RealGM Top 100 List #9

[Doctor MJ]

Excuse me Doctor MJ,

I frequently hear arguments that the other 90's centers ( Ewing , Olajuwon, and Robinson ) were better scorers than KG because of how much more efficient they were. But I was wondering how much of that has to do with era so could you please compare their primes ( whatever years you believe ) to each other using TS % relative to the years their primes encompass and post them.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Is there some reason why you can't do this yourself?

No, not really I was just hoping you had the numbers at arms reach, but you don't have to look for it. I was just interested in the data of it because people point to garnett's lower TS as an example of how he should be penalized for it in the rankings while many of the people he is being compared to played in a more offensive friendly era.

I know you are probably a busy person so I don't want to have the reputation of a freeloader of advanced stats

Sorry for bothering you, that wasn't my intention

Ah okay.

Well first off I'm sorry for my curt tone. I was just rather confused. You seemed to have a very specific thing you wanted to see in the data, so why not do it yourself? Sounds like you were maybe under the impression I have particularly easy ways of scraping this data, but reality is that my coding skills are way out of practice, so typically anything you see from me is a combination of manual + spreadsheet skills. Granted I'm pretty experienced with working with the data, so I know what I want, and I'm good with spreadsheets, so I can do it faster than most, but when it comes to a relative TS% comparison, how you'd imagine yourself doing it, that's all I'd be doing.

Now - if you truly don't know how to do it, then it would be good to talk more one-on-one. I could see doing a one-off thing for you, or I could see giving you some tutoring.

Still I'll think on your specific thing tomorrow, and try to put some stuff down on it. I won't guarantee to have the data you're looking for, but I ought to at least be able to explain my opinion and point to some numbers.

Cheers

[Baller2014]

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.

Interesting. Which of the pro-Kobe arguments persuaded you to switch from Bird? You had Bird ahead coming into the project if I recall.

[acrossthecourt]

What would happen if we gave Olajuwon 2 sober, durable All-Star teammates for 4 consecutive years of his career? Not just at his peak...any 4 years of his career from 1986-1997. Just pick 4 years.

Hakeem Olajuwon
Robert Horry
Clyde Drexler
Reggie Miller
Kenny Smith

That's not crazy or unrealistic at all. That lineup still isn't as loaded as 1985-1988 McHale/Parish/Ainge/DJ + Maxwell in 1985 and Walton in 1986 off the bench. Hell Jerry Sichting would have been welcomed on Dream's teams in the 1980's.

If Hakeem got to play with even a modicum of the offensive talent these other all-time greats had, I'm sure his "offensive impact" would look a lot better. He was saddled with having to carry a load far too large from 1987 on (in addition to the amazing defensive work he was doing).

Question his leadership all you want...on the court, Olajuwon wasn't a selfish player. Like Shaq, Olajuwon always looked to make the right play. You're going to have to convince me that playing through somebody else on Houston from 1987-1990 would have been a better method of attack on offense if you want me to believe Hakeem's offense is overrated. I don't see it.

1) That's a crazy good team, actually, and Olajuwon's teams were known for depth and balance beyond him anyway.

2) If your teammates are poor offensive players, then they should be exposed without you, not get better.

3) His offensive "burden" wasn't unusually large in the 80's. He was like a 25-28 usage player with low assists. (He did do a lot on defense, of course.)

4) Here's another set of games: In the 68 regular season games with Hakeem, they were a +3.1 offense, roughly, adjusted for the competition. In the 14 games without him, they were a +3.2 offense. Again, they didn't miss him on offense. They were better in the playoffs on offense with him, however, but not by any special mark.

5) Hakeem's best offensive team pre-Barkley/Pippen/getting old was 1986. After that, Sampson had injury problems, and their second best offensive season (until 1993) was 1991 ... you know, the year he missed a large chunk of games with injury.

So your general point about offensive distribution and the lesser desirability of low-post volume scorers is excellent.

However, there are a few things to note in Hakeem's case.

(1) He wasn't nearly the passer/defense reader 86-92 than he was from 93-96.
(2) You can't look at ORtg or DRtg splits in a vacuum without understand lineup and strategy.
(3) There is a "resiliency" to his team offenses after 93

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)

(Btw, in 38 missed games from 91-92, the Rockets played at a 35-win pace, down from a 46-win pace with Hakeem.)

