RealGM Top 100 List #12

[DannyNoonan1221]

I vote for Oscar

His first 6 seasons in the NBA are just astounding to me. The immediate impact is unreal. I know those stats are inflated due to pace- his first season the league average for field goals attempted was the highest ever.

But its not necessarily the numbers themselves but the diversity of his game. He wasn't focused on one thing (scoring) and taking what came with it in terms of assists and rebounds. The guy did it all. Ignore the title of this video- it should be called "Hubie Brown talks about Oscar". Not everything applies, but guys like Hubie who have been around the league for so long, their opinions have to matter (I know I am touching on a sensitive subject saying that).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JttE4UT74k[/youtube]

I wish there was more statistical information on him so there could be an in depth look at Oscar vs Kobe (and West), but there is not. One thing I think happens when we get into these discussions is it usually comes down to player A vs player B and we zone in so much on those two that we lose sight of where we are- Right now it feels like we are talking about Malone/Dirk and Kobe as if we are deciding #1 and #2 when in reality this is the 12th spot. But because Oscar played before we have PbP data he gets left out when comparing different statistics between Kobe and KG and therefore he gets left behind. I would also say the same is happening to West here.

Someone posted the KAJ quote about Oscar and his impact on that championship team. That is what sealed up this vote for me. He had the impressive stats and what not as a Royal but he hadn't proved his impact translated to success. But his move to Milwaukee, his role in winning the championship and seeing KAJ's view of him was what Oscar needed (in my eyes) to solidify what his game showed in Cincinnati.

This was my post for 11. Edited for this spot.

Also wanted to touch on DQuinn's post above. Interested to see what some of the bigger stats guys here have to say about it, but to me is another indicator of what robertson could do. Again, it's tough when there isn't a whole lot of information on him- but what we do have on him seems to be pointing in the same direction. Gonna be hard for me to change my mind at this point.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think it's fair to write off the 89 series as an anomaly for Stockton, but Karl Malone had other playoff series where he was putting up comparable numbers, so let's not act like it's some fluke on his part. Sure, they lost, I put that largely on Stockton and Sloan. Kobe lost a lot of the series he's being praised for putting up big numbers in too. I don't see the inconsistency.

Malone never had a comparable series as far as combination of points, rebounds and efficiency. He had a few comparable series offensively, though.

Regardless, that's completely irrelevant. Just because Malone had similar series offensively vs opponents that weren't so unusual, doesn't mean that Malone's stats in that series weren't inflated. Again, look at other stars in series against Nelson's Warriors. Stockton isn't the only anomaly, but the fact that Stockton's numbers were such a big anomaly in that same series should tell you that you can't read much into Malone's numbers that series.

And Kobe is rarely, if ever, praised for his play in series he lost. I have no problem praising Malone win or lose when he deserves it. I've always praised his play vs Buck Williams and Portland in the '92 WCF. That doesn't change the fact that Kobe was a considerably better playoff performer than Malone in general.

Your criticism of 88 as an example of Karl's "mediocre" efficiency is bizarre. Karl Malone had 30-12 on 482. FG%. On what planet is that inefficient? It's less efficient than regular season Karl, but Karl is being compared to Kobe Bryant not himself, and Kobe's FG% is typically much lower than 482. FG%. In fact Kobe had only 1 playoff year in his entire career where he shot better than 482. from the field. Of course, we can look at it from a TS% point of view, in which case Karl Malone had "only" a TS of 537% in 88... which is in line with Kobe's career 541TS% in the playoffs. If Karl is mediocre, Kobe must also be inefficient. Karl's career playoff TS% is 521, and if we don't include the lower TS%'s that came at age 36, and between ages 38-41. (and which clearly lowered his average substantially) then he'd have a TS% on par with Kobe's. Even if Kobe has a mild offensive advantage, Karl is killing him on the defensive end with his impact there, and he isn't bringing his parade of negatives, and he has lots more longevity... wait, what's Kobe's argument again?

Kobe's prime TS% was typically 55%, whether you go with a long stretch of '01-'10 or '03-'09, and while Shaq took pressure off Kobe and was the primary focus of opposing defenses likely helping Kobe's efficiency a bit, but also limiting his ppg a bit, Kobe was as efficient/more efficient after Shaq left, while Malone's 53.7 TS% was worse than prime Kobe, and that's before considering he was playing inferior defenses in the run and gun 80's West with Stockton racking up assists like no other, most of them to Malone.

