq.

In comparison to a player like Bird who is currently in the discussion for #9

Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob --- '90-'98 ---- 34.0 -----15.8 ---- 4.1 -----.525 -----.590 ---- 118 ---- 97 -----.261 ---- 27.8
Bird ----- '80-'88 ---- 30.9 ---- 12.7 ----- 7.6 ----- .519 ----- .570 ---- 116 ---- 101 ----- .217 ---- 24.2

As you can see D-Rob pretty much has the advantage all across the board with Bird's only advantage coming as a passer/playmaker, but when you include the other side of the ball it's not really close.

Playoff Per 100
Player ---- Years ---- PPG ---- RPG ---- APG ---- eFG% ---- TS%---- ORTG----DRTG----WS/48----PER
D-Rob --- '90-'98 --- 31.0 ---- 16.1 ---- 3.8 ----- .481 ----- .549 ---- 112 ---- 100 -----.188 ---- 24.1
Bird ----- '80-'88 ---- 28.4 ---- 12.4 ----- 7.4 ----- .489 -----.555 ---- 114 ---- 103 -----.183 ---- 21.9

Playoffs wise Bird has a small edge in efficiency and an obvious edge as a playmaker. Robinson wins out in rebounding and scoring albeit with slightly less efficiency. D-Rob however still enjoys a big edge in defensive impact even with the playoff dip, More than enough to make up for any edge Bird has in playmaking and efficiency.

Per 100 possessions don't matter...actual production/output does. With that said Drob's overall play and efficiency fell too much in the playoffs to be mentioned in the top 10. Now if you're talking about top 10 in the regular season then yes he'd deserve some "traction".

People shouldn't dismiss per poss/min stats.

NO ONE is every saying playing less minutes is better. That's not the point.

Think of this: a player goes for like 46 minutes a night. He's a C. He averages 12 rebounds and leads the team.

He gets injured. You have some pretty decent backups, but they averaged single digit rebounds. Does your team fall apart with respect to rebounds?

No. He's rebounding like Hawes and Ibaka. His rebounds are replaceable. Average players and decent backups can grab as many rebounds in that allotted time. His ability to play 46 minutes is great in a way, but he's not good enough that it matters because he's not providing you something extra.

That's why per poss/min. stats matter. It's more accurately reflective of what's being provided and what can be replaced.

I wrote an article on this actually if you want a more long-winded argument using Manu:

Spoiler:

There’s a divide between NBA fans and the analytics contingent. This divide is being breached more and more every day, but there’s still a lot of work to be done in explaining NBA statistics to a wider audience.

For instance, NBA stats, in advanced terms, are framed per possession or per minute, but the general basketball public finds that approach troubling or just plain mysterious. However, it’s built on really simple ideas that have relevance branching out into so many different areas of influence that even casual fans should understand it.

One of the most important practical applications of advanced numbers in basketball is the ability to compare dissimilar players. Manu Ginobili is one of the best illustrations of this concept — how do you value a high-level player who doesn’t play the minutes a typical star does? Even in his heyday, Manu never topped 31.1 minutes per game. If you compare him to other All-Star-caliber guards who play 38 minutes, how do you weigh Manu’s performance fairly?

This is where certain advanced stats come in, and it is not some super advanced topic that requires a math or science-based degree.

A common basketball stat that estimates value is Win Shares, popularized by basketball-reference.com.

Team wins are credited to players via box score stats. It can be used to compare a player like Ginobili to a heavy minutes starter who isn’t as efficient.

For example, Joe Johnson averaged 21.7 points per game in 2008, beating over Ginobili’s 16.5 in 2007; and Joe averaged more assists while equaling him in rebounds. If Johnson averaged more points by a significant amount, then how did Manu have more Win Shares? The answer, basically, is that Ginobili was so much better on a per possession minute basis that it gives his team more value. He got more points out of his shot attempts, and on a per minute basis he was outscoring Johnson.

Screen Shot 2014-05-28 at 8.30.29 PM

A critic would counter that Johnson is adding more value because he was actually on the court and averaged more points per game, but if Johnson doesn’t play that doesn’t mean his 21.7 points disappear completely; his possessions are divvied up among other else, and it’s the difference between what Johnson produces and what a Johnson-less team would produce that we’re interested in. That is the crucial point in understanding value stats. Replacing Manu’s production, meanwhile, would be more difficult because of how efficient he is with his shots and how well-rounded he is as a player. Ginobili is even more valuable to a championship contending team because of he good he plays on a per minute basis. Good teams likely have a few players to carry the scoring load; if you want to make a difference you have to provide at a higher level.

By the way, another metric would have similar results. With Hollinger’s PER, Manu had 14 estimated wins added in 2007, while Johnson had 11.9 in 2008. And Manu crushes Johnson in advanced plus/minus stats.

