RealGM Top 100 List #10

[Texas Chuck]

Disclaimers:

Spoiler:

Since once again we already have a number of guys attempting to define the discussion for the next thread and since Kobe and KG have been prominently featured in these posts, I thought I'd start with a little Dirk discussion since it seems odd to discuss KG and Kobe and ignore a guy from the same time period who imo at least deserves legit consideration alongside those 2.

I will be making a series of posts so as not to overwhelm the board. Please do not think I am ignoring certain parts or aspects of Dirk's career. I will get to it. If I tried to make one post with all my thoughts on Dirk no one would ever want to read it.


And let me start with a clear caveat: most all of you are probably all aware, but let me be crystal clear: I'm a Dirk guy. I am going to do my best to be objective regarding him, but you should probably take my posts with a grain of salt and please don't hesitate to challenge any of my assertions especially if you think I paint him in too good a light.

Dirk Topic 2: Years 1 and 2.

Dirk came over to the NBA as a 20 year old guy facing a major jump in competition and it showed. One of the problems is that 2 of Dallas' best players were Gary Trent and AC Green who were both PF's so Dirk spent much of the year trying to play SF. Also the lockout didn't exactly help Dirk get acclimated. He didn't have a very good year and was wildly inconsistent. His first career game he played 16 minutes and scored no points and grabbed no rebounds. The next game he goes for 16/12 followed by a 15/9, but on 4/14 shooting and this trend continued for much of the year with Dirk even getting some DNP-CD's.

Dirk was so down on his play at this point that he was ready to go back and play in Germany. Enter Holger(who we will get to because this is a relationship very unique for a player of Dirk's caliber) and Dirk comes back for year 2.

The year goes much better and its crystal clear Dallas has really found something. The star qualities are jumping off the page. But interestingly enough Dirk is not a good rebounder at all. Only 2 years of his career with a DRB% under 20 and while he's cut way down on his turnovers, its also the last year his TOV% is above 10%. Cuban's arrived and Nash is coming around and Dallas fans are optimistic for the first time in a decade and we think we have found us a wunderkind.

He still hasnt put it all together yet--that happens in year 3. So if we are comparing him to Kobe and KG as 2 other no-college guys from his generation then I'd place him behind KG and ahead of Kobe for their first 2 years in the league. KG wasnt nearly the player he would become yet either, but he was further along than Dirk imo.

Also, this gives me the excuse to post this video of a great Charles Barkley Dirk story about teenage Dirk v the Dream Team:

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

[DQuinn1575]

Kobe's one loss to to a lesser SRS team was in 2011 to Dallas, the eventual champs. Kobe didn't play well dropping 23 ppg on 52% TS.

Bird however lost to a team with lesser SRS 5 out the the 10 years.

1980: The #1 seed Celtics lose 1-4 to the 76ers in the ECF, with Dr. J dropping 25 ppg in the series. Can't blame rookie Bird here that much, and game 3 was pretty epic.

1982: Again, the #1 seed Celtics lose to the 76ers. Bird's shooting was off the mark, 18.3 ppg on 45% TS. He did board & assist well though.

1983: Boston swept by the Bucks. Bird shoots 18.7 ppg, on 45% TS

1988: Detroit finally upsets Boston. McHale drops 27 ppg on 63% TS. Bird shoots 19.8 ppg on 45% TS.

1990: Knicks upset Boston in the 1st round. Bird was good though dropping 24/9/9 on 54% TS.

The two that don't seem obvious:

1983 - Bucks beat Sixers one game, almost beat them a second. The Sixers swept Kareem and Magic
1990- The Knicks lost Oakley for about 20 games; their record with Oakley was about the same as the Celts

The beating a better than or worse than SRS team doesn't sit well with me you're penalizing a team for having a better record and rewarding a team for having a lesser regular season

Bird has a rs career 660-237 record, .736, 60.3 wins
versus Kobe 813-432 53.5 wins

-In 1983 Bird scored 18.7 ppg on 45% TS. And I'm not sure how the Bucks losing 4-1 to the 76ers somehow makes that loss ok.
-In 1990, i said I dont' really put blame on Bird.

Looking at SRS doesn't penalize teams at all. In general, a team with SRS advantage wins 70%+ of the time, so its a good success/fail acid test for teams.

Also, looking at career playoff games is pointless since Kobe wasn't even starting in the 90's.

Playoff series record:
00-12 Kobe: 28-8 77.8%
00-90 Bird: 22-7 75.9%
^
Note: Kobe faced better competition too.

That was career regular season games

Didn't mean to not blame bird for 83-just pointing out how good bucks were

Bird only lost to very good to excellent teams -the nba was so top heavy- not checking but hard to believe Kobe played better teams than lakers, sixers, bucks.









Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[An Unbiased Fan]

Bird only lost to very good to excellent teams -the nba was so top heavy- not checking but hard to believe Kobe played better teams than lakers, sixers, bucks.

I think both had to go through tough teams at some point during their runs. it's just that Kobe had tougher 1st & 2nd round opponents. There weren't many easy series for him, while the Celtics were playing quite a few losing record or lower SRS teams.

[drza]

Spoiler:

OK, stop for a second and let's think about this logically. You're making this abstract and about numbers, when this is a specific example where we actually have context and facts. Numbers can do a good job of summarizing a player's contributions over a time period, but the game isn't played with numbers. So I want you to explain, using basketball logic, how this starting line-up:

2004 Michael Olowokandi, Kevin Garnett, Trenton Hassell, Latrell Sprewell, Darrick Martin

...swaps out KG for 2000 Shaq (and maybe moves Olowokandi to the bench in exchange for Mark Madsen) and wins a best-of-7 series against the 2004 Lakers. Shaq's actual 2000 numbers against Rik Smits and the Pacers are completely irrelevent, because he is on longer facing Rik Smits in the paint. No, he'd be facing the 2004 version of Shaq, with a little Karl Malone chaser. Similarly, the numbers of the 2004 supporting cast of the Wolves are no longer valid either, because they are no longer playing with KG, so we now need to figure out what they would produce next to Shaq.

Here's some questions for you:

*What is the Wolves' new offensive strategy? It can't be to pound it in to 2000 Shaq, because news flash: the Lakers would probably be defending against that. 2004 Shaq is leaning his monster frame all over 2000 Shaq (2004 Shaq might be bad against the pick-and-roll, but he's even bigger than 2000 Shaq and he LOVES to stay in the paint and lean). And oh yeah, Karl Malone isn't guarding Mark Madsen...ever. Instead, Malone is parked in the lane too, with his full attention focused on Shaq. And oh, Devean George and Gary Payton also aren't guarding Trenton Hassell and Darrick Martin...ever. Instead, they are parked around the key, waiting for someone to try to enter the ball to 2000 Shaq so that they can either steal it or triple (quadruple?) team poor 2000 Shaq. This team has no spacing. Sprewell can shoot to his heart's content, much like he did in the actual 2004 series, because even Kobe only has 1 eye on him and the other is focused on the superstar. But 2000 Shaq is surrounded in the paint, and he can't bring his game out of the paint because that'd be dumb, it's not his strength. So what is the team to do?

I know! Maybe the Wolves will go to their bench. Bring in Wally and Hoiberg for Hassell and Martin. This leads to the follow-up question:

Who is playing point guard for the Wolves? KG's NEVER been a point guard. But he had to be for long stretches of that series because the main 2 point guards on the team (Cassell and Hudson) were injured and the only one left was signed to a 10-day contract. So now, Martin's on the bench. Wally (oh yeah, did I mention Wally was playing through 3 cracked vertebrae in that postseason? Just a note) and Hoiberg are shooters. Shaq's in the paint. Madsen (or whoever is playing the 4) shouldn't touch the ball ever. So who's setting up the team and creating offense? With the shooters out there George and Payton are now actually paying attention to their men. 2000 Shaq "only" has to deal with 2004 Shaq on his back and Karl Malone fronting him (because, you know, he's NEVER going to guard Madsen). Kobe still has 1 eye on Sprewell, so maybe he can still score some points. But other than that...yeah, the Wolves are still stuck on offense. And oh yeah, on defense...

When the Wolves have their shooter line-up in, who's guarding...anyone on the Lakers? 2000 Shaq has his hands absolutely full trying to deal with 2004 Shaq's big body in the paint. Which means that Sprewell, Wally, Hoiberg and Madsen are now on islands against Kobe, Mailman, Payton and George (or Fisher). I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that the 2004 Lakers are having an offensive FIELD DAY right now. Do you disagree?

Summary: I think the 2004 Wolves are getting swept with 2000 Shaq in there instead of KG. Actually, Cassell was able to go (at some attenuated percentage) for 2 games, so maybe the Shaq Wolves might win a game or two. But I see no way they make this a series. You keep talking about how the other Wolves were producing not-terrible offensive numbers in the 2004 playoffs. Question: why do you think that was? With their starting point guard limping and eventually out, who do you think was creating offense for them? Who do you think was creating spacing so that they could maneuver? Who do you think was either making the pass, or making the pass-that-led-to-the-pass for open shots? Often from the high-post, mind you, because the paint was filled with huge superstars. Heck, who do you think was bringing the ball up the court more times than not?