Infamous continues to be intentionally misleading, by asserting Karl Malone's prime came when he was 31-35 years old. Statistically, physically and in reality that simply isn't so. He also continues to assert Kobe's prime is 06-10, an argument that isn't made consistently by Kobe's supporters at all. Nor is it reflective of Kobe's career as a whole. 06-10 Kobe wasn't anything like the defender he was in his early days either, so that's another problem with trying to focus this on 06-10 for Kobe, you're ceding an even bigger defensive gap to Malone.

Malone being at his best from '94-'98 isn't an uncommon opinion at all. I happen to think this for the reasons I've stated, and Malone himself was quoted as saying '97 was his best, and then the following year, he said '98 was even better.

As for being intentionally misleading, I think you've been doing that throughout this comparison, and I suspect it stems from a personal bias against Kobe.

[semi-sentient]

Your criticism of 88 as an example of Karl's "mediocre" efficiency is bizarre. Karl Malone had 30-12 on 482. FG%. On what planet is that inefficient?

The league average in '88 was .537 ts%, which is exactly what Malone posted in the playoffs. In other words, calling his scoring efficiency mediocre is spot on.

Of course, we can look at it from a TS% point of view, in which case Karl Malone had "only" a TS of 537% in 88... which is in line with Kobe's career 541TS% in the playoffs. If Karl is mediocre, Kobe must also be inefficient.

The league average ts% was considerably lower from the late 90's to the mid 00's, so direct comparisons fall flat on their face.

Also, mediocre does not mean inefficient. It simply means that Malone was scoring on average efficiency.

For reference, here are the league averages (ts%) from the time Malone came into the league up to what most consider the last year of Kobe's prime:

2009-10: 0.543
2008-09: 0.544
2007-08: 0.540
2006-07: 0.541
2005-06: 0.536
2004-05: 0.529
2003-04: 0.516
2002-03: 0.519
2001-02: 0.520
2000-01: 0.518
1999-00: 0.523
1998-99: 0.511
1997-98: 0.524
1996-97: 0.536
1995-96: 0.542
1994-95: 0.543
1993-94: 0.528
1992-93: 0.536
1991-92: 0.531
1990-91: 0.534
1989-90: 0.537
1988-89: 0.537
1987-88: 0.538
1986-87: 0.538
1985-86: 0.541

He also continues to assert Kobe's prime is 06-10, an argument that isn't made consistently by Kobe's supporters at all.

Most Lakers fans would acknowledge that those were Kobe's peak/prime years.

Nor is it reflective of Kobe's career as a whole (from 99-05 Kobe only had a single year with a playoff TS% higher than Karl's "mediocre" 537TS% in 88, and his playoff TS% from 2011 onwards was also worse than 537.).

See above. Had Kobe matched .537 ts% from 99-05 that would have been significantly better than what Malone posted in '88 relative to league average. Nevermind the fact that the Lakers regularly faced defenses far superior than what the Jazz faced in '88.

06-10 Kobe wasn't anything like the defender he was in his early days either, so that's another problem with trying to focus this on 06-10 for Kobe, you're ceding an even bigger defensive gap to Malone.

06-10 Kobe wasn't as good as early Kobe defensively, but he was still quite good in the playoffs when it truly mattered.

[Baller2014]

Malone never had a comparable series as far as combination of points, rebounds and efficiency. He had a few comparable series offensively, though.

Sure, Karl benefitted a little bit from the unique circumstances of the series. I am sure there were series where Kobe benefitted like that too. For instance, people keep citing his 2001 Spurs series, despite the fact that he was guarded only by scrubs and corpses that series. It cuts both ways.

And Kobe is rarely, if ever, praised for his play in series he lost. I have no problem praising Malone win or lose when he deserves it. I've always praised his play vs Buck Williams and Portland in the '92 WCF. That doesn't change the fact that Kobe was a considerably better playoff performer than Malone in general.

Kobe is getting praised by infamous for his runs in 06 and 07, when he lost in the first round both times. I've heard Kobe get praise for his 08 finals performance too, where he lost. Kobe was one of the most fortunate NBA stars in history in terms of the combination of his circumstances and timing (great teams and coaches overall, relative to his in era competition). If Karl Malone had been that lucky he'd have a bunch of rings too.

