RealGM Top 100 List #11

[RayBan-Sematra]

"20-25 ppg over his prime" sells Moses short.

During his 5-year peak (with 3 MVPs), Moses Malone averaged 26.8 PPG, 15.4 RPG.

Yeah from 79-83 he was a 24-26ppg scorer.
Outside of that stretch though he was never more then an 18-22ppg scorer.

Only having 5 years of volume scoring is pretty low compared to other greater offensive anchors.

[E-Balla]

There's nothing intangible about it. Taking difficult shots will lower your efficiency but help your team. For the first half of the season Portland looked like the best offense ever and they were led by a PF scoring 24 a game on 52 TS. Taking the bad shots can help your team and Kobe (out of all the players who did that primarily) was the king of that in his time.

I don't really follow.
What makes a long missed jumper by Kobe more valuable then a long missed jumper by Derek Fisher?
How is taking and missing difficult shots "helping your team"?

I guess you believe in the Kobe assist?
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/871 ... obe-assist

I would need some really good evidence and proof that Kobe missing shots is more valuable then other stars missing shots (or just compared to other star SG's like a Jerry West or something) due to something unique about him before I could seriously consider giving him extra credit for it.

Its not the misses (even though I do believe in the Kobe assist. I've chucked up crap knowing a teammate will pull it down if I missed) its the makes. A missed Kobe shot and Fisher shot is that same but Kobe is missing less than Fisher. If Kobe takes a shot at 40% that his teammates makes at 33% he's helping the team if that's the best look they can get that possession.

[E-Balla]

Part of that was epic 3pt shootinf and Aldridge being a stunningly low-turnover guy against significant usage. Inefficiency inyour scorers is tolerable on crap offenses (someone has to shoot), but ORTG considers offensive rebounding and turnover percentage as well. It's not as simple as "he was inefficient, so it's Ok."

Portland topped the league in FT%, and were 4th, 3rd and 10th in 3PM, 3PA and 3P% respectively. 3rd in TOV and ORB%, too. That all matters a great deal to team offensive efficacy.

Well overall Aldridge still had a ORTG you wouldn't expect from the best player and first option on a great offense. The top thing he had going for him was that he rarely coughed the ball up and he made the toughest and least efficient shots at still bad but respectable levels. Being asked to shoulder a load like that can lower your numbers a ton (like Melo taking 45% of his shots with less than 8 seconds on the clock compared to the league average of 30). Kobe was able to use a ton of those potentials and still be efficient (he's only inefficient compared to the GOATs).

[Jim Naismith]

Yeah from 79-83 he was a 24-26ppg scorer.

Your range is wrong. How could Moses be a 24-26 PPG scorer, when his average during that stretch was 26.8 PPG?

Moses' PPG in those years were: 24.8, 25.8, 27.8, 31.1, 24.5

27.8 and 31.1 are not in the range of 24-26 PPG.

Outside of that stretch though he was never more then an 18-22ppg scorer.

From 1984-1989 (nonpeak), Moses had 22.6 PPG, which again exceeds the top end of your range.

[tsherkin]

Its not the misses (even though I do believe in the Kobe assist. I've chucked up crap knowing a teammate will pull it down if I missed) its the makes. A missed Kobe shot and Fisher shot is that same but Kobe is missing less than Fisher. If Kobe takes a shot at 40% that his teammates makes at 33% he's helping the team if that's the best look they can get that possession.

The wording there is off. From 01-10, Kobe was MISSING 12 shots per game (and similar in the years which followed). Fisher's career-high FGA/g is 10.8, one of two seasons with double-digit attempts, so Kobe is missing a lot more.

Yeah, Fisher is worse inside of the arc, but a bad shot wouldn't be a lot better dor Kobe than Fisher when you consider the actual percentages involved. Kobe brings valuable shot generation and is noticeably more efficient than a guy like Iverson, but your 33% stat is arbitrary and not relevant.