I would add, noting the change in 93, that from 93-97 Houston played in 81 postseason games and had a +6 ORtg. This is not to say their absolute ORtg was very high (although in 95 it was 115 in the PS), but that there was a resiliency to Olajuwon as an offensive hub against elite defenses. Frankly, this is why I value him highly on offense in these years and see him somewhat differently than almost all traditional "offensive anchor" bigs. He can play from the mid-post, or back to the basket, and his actions/decisions are quick and decisive. Double at your own peril, or deal with a high-efficiency half-court mismatch...I don't think it's the most scalable offensive approach, but the idea that there doesn't seem to a strong defense to counter it is compelling. (Note -- the 93 Rockets were +2.3 offensively. +1.6 PS...although +3.0 w/Maxwell in and the PS ORtg was sabotaged by G5 vs. LAC in which Max, Horry and Garland shot 4-25. The other 11 PS games were 110 or +4.2. 94 was -0.4 in the RS, +5.2 PS, 95 post-trade +4.7, +8.2 PS. 96 Rockets w/Dream+Drexler +2.9 (110.5 raw) although only +0.8 PS before 97 going over +10 in the PS.

Summary stats of Robinson or the regression stuff? Because I tried some regression of his offensive rating versus opposing defense strength. And I ignored 1997,

1) I've been saying that for a while and it's the problem with treating Olajuwon as someone with a single long prime.
2) I never said otherwise. Rather it's just not a good sign when your leading scorer goes out and your offensive rating goes through the roof.... I'm not saying Olajuwon is X good because of his splits.
3) Looking at this issue further, it appears there is *not* resiliency in terms of his game against better defenses. Rather he's just better in the playoffs. It's inexplicable. It's like Shaq always told people ... he was saving himself for the playoffs. I'm still looking through the numbers, but he's unique in this regard.

B-ref's new gamelogs system screwed up my old spreadsheet for with/without stats. Looks like I was missing OT games to calculate pace. I decided to use their advanced gamelogs because they give pace for you, even though I have the formula, but I forgot to add in OT's. I think I'll just go back to calculating possessions myself with raw stats. Even so, Houston still is a lot better in the regular season (plus three games in the playoffs) on offense without him. The point's there. It's about gathering evidence to prove he's not an offensive anchor in those non-peak ('93 to '95 at least) seasons. And in 1986, they're about the same with/without him on offense.

Looks like Otis Thorpe was 21/12 on a 57 FG% without Hakeem during the biggest stretch in '91. That explains some of it. Larry Smith, a wholly unremarkable player, started in Hakeem's place. I know little about him except he crashed the offensive glass and turned the ball over a ton. You could argue they got better on offense because they downsized and "smallballed," but Smith wasn't far from retirement, wasn't a skilled guy, and somehow finished the season with an 8.1 usage rate and a 47 TS% (!!) That's worse than Ben Wallace. There have been only 42 seasons with 1000 minutes and a usage rate lower than that. So that guy replaced Olajuwon and they got better on offense. Basketball is funny.

With/without stats can break down due to the bad backup effect or the inverse of that, like if Olajuwon was being backed up by a three-point shooting center or something. Larry Smith was a bad backup, and he played a lot more when he was injured. That should inflate Olajuwon's impact on offense....

As I've stated before, I don't think Olajuwon's a bad offensive player, and the whole point of this is gathering evidence about how valuable he is on offense to his teams throughout his career, not just 1994 as everyone talks about. Two-way bigs are the rage right now -- probably why Magic/Bird have dropped so far, Wilt is somehow fourth, Duncan's high, and Shaq's above Magic/Bird -- but we're overstating their offense (or their defense sometimes.)

I'm not locking in on a precise value. With/without stats are really noisy and I wouldn't want to rank players using them. It's blunt, but looking at a good chunk of games in separate seasons to get some sense of a trend. I know you've done the same with Kareem's with/without stats, discussing his "funk" and how Magic revitalized him.

On a team without a lot of offensive help, but nothing truly awful, typically when your star goes down the offense crumbles. It's not a good sign it goes in the other direction.

(Their defense, however, crumbles, as I suspected it would.)

And again, it's not that Olajuwon is better against the best defenses. He just turns it up in the playoffs. At least his offense.

[ronnymac2]

What would happen if we gave Olajuwon 2 sober, durable All-Star teammates for 4 consecutive years of his career? Not just at his peak...any 4 years of his career from 1986-1997. Just pick 4 years.

Hakeem Olajuwon
Robert Horry
Clyde Drexler
Reggie Miller
Kenny Smith

That's not crazy or unrealistic at all. That lineup still isn't as loaded as 1985-1988 McHale/Parish/Ainge/DJ + Maxwell in 1985 and Walton in 1986 off the bench. Hell Jerry Sichting would have been welcomed on Dream's teams in the 1980's.

If Hakeem got to play with even a modicum of the offensive talent these other all-time greats had, I'm sure his "offensive impact" would look a lot better. He was saddled with having to carry a load far too large from 1987 on (in addition to the amazing defensive work he was doing).

Question his leadership all you want...on the court, Olajuwon wasn't a selfish player. Like Shaq, Olajuwon always looked to make the right play. You're going to have to convince me that playing through somebody else on Houston from 1987-1990 would have been a better method of attack on offense if you want me to believe Hakeem's offense is overrated. I don't see it.