Kobe's prime TS% was typically 55%, whether you go with a long stretch of '01-'10 or '03-'09, and while Shaq took pressure off Kobe and was the primary focus of opposing defenses likely helping Kobe's efficiency a bit, but also limiting his ppg a bit, Kobe was as efficient/more efficient after Shaq left, while Malone's 53.7 TS% was worse than prime Kobe, and that's before considering he was playing inferior defenses in the run and gun 80's West with Stockton racking up assists like no other, most of them to Malone.

From 99-05, and from 2011 onwards, Kobe had a playoff TS% above 537. exactly 1 year (in 2001, when he was helped by some of the circumstances I mentioned). Infamous's sample is wholly misleading of his career TS%. I also think it's no coincidence that as Kobe's effort on the defensive end seems to have waned, his offensive consistency seems to have improved. Taking plays off on D will help you be more efficient on the offensive end more oft than not, not to mention that it coincides with rule changes designed to benefit Kobe, and which Karl Malone never had the benefit of playing with.

I think looking at pace and context is important, but nobody has punished Magic Johnson or other 80's players for the "run and gun" game of the day (that frankly wasn't that typical anyway), I see little reason to punish Malone (especially when he was putting up comparable numbers in non-run and gun series). Stockton is hugely overrated IMO, and certainly less beneficial than some of the circumstances Kobe tended to have.

As for the post above, I do not care what the "league average" in shooting % was. Obviously it's an attempt to slight Malone, and suggest defences were weaker in the 80's. Does anyone seriously believe that though? Back then you could get away with murder on D compared to today, it's the same era the bad boy Pistons thug balled you. It's just as likely that the strong mid-range game that existed in the 80's, much rarer in the early 2000's iso-ball era, and the general higher quality of players in the 80's (it was called the Golden Age of basketball for a reason) explains the higher FG%. I've heard a lot of strange pro-Kobe arguments, but I never thought I'd hear the argument that we should reward Kobe for being less inefficient than his contemporaries, and punish Karl Malone because players were better at shooting in the 80's. I look forward to seeing Allen Iverson get credit for this too; "sure, he was inefficient, but most everyone at the time was!" If people buy this sort of argument, I'm surprised Wilt wasn't #1 on any lists... if we adjust for the bad FG% of his era he must have been a 75% FG shooter by today's standards. Maybe you should switch back to Oscar by the same logic, have you seen how high his FG% was compared to his contemporaries?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Sure, Karl benefitted a little bit from the unique circumstances of the series. I am sure there were series where Kobe benefitted like that too. For instance, people keep citing his 2001 Spurs series, despite the fact that he was guarded only by scrubs and corpses that series. It cuts both ways.

See, this is EXACTLY why I think you're hopelessly biased in this discussion. Kobe did have favorable match ups vs the Spurs guards that series, but the two series were in no way, shape or form comparable. First of all, Kobe truly dominated the series just explosively attacking the rim and finishing over or around the twin towers, unlike Malone vs the top ranked defense while leading his team to a sweep by a historic margin of 22 ppg without HCA while Malone's team was swept with HCA.

Stop trying to angle for them being equal in the playoffs, because this is a perfect example of how ridiculous it looks.

Kobe is getting praised by infamous for his runs in 06 and 07, when he lost in the first round both times. I've heard Kobe get praise for his 08 finals performance too, where he lost. Kobe was one of the most fortunate NBA stars in history in terms of the combination of his circumstances and timing (great teams and coaches overall, relative to his in era competition). If Karl Malone had been that lucky he'd have a bunch of rings too.

I rarely hear any of those series brought up as a reason Kobe is great and I've NEVER heard his '08 finals praised. Besides, Kobe did still play well vs the Suns those 2 years, and nearly led his inferior team to an upset in 2006, and was a shot away with his 50 points in game 6 of that series.

And the "if Malone had been that lucky" excuse is hilarious. Nah, maybe if Malone had actually played as well as Kobe he'd have some rings.

From 99-05, and from 2011 onwards, Kobe had a playoff TS% above 537. exactly 1 year (in 2001, when he was helped by some of the circumstances I mentioned). Infamous's sample is wholly misleading of his career TS%. I also think it's no coincidence that as Kobe's effort on the defensive end seems to have waned, his offensive consistency seems to have improved. Taking plays off on D will help you be more efficient on the offensive end more oft than not. I think looking at pace and context is important, but nobody has punished Magic Johnson or other 80's players for the "run and gun" game of the day (that frankly wasn't that typical anyway), I see little reason to punish Malone (especially when he was putting up comparable numbers in non-run and gun series). Stockton is hugely overrated IMO, and certainly less beneficial than some of the circumstances Kobe tended to have.