While it’s fairly easy to see how Manu is better than Joe Johnson, it’s not exactly tough competition. A better match-up would be Ginobili and Vince Carter in 2007, arguably his best season post-Toronto. Carter cracked 25 points per game; Ginobili never made it past 20. Yet despite Carter playing 50% more total minutes, they’re nearly even in Win Shares. How does this happen? Again, don’t think of Carter adding 25 points to his team; he’s using up opportunities that can be (partially) replaced by teammates. Manu’s stats were less replaceable because he was ridiculously efficient and filled up the stat-sheet in numerous ways.

Screen Shot 2014-05-28 at 8.31.47 PM

This is related to another term that’s used frequently in sports analytics: replacement level.

The replacement level is the level at which you can find a cheap player at any possible time. It’s used a lot in baseball where positions are less malleable and if you’re missing a shortstop, you have to find someone who can play that position. In the NBA, rotations are shorter and positions are fluid so absences or injuries are mostly covered by your same core players, but you still need guys on, say, veteran’s minimum contracts to fill in any voids.

Why do we set the baseline so low and not at something like an average player? A Fangraphs post (about baseball, of course) explains one important reason why:

If the baseline is set to average, then the results of the metric will actually favor inferior talents whose lack of skills convince their manager to keep them chained to the bench in lieu of better players who actually take the field on a semi-regular basis.

Since replacement level is set low, almost every player will have a Win Share score ranging from 0 to higher values. If you see other similar value metrics in basketball, it will most likely be using a very low baseline, often based on a calculation of replacement level.

Setting the baseline that low is useful for a few reasons, but it’s why basketball-reference is listing an unexceptional player with a long career, like Derek Fisher, with a Win Share total near legends with short careers, like David Thompson or Bill Walton. Fisher has 62.3 Win Shares, but if we compared him to an average player it’s -6.1 Win Shares (read this as he’s 6 wins below what an average player would provide). Yao Ming, who was clearly better than Fisher at his best, only has 65.9 Win Shares, but compared to the average player he’s providing 33 more wins.

This is where Manu Ginobili has even more of an advantage over players like Joe Johnson and Vince Carter. If you’re on the same team as players like Duncan and Parker, you have to have compelling reasons to take the ball out of their hands.

His per possession stats are mesmerizing — there’s a reason San Antonio plays so well with him on the court with his ability to take step-back three’s, throw bullets to open players, or drive to the basket with his patented Euro-step, picking up a high rate of free throws.

Manu doesn’t play heavy minutes, but he’s so good when he plays he’s still more valuable than most starters. Production is mostly replaceable; Ginobili is not.

Further, the big value with Per 100 Poss stats (not so much with Per 36 min) is comparing between eras where the pace is vastly different.

[Baller2014]

I have no problem giving Kobe credit for what he did against Sacramento, where he put up 35-9-4 on 47 FG% and 20 3pt%. This was a clear step below the anomaly of the Spurs series, where he was putting up 33-7-7 on 51.4 FG% and 35.7 3pt%. It's also a far cry from his holistic playoff averages of 29-7-6 on 46.9 FG% and 32.4 3pt%. Basically there's a reason the Spurs series looks so much more efficient and better than the rest of the playoffs, it's because the Spurs had nobody worth a damn to guard him. It's also a lot easier to put up those numbers when the D is focused on trying to stop prime Shaq from scoring.

My disagreement is basically about how "special" Kobe's 2001 playoffs were in relation to the remaining contenders. If Kobe's stat line of 29-7-6 on 46.9 FG% is "special" then how much more special must Dr J's 1976 playoff run of 35-13-5-2-2 on a FG% of 53.3% be? Especially given Dr J was being guarded much of that time by Bobby Jones, and he didn't have the luxury of Shaq to take the pressure off, giving Kobe open looks and more space whenever the D sagged off onto the team's #1 option (Shaq).

[NyCeEvO]

I have a kinda OT question but does anyone know why Bird's 3PAs dropped precipitously after his rookie year and didn't go back up until the '84-'85 season?

Was it due to coaching or a personal decision?

[DQuinn1575]

Addressing Bird v Hakeem in playoffs

1.) The playoff are a small sample size - players have 5-10 times more regular season games. You get a wider variety of match-ups - Hakeem's playoff career is basically 2 regular season -

2.) Hakeem's PER is heavily weighted towards his good years - when his play was good his team won more games, and his
PER is higher - it skews it very favorably for players like Hakeem whose teams only played more games when they did
well.

3.) Quality of team - there were years when Hakeem played the Lakers and they could say, let Hakeem get his points we
can still win; it doesn't matter.

4.) Importance of the regular season - Houston won their first championship with a better record (and I am assuming)
home court advantage in every round. Everybody needs to play hard to get hca in the regular season, except defending
champs who have the confidence not to need it. VIRTUALLY ALL OF HAKEEM'S REGULAR SEASON GAMES WERE IMPORTANT - One year
in Houston he missed the playoffs by a game. Virtually every year they wanted HCA to be able to advance farther.