1) That's a crazy good team, actually, and Olajuwon's teams were known for depth and balance beyond him anyway.

2) If your teammates are poor offensive players, then they should be exposed without you, not get better.

3) His offensive "burden" wasn't unusually large in the 80's. He was like a 25-28 usage player with low assists. (He did do a lot on defense, of course.)

4) Here's another set of games: In the 68 regular season games with Hakeem, they were a +3.1 offense, roughly, adjusted for the competition. In the 14 games without him, they were a +3.2 offense. Again, they didn't miss him on offense. They were better in the playoffs on offense with him, however, but not by any special mark.

5) Hakeem's best offensive team pre-Barkley/Pippen/getting old was 1986. After that, Sampson had injury problems, and their second best offensive season (until 1993) was 1991 ... you know, the year he missed a large chunk of games with injury.

His title teams had very good depth and balance, that is true. His teams from 1987-1990 were neither balanced nor deep.

It is good for the Rockets that they seemed to be able to redistribute some of the offensive responsibility Dream had in 1986 and perform well offensively in 14 games without him. Same thing regarding the 26 missed games in 1991. Honestly, I am unsure of what this information means about Hakeem Olajuwon's game on the court.

[Baller2014]

Just letting 87-90 go for a minute (which don't really hold to your narrative either), but 91 and 92 are just being completely thrown out the window I take it? Any reason for this? I mean, I'd have thought they were pretty important, since we finally get a good sample of games to see what Hakeem's teams play like without him, but you just seem to ignore them every time you talk about Hakeem.

[acrossthecourt]

Excuse me Doctor MJ,

I frequently hear arguments that the other 90's centers ( Ewing , Olajuwon, and Robinson ) were better scorers than KG because of how much more efficient they were. But I was wondering how much of that has to do with era so could you please compare their primes ( whatever years you believe ) to each other using TS % relative to the years their primes encompass and post them.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Is there some reason why you can't do this yourself?

No, not really I was just hoping you had the numbers at arms reach, but you don't have to look for it. I was just interested in the data of it because people point to garnett's lower TS as an example of how he should be penalized for it in the rankings while many of the people he is being compared to played in a more offensive friendly era.

I know you are probably a busy person so I don't want to have the reputation of a freeloader of advanced stats

Sorry for bothering you, that wasn't my intention

Garnett's prime in Minnesota was during the lowest scoring period in a long time. Of course, he missed the playoffs from 2005 and on ... which is exactly when offenses started to boom.

I'll get you started on this:
1999 to 2008

Relative TS%'s
-2.3
-8.2
5.1
-0.6
2.0
-0.3
0.2

Weighted TS% (weighted by playoff true shot attempts)
-0.2

So he's hardly been terrible. He relies on that long 2-point jumper, which drives his percentages down, but at last he's spacing the floor (though he did this more as he aged.) But the league averages in his Minnesota days were very low -- like 51 TS%. And this isn't accounting for the tough west and some of those defenses like the Spurs.

Here's how to calculate it yourself:

League average TS%:
=points/(2*(FGA+0.44*FTA))*100
=7659/(2*(6545+0.44*1985))*100

I use league average points, FGA's and FTA's. You can find them on b-ref's season summaries. (It would be more accurate to use league totals, but you'd have to total them yourself or use another site.)

Then just compare it to Garnett's TS% for those playoffs. (Or RS.)

You can do the same with offensive rating, which includes turnovers and other stuff for individual ratings, but b-ref happily includes the league averages for offensive rating;

From 1999 to 2008 relative Ortg:
-2.2
-3.1
17
3.5
2.4
-2.9
4.5

Weighted average (by true shot attempts; too tired to pull his usage stats):
1.7

So no, Garnett didn't kill them with his "horrible" efficiency, unless you want to overanalyze four game samples. (Shooting percentages are notoriously variable, and it's a fool errand to read too much into small game sets like four or even ten.)

[90sAllDecade]

More quotes from Hakeem's autobiography "Living the Dream"

On Choke City and his leadership through adversity to bring the best out of his teammates:

The Phoenix players themselves didn’t believe it. They would have been very happy with a split. One victory would have been an accomplishment, they didn’t come in expecting to win two games.

Choke City.

That was the headline: “Choke City.” It wasn’t any fun to see that in the papers.

We couldn’t ignore the media. We had no choice, we had to pay attention, they were on our case.
We traveled directly to Phoenix after that game. That was a terrible flight. It was silent on the plane, as if somebody had died. Nobody was prepared for what had happened.