Kobe's individual production clearly didn't benefit from anything the way Malone's did. The proof is Malone's large decline from the regular season to playoffs. And I have to laugh at the sample you're using. You mean 2011 on when Kobe was now firmly in decline? Or '99-'05, which was mostly a pre-prime early 20's Kobe and then two injury-plagued years, one of which he missed the playoffs.

Kobe has 4 multi-series playoff runs with a TS% of 55% or better, and he reached the finals in all of them, while averaged over 29 ppg and 5 apg in all of them. Malone has only 2 multi-series runs with a 55 TS% or better, one being '92 when he reached the conference finals while the other was 2000, which was only 2 series!

Again, when you objectively compare them in the playoffs, it becomes painfully obvious who was better.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #12 - Dr. J

He was the ABA. He revitalized the NBA. Ladies and gentlemen, Dr. J.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nju01.html

http://www.remembertheaba.com/tributema ... rving.html

- 16 year career (5 ABA, 12 NBA)
- 2x ABA champion, 1x NBA champion
- 3x ABA MVP, 1x NBA MVP (2 other top 3 finishes, 2 other top 5 finishes)
- 5x all ABA (4 1st, 1 2nd), 7x all NBA (5 1st, 2 2nd)

I was originally going to vote for oscar in the last thread, but I've decided to go with Dr. J as I think I can provide more information on him, and his case for this spot seems as good as oscar's to me.

For years, erving's ABA career was looked upon as either insignificant to some, or far less significant than what he accomplished in the NBA. I've always felt he never got a fair shake as a result, although it seems he's more appreciated here than by the general public.

Using DQuinn's adjustment breakdown (http://www.apbr.org/oct2000.html - see "HOW GOOD WAS THE ABA"), I've adjusted erving's ABA stats from 72-76 to reflect the NBA equivalent and compared them to 77-81:



Interestingly, his TS% in his first 5 ABA seasons (55.8%) was identical to his first 5 NBA seasons. He remained an efficient player transitioning from the ABA to NBA.

And while it's a much smaller sample size, let's look at the playoffs while we're at it:



His ABA playoff TS% was 57.5%, and his NBA playoff TS% (77-81) was 55.3%. If I have time, i'll go back and do this per 100 possessions, but i was more curious about the actual stats to boot. Yes, there's still a decrease in production, but nothing that screams, "Man, this guy was really just an avg player masquerading as a superstar in the ABA".

It's very possible that he peaked earlier than some other players do, and he would've performed just as well in the NBA in say 76. By all accounts, he was an absolute monster of a player that season, and from the games i've seen, there was no denying that.

74 ABA Playoffs

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLWGRDjuAIw[/youtube]

76 ABA Finals Game 6 vs. Nuggets

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qNqZVklGm0[/youtube]

The decrease in scoring production can also be attributed to his role changing when he went from the nets to the sixers. While he still led the sixers in scoring in 77, they had 3 other bonafide scorers in McGinnis, Doug Collins and World B Free:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1977.html

Gene Shue specifically asked him to take on more of a "jack of all trades" role as opposed to putting up big scoring #s, and erving followed suit. They would end up getting upset by the blazers in the finals, but making the jump to the NBA and going to the finals out of the gate was impressive nonetheless. He avg'd ~30 PPG, 7 RPG, 5 APG, 2.7 SPG and 1 BPG on 54% FG and 86% FT, which included a 40 pt performance in the 2 pt game 6 loss. He quickly made his mark on the NBA.

I think what he accomplished as far as winning and production is concerned should still be valued highly regardless of the league. I have no problem with weighing the ABA less, but his overall body of work is still substantial. He was also the face of an entire league that struggled to keep its head above water for its entire existence. That's a lot of pressure for a guy who could've just been another all star in the more stable NBA.

As his NBA career went on, he was still an extremely productive player (transcending the 2 leagues winning MVP in 81 at age 30) who went on many deep playoff runs. It's always my contention that great players need good players around them to win championships. Would Magic have still won rings without kareem? Yes, possibly, but very unlikely that he wins 5. Sixers finally got over the hump when they traded for moses, and erving achieved the elusive NBA title. They also steamrolled the playoffs that season going 12-1 (almost "fo fo fo"!) He had a solid finals putting up ~19 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 5 APG, 1 SPG and 2.8 BPG on 47% from the field and 80% from the line.