[ronnymac2]

RE: Longevity

I used to be peak-oriented when making my all-time list. I thought "As long as Player X was the superior basketball player when Player X and Player Y were at their peaks, and as long as Player X has sufficient longevity (whatever sufficient longevity means??), he'll rank higher. I can't accept taking the inferior basketball player."

The central problem with this is that it's inconsistent with another fundamental basketball belief that I hold: That role players are as responsible for championships as superstars. So Rick Fox is as much of a champion as Shaq in 2000. James Posey is as much of a champion as KG in 2008. All 10 GOAT players voted in already don't win their titles without the 8th best player on each of their title teams.

Therein lay my inconsistency: I placed great value on what role players bring, but then pushed aside the contributions of former superstars in their non-prime years who were at least still capable of bringing what those role players who I valued so highly brought.

Take Draymond Green for example. I love Draymond Green. To me, he's going to find his way onto a championship team. Might be there already in GS. He's the new-school version of Robert Horry and James Posey. Now, somewhere far, far down my all-time list, Draymond Green appears. I would need to get paid large sums of money to actually make an all-time list down to where Green is at the moment, but let's say he's #742. How did he get there at #742? How'd he bypass the thousands of players below him? He did that by contributing to his team's chances of winning more than they did. What he did counts. By my own logic, every player contributes something important and necessary.

So when Dirk Nowitzki drops 12 points and 5 rebounds and shoots 40 percent from 3 in the year 2021...that counts, too. Why shouldn't it? Why shouldn't it increase his career value based on what I believe?


I'm only speaking for myself here and what caused my change in criteria. It's not right. There is no right. I'm definitely not going to try and change anybody's criteria. My invitation to those who share my belief that auxiliary players have value is to give a fair shake to a GOAT peak player's non-all-star years. 2004 Karl Malone who averaged 12/8 might not have been as great as 1997 MVP Karl Malone and his 27/10, but he was as good as, I don't know, some version of Serge Ibaka.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Your range is wrong. How could Moses be a 24-26 PPG scorer, when his average during that stretch was 26.8 PPG?

Moses' PPG in those years were: 24.8, 25.8, 27.8, 31.1, 24.5

27.8 and 31.1 are not in the range of 24-26 PPG.

I was looking at his playoff stats m8.
Even in the regular-season he only has 6 years of near or above 25ppg scoring.

[Jim Naismith]

Even in the regular-season Moses only has 6 years of near or above 25ppg scoring.

That's not too shabby.

Hakeem "only" had 5 years of near or above 25 ppg scoring.

Bird "only" had 4 years of near or above 25 ppg scoring.

And Kevin Garnett had zero years.

[trex_8063]

The discussion over the next ten should be very interesting, imo. Am looking forward to reading it. My three primary considerations for #11 are Kobe, Garnett, and the Mailman; early leaning is toward Kobe, but I'm still open to influence. Will try to write a bit on each later, as well as some other rambling thoughts bouncing around in my head. If I can find the time to organize.....

[Basketballefan]

Jerry West isn't better than Kobe IMO and I can't see him over many of these guys so I definetly can't see him over Kobe.

Why do you think Kobe was better then West?

These are their Prime playoff stats over their best 11 years.
West : 29 / 6apg on 47%FG / 56%TS
Kobe : 28 / 5apg on 45%FG / 54%TS

West has the statistical edge and his TS% may actually be deflated due to no 3pt shot.
They both have 11 elite years.

West was clearly the better Finals performer by a very wide margin and better in terms of intangibles/personality.

Ring wise Kobe obviously comes out ahead but West played most of his career during the Russell era where really nobody else was winning including guys like Oscar. It took a super stacked team and Wilt at his Peak to dethrone them for a year.

Put him in some years where there isn't a Boston/Bulls dynasty wrecking havoc and give him a solid All-Star or Super-Star big and he probably will have a better chance at winning a couple rings.
He did afterall win a Ring with Grandpa Chamberlain who was only 1 year away from retirement.