5. Bird had some playoff moments - against Wilkins, Detroit, King, etc,
Down 3 games to 1 against Philly, he scored about 26 a game versus Bobby Jones, maybe the best defensive forward of the 80s. All of these are on the road to the finals, where he had to face some great Milwaukee and Philly teams. Did he have the showcase series against Ewing? No - but should we be rating someone based on a few games, or on the 1,000 plus he played -


Hakeem had some great playoff successes, and deserves credit for it. Obviously a lot of that success came without Jordan in the league - so perhaps the path was easier.

But in the regular season his MVP voting was 4,7,7,5,7,18.no votes,2,1,5,4,7 - consistently a top 5 player for 12 years.
But only 6 years where he was even considered in the Top 5 players in the league.

He eventually outshone Ewing and Robinson but it took him a few years to show that. And he has 5 years at the end where
he wasn't playing 2,000 minutes a year, and not an all-star performer.

Hakeem was a great player - but Bird was the best player in the league for a number of years. He led a team that improved
by 30+ games and in the following year won the NBA title.

For career MVP shares

4 Bird



8 Karl Malone


That's it until #11 = and Hakeem is 17 - so based how they were viewed in the regular season at the time, Bird is the best player left, and Hakeem is 9th.


Vote for Bird at #9

[An Unbiased Fan]

Fair enough point, but it should be noted Kobe faced the 2nd toughest defenses in the playoffs behind Shaq. And his career TS% in the playoffs is 54% despite that. Not to mention the endless "Kobe Stoppers" that teams tried to slow Kobe with like Patterson, Bowen, Christie, T.Allen.

Fair points though when we are talking about GOAT offensive players I usually prefer not to make excuses for them.

Wasn't an excuse, just putting into context why some years his TS% was lower. His career playoff was still 54%, and prime years were closer to 56%.

Oh I know he got the votes those years but I just feel that in reality he wasn't a Top 5 guy after 2010.

From 11-12 he was really inconsistent with his offensive efficiency and dominated the ball more to make up for his decline in ability.
Add to that his very poor defense and I don't see a guy who was having a huge impact or the type of impact he usually had.
Just because a player is putting up volume offensive stats does not mean they are having All-Star level impact.

Maybe you could argue he was Top 5 in 13? but once you take his injury into account he obviously cannot be ranked that high. Being unable to compete in the playoffs is a big deal.

2011-13 Kobe: 26.7 ppg, 5.1 apg, 5.3 rpg on 55% TS
^
That's what post-prime Kobe put up. Only 9 other players in history put up that statline, and post-prime Kobe averaged it for 3 years. All and all, I'd say his Top 5 finsihes were deserved.

Perhaps. Would depend on how the All-D awards were being given out in general.
Are specialists winning them for other positions and if so why don't specialist guards get the vote?

I think in general specialists aren't regarded highly for awards because they put almost all their effort/fouls into that one aspect of the gameand put up lower minutes. Though some guys like Bowen made them despite being in the low 30's for mpg

I dunno.
I feel like Kobe's level of production and his impact in 00 & 02 wasn't really beyond what Pippen was giving the Bulls in the early 90's.

00 = 21 / 4.4 on 52%TS
02 = 26.5 / 4.6 on 51%TS

Numbers kind of speak for themselves don't they?
Those numbers (even with advanced stats included) aren't really better then early 90's Pip or late 00's Gasol.

Come on man, we've been having a good convo. You know that Kobe got hurt in 2000, and he faced some tough defenses in 2002. The league average TS% was much lower in those early years.

BTW, Bird's first 4 playoffs, he shot 51%,53%,47%,48% TS

That is fine and I respect your perspective.
I view them in 01 as arguably the GOAT duo but in the other two years they are more like a good year from Jordan/Pip.

Still view it more like Magic/Kareem. Pippen's ceiling didn't reach pre-prime Kobe's level.

It really was but I can't pretend he played at that same level in 00 & 02.
Was really an outlierish year during the 3peat.

Fair enough, but Bird didnt' play prime level pre-1984 either.

Fair enough but I don't agree with your argument.
06 was the year where you couldn't blow on a perimeter player without a whistle being called and that is the year Kobe has the streaks you brought up.
Even if KD did get more ref love then Kobe the rules being at their worst in 06 probably evens it out.

I don't think Kobe was much of a beneficiary of those rules. He had already dropped a 40+ ppg month in 2003, during the handcheck era, and was more a jumpershooter by then.

Feb 03': 40.6 ppg on 58% TS.