Peak Shaq was a MONSTER. But his skill set doesn't allow for him to create under these conditions. He would have still produced, because he was that great. But I see no realistic way that he produces enough, in those conditions, to beat Shaq, Kobe and those Lakers 4 times in 7 games. If you disagree, then tell me how. Only, don't tell me with numbers. I want you to explain, using basketball strategy, how your theory might have played out.

Shaq could definitely win that series.


Do you honestly believe that the reason why the TWolves offensive players played well was because of KG but that it couldn't be replicated by Shaq, a guy who is a top 3 offensive creator in history?

KG's cast would fit well for Shaq. KG's cast shot 36.9 3P% that season which would have been 3rd in the NBA. Shaq's team shot 33% and finished 24th. Do you think that KG is better at creating 3 pointers for his team than Shaq?

You don't have lie with your spacing point. That team has plenty of spacing or else they wouldn't be a top 3 3P shooting team. Shaq had no shooters at all on his 2000 team with the exception of Rice. KG's team had plenty of shooting.

You make sound like Shaq would have a hard time breaking 2004 Shaq/Malone frontline. Peak Shaq destroyed Sabonis/Wallace and Mutombo. He would have no problem scoring on that frontline.

In the first month of the season, Kobe was out with an injury. This was Shaq's lineup:

Harper 36 years old
Fisher 25 years old
Rice 32 years old
AC Green 36 years old
Shaq

Do you know what Shaq did with that lineup? He went 11-3 and posted a 6.61 SRS. That is a horrific lineup that would probably be a -10 SRS team without Shaq, yet he turned that into an elite squad. KG had Cassell (2nd team all-NBA) and Sprewell. That is more than enough for Shaq.

You bring up that Malone won't guard the TWolves PF, but did you watch the 2000 Lakers at all? No one guarded AC Green or Ron Harper at all. Watch the Blazers series. Shaq was getting much more attention than KG has at any point of his career. Olowakandi and Cassell/Martin are still better than Harper and Green on their last legs.

I feel like we're talking past each other, and I can't tell if that's repairable. Because it seems like we're arguing different questions. To me, it looks like the question you're arguing is:

*Is 2000 Shaq better than 2004 Garnett?

On the other hand, the question I'm addressing is:

*Could 2000 Shaq have done more in the 2004 playoffs against the 2004 Lakers than 2004 KG did?

Those aren't the same question. And 2000 Shaq's value in a vacuum vs. KG's value in a vacuum doesn't really do much to answer my question here. To answer my question, you really have to address the actual situation. There are parts of your post where it seems like you might be (pointing out his performance in 2000 without Kobe is at least a step in the right direction), but then there are other parts (many of which I underlined and/or bolded) where your argument kind of goes off the rails. To whit:

In the 2004 playoffs against the Lakers, the Timberwolves did NOT have 2nd team All NBA Sam Cassell. He limped through 64 total minutes (out of 288 minutes), and only played more than 5 minutes in 2 games out of 6. Not only did the Wolves not have Cassell, they didn't really have ANY point guard. Considering the lack of ball-handlers on that team, that's a huge issue for their offensive execution. Fred Hoiberg couldn't create his own shot. 2004 Wally couldn't create his own shot. Sprewell could, as I described in my last post, but it was going to be a low-percentage look. And NONE of the other rotation caliber players on the Wolves could score at all, let alone create their own shot. Therefore, you citing the 3-point shooting percentages of the Wolves team WHEN CASSELL WAS HEALTHY doesn't add any information here.

You described what Shaq was able to do against Sabonis/Wallace or against Mutombo, only that doesn't apply here, because in both of those instances Shaq was playing with Kobe and shooters. This was not the case here. And again, it's not even (just) because Kobe is so much better than Sprewell, it's that those Lakers were fielding a team full of people that could play their position. The 2004 Timberwolves in the playoffs against the Lakers had NO ONE THAT COULD PLAY POINT GUARD. And the team was built specifically such that, even when healthy, they relied to an extreme degree on Garnett and Cassell to create the offense because the other players were all shooters or hustle guys or Sprewell. There wasn't a Fisher or a Harper in addition to a Kobe to handle the setting up portion of the offense. Shaq was a monster at what he did, but he NEEDED someone to be able to get the ball to him and run the team.

Even during that stretch you site when Kobe was out, this was true. He still was out there with an actual point guard and another ball-handler that was an expert at running the Triangle.

And I'll bet you STRONG money that the teams they beat in that stretch did NOT feature a frontline anywhere near healthy 2004 Shaq and Malone. That's another thing you keep minimizing. We're not talking 2008 Shaq...not even 2006 Shaq...we're talking 2004 Shaq. The same 2004 Shaq that I've seen YOU argue was the best player in the NBA that year when healthy. 2000 Shaq NEVER faced anyone CLOSE to as good, as powerful, or as dominant as 2004 Shaq.