The next day’s meeting was very constructive. Rudy T is the kind of coach that lets us talk. Many of the guys had their say. I spoke up, too. I was very blunt. First I said, “Coach, we are not utilizing all our talent to win the game. There are times that some guys on the floor are being too careless or not delivering and you’ve got guys on the bench who are hungry, they’ll do something. If we don’t use them now, when are you going to use them? Why do we have to go down with some players when at the time when they’re needed the most they’re not there? You have a team, you have twelve players, you must utilize everybody that can deliver. If somebody can come in and get one basket you’ve got to use him.”

I told the team, “We are here now. We don’t have anybody but ourselves. The whole city is against us, we have no more room for mistakes, our back is against the wall. Everybody says that the pressure is on us now, but truly the pressure is on them. The pressure is now on Phoenix, it is not on us anymore, they took the pressure away when they came in and won two games. Now everybody expects them to win, so if we go and put our effort into winning the first game here in Phoenix that puts all the pressure back on them. Then they can’t afford to lose the second game. If they do they’re back where they were before. So this is the most important game, the first one in Phoenix.”

We knew we had lost both games at the Summit not because they beat us but because we got careless again. We could beat this team if we did all the things we do when we’re playing right.

“If we go out and win the first game here they will choke. They cannot afford to lose this game; then Phoenix will be called Choke City.”

Everybody around the room went, “Yeah, you’re right. I think so!”
They were seeing it different now. We didn’t feel pressure anymore.

Now we said, “For us to pull this out would be a miracle, so there’s no more pressure.” For Phoenix to have won this two-game home-court advantage and then lose it would be devastating.

At the end of the meeting we felt good. We shook hands and come together as a team. We didn’t feel pressure anymore, we just had a job to do.

Spoiler:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoOOtI5-EdE[/youtube]

In the crucial game 7 against Phoenix, Hakeem dominated, dropping 37 points 17 rebounds, 5 assists, going for 18-33 with .545 FG% and hit his only free throw for 100% shooting from the line.

Spoiler:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZAHUM7orDU[/youtube]

I was so excited. The team really came together as a unit that night. All the bitterness was gone, we had new life, great chemistry and unity. We had done something no one else thought we could do. I felt so happy and joyful.

Utah came in. They had just had a hard series against Denver and we jumped on them immediately and won the first game. Before the second game in the Summit the league presented me with the trophy for being the 1993-94 NBA Most Valuable Player.

I was very honored to be chosen. Shaquille O’Neal and David Robinson and Patrick Ewing had had excellent seasons and for me to be selected to win meant a lot. But I didn’t want to go out and accept the trophy by myself because I had not won the award by myself. I told my teammates that they were the ones who did all the things – like winning our games together and getting me the ball in the post or hitting shots when I passed back out to them – that added up to an MVP season for me. In the locker room I said, “I want to share this award with you. If not for you complementing me and making it happen, I would not be the MVP.” To show my sincerity and my gratitude to them, and to get recognition for the fact that this was a collective effort, I asked my teammates to come to the floor and accept the trophy with me.

The Summit was cheering and I told the crowd I happily accepted the award for myself and the entire team. Everybody took pictures of us with our hands on the trophy and all the guys enjoyed being part of something special. They seemed to think that sharing the spotlight was something out of the ordinary for an MVP, but to me it was the right thing to do, the only thing to do. They were a big part of my success and I was sincerely thankful to have such a good group of players and guys with me. I felt very happy.

After that we felt closer as a team. And this game was very, very important.

Spoiler:

[fatal9]

This is basically the only time in Hakeem's career where his team put together a decent stretch without him. Some of the players just...really stepped up (though not sure how sustainable it was), streaky Maxwell had the best scoring stretch of his career put up a game where he scored 51 and a bunch of other really good scoring games (shot 41% from 3 in the stretch, a career 32% shooter). Thorpe had a great stretch, maybe the best, of his career. Sleepy Floyd the streaky player he was had some great scoring games off the bench (including a 40 pointer). Rockets also had a good defensive backup in Larry Smith. Is this sustainable for a longer stretch? When Hakeem is first out of the lineup, they struggle, but then they put together a hot stretch in February, going 9-2 before Hakeem came back. And when he came back, Rockets were even better, they won 13 straight and went 17-2 over the next 19, so it appears Hakeem built on how well they were playing and took them to another level when he came back. That stretch without him might have actually served as the reason for why they weren't getting Hakeem the ball in the playoffs despite the fact he was really effective when he got it, and gave the streaky perimeter players the green light (Maxwell leading the team with 19 shot attempts a game in the playoffs on sizzling 41FG%/49TS%). Anyways, from '92-'96, his teams were 7-27 without him, in '86 they were 7-7, and in '87/'88 they were 3-7. The in/out change list that’s usually posted around here shows very impressive numbers for Hakeem in basically every other situation (some of the highest in/out changes IIRC), it’s only in ’91 when the difference without him was marginal. I mean the very next season they go 2-10 without him. Ask yourself, is the anomaly worth obsessing over? If this was a trend we saw consistently, there would be something to worry about.