[trex_8063]

I have no problem giving Kobe credit for what he did against Sacramento, where he put up 35-9-4 on 47 FG% and 20 3pt%. This was a clear step below the anomaly of the Spurs series, where he was putting up 33-7-7 on 51.4 FG% and 35.7 3pt%. It's also a far cry from his holistic playoff averages of 29-7-6 on 46.9 FG% and 32.4 3pt%. Basically there's a reason the Spurs series looks so much more efficient and better than the rest of the playoffs, it's because the Spurs had nobody worth a damn to guard him. It's also a lot easier to put up those numbers when the D is focused on trying to stop prime Shaq from scoring.

My disagreement is basically about how "special" Kobe's 2001 playoffs were in relation to the remaining contenders. If Kobe's stat line of 29-7-6 on 46.9 FG% is "special" then how much more special must Dr J's 1976 playoff run of 35-13-5-2-2 on a FG% of 53.3% be? Especially given Dr J was being guarded much of that time by Bobby Jones, and he didn't have the luxury of Shaq to take the pressure off, every time the D sagged off onto the team's #1 option.

The shooting percentages are a little misleading, because he got to the FT-line MORE THAN TWICE as often in the Sacramento series, and as consequence his TS% was actually HIGHER in that one than against SA.

At any rate, if your intent was to devalue a 35.0 ppg/9.0 rpg/4.25 rpg/1.25 spg/0.5 bpg/4.0 topg on .588 TS% playoff series against good defense.....I'm not sure it's an effective argument to point out that he had a marginally better series----33.25 ppg/7.0 rpg/7.0 apg/1.5 spg/0.75 bpg/2.75 topg on .571 TS%---against lesser defense. Both are obv pretty stellar.
Your point about opposing defenses focusing on Shaq stands, though.

And I'm not sure it's entirely genuine to compare the raw avg's of Dr. J's finals run in '76 because the NY Nets played a 105.9 pace (vs. 91.7 for the '01 Lakers). Some adjustment is in order if we are actually going to compare them.

[Baller2014]

Well, yes, that was the Nets regular season pace. How about the playoffs though? Plus, I'm not sure pace is as useful for discrediting points as it is for rebounds. I mean, obviously a higher pace provides more shot attempts, which explains how Wilt had enough shots to average 50ppg, but Erving and Kobe took the same number of shots in the playoffs in 76/01 (22 per game), so it doesn't really work as an explanation to diminish what Erving did. Erving was just making more shots than Kobe, despite facing more defensive pressure.

[andrewww]

Kudos for O_6 fo breaking down the candidates by categories and I'm following a similar template for the #9 spot.

The main candidates for me are between Hakeem and Bird.
2-Way BIGS: Hakeem, Garnett
2-Way Wings: Kobe, Erving, West
1-Way GOAT impact: Bird, Oscar

Hakeem was certanly the better offensive player by a decent margin over KG, and in reference to one of Doctor MJ's posts, I'll explain why I feel this way. KG may have been the better complimentary piece on offense if he wasn't the designated focal point, but part of the problem with that philosophy is that he needs more quality teammates on that end of the floor to balance out what I perceive to be his role on an ideal scenario, which is at best a 2nd option if not even a 3rd option on a championship level team. Hakeem's skillset is best utlized as the focal point of an offense, and while he wasn't as efficient as someone like Shaq, his diverse skillset and ability to score on volume on good efficiency can't be understated. He'd also make the right basketball play when required, and has a peak that rivals any player in NBA history. 12 All-NBA selections in the toughest era for centers proves he was a capable scorer before his peak, and of course a 2-time DPOY on 9 All-Defensive team selections.

Bird has GOAT-level impact on offense, and didn't have one noticeable weakness. In today's era, his ability from beyond the arc may be even more emphasized. His 84-86 peak was great and really hard to argue against, with the only tidbits against that notion being that he achieved it before peak Magic, and before Jordan reached his prime either. A transition period if you will, but this isn't a strong argument either way. His relatively short career and smart team defense but average man-to-man defense are the main sticking points against him over someone like Hakeem.

The other players with an argument at #9:

Kobe - An offensive anchor and extended prime play, one that few can rival other than KMalone, Kareem, and perhaps a couple others. Early in his career, he was a great man-to-man defense during the 3peat where he earned his often overrated reputation on defense later on in his career (although alot of people in this project criminally underrate his defense early on in his career). While he was stubborn when he was younger and had questionable way of handling frustration, there's a lot more positive than negative about his play that people aren't willing to consider. Since so many used Magic's longevity against him when compared to LeBron (funny thing is LeBron's only had 10 prime seasons since his rookie season probably wouldnt be considered as one), then it is absolutely reasonable to conclude that Kobe's longevity is a legitimate argument over someone like Bird in this aspect, though Bird's defined peak probably puts him over Kobe in most people's views. The problem for Kobe was that his peak years (imo, these were 2001, 2003, 2006, or 2007) coincided with either a poor supporting cast n 2006-2007, or years where he didn't receive his due reputation earlier in 2001/2003.