So no, 2000 Shaq wasn't going to dominate 2004 Shaq in the paint. Especially with Malone to help. Especially on a team with no point guard or ball-handlers. Especially on a team with either no spacing or no defense on the perimeter. 2000 Shaq was one of the greatest players I've ever seen. And 2000 Shaq would have played heroically, but to no avail, as his team absolutely let him down against his 2004 counterpart and the rest of the Lakers.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Nice post Chuck.
I would like to see Dirk seriously entering the discussion at this point as I feel his career value is very comparable to a guy like Bryant who will certainly be getting voted in over the next few spots.

Dirk (like Bryant) was an elite offensive hub for over a decade.
He was also very consistent and has aged extremely well.

These next few spots will have a large number of legitimate candidates.

[penbeast0]

Mikan Lesson for Peoplr - there were no Euros for him to place against. The 1956 and 1960 Olympic teams, made up of college and AAU players destroyed the rest of the world. There were very few, if any, NBA calibre players outside the US.

Mikan against Black players - Okay, as at least some of you know, the Harlem Globetrotters were a great team in the 40s and 50s. They won a world championship tournament played in Chicago and were competitive in it many years. They also played against top college seniors each year in the "World Series of Basketball' . The Trotters won
the series every year, winning against early pros like Arizin, Rodgers, Gola, Bridges, etc.
http://www.apbr.org/wrldsers.html

Well the Trotters, one-time world champions, and probably the best black basketball team in the early 50's played the Lakers http://www.apbr.org/trotters-lakers.html

The Trotters won the 1st 2 games - Lakers star Jim Pollard missed the second. The Lakers won the next (and final) 6,.

Mikan played 7 games against the Trotters - 204 pts in 7 games with a high of 47 and a low of 19 - 29 points a game
And the total score was 461-405 - so Mikan was scoring about 50% of the total the Trotters did.

Most of his opposition came from Nat "Sweewater" Clifton, who was one of the first black players in the NBA, and Goose Tatum, who was an all-time Trotter who was MVP against the College All-Stars twice.

You are making my point. There were no Euros in that era that were good so Mikan should be punished for that in comparison to today's players.

I'm not even sure why you are bringing up exhibition games against Globetrotters. That should tell how weak the NBA was in that era when the Globetrotters were able to consistently compete against NBA teams. Are we going to say that Marco Bellinelli is a stud because he dominated summer league against teams that had black players?

It's much different to play in a league with 78% blacks, 15% foreigners than it is to play against 100% white guys who never grew up playing basketball, and worked others jobs in the offseason. The talent level of Mikan's era was embarrassing.

The issue with black players is real but the Globetrotters were not what they are today, a sideshow. They were a legitimate, competitive team with the best black players in the world. That's why he brought up their NBA talent and their record against college all-star teams. Mikan played against a greatly reduced talent pool true . . . if not, he'd have been competitive for top 10 considering his level of domination. Ever think about how the NBA being 78% black might mean top white athletes are opting out of that talent pool? (or do you really think that that's the proportion of great athletic talent in the USA?)

As for Euros, did you penalize Jordan equally since there were virtually no impactful Euros during his prime? Belov, Cosic and the like didn't come over although Schrempf and Kukoc showed up around 1986.

[DQuinn1575]

Bird only lost to very good to excellent teams -the nba was so top heavy- not checking but hard to believe Kobe played better teams than lakers, sixers, bucks.

I think both had to go through tough teams at some point during their runs. it's just that Kobe had tougher 1st & 2nd round opponents. There weren't many easy series for him, while the Celtics were playing quite a few losing record or lower SRS teams.

Kobe played better teams early because his teams won loss record were overall worse than bird's.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Owly]

Kobe's one loss to to a lesser SRS team was in 2011 to Dallas, the eventual champs. Kobe didn't play well dropping 23 ppg on 52% TS.

Bird however lost to a team with lesser SRS 5 out the the 10 years.

1980: The #1 seed Celtics lose 1-4 to the 76ers in the ECF, with Dr. J dropping 25 ppg in the series. Can't blame rookie Bird here that much, and game 3 was pretty epic.

1982: Again, the #1 seed Celtics lose to the 76ers. Bird's shooting was off the mark, 18.3 ppg on 45% TS. He did board & assist well though.

1983: Boston swept by the Bucks. Bird shoots 18.7 ppg, on 45% TS

1988: Detroit finally upsets Boston. McHale drops 27 ppg on 63% TS. Bird shoots 19.8 ppg on 45% TS.

1990: Knicks upset Boston in the 1st round. Bird was good though dropping 24/9/9 on 54% TS.