Secondly, I don’t actually think Hakeem is having a huge offensive impact during the Chaney years because of how poorly the offense is organized/structured. There’s really not much synergy between him and his teammates. Watching the Lakers series in ’90, when he’s getting an outrageous amount of defensive attention, Rockets are basically clueless on how to actually take advantage of all the defensive attention he is drawing. Even when the first pass by Hakeem was a proper one, the second and third passes by his teammates weren’t (very lazy, slow, indecisive passing that allows defense to recover despite how compromised it was). There is very poor player movement, the floor spacing is puzzling at times and the Rockets were known for being a very poor half court passing team (the guards not exactly a smart, altruistic bunch). In contrast, Lakers know exactly where the ball is going after Magic or Worthy (who btw undressed Buck Johnson in the series) kicks it out of a double team and the second and third guys make the quick hitting plays to get the right guy the ball. To be fair, Hakeem iirc was also was frustrated by the attention and forced bad shots at times, but it's alarming how incapable Houston was of exploiting such aggressive double/triple teaming.

[The Infamous1]

Postseason only Prime Kobe (06-10)VS Prime Bird (84-88)

Kobe:30/5/5 57%TS
Bird: 26/9/6 56%TS

Finals W/L
Bird: 2-2(50%)
Kobe: 2-1(67%)

Series W/L
Bird 16-3(84%)
Kobe 11-3(78%)

Record With HCA
Kobe 11-0(100%)
Bird: 16-2(88%)

Record Against 50+ Win Teams
Bird:11-3(78%)
Kobe:10-3(76%)

All star Teammates
Bird: 3- Parish(84-87), DJ(85), Mchale(84/86-88)
Kobe: 1- Pau(09-10)

[Swagalicious]

manu ginobili

[batmana]

My vote for the No. 9 is Larry Bird.

He was one of the absolutely greatest players of all time. His career was not as long as Kareem's or Kobe's for instance but when he played, he was usually among the most impactful players in every game. He was a born winner, he'd do whatever his team needed to win. He could score in volume on great efficiency but he'd take bad shots if he had to; he was a terrific rebounder and a fantastic passer for his position. His defense is underrated and he impacted the game on that end as well. He would always play all-out, on every possession in every game. He was a tremendous leader, possibly one of the best in all sports. His accolades and achievements are well-known but those 3 straight MVPs really stand out. He made those around him better and demanded that they play hard all the time.

IMO he beats Hakeem when I compare their peaks. Hakeem's peak without a doubt is on a near-GOAT level but is shorter than Bird's. I feel that Bird gives you a better chance to win a title, he would turn every team into an excellent team.

The next tier of players (Kobe, West, Dr J, Moses, Mailman, etc.) all trail Bird when I ask myself how much of a chance they give you to win if you build around them. Some of them have significant longevity advantage but like I mentioned in previous threads, I only compare longevity when the peaks/leadership/primes are on an equal level and I feel that Bird clearly distances himself before the longevity card is even played here.

[john248]

My vote is for Larry Bird.

I do agree with what was written prior about Bird being a savant off-ball player. While he was a good off-ball player, he became a better one after 84 when his range improved. Issues with him were 82 shaky shooting performance in the playoffs; 83 gets the flu in game 2; 85 injures hand in a bar fight; 89 injured for the season. 83 gets a pass. I'm not so down about his 81 PS either even if he shot poorly since he did everything else well and got past Dr J. Bird particularly stands out since he played in a SF era full of score 1st/screw defense types. Leading 4 straight Finals is a feat itself along with 3 straight MVPs and turning a crap team into a 60+ one.

I've been enjoying what I've been reading about Hakeem and appreciate the quotes from his book. Sounds like he was average or maybe bit worse than that man defender but always a great help defender early on. Relied on a lot of spin moves and his speed prior to 92. During that summer, he really worked on his "in-between" game and lifted weights where his conditioning did improve (felt less sore). Then it just clicks for him on offense after that which we all know, and it's quite visible in the Per100 stats as his defensive numbers go down a bit since more energy is being used on the other side of the court (offense goes up). As much as I like his defense pre-peak, his offense doesn't look or sound impressive to me, so it's hard for me to value his impact as much as Bird's...on an overall career level. Akeem's had some bum luck too whether it's coked up teammates or a crap head coach not being able to control the players.

[Baller2014]

There are too many questions to ask, so I'm going to limit it to one per statement:

Postseason only Prime Kobe (06-10)VS Prime Bird (84-88)

Kobe:30/5/5 57%TS
Bird: 26/9/6 56%TS

Cool. My question is, do you have Dr J or Hakeem ahead of Kobe because their stats were better during their peak runs?