83 Finals Game 1 vs. Lakers

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVWtgBLprBc[/youtube]

He had solid longevity, too. In his 16th season, he was still putting up ~17 PPG, 4 RPG, 3 APG, 1 SPG and 1.6 BPG on 53% TS. He retired as a productive player as opposed to fizzling his way out. It wasn't nearly as common back then to play 15+ seasons, either. Outisde of baylor, erving really set the standard for the athletic wing like we'd never seen before. He would see a fleet of players (including jordan) try to emulate the way he played the game, and that means something. When you combine that with the fact that he was an elite player in his own right, I think he's more than deserving at this spot.

Career Highlights (well worth the watch)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAvhvpQ7DSw[/youtube]

[Samurai]

[quote
So with this you are saying that Oscar and West both had a lot of impact on defense -
I've combed through old newspapers and can't really find too much other than statements that they were good on defense. West has some all-defense teams once they were established, and has one good year of steals.

Oscar would always have the best all-around player accolade, and then they would say he is very good on defense. Nothing really conclusive to base anything, plus his team was usually poor on defense.

To me, this validates Oscar as a pretty good defender- let me know if I am missing something.[/quote]

In regards to their defense, I realize that opinions don't matter as much as stats on this board. But it does remind me of a game between the Bucks and the Lakers in the early 70's. Can't remember who the announcer was (may have been Keith Jackson?) but the color commentator was Bill Russell. The question, of course, was who was better between Oscar and West (now remember that at this stage, Jerry was still an all star player while Oscar was clearly on the decline, so I assume he meant both in their primes). Russell diplomatically declined to answer, saying that a basketball team needs 2 guards so he would take both as the 2 best guards ever. So the announcer asked how he would compare/differentiate their games. Russell said that because they are both great overall players and do everything so well, most people don't realize that Oscar is a "much better offensive player" than he is on defense and Jerry is a much better defensive player than he is on offense. The announcer was perplexed, asking Russell to explain how West could be a "much better defensive player" than an offensive one. He pointed out that West was one of the game's best offensive weapons and may be the top shooter in the league. Russell said "yes, you are absolutely correct......and Jerry is STILL much better on defense than he is on offense." Russell pointed out that defense is actually composed of two components: man to man defense and "help" defense (remember that other than Russell, no one was talking about help defense back then as there were no stats like steals or blocks). He said that West is not just the best man-to-man defender in basketball, but he is "by far" the best help defender in the league. He said West was like having another coach on the floor (remember Russell himself had been a player coach) and West has that ability to "think like a coach". He could see things developing and anticipate what would happen next better than anyone. He said that "West would know who a player is going to pass to probably even before that player knows it himself!" That allowed him to make so many steals. Russell said that some players are good man to man defenders and some are good help defenders. He said that West, being the best man-to-man defender AND help defender makes West the best defensive player in basketball.

The announcer then asked if West was a better defender than he (Russell) was. Russell just laughed (more of a cackle actually!) and said that "West is a guard; I was a center". He pointed out that the two positions have very different defensive responsibilities and you can't compare those responsibilities. Then he would just laugh some more!!

[penbeast0]

...

Stats adjusted for team pace - all stats normalized to 2000 season

Each year weighted equally

player last yr of 9 ppg/ reb/ asst/ ts%+(over league)

West 72 24.7 4.1 6.8 0.073
Kobe 09 28.4 5.9 5.4 0.030
LeBron 14 28.3 7.8 7.4 0.058
Magic 91 17.9 6.8 10.6 0.077
Oscar 69 25.7 6.4 10.5 0.086

So, Robertson assists are basically tied for first with Magic.
His true shooting % relative to the league is best.
His scoring is 3rd, but his shooting is well ahead of Kobe

Oscar is superior to West across the board
Kobe scores better, but only due to higher volume
Oscar is superior in scoring to Magic, and fairly similar in rebounding and assists.


I voted LeBron ahead of all these guys.



Moses 87 23.1 13.9 1.4 0.035
Robinson 99 23.2 11.6 2.8 0.056
K Malone 98 26.6 11.1 3.5 0.059


Moses has a great 5 year stretch, but loses out when we go beyond that.