Garnett's impact is by and large the advanced stats argument on the defensive end of the ball, and of course his overall ability to stuff the stat sheet at 20/10/5 for 6 straight seasons. I'm not buying the argument that he always played with bad teammates (Terrell Brandon, Wally Szczerbiak, Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell) and even the furthest he went in the playoffs with Minnesota which was 2004, his team got that far but no further because Garnett suffers from a similar dynamic as LeBron, which is that his highly efficient stats and PER conceal the ability to reach that extra gear on offense. In other words, it wasn't that Garnett chose not to score at higher volume, but rather that he wasn't capable of doing so even if called upon in such a situation.

Oscar was perhaps Magic Johnson at 6-5, but what hurts Oscar is his lack of championships as the focal point of the team.

Jerry West is an interesting case because he was solid defender and an incredible offensive player. Had he played with a 3pt line, I have no doubt that his numbers would be even greater.

I see Bird and Kobe as not being that far off from each other to be honest. Bird was more efficient and the better overall team player on offense, but his lack of longevity and Kobe being a significantly better defender (at his defensive peak) make it almost a wash, and this isn't even taking into account that Kobe was most definitely an offensive anchor like few others. However, Hakeem was clearly better on defense than either of them and is certainly comparable to them offensively. All 3 of them have won multiple championships as the lead dog or a key cog.

My vote is for Hakeem Olajuwon.

[Basketballefan]

VOTE: LARRY BIRD

One of the best shooters and offensive players this game has seen, great rebounding at the SF position. Point forward and leader on his title teams, took the Celtics from a a scrub team to contenders in the first year of his arrival. One of the best passers ever, arguably GOAT passing forward, at worst 2nd. Although not elite at defense, was still very good. Just an amazing all around player.

3 time champion
2-time FMVP
3 MVPS ina row
12 time all star
9 time all nba first team etc etc

Incredible Peak and stretch from 84-86 when he won 3 mvps and 2 FMVPS, one over a Lakers team that had Magic, Kareem, Worthy etc.

Some of his numbers in his title runs in the playoffs:
1984: 28 11 6 61TS% Finals: 27 14 4
1986: 26 9 8 62TS% Finals: 24 10 10 58 TS%

[trex_8063]

Well, yes, that was the Nets regular season pace. How about the playoffs though?

I don't know of a site/tool that offers playoff-only pace. If you do know of one, please share.
Otherwise, I figured comparing their respective rs paces is the best I can do. I mean, it's not as though we have particular reason to think the paces would be radically altered in the playoffs in such a way as to bring them significantly closer together, is there?

Plus, I'm not sure pace is as useful for discrediting points as it is for rebounds. I mean, obviously a higher pace provides more shot attempts, which explains how Wilt had enough shots to average 50ppg, but Erving and Kobe took the same number of shots in the playoffs in 76/01 (22 per game), so it doesn't really work as an explanation to diminish what Erving did. Erving was just making more shots than Kobe, despite facing more defensive pressure.

While it's true they had similar number of FGA per game (23.1 per game for Dr. J, 22.4 per game for Kobe)---which indeed means Dr. J had superior shooting efficiency to have such an edge in ppg.....noting that they had similar number of shot attempts per game doesn't address or refute why comparing raw averages is a bit disingenuous. You said right there in your post (underlined portion): higher pace provides more shot attempts. So it could be that if playing at a pace similar to Kobe's, Dr. J would only have averaged something like 21 FGA per game (which naturally would come with a reduction in ppg).

Why are we even going on about this, though? I forgot we actually DO have the per 100 poss data for both years:

'76 Erving playoff: 37.4 PTS, 13.6 REB, 5.3 AST, 2.1 STL, 2.2 BLK, 3.2 TOV with .610 TS%
'01 Kobe playoff: 35.4 PTS, 8.7 REB, 7.3 AST, 1.9 STL, 0.9 BLK, 3.8 TOV with .555 TS%

So anyway, not saying Dr. J's playoff doesn't look better on paper. Merely saying that an adjustment was in order.
Also this is without any discussion about ABA equivalency, which I don't really want to get into because people have pretty divergent opinions on it, and also because it's a total side-tracking discussion.

But bottom line is this: most people around here think an awful lot of '76 Erving, and the playoff run he had therein. If you have to evoke '76 Erving's playoff run in order to make '01 Kobe's "look bad"......that right there probably tells you that Kobe had a pretty good year in the playoffs.

[Baller2014]

Well if we don't know what the pace for the playoffs was that year, it seems unfair to take points off Erving for pace, when he took the exact same # of shot attempts as Kobe that year.

I agree, Dr J's 1976 season was special. More special than what Kobe did in 2001, yet nobody is talking about Dr J as a candidate.

[fatal9]

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon
But I vehemently disagree with that. ronnymac2 and fatal9, along with 90sAllDecade and fpliii, have done extensive breakdowns of Hakeem's early career, and they've convinced me that Hakeem was basically the same player pre-93 as he was from 93 onwards.