Finals W/L
Bird: 2-2(50%)
Kobe: 2-1(67%)

Yeh, but Bird was losing in the finals to Magic Johnson and the Showtime Lakers, not the KG Celtics. The teams he was beating sure weren't the Dwight Howard Magic either. If record in the finals is so important, do you have Hakeem ahead of Kobe for his 2-0 finals record?

Series W/L
Bird 16-3(84%)
Kobe 11-3(78%)

Again, context is important. The teams Bird was beating were much, much, much better than the ones Kobe took down. Some of those Bucks teams would have handily beaten any of Kobe's teams during that stretch.

Record With HCA
Kobe 11-0(100%)
Bird: 16-2(88%)

This means something why? Assumedly HCA matters because it suggests you lost to an inferior team, but can you really be said to have lost to a worse team when the showtime Lakers won only one game less in the regular season, and had slightly more injuries than you did? Surely that suggests that if both teams were equally healthy the Lakers would have amassed the better regular season record.

Record Against 50+ Win Teams
Bird:11-3(78%)
Kobe:10-3(76%)

Again, not all 50 win teams are created equal. For instance, the 1987 Bucks only won 50 wins (technically), but they'd have easily beaten the Lakers from 08-10.

This is also the first time I'm hearing Bird's prime was only from 84-88. Why are we looking at just that stretch? Ditto Kobe from 06-10. When did this become Kobe's prime?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

There two players that I'm considering for this position:
- Larry Bird: sustained excellence and team success without landing in an already stacked team, MVP caliber since the beginning, in my view had the best peak season among the players still to pick (1986)
- Hakeem Olajuwon: great since the beginning, great performance in his second season, two years pick in the '90s when he was clearly the best player in the planet showing no weaknesses, historically good playoff performer, very unlucky team circustamces in the middle of his career

I'm picking Bird because I do believe he had a superior prime, untill Hakeem developed a decent passing game, and an amazing peak season that in my view is even better than what Hakeem showed in the mi 90s.

Other nominatins:
- Oscar, as good as he was, didn't have in my view enough team success in an era with just 8 teams
- West, had more team success but I really don't see how he can have a case over Bird
- Dirk, as much as I like him, he doesn't have a case over Bird
- Garnett, in my view no case at all over Hakeem
- Kobe is the one that left me thinking the most, but what shifted away from him is that Bird and Hakeem were for me once clearly the best in the game, Kobe I'm not really sure. There's a big narrative around him but if I check every season he's never the #1 for me

[ardee]

Vote: Kobe Bryant

This is probably the spot I'd have voted for him anyway, or maybe 8, since I have him over Shaq.

But in any case, let's take a look at an overview of Kobe's relevant career, which starts in 2000. Warning, this'll be a long post.

2000: Played the sidekick role perfectly to one of the GOAT peaks. Averaged 23-6-5 on +2.4% TS in a very slow and inefficient era. Doubled up as one of the top perimeter defenders in the league: it's hard to call anyone but Payton definitely better. He torched the Kings in the first round to 28 ppg on 50% from the floor. This was the only series that went the distance so they definitely needed it. In the next round he locked up Jason Kidd: badly. The guy had one good game where he shot 8-13, other than that he went 1-6, 5-9, 1-9, and 3-13. Along with a 25% TOV. Kobe was a beast on defense that year. We all know his heroic games 6 and 7 performances against the Blazers. The Finals were poor, admittedly, but the ankle injury is obvious, and he still won the Lakers a game by himself in game 4 OT.

Overall, I'd say this is on par with any Pippen year outside of '92, '94, and '95. The only players I'd definitely take ahead of him that year were Shaq, Duncan, Malone, KG and Mourning.

2001: The birth of superstar Kobe. I feel everyone knows how good his Playoffs were that year, but his regular season is underrated. Especially in the start of the season, he was outplaying Shaq. Shaq was having trouble with fouls and free-throw shooting (REALLY bad, was going through a sub 40% stretch), so Kobe took over early and averaged 32-5-5 on a 117 ORtg for about 30 games, while Shaq was at about 24-13-4 on 106 ORtg. For the first half of the season before the AS Break, it's arguable Kobe was the best player in the league, considering if you remember Kobe was still ELITE on defense that year.

He then began suffering some niggling injuries, and the team suffered. Then Shaq got his groove back, and once Kobe was healthy as well the team was clicking on all cylinders. They were both more or less on cruise control against the Blazers, and then took turns dropping 40/15 games on the poor Kings. Kobe had his best ever series against the Spurs, and was 32-7-6 on 121 ORtg against the entire Western conference. He really was playing better than Shaq at that point. If someone wants to use the Finals gap (Kobe still did play well after game 1, 27-9-6 on 55% TS) to rank Shaq ahead for the whole Playoffs, I guess its fair, but Kobe WAS the driving force for the offense for the majority of the Playoffs for the best Playoff team ever.