I would really like to see some good Kobe VS West discussion.
They are the most similar players we will be voting in over the next few spots.

Kobe in his prime was every bit as good as West, and did it for longer. With that i fail to even see an argument for West.

[penbeast0]

In deference to Kobe, people should revisit his TS% relative to league average from 01-10; the idea that he was generally inefficient is wrong. His issue has always been his shot selection and willingness to iso versus play the team game, which is defensively exploitable and has come up in the playoffs at inopportune times before. He's actually been a +2-3 TS% player for most of his career, which is very good. Not Jordan-esque, but still better than guys like McGrady and Melo and Vince, generally speaking.

While I agree that you need to adjust West's numbers for pace, you also need to look at his efficiency (already Kobe level or better) in terms of the league around him and you will see his numbers are "Jordan-esque" as are Oscars. Since Kobe's main competition at the guard right now look like West and Oscar, those are the guys you want to compare rather than McGrady or Vince.

West v. Kobe'

Explosiveness -- Kobe
Efficiency -- West
Defense -- West (probably)
Playmaking -- West (though West did play PG v. Kobe's triangle SG which gives West an edge, still West led the league in assists in an era when assists were less frequent)
Intangibles/Leadership -- West (pretty clearly)
Playoff performance -- West
Longevity -- Kobe

Kobe voters just dismissing West without actually making any kind of comparison is starting to push me to consider West (and for that matter Oscar) ahead of Kobe. If there is a legitimate comparison that shows Kobe as the better player, please make it rather than just closing your eyes and saying: "because I said so."

Oh, and as far as era differential goes, I see the 60s as a fairly strong era, unlike the 50s (very weak due to the racial barriers), 70s (the most ridiculous era of expansion and a lot of playing for contracts/jumping leagues/plus the cocaine issues. The talent pool in the 60s was considerably smaller than today (money plus non-US players) but far more concentrated (8 teams v. 30 is a big difference) -- these things show up most clearly in the center position because the genetic pool is much smaller when you exclude anyone under 6-10 (in shoes).

[magicmerl]

And Kevin Garnett had zero years.

I think you mean only zero years.

[An Unbiased Fan]

KG vs Malone is an interesting debate.

Regular Season per 100:
87-01 Mailman: 36.0 ppg, 17.0 AST%, 16.4 TRB%, 59% TS
99-13 Garnett: 29.1 ppg, 20.7 AST%, 17.8 TRB%, 55% TS

Playoffs per 100:
87-01 Mailman: 34.8 ppg, 15.5 AST%, 16.2 TRB%, 53% TS
99-13 Garnett: 27.5 ppg, 18.1 AST%, 17.5 TRB%, 53% TS

Top 5 MVP Seasons
Mailman - 9
KG - 5

All-NBA 1st teams
Mailman - 11
KG - 4

MVP Shares
Mailman - 4.296
KG - 2.753

MVP Shares per near-prime Seasons
87-01 Mailman - 0.286
99-13 KG - 0.183

[tsherkin]

Well overall Aldridge still had a ORTG you wouldn't expect from the best player and first option on a great offense.

Only if you look at nothing but team ORTG and assume; LMA rocked a 108 this year, uncharacteristically low, probably due to usage, but again, team construction made that happen. Few turnovers plus lots of threes and offensive rebounding. He blew on the offensive glass, but 7.2% TOG against 29.8% USG matters, a lot.

Portland was about team, not so much individual offensive excellence.

That said, Lillard? 20.7 ppg, second leading scorer. 116 ORTG against 25.0% USG, and that certainly mattered as well, as did matthews and batum (as supporting cast, 113-118 ORTG).

Food for thought. It takes a lot more than usual to build a great offense that way, more than a first-pass look otherwise indicates.