Karl Malone and Robinson are darn good, but don't match the efficiency of OScar.



Oscar was the main cog (by far) of the league's top offense for many years.
He made the right decisions on the court.

He was the consensus best all-around player in history until Jordan appeared.





I vote for Oscar Robertson at #12.

Thank you for putting those numbers up for us. Not sure why you use a that "last season" thing; it seems a bit arbitrary but since I can't keep this thing running long enough for a serious data dump project (and Excel has just plain quit working as well), I appreciate your putting in the work.

[therealbig3]

GREAT arguments for Kobe from both ShaqAttack and semi-sentient. Well done.

[therealbig3]

Not to mention some great Oscar posts as well.

Don't know about changing my Malone vote just yet, but I see it being a much more difficult choice now. I've got Malone, Kobe, Dirk, Oscar, West, and Erving all in a virtual tie in my head. Only reason Robinson isn't there is because of longevity.

[Basketballefan]

Sure, Karl benefitted a little bit from the unique circumstances of the series. I am sure there were series where Kobe benefitted like that too. For instance, people keep citing his 2001 Spurs series, despite the fact that he was guarded only by scrubs and corpses that series. It cuts both ways.

See, this is EXACTLY why I think you're hopelessly biased in this discussion. Kobe did have favorable match ups vs the Spurs guards that series, but the two series were in no way, shape or form comparable. First of all, Kobe truly dominated the series just explosively attacking the rim and finishing over or around the twin towers, unlike Malone vs the top ranked defense while leading his team to a sweep by a historic margin of 22 ppg without HCA while Malone's team was swept with HCA.

Stop trying to angle for them being equal in the playoffs, because this is a perfect example of how ridiculous it looks.

Kobe is getting praised by infamous for his runs in 06 and 07, when he lost in the first round both times. I've heard Kobe get praise for his 08 finals performance too, where he lost. Kobe was one of the most fortunate NBA stars in history in terms of the combination of his circumstances and timing (great teams and coaches overall, relative to his in era competition). If Karl Malone had been that lucky he'd have a bunch of rings too.

I rarely hear any of those series brought up as a reason Kobe is great and I've NEVER heard his '08 finals praised. Besides, Kobe did still play well vs the Suns those 2 years, and nearly led his inferior team to an upset in 2006, and was a shot away with his 50 points in game 6 of that series.

And the "if Malone had been that lucky" excuse is hilarious. Nah, maybe if Malone had actually played as well as Kobe he'd have some rings.

From 99-05, and from 2011 onwards, Kobe had a playoff TS% above 537. exactly 1 year (in 2001, when he was helped by some of the circumstances I mentioned). Infamous's sample is wholly misleading of his career TS%. I also think it's no coincidence that as Kobe's effort on the defensive end seems to have waned, his offensive consistency seems to have improved. Taking plays off on D will help you be more efficient on the offensive end more oft than not. I think looking at pace and context is important, but nobody has punished Magic Johnson or other 80's players for the "run and gun" game of the day (that frankly wasn't that typical anyway), I see little reason to punish Malone (especially when he was putting up comparable numbers in non-run and gun series). Stockton is hugely overrated IMO, and certainly less beneficial than some of the circumstances Kobe tended to have.

Kobe's individual production clearly didn't benefit from anything the way Malone's did. The proof is Malone's large decline from the regular season to playoffs. And I have to laugh at the sample you're using. You mean 2011 on when Kobe was now firmly in decline? Or '99-'05, which was mostly a pre-prime early 20's Kobe and then two injury-plagued years, one of which he missed the playoffs.

Kobe has 4 multi-series playoff runs with a TS% of 55% or better, and he reached the finals in all of them, while averaged over 29 ppg and 5 apg in all of them. Malone has only 2 multi-series runs with a 55 TS% or better, one being '92 when he reached the conference finals while the other was 2000, which was only 2 series!

Again, when you objectively compare them in the playoffs, it becomes painfully obvious who was better.

This.

Malone is great player no question about it, but he simply was not on Kobe's level as far as postseason play. And like you have said before, 5 rings with 2 as the man to 0 is quite a large gap, I'm not sure where the arguments for Malone are coming from outside of longevity and regular season play.

[Basketballefan]

Not to mention some great Oscar posts as well.

Don't know about changing my Malone vote just yet, but I see it being a much more difficult choice now. I've got Malone, Kobe, Dirk, Oscar, West, and Erving all in a virtual tie in my head. Only reason Robinson isn't there is because of longevity.