I wouldn't go this far, because I think Hakeem clearly leveled up in '93 and with a deeper look the distinctions between the different phases of his career become clearer. Fundamentally he has most of the same qualities, but accumulation of all the little things added up to make him considerably better. My argument is more so that, even if in those early years he is not quite up to his GOAT peak standards, that shouldn't keep us from understanding the tremendous two way value Hakeem still provides, the rarity (and consequently the value) of having a player who in himself provides so many key things at such a high level, the qualities which made him so hard to deal with in the playoffs (people seem to want to dismiss this as some sort of a lucky occurrence or sample size issue, when they'd be better served to understand why his game translates so well and why other players don't), among other things. There are clear weaknesses that exist in Hakeem's game in his younger years especially compared to his peak form which should be accepted, but I just dislike the use of generalizations and heuristics to accommodate long held sticky feelings that were initially created by winning bias (KG is a victim of this too).

Also, just a general comment about data. I think people underestimate how noisy the data we get really is. Even in the corporate world, we've seen the rise of "big data" over the last decade, but now there is disillusionment about the actual quality and power of the data being used, and that has created a lot of backlash recently (http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... xplains-10). This is a nice summary of the main concerns (lot of people who have experience using data I'm sure are already aware):

"The criticisms fall into three areas that are not intrinsic to big data per se, but endemic to data analysis, and have some merit. First, there are biases inherent to data that must not be ignored. That is undeniably the case. Second, some proponents of big data have claimed that theory (ie, generalisable models about how the world works) is obsolete. In fact, subject-area knowledge remains necessary even when dealing with large data sets. Third, the risk of spurious correlations—associations that are statistically robust but happen only by chance—increases with more data. Although there are new statistical techniques to identify and banish spurious correlations, such as running many tests against subsets of the data, this will always be a problem."

Want to understand how useless most of the NBA related data we parade around actually is? Try following a few teams/players and betting on them using data. Database handicapping is mainly useful for say...point totals (and your database better be incredible and fine tuned if you're going to do this), but for predicting outcomes, it is atrocious, for that you need insight, it's very difficult and time consuming to get good, but making predictions and then focusing on evaluating the quality of your reasoning and assumptions can reveal a lot about the game. Data has good uses, but just realize that we can't outsource insight to data. Some things betting will make you appreciate is the uniqueness of each situation, the importance of coaching systems (when we look at players, I think one of the central questions we should try to answer is, "what kind of a role and impact can a player have in various types of offensive/defensive systems, including ones where they are the centerpiece, and how impactful can he be in these situations?"), and finally, the ridiculous fallacies that surround sport culture which is basically built around arguing about things that don't matter.

Data, especially as it relates to the NBA, is most useful when it answers a narrow and specific question (I like some of the stuff we get from synergy for example, and the general move towards getting data that is super specific), but generally the wider the scope of the question, the worse data will be at answering it and this is why I loathe aggregate stats. I'm reminded of something I recall Haralabos (NBA betting god) saying, something along the lines of that just when he thinks someone is on the right track, they screw themselves up with useless data (that's collecting too much information that doesn't actually matter). The hubris of some the exclusively data guys can be shocking. Personally, I've also suffered disillusionment with most of the NBA related data we do have mainly because there's so many crucial factors that are often missing or can't be recorded and then there is the presence of inherent biases in data that considers things which aren't really that important (I just can't ignore how much this screws things up, and because of what an interactive system the NBA game actually is, it's especially hard to thumb it down with data). I'm not an anti data analysis or stats guy, I often have to use it at work, and see value of it in the decision making process. But with the NBA, the best thing we can do for ourselves is develop a rich qualitative understanding of the game and challenge each others assertions to get closer to what matters. I now prefer a more minimalistic approach (which takes a lot more time, time which most of us, including me, don't always have) with a side of data (should be used to fill gaps of knowledge, perhaps raise questions if the data is especially good), but I think it's better to strip out as much of the noise as we can, you'll get closer to the truth that way (if that is your goal and you're willing to fight against your own biases). I find this serves me a lot better in terms of improving my "hit rate" for predicting outcomes (and part of predicting outcomes is also recognizing randomness, the unknown and your own ignorance). As far as the NBA is concerned, for many reasons, I also think data and stats from the regular season, despite the larger sample size, is actually MORE noisy in estimating the true abilities of a player.

[trex_8063]

Well if we don't know what the pace for the playoffs was that year, it seems unfair to take points off Erving for pace, when he took the exact same # of shot attempts as Kobe that year.

I mean, obviously a higher pace provides more shot attempts, which explains how Wilt had enough shots to average 50ppg,

??

It seems like you've already answered your own question, not sure what else can be said.

Put another way: why are we putting an asterisk by Wilt's 50 ppg (and the near-40 FGA it took to do that) due to pace, but NOT putting an asterisk by Dr. J's 35 ppg (and the 23.1 FGA it took to do that)? Pretty clear double-standard there. Don't know how to explain it any better than that.