The two that don't seem obvious:

1983 - Bucks beat Sixers one game, almost beat them a second. The Sixers swept Kareem and Magic
1990- The Knicks lost Oakley for about 20 games; their record with Oakley was about the same as the Celts

The beating a better than or worse than SRS team doesn't sit well with me you're penalizing a team for having a better record and rewarding a team for having a lesser regular season

Bird has a rs career 660-237 record, .736, 60.3 wins
versus Kobe 813-432 53.5 wins

-In 1983 Bird scored 18.7 ppg on 45% TS. And I'm not sure how the Bucks losing 4-1 to the 76ers somehow makes that loss ok.
-In 1990, i said I dont' really put blame on Bird.

Looking at SRS doesn't penalize teams at all. In general, a team with SRS advantage wins 70%+ of the time, so its a good success/fail acid test for teams.

Also, looking at career playoff games is pointless since Kobe wasn't even starting in the 90's.

Playoff series record:
00-12 Kobe: 28-8 77.8%
00-90 Bird: 22-7 75.9%
^
Note: Kobe faced better competition too.

Looking at splitting losses (or wins) into better those to better and worse teams (and specifically the presumed penalties for losing to "worse" ie lower SRS teams, and lesser credit for defeating them) does penalize a team/player for having a better regular season and reward a worse one. Because if you're lazy in the regular season and thus underachieve you're SRS may be 0 or +1, and maybe if your hypothetical guy puts in an effort they're +5. Now say in both instances the player's team loses to a +3 SRS team. In the first scenario he's lost to a team he's expected to lose to, it's fine. In the second it's an unexpected loss and thus is frowned upon. Never mind that the team lost to is the same. Never mind that the player's good play contributed to that higher SRS. If you measure an individual by team performance in the playoffs relative expectations based on the regular season, you're saying a player is better off not adding value in the regular season.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Bird only lost to very good to excellent teams -the nba was so top heavy- not checking but hard to believe Kobe played better teams than lakers, sixers, bucks.

I think both had to go through tough teams at some point during their runs. it's just that Kobe had tougher 1st & 2nd round opponents. There weren't many easy series for him, while the Celtics were playing quite a few losing record or lower SRS teams.

Kobe played better teams early because his teams won loss record were overall worse than bird's.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Actually, that's not the case. The Western Conference was brutal from top to bottom since 2000. Even when they had a #1 or #2 seed, they faced tougher teams.

Looking at splitting losses (or wins) into better those to better and worse teams (and specifically the presumed penalties for losing to "worse" ie lower SRS teams, and lesser credit for defeating them) does penalize a team/player for having a better regular season and reward a worse one. Because if you're lazy in the regular season and thus underachieve you're SRS may be 0 or +1, and maybe if your hypothetical guy puts in an effort they're +5. Now say in both instances the player's team loses to a +3 SRS team. In the first scenario he's lost to a team he's expected to lose to, it's fine. In the second it's an unexpected loss and thus is frowned upon. Never mind that the team lost to is the same. Never mind that the player's good play contributed to that higher SRS. If you measure an individual by team performance in the playoffs relative expectations based on the regular season, you're saying a player is better off not adding value in the regular season.

All SRS does is give an acid test of success/fail. no doubt context should also used like in everything. If a team is dogging it int he regular season, then they won't get HCA often So players like Hakeem, who underachieved in the regular season, IMO, will have good SRS numbers, but low playoff success. it all balances out.

For Kobe and Bird, both had RS advantage 20+ times. Both were high seeds numerous times. So we're comparing apples to apples.

[DQuinn1575]

Mikan Lesson for Peoplr - there were no Euros for him to place against. The 1956 and 1960 Olympic teams, made up of college and AAU players destroyed the rest of the world. There were very few, if any, NBA calibre players outside the US.

Mikan against Black players - Okay, as at least some of you know, the Harlem Globetrotters were a great team in the 40s and 50s. They won a world championship tournament played in Chicago and were competitive in it many years. They also played against top college seniors each year in the "World Series of Basketball' . The Trotters won
the series every year, winning against early pros like Arizin, Rodgers, Gola, Bridges, etc.
http://www.apbr.org/wrldsers.html

Well the Trotters, one-time world champions, and probably the best black basketball team in the early 50's played the Lakers http://www.apbr.org/trotters-lakers.html

The Trotters won the 1st 2 games - Lakers star Jim Pollard missed the second. The Lakers won the next (and final) 6,.

Mikan played 7 games against the Trotters - 204 pts in 7 games with a high of 47 and a low of 19 - 29 points a game
And the total score was 461-405 - so Mikan was scoring about 50% of the total the Trotters did.

Most of his opposition came from Nat "Sweewater" Clifton, who was one of the first black players in the NBA, and Goose Tatum, who was an all-time Trotter who was MVP against the College All-Stars twice.