[tsherkin]

In deference to Kobe, people should revisit his TS% relative to league average from 01-10; the idea that he was generally inefficient is wrong. His issue has always been his shot selection and willingness to iso versus play the team game, which is defensively exploitable and has come up in the playoffs at inopportune times before. He's actually been a +2-3 TS% player for most of his career, which is very good. Not Jordan-esque, but still better than guys like McGrady and Melo and Vince, generally speaking.

While I agree that you need to adjust West's numbers for pace, you also need to look at his efficiency (already Kobe level or better) in terms of the league around him and you will see his numbers are "Jordan-esque" as are Oscars. Since Kobe's main competition at the guard right now look like West and Oscar, those are the guys you want to compare rather than McGrady or Vince.

Mine was a more general comment, not specific to the comparison. I'm just getting a bit tired of people misunderstanding Kobe when he isn't inefficient by any measure. I'm generally a West proponent, Ithink well of him as a player, in-era and ITO portability.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Kobe in his prime was every bit as good as West, and did it for longer. With that i fail to even see an argument for West.

That sounds like more of an opinion then a fact.

West was the more efficient scorer.
He was certainly the better Finals performer.
He was probably the better defender when comparing their extended Primes.
He had less issues when it came to team play & getting along with others be it players or management.

They also have comparable longevity.
West has 11 quality years.
Kobe had 11 quality years (or 13 if you give him 11-12).

I see many reasonable arguments for The Logo.
Not saying you can't argue for Kobe to be above him but to dismiss West is silly.

Extra note :
When looking at playoff PER West has 4 out of the 5 best marks between them despite I believe his PER being lower then it should be due to missing stats.

[An Unbiased Fan]

While I agree that you need to adjust West's numbers for pace, you also need to look at his efficiency (already Kobe level or better) in terms of the league around him and you will see his numbers are "Jordan-esque" as are Oscars. Since Kobe's main competition at the guard right now look like West and Oscar, those are the guys you want to compare rather than McGrady or Vince.

West v. Kobe'

Explosiveness -- Kobe
Efficiency -- West
Defense -- West (probably)
Playmaking -- West (though West did play PG v. Kobe's triangle SG which gives West an edge, still West led the league in assists in an era when assists were less frequent)
Intangibles/Leadership -- West (pretty clearly)
Playoff performance -- West
Longevity -- Kobe

Kobe voters just dismissing West without actually making any kind of comparison is starting to push me to consider West (and for that matter Oscar) ahead of Kobe. If there is a legitimate comparison that shows Kobe as the better player, please make it rather than just closing your eyes and saying: "because I said so."

I don't think anyone is dismissing West. Kobe was just the more prolific player. there has been attempts to pace-adjusted 60's era stats before, here's one of them. http://doubledribble.wordpress.com/2012 ... ted-stats/

61-69 Jerry West: 25.7 ppg, 4.5 apg, 4.1 rpg
^
Which is still very good, but not better than Kobe.

Explosiveness - Kobe
Efficiency - They're pretty even. Keep in mind Kobe played in tougher defensive eras too
Defense- How is West the better defender?
Playmaking - West
Playoff performance - West had the better Finals, but overall they're pretty close.
Longevity - Kobe

[DannyNoonan1221]

General consensus, my thinking, and even the RPOY project puts Kobe over KG from 2001-2010. I mean a few thought KG was better at the time but the most thought Kobe was better.


The difference doesn't have to be much for it to be clear. 2 is clearly over 3 but on a infinite scale its a small difference - but a distance nonetheless.

With West he's great but he's not a Kobe. It was a weaker era and his team was stacked. With Moses I see his game, what he accomplished, etc. and come out impressed but his impact doesn't seem to be so amazing when looking at how teams did without him and with him outside of 83.

Alright, so Moses falls behind of Kobe because of team success. Fair enough. West played in a weaker era- not going to fight you there. I am not giving you the "stacked team" argument though. Kobe won 3 straight titles with Shaq and PJ. Not sure how much more stacked his team could be. And would Kobe be here if he only had two titles?