I agree, Dr J's 1976 season was special. More special than what Kobe did in 2001, yet nobody is talking about Dr J as a candidate.

Not denying the greatness of '76 Erving, and certainly not saying '01 Kobe is his equal. And if you think it's unfair that Kobe is getting attention at this spot where Erving is not, that's fine with me. I can respect that.
I was merely coming to Kobe's defense because your tone very much seemed to be implying his '01 playoff run was completely ordinary or not all that good. When in fact, it would be a top 2-3 playoff run in ANY given year in the NBA; and if someone you were lobbying for had put up those exact same numbers in a title run......you would absolutely be justified in citing those stats in support of your candidate.

[Baller2014]

The pace Kobe's teams played at did not prevent Kobe getting the same number of shots per game as Erving, so why would we penalise Erving for possibly playing in games that generally had more shot attempts, since the specific number of shot attempts Erving has was the same as Kobe.

[lorak]

From Fatal9:

The funny thing about this post, despite seeing it quoted from time to time, is how much I disagree with the style of it.

The funny thing is also that Colts right now is using arguments (that PER graph, your opinions), which show that Hakeem > Shaq. I guess they weren't worth showing, when Shaq was discussed...

[RayBan-Sematra]

The funny thing is also that Colts right now is using arguments (that PER graph, your opinions), which show that Hakeem > Shaq. I guess they weren't worth showing, when Shaq was discussed...

That graph wouldn't hurt Shaq in a comparison VS Hakeem.
It merely shows which players produced better in the regular-season VS the playoffs and how big the gap was.

Shaq has the edge over Hakeem in PER over any number of years regular-season or playoffs..

[ShaqAttack3234]

I know I'm not eligible, but I'll give my 2 cents anyway. As much as I'd like to argue Bird in this place, I'd go with Hakeem. Dream's play from '93-'95 needs no explanation. Simply put, you can at least compare it to anyone, and I'm skeptical as to whether there's ever been someone equally good as a two-way player. Certainly, nobody has been more valuable to an offense and defense. Those 3 years alone are pretty much enough for me, but while Dream was the victim of bad teams in his mid to late 20s, just look at how dominant Dream was from '86-'88 in the playoffs. We're talking a 49/25/7 elimination game, another 40/20 game the following year in a 38/17 series and those 2 years followed the playoff run when he got to the finals after dominating and upsetting the showtime Lakers, between arguably their best two championship teams in another 60+ win season. Plus, despite Dream being far less disciplined and not as good of a post defender in the 80's, he was regularly anchoring defenses that were top 4 or better, including 1990 when he averaged 4.6 blocks and over 2 steals, while anchoring the league's best defense statistically. From what i've seen, Dream by '90 or so was pretty close to his mid 90's skill level, and noticeably more athletic than the post-'93 versions. You'd see the post moves, counters and even the nice passes. In fact, I'd say the biggest difference was that Dream did improve more as a post defender, and at the offensive end, a lot of it was how he was used, but also that while Dream had the skills to make some nice passes, he was not a consistently good facilitator yet, partially due to the fact that I wouldn't say he was the most willing passer yet. Then again, if I was Dream, I wouldn't be too eager to pass surrounded by second rate chuckers.

Point being, Dream was a great two way player long before Rudy T took over. His athleticism alone made him an offensive force from day one, but he already had that baseline fadeaway as a young player as well, his touch just continued to improve and he continued to set it up in different ways and get better with his counters. He was still a good enough offensive player to dominate playoff games in a way that very few NBA greats have in their prime. Go ahead, look up how many players in their primes have dominated at a comparable level to Dream in the playoffs from '86-'88. And a lot of Dream's playoff games from that time are pretty easily available. That's something that's stood out to me for quite a while. I'm really trying to think of other players who dominated at a similar level in the postseason at the same stage of their careers, and it's really difficult. I mean, I didn't see these games, but going by the recaps and game by game stats, rookie Kareem maybe and MJ had some huge games between '86-'88, but it's something that's overlooked about Dream.

[lorak]

That said, I'm also confused on some of your numbers. I get different numbers for David Robinson vs -3 defenses 90-98. I get different numbers for the Rockets than what you've been posting.

91 Rockets ORtg IN 107.7 (-0.5)
91 Rockets ORtg OUT 108.3 (+0.3)

92 Rockets Ortg IN 106.7 (-1.2)
92 Rockets ORtg OUT 105.8 (-2.8)

I don't know about DRob's numbers, but for Rockets with/without Olajuwon I got the same as you ElGee (well, except of small difference in 1991 IN - 107.6). Maybe acrossthecourt's numbers are different because of "competition adjustment" he mentioned?

[NyCeEvO]

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

I can see why people are down on Hakeem's pre-93 career, if they think he just wasn't close to the same player he was from 93 onwards. That he was an empty stat guy, that was putting up big numbers on mediocre teams.