You are making my point. There were no Euros in that era that were good so Mikan should be punished for that in comparison to today's players.

I'm not even sure why you are bringing up exhibition games against Globetrotters. That should tell how weak the NBA was in that era when the Globetrotters were able to consistently compete against NBA teams. Are we going to say that Marco Bellinelli is a stud because he dominated summer league against teams that had black players?

It's much different to play in a league with 78% blacks, 15% foreigners than it is to play against 100% white guys who never grew up playing basketball, and worked others jobs in the offseason. The talent level of Mikan's era was embarrassing.

The issue with black players is real but the Globetrotters were not what they are today, a sideshow. They were a legitimate, competitive team with the best black players in the world. That's why he brought up their NBA talent and their record against college all-star teams. Mikan played against a greatly reduced talent pool true . . . if not, he'd have been competitive for top 10 considering his level of domination. Ever think about how the NBA being 78% black might mean top white athletes are opting out of that talent pool? (or do you really think that that's the proportion of great athletic talent in the USA?)

As for Euros, did you penalize Jordan equally since there were virtually no impactful Euros during his prime? Belov, Cosic and the like didn't come over although Schrempf and Kukoc showed up around 1986.

Kukoc much later than 86


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

CALLING THIS ONE FOR BIRD -- HAVING COMPUTER ISSUES SO NOT POSTING THE BY NAME RESULTS HERE BUT ANYONE WHO WISHES CAN DO SO.

[penbeast0]

CALLING THIS ONE FOR BIRD -- HAVING COMPUTER ISSUES SO NOT POSTING THE BY NAME RESULTS HERE BUT ANYONE WHO WISHES CAN DO SO.

[Doctor MJ]

And that brings up a question for me:

Why is looking at team success from a w/l perspective so frowned upon, but we don't think twice about using team offenses to support guys like Nash/Magic and in this case: question Bird?

This seems inconsistent to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Understandable point. I would answer as a kind of triangulation.

If a guy has other stuff indicating he's a legendary offensive player and his team offense is outlier good, seems unlikely to be a coincidence. If then you use the most likely explanation as something to build on top of, then it becomes one more thing in his favor.

In the case of Nash you've got:
1) Clear cut offensive control just by watching him.
2) Very efficient individual stats.
3) Huge +/- stats.

Adding great overall team offense goes along with that and taken as causal this paints an extremely potent picture. After all, if by handing you the keys you can have make both the best offense, and illustrate when you go out how that's only possible with your unique skill set, it's a big deal.

With regards to Magic, it being further in the past we lack some of this evidence, but since his legacy and reputation is so, so strong, it's hard not to look at him in a similar way.

[Texas Chuck]

And that brings up a question for me:

Why is looking at team success from a w/l perspective so frowned upon, but we don't think twice about using team offenses to support guys like Nash/Magic and in this case: question Bird?

This seems inconsistent to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Understandable point. I would answer as a kind of triangulation.

If a guy has other stuff indicating he's a legendary offensive player and his team offense is outlier good, seems unlikely to be a coincidence. If then you use the most likely explanation as something to build on top of, then it becomes one more thing in his favor.

In the case of Nash you've got:
1) Clear cut offensive control just by watching him.
2) Very efficient individual stats.
3) Huge +/- stats.

Adding great overall team offense goes along with that and taken as causal this paints an extremely potent picture. After all, if by handing you the keys you can have make both the best offense, and illustrate when you go out how that's only possible with your unique skill set, it's a big deal.

With regards to Magic, it being further in the past we lack some of this evidence, but since his legacy and reputation is so, so strong, it's hard not to look at him in a similar way.

Yeah Im not arguing against Nash being credited for good team offenses at all. I think he absolutely deserves credit because as you state we have multiple sources of information confirming this. My question was why then we wouldn't "credit" say Tim Duncan for also clearly by multiple sources of information, having a ton to do with 4 rings in his prime as the best player and a 5th as a key cog. Nash is obviously an amazing offensive player and Im not remotely suggesting otherwise.

Seems like we should do the same thing in both cases, but I keep seeing posters who are cool with looking at team stuff like otrgs, but not team stuff like w/l or championships when both are similar in that the star player has a ton to do with it, but clearly isn't doing it alone and requires some non-trivial amount of help in that regard.

[Senior]

The range of teams' ability was larger in the 80s East. After all, when you have super-elite teams like the Sixers, Celtics and Lakers there's going to be some awful teams since it's zero-sum.

So from 1980-1984, the playoffs were only 3 rounds with the 1st seed earning a 1st round bye.