Also, don't agree that a small difference is "noticeably" or "flat out". I don't mean to nitpick, but it seems very generic to just claim he was better and not support it. Again, while KG supporters have moved him up on my list almost 10 spots, I am still picking Kobe over him. But to say he is clearly better seems a little near-sighted; it is very difficult in my opinion to distinguish how much impact KG's defense really has on the overall game in order to make up what he lacks on offense. Not only is it harder to track defensive impact, but the media and general fans love people who can score points. Add that up with being in LA, winning titles with Shaq and coming straight out of high school playing the same position as a retiring MJ and you have the dream situation for anyone who wants a relatively inflated legacy.

[Basketballefan]

Well Kobe is someone who I think is very underrated by raw numbers.

I tend to think the opposite due to his individualistic nature which causes him to play outside the flow of the team offense more frequently then other ATG's.

It's hard to think of another player who can have 35 points on 34 shots and still be the reason his team won even with his team scoring 60 points on 50 shots.

I think his offensive inefficiency does hurt his team which is why in years like 00, 02 and 10 his teams struggled to win it all and had some extremely close scrapes.
In outlier years like 2001/2009 when he was pretty efficient from start to finish the teams he played on won very confidently without those close scrapes.

He may get the win at times even when he is inefficient due to his team stepping up or luck [G7 2010] but I don't think he has some special intangibles which cancel out the negative effects of his inefficient shooting.

Not to say Kobe doesn't have any value when his shooting isn't on.
He can still play defense, create for others and open up the court for others by simply being perceived as a great threat but him shooting poorly does not enhance any of those abilities. It is purely a negative thing.

So Kobe's 29ppg on 57TS% & 5.5 assists in 2010 playoffs is inefficient offense? Wow.

[ElGee]

Vote: Oscar Robertson

If Magic was voted in, I see no reason not to vote Oscar a couple of spots next. Offensive impact is the main argument. Check this in/out data (thanks to ElGee):

Spoiler:

So basically when Oscar was off the court for the Royals (70 game sample), the team was worse by nearly 8 SRS points (more precisely 7.99). Of course it's easier to add impact with weak supporting casts, but Oscar's production was worth literally half the team.

Then he goes to the Bucks with Kareem. Already a good team without him (Kareem is top 3 ever, you know), post-prime Oscar bumps a title contender (+7 SRS) to GOAT status (+12 SRS).

That's way bigger offensive impact than Kobe ever had. And considering RAPM data shows Kobe as a neutral defender (at best), I have to vote Oscar.

(I'm aware there isn't full RAPM data for the '01 and '02 seasons, arguably Kobe's best seasons in that end. Still, the eyetest shows him as a very capable man defender -when focused-, but a below average team defender. In fact, Lakers' defenses were usually better with Kobe out (I can post the defensive in/out numbers tomorrow if needed). You sure can't convince me Kobe is a impactful defender, and I consider Oscar the better offensive player: better scoring efficiency, better playmaking, at worst similar athleticism).

EDIT: Oscar is roughly +7 TS% above league average for his career. Best mark between the all-time great volume scorers (sans Barkley). +8.5 TS% between '63 and '67.

You're double-counting a season or two there.

In Cincinnati, Oscar missed 46 games (controlled for key players) and the team went from -7.9 SRS to +0.3 SRS.
In Milwaukee, Oscar missed 27 games (controlled for key players) and the team goes from 8 SRS to 9.5 SRS.
Combing both, Oscar missed 73 games and the team went from -2.0 SRS to +2.3 SRS.

I would be cautious with using very long samples (e.g. entire career) -- when you see multiple year runs in a WOWY run, I've almost always partitioned by team consistency as to compare the same key lineup with/without a player.

(West, in his entire career, missed 135 games (controlled for key players) and the team went from -1.6 to 4.9 SRS.)