But I vehemently disagree with that. ronnymac2 and fatal9, along with 90sAllDecade and fpliii, have done extensive breakdowns of Hakeem's early career, and they've convinced me that Hakeem was basically the same player pre-93 as he was from 93 onwards. I mean, I think his best stretch was 93-95, so he wasn't exactly the same player before then, but he wasn't very far off. It's like pre-00 Shaq vs 00-02 Shaq...not quite the same guy, but he was still an excellent player that demonstrated a lot of the same qualities that 00-02 Shaq did.

I'm a little surprised he's going to drop to 9 or 10, tbh. He's been one of the more lauded players on RealGM for a while. I feel like he's getting punished for a crappy team situation in Houston from 85-92 (and even when he did have good teams, they were getting beaten by better teams, and he usually played great...and to completely dismantle the defending champion Lakers in the WCF...a team that was still championship-caliber btw, with the #3 SRS in the league that year...that's one of the ATG playoff performances, and he was a 2nd year player...how can a player show that in 86, but then mysteriously falter until 93, unless it was his team that just wasn't that good?).

Those are some great points.

While I do think Hakeem became a better lateral/help defender in his peak (which allowed him to have an even greater impact on team defense), I think his pre-93 play is generally underrated.

Destroying a prime Lakers squad in the WCF to get to the Finals in '86 should raise a lot of eyebrows about how good Hakeem was from early on (and possibly raise some doubts about Magic's impact).

The Lakers were the highest scoring team in the '86 regular season (117.3ppg).

They averaged 118.2ppg in the WCSF against the Mavericks (no overtimes). Yet in the very next series against the Rockets, the Lakers dropped to 107.4ppg despite the pace of the series against the Rockets (100.0) being higher than the series against Dallas (98.7).

The Lakers had by the highest FG%/eFG% of all playoff teams .535 FG%/.546 eFG%. (Boston was the next highest team with .507 FG%/.521 eFG%.) Yet when the Lakers faced Houston, their efficiency dropped to .501 FG%/.510 eFG%.

Kareem and Worthy led the Lakers in USG% against the Rockets, 32.3% and 21.9% respectively. And they were pretty efficient against the Mavs, Kareem averaged .597 FG% while worthy .567 FG%. But when they faced the Rockets, Kareem's FG% 49.6% and Worthy's was 52.4%. It's quite clear that the high-octane offense of the Lakers was clearly impacted by the Rockets interior defense spearheaded by Hakeem.

Hakeem led the charge offensively and defensively in that series averaging team highs in points (31.0), rebounds (11.2), blocks (4.0), and steals (2.2). Ralph Sampson played a good sidekick role averaging 20.4p/8.8r/2.2b/1.2s, but Hakeem was better in every way. Even though he was ejected from Game 5 with 5 minutes left in the game, he already had 30pts, 7rbs, 4blks, and 3stls.

Even though they go on to lose to the Celtics in the Finals, that was Hakeem's best (structured) team for a while.

Sampson missed half of the regular season the following year and while he was there for the '87 playoffs, he wasn't what he used to be. (Hakeem still puts up 29.2pts/11.3rbs/4.3blks on 61.5 FG%/28.1 USG% in the '87 playoffs.)

After a big argument with Coach Fitch in the early '87-'88 season, Sampson was traded for Joe Carroll and Sleepy Floyd, which broke up the effective 'Twin Towers' scheme they had going on in Houston. (Hakeem goes nuts in the first round of the playoffs in '88 averaging 37.5pts, 16.8rbs, 2.8blks, and 2.3stls on 57.1 FG%/88.4FT%/32.9USG%, but Dallas had the better overall team and still beats HOU 3-1.)

From 88/89 to 91/92, it's widely known that Olajuwon is a beast defensively. However, the combination of having subpar teammates and (IMO) an inability to change his individual game to yield the highest impact on the team (especially offensively) explains the mediocrity of those years.

When Rudy comes in, the Rockets play at a slower pace but are yielding more high quality possessions. Hakeem has better teammates but he's also learning how to play off his teammates better (a la MJ under P-Jax) and it leads to titles.


In short, I think the 'Twin Towers' scheme was geared to his individual strengths early in his career. He didn't really need to change his game in order to have a big impact because the team was structured around channelling things to him and Ralph on offense and defense. As they went, the team.

When Ralph is traded and they no longer have the advantage of having two very skilled big men, the Rockets become a somewhat generic team with great individual play from Hakeem that doesn't have enough impact to translate to wins.

It takes some tweaks in his individual offensive game (i.e. greater offensive awareness and passing), better teammates, and a slower play style (that yields the highest impact of Hakeem on his team and on the game) to take him to the next level.

[ardee]

I'll be voting Kobe here.

Gonna post a Kobe vs. Bird comparison in a bit, since he seems like the main candidate for this spot.