He was undoubtedly second to only Shaq that year. I can't see any reason to rank Duncan over him that year, not when Duncan had a real solid team around him with a D-Rob who led the league in WS/48, and got so badly trounced and destroyed by the Lakers.

2002: A bit of a down-year for him. He still had a good regular season, 25/6/6 on a 112 ORtg, but didn't hit the heights of 2001. Worth noting he had to carry the team more with Shaq missing 15 games. The supporting cast was pretty poor by that point. Fisher played the whole season for a change, but Grant was gone, Horry was aging, and the Lakers were dependent on guys like Samaki Walker and Devean George for reliable contributions. It was impressive the way Shaq and Kobe got the team to a title that year. Kobe was the best player in a beatdown of the Spurs and MVP Duncan, and against the Kings he put up 31/11/6 in games 6 and 7, him and Shaq dragging the Lakers back from the abyss. He also had his best Finals of the Shaq era, 27/6/6 on 62% TS against the best defensive team in the league.

I'd rank Shaq/Duncan over him (hard choice between those two that year), and I can see some kind of argument for Garnett but don't buy it. This was the best supporting cast KG ever had before 2004, and they still finished with a below average defense and got roasted by the Mavs. I'm not seeing the impact that year. In 2003 I'll rank KG ahead because of his improved offensive game and he really did do less with more. This year I think Kobe's value as an offensive constant able to put consistent pressure on the defense. beats out whatever KG was doing.... especially since I really don't like his defense that year. I have no clue what 2002 KG was doing against the Mavs, it looked like he was playing some kind of crazy one man zone. Furthers my point I made earlier that Minny KG is overrated on defense. So, Kobe is third.

2003: One of the best years of his career. Perfect storm, his all-around game really came together. His 3-point shot was like a pull-up 5 footer at that point, had it almost on automatic. He averaged 28-8-7 for the first 40 games, almost LeBron-like. He really had to carry a pretty awful team for some time with Shaq out. Still, the team was dysfunctional and plodding by the half-way point, 19-23 through 42 games. Phil asked Kobe to take a bigger role in the offense, and he did. 41-5-3 on 59% TS over the next 14 games, leading the Lakers to a 12-2 record over that stretch, putting them over .500 for good and into the thick of the Playoff seedings. He closed the year out with several more monster games, including the 55 point one against Jordan with 9 threes, 42 in the first half.

At the close of the regular season, I'd say Kobe was right there with Duncan and KG for the best player in the league. He was very effective against the Wolves, but I will admit that the injury + shot selection a little out of control in the Spurs series harmed the Lakers. Still, if Horry's shot had gone in in game 5, Kobe would have successfully made up for it all by leading the Lakers back from 25 down, and was anyone stopping a 4th straight title then?

I have him 3rd this year, behind Duncan and KG. Shaq and McGrady battling it out for 4th/5th. I can't see Shaq over him this year, not when the Lakers season turned around after it was KOBE who took a bigger role and put the team on his back.

So far, we're looking at a very good sidekick year where he was in the 6-7 range in the league, and 3 top 3 years, one of which he was the second best player in the league.

In my next post I'll be looking at the '04-'07 phase of his career, and then the '08-'10 phase with a brief overview of '11-'13. Then I'll briefly compare him to the other candidates.

I know he's not going to get many votes at this stage, but Kobe is definitely my vote here.

[penbeast0]

Realgm-RPOY
1. Bill Russell 10.956
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 10.221
3. Michael Jordan 9.578
4. Wilt Chamberlain 7.818
5. Magic Johnson 7.114
6. LeBron James 6.652
7. Tim Duncan 6.248
8. Larry Bird 6.147
9. Shaquille O'Neal 5.910
10. Julius Erving 5.046
11. Karl Malone 4.649
12. Bob Pettit 4.466
13. Oscar Robertson 4.413
14. Kobe Bryant 4.380
15. Hakeem Olajuwon 4.380
16. Jerry West 3.795
17. Kevin Garnett 3.571
18. Moses Malone 3.478
19. Dwyane Wade 2.601
20. David Robinson 2.431
21. Dirk Nowitzki 2.373

This has to count for something. The result roughly speaking tells the same story as MVP-shares do. In basically "only" 9 seasons, Bird collected this amount of "shares", which puts him comfortably in the Top10, and onto the tier of Magic, Lebron, Duncan, Shaq. A top3 player from 80 to 88, placed at #1 (!!) 4 times.
And in this case - unlike the MVP awards - RPOY contains the evaluation of playoffs (!) as well, and was made in retrospect, using all kinds of data and viewpoints (including the evaluation of defensive impact as well).