The Celtics benefited from this three times from 1980-1982.
They lost to the 59-23 Sixers in 1980 after playing 41-41 Houston the semifinals (somehow they played Houston in the conference semifinals and then the Finals a year later )

1981 they won it all. They played a 45-37 Bulls team in the semifinals then sent 62-20 Philly packing. Houston was 40-42.

1982 they lost to 58-24 Philly again after beating the 45-37 Bullets. Tiny Archibald gets hurt in Game 3 and doesn't play the final four games.

1983 they lost to the 51-31 Bucks, but this playoffs was a mess; Bird was sick and missed Game 2, everyone was turning against their coach and the rotation was weird (too many people wanted minutes)

1984 the playoffs are expanded and now include 16 teams. Before, it was 12.

In 1984 the Celts play Washington who went 35-47. That's pretty damn awful. They beat a 47 win team in NYK but Bernard King was spectacular. Milwaukee was 50-32, then the Lakers with 54-28.

1985 - Another horrible team in the first round. This time, it's the Cavs with 36-46. Then Detroit with 46-36, then a quality Philly team with 58-24. Lose to 62-20 LAL.

1986 - Bulls in the first round with 30-52, but they only had Jordan for 18 games after breaking his foot. They're not really a 30-52 team. After that, they beat a 50, 57, and 51 win team. Excellent run.

1987 - They play Jordan's Bulls again (40-42), but endure slugfests against 50 win Bucks and 52 win Pistons. Lose to 65-17 Lakers.

1988 - Still 1st seed. Play another bad team in the 1st (NYK: 38-44), beat 50-32 Atlanta, then lose to the 54-28 Pistons.

1989 - Bird back/heel injuries, misses playoffs

1990 - Lose to 52-30 Knicks in 1st round. Celts were 45-37 this year.

1991 - beat 41-41 Indy in the 1st, then lose to 50-32 Detroit.

1992 - beat 40-42 Indy in the 1st, then lose to 57-25 Cavs.

So we see that Bird isn't exactly playing all these stacked teams all the time. Even though his losses are usually to elite teams, his Celtics also get a few creampuffs in the first rounds which Kobe never got. I mean...in Bird's MVP years the Celtics are playing teams that are more than -10 in the first round (yes I know the Bulls aren't really 30-52...) In his first four years, the Celtics skipped an entire playoff round in three of them and even then their only competition was Philly from 1980-1982.

I do think that Bird's competition was a bit better because he's playing better teams at the top, but he also gets to play some terrible teams at the bottom. I mean..the worst playoff opponent Kobe's faced (by W-L) was the 2011 Hornets that went 46-36, but also didn't have David West. The worst playoff team Kobe faced in his 5 championship runs was the 09 Jazz at 48-34.

If you ranked all the teams Bird and Kobe faced, you'd have Bird's competition at the very top (85/87 Lakers, 81/82 Sixers, etc), but you'd also have a lot of Bird's opponents below the worst Kobe opponent. The best Kobe opponent was probably the 02 Kings or the 08 Celtics and I'd say Bird faced at least 1-2 better opponents than those.

[tsherkin]

Main post updated.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah Im not arguing against Nash being credited for good team offenses at all. I think he absolutely deserves credit because as you state we have multiple sources of information confirming this. My question was why then we wouldn't "credit" say Tim Duncan for also clearly by multiple sources of information, having a ton to do with 4 rings in his prime as the best player and a 5th as a key cog. Nash is obviously an amazing offensive player and Im not remotely suggesting otherwise.

Seems like we should do the same thing in both cases, but I keep seeing posters who are cool with looking at team stuff like otrgs, but not team stuff like w/l or championships when both are similar in that the star player has a ton to do with it, but clearly isn't doing it alone and requires some non-trivial amount of help in that regard.

I mean, we do credit Duncan. We don't pretend he did it by himself of course, and if it's your perception that we do something like that with Nash/Magic, well we clearly shouldn't be.

I'll say a couple things:

1) I'd say we can admit to essentially using the offensive success of the Suns, Lakers, and sometimes Royals, as a shorthand for the offensive GOAT candidacy for Nash, Magic, and Oscar respectively. Clearly it's not a proof though. We do it because it goes along with a bunch of other things and it really hammers home the other trends in a succinct way that can't really be done any other way.

And, I'll say we also do this with Russell, both on defense and talking about his overall impact.

So why don't we do it with Duncan? Because when we look at the more granular stuff when it comes to Duncan, the macro narrative doesn't hold nearly as well.

In terms of all-time defensive dynasties, one can argue the Duncan Spurs were the 2nd greatest of all-time...but good luck finding any individual metric that ranks Duncan as clearly ahead of his contemporaries on a year in year out basis. Even Defensive Win Shares, which directly biases the conversation to Duncan based on the team's performance, sees Ben Wallace tear a whole right through Duncan's prime, and sees plenty of guys historically put up better numbers than prime Duncan typically did.