It clearly shows Bird as the much more dominant player of his era than Garnett (and even Olajuwon).

With this vast distance, the burden of proof should be on the backers of the #17 and #15 ranked players: was the competition of top players between 80-92 SO MUCH MORE shallow than between 85-97 (there is even some overlap, right there!) or between 97-12?
I'm not convinced yet.

When we approach thread 20, I now expect a post from you about the cast for #12 Bob Pettit . . . either pro or con.

[Narigo]

Im going to vote for Larry Bird. And Im going to edit this post later tonight on why I think this.

not a vote

[ThunderDan9]

When we approach thread 20, I now expect a post from you about the cast for #12 Bob Pettit . . . either pro or con.

Pettit is an odd-one-out obviously due to the era...
Bird on the other hand is the comtemporary of Magic, Kareem, Erving, Moses, Jordan etc. I don't see a compelling parallel here.

I will glady be championing Moses or Garnett in the 20th thread though.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Pettit is an odd-one-out obviously due to the era...
Bird on the other hand is the comtemporary of Magic, Kareem, Erving, Moses, Jordan etc. I don't see a compelling parallel here.

Pettit's career overlapped quite a bit the ones of Russell, Wilt, West and Oscar, though...

[ShaqAttack3234]

Vote: Kobe Bryant

This is probably the spot I'd have voted for him anyway, or maybe 8, since I have him over Shaq.

But in any case, let's take a look at an overview of Kobe's relevant career, which starts in 2000. Warning, this'll be a long post.

2000: Played the sidekick role perfectly to one of the GOAT peaks. Averaged 23-6-5 on +2.4% TS in a very slow and inefficient era. Doubled up as one of the top perimeter defenders in the league: it's hard to call anyone but Payton definitely better. He torched the Kings in the first round to 28 ppg on 50% from the floor. This was the only series that went the distance so they definitely needed it. In the next round he locked up Jason Kidd: badly. The guy had one good game where he shot 8-13, other than that he went 1-6, 5-9, 1-9, and 3-13. Along with a 25% TOV. Kobe was a beast on defense that year. We all know his heroic games 6 and 7 performances against the Blazers. The Finals were poor, admittedly, but the ankle injury is obvious, and he still won the Lakers a game by himself in game 4 OT.

Overall, I'd say this is on par with any Pippen year outside of '92, '94, and '95. The only players I'd definitely take ahead of him that year were Shaq, Duncan, Malone, KG and Mourning.

2001: The birth of superstar Kobe. I feel everyone knows how good his Playoffs were that year, but his regular season is underrated. Especially in the start of the season, he was outplaying Shaq. Shaq was having trouble with fouls and free-throw shooting (REALLY bad, was going through a sub 40% stretch), so Kobe took over early and averaged 32-5-5 on a 117 ORtg for about 30 games, while Shaq was at about 24-13-4 on 106 ORtg. For the first half of the season before the AS Break, it's arguable Kobe was the best player in the league, considering if you remember Kobe was still ELITE on defense that year.

He then began suffering some niggling injuries, and the team suffered. Then Shaq got his groove back, and once Kobe was healthy as well the team was clicking on all cylinders. They were both more or less on cruise control against the Blazers, and then took turns dropping 40/15 games on the poor Kings. Kobe had his best ever series against the Spurs, and was 32-7-6 on 121 ORtg against the entire Western conference. He really was playing better than Shaq at that point. If someone wants to use the Finals gap (Kobe still did play well after game 1, 27-9-6 on 55% TS) to rank Shaq ahead for the whole Playoffs, I guess its fair, but Kobe WAS the driving force for the offense for the majority of the Playoffs for the best Playoff team ever.

He was undoubtedly second to only Shaq that year. I can't see any reason to rank Duncan over him that year, not when Duncan had a real solid team around him with a D-Rob who led the league in WS/48, and got so badly trounced and destroyed by the Lakers.

I disagree with a few things. For 2000, I'd put GP, Hill and C-Webb in the definitely category as well, and I wouldn't really categorize his game 6 vs Portland as heroic. His game 7 was great, especially all around and even held his own defending Portland's bigger guards in the post after Portland had exploited that throughout the series, but in his game 6, he pretty much got hot at the end of the 4th launching 3s, but the Lakers never made a serious run during that time. Would also put Pippen's '96 and '97 above it easily, and '91 as well, but not easily. Still a great year for a sidekick, though. Definitely one of the best guards/wings at both ends.

As for 2001, that's where I really disagree. His regular season is what holds that season back for me and is the reason putting Duncan 2nd that year wasn't as difficult of a choice as it would have been. Though, FWIW, I did consider Kobe the 2nd best player in the league at the time.