Viewing it from a lens of overall production I don't think makes it look any better. Duncan is an A-list superstar certainly, but he doesn't have 4 alpha titles while all other non-Hakeem bigs of his generation have none because his peak was so, so superior. He was just in a better situations.

Again, none of this makes the team shorthand for Nash/Magic offense foolproof, or something that will last the ages, but it's pretty understandable to me why it's seen as a useful way to communicate in a way that using it for Duncan wouldn't be.

[Baller2014]

I think if anything a few posts for Bird got missed, so I'm glad this got called for Bird. He definitely finished with a majority, even by realbig3's count.

[tsherkin]

I'm glad Larry is still in the top 10; I think he stands up well.

I did a post in the #11 thread about longevity, and I think my next focus will be on translation from RS to PS in terms of TS% and ORTG fluctuations. We've all probably seen the playoff delta-PER chart by now, but it'll be interesting to do the same with offensive efficiency and per-possession productivity for the target group.

[trex_8063]

Yeah Im not arguing against Nash being credited for good team offenses at all. I think he absolutely deserves credit because as you state we have multiple sources of information confirming this. My question was why then we wouldn't "credit" say Tim Duncan for also clearly by multiple sources of information, having a ton to do with 4 rings in his prime as the best player and a 5th as a key cog. Nash is obviously an amazing offensive player and Im not remotely suggesting otherwise.

Seems like we should do the same thing in both cases, but I keep seeing posters who are cool with looking at team stuff like otrgs, but not team stuff like w/l or championships when both are similar in that the star player has a ton to do with it, but clearly isn't doing it alone and requires some non-trivial amount of help in that regard.

I mean, we do credit Duncan. We don't pretend he did it by himself of course, and if it's your perception that we do something like that with Nash/Magic, well we clearly shouldn't be.

I'll say a couple things:

1) I'd say we can admit to essentially using the offensive success of the Suns, Lakers, and sometimes Royals, as a shorthand for the offensive GOAT candidacy for Nash, Magic, and Oscar respectively. Clearly it's not a proof though. We do it because it goes along with a bunch of other things and it really hammers home the other trends in a succinct way that can't really be done any other way.

And, I'll say we also do this with Russell, both on defense and talking about his overall impact.

So why don't we do it with Duncan? Because when we look at the more granular stuff when it comes to Duncan, the macro narrative doesn't hold nearly as well.

In terms of all-time defensive dynasties, one can argue the Duncan Spurs were the 2nd greatest of all-time...but good luck finding any individual metric that ranks Duncan as clearly ahead of his contemporaries on a year in year out basis. Even Defensive Win Shares, which directly biases the conversation to Duncan based on the team's performance, sees Ben Wallace tear a whole right through Duncan's prime, and sees plenty of guys historically put up better numbers than prime Duncan typically did.

Viewing it from a lens of overall production I don't think makes it look any better. Duncan is an A-list superstar certainly, but he doesn't have 4 alpha titles while all other non-Hakeem bigs of his generation have none because his peak was so, so superior. He was just in a better situations.

Again, none of this makes the team shorthand for Nash/Magic offense foolproof, or something that will last the ages, but it's pretty understandable to me why it's seen as a useful way to communicate in a way that using it for Duncan wouldn't be.

Not sure if we're looking at different sources for RAPM data---I'm assuming that's the primary stuff you're referring to when you use the word "impact"---but I don't see Ben Wallace "tearing a hole right thru Duncan's prime" defensively. In fact, I see Duncan's PI DRAPM equal or higher than Wallace's most years (and the one year where it's not, he's not far behind: 4.6 to 4.3). I see one year where Duncan ties for the league's best DRAPM (and multiple others where he ranks #2-4), and multiple years (prior to '08, anyway) where his DRAPM is better than Garnett's, too, fwiw.

Anyway, all that to say that I don't think it would be too disingenuous to cite Duncan's team DRtg's, for instance, while making a case for Duncan.

No, Duncan didn't have as much defensive impact (as measured by RAPM) as Nash/Magic did offensive impact. However, with Nash/Magic, offense was the whole deal. Defense isn't the whole deal with Duncan.

Magic was probably a defensive neutral (slight positive at best), and Nash was a consistent defensive negative. Duncan, otoh---in addition to his D---was a consistent offensive +; often a pretty substantial +, and rarely even among the league's elite: '07 he had higher PI ORAPM than Dirk, Wade, Kobe, Chauncey (NPI tells a similar story, too).
And, given context, I think it's pretty impressive that aside from the often #1 rated defense, the Spurs were also a top 9 offense from '01 thru '03, for instance. Duncan really didn't have all that much in the way of offensive help in those years.