What about Moses don't you think he should be in the top 12-16 mix as well?

[90sAllDecade]

I finally got to these two, I'll attempt Moses and Robinson next if I can.

Team Comparison

Oscar Robertson

14 year career

Years with 1 All Star: x14
With 2 All Star: x5
With 3 All Star: 0
HOF Coach: 0

[Note: No Defensive teams or accolades available until 68-69 season]

*Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(MVP x3, Finals MVP x1, All NBA 1st team x4, Def. 1st team x1, Def. 2nd team x1)
Jerry Lucas (All NBA 1st team x2, All NBA 2nd team x2, Rookie of the Year)
Jack Twyman (All NBA 2nd team x1)

Jerry West

14 year career

Years with 1 All Star: x14
With 2 All Star: x8
With 3 All Star: 0
HOF Coach: x3

[Note: West’s HOF coach is Bill Sharman. Also the same lack of defensive accolades until 68-69 season]

*Wilt Chamberlain (Finals MVP x1, All NBA 2nd team x1, Def. 1st team x2)
Elgin Baylor (All NBA 1st team x8)
Gail Goodrich (All NBA 1st team x1)

[Baller2014]

See, this is EXACTLY why I think you're hopelessly biased in this discussion. Kobe did have favorable match ups vs the Spurs guards that series, but the two series were in no way, shape or form comparable. First of all, Kobe truly dominated the series just explosively attacking the rim and finishing over or around the twin towers, unlike Malone vs the top ranked defense while leading his team to a sweep by a historic margin of 22 ppg without HCA while Malone's team was swept with HCA.

I'm not sure how much of a twin tower D.Rob still was at this point. Leaving that aside, you do understand that being guarded by rubbish players makes it really easy to get to the rim? The bigs can't just wait in the key to stop you, it's called the 3 second rule. The Spurs lost D.Anderson that series too, and their old players just played their age. Guys like Sean Elliot, hobbled D.Anderson in 2 games, and the Spurs ancient no-names just played flat out disgustingly, they were washed up. The Spurs had to play A.Daniels, a back-up combo guard, 42mpg that series. You act like Shaq had nothing to do with it. Obviously the Spurs D was further weakened by the amount of attention they had to give Shaq, which only made the historically horrible back court they had even easier to exploit.

You talk about Kobe "leading" the Lakers to a sweep, but with no Shaq the Lakers would have lost. Kobe demonstrated pretty conclusively that without Shaq, or a stacked team, he couldn't lead the Lakers anywhere. The Laker record in games Shaq missed but Kobe played, from 99-04, was 23-26 (a 38 win pace). During that same period Shaq led the Lakers to a 30-10 record, a 61 win pace. And then the 05-07 years further confirmed that while Kobe put up big numbers, he didn't have a comparably big impact.

Stop trying to angle for them being equal in the playoffs, because this is a perfect example of how ridiculous it looks.

Offensively Kobe has a slight edge, they're pretty comparable though. That still leaves Karl Malone with a huge advantage though, once we factor in his vastly superior D, his longevity advantage, his lack of negatives, etc. You made a big deal about how Karl was supposedly "mediocre" in his efficiency in the 88 playoffs, yet you're being awfully quiet about it now. Let's come back to it for a moment; if Karl had "mediocre" efficiency in 88, then by that logic Kobe's whole playoff career had mediocre efficiency... and of course, in the regular season you can count on Karl for much better efficiency too (not so Kobe). That said, his supposedly bad playoff efficiency is actually on par with Kobe, isn't it?

I rarely hear any of those series brought up as a reason Kobe is great and I've NEVER heard his '08 finals praised. Besides, Kobe did still play well vs the Suns those 2 years, and nearly led his inferior team to an upset in 2006, and was a shot away with his 50 points in game 6 of that series.

And in game 7 he buckled under media criticism and sabotaged the team by refusing to shoot in the 2nd half. I covered this on page 1. I'd also be cautious about praising Kobe for how he did against the Suns that year, since they were pretty banged up by playoff time, the loss of KT was particularly bad since he was their only inside player. The Suns had been playing guys out of position all year due to shorthandedness, and it really hurt their D. Having Raja Bell helped... except that 50 point game you mentioned? That was the game Raja Bell didn't play in. When Bell returned in game 7 the Suns won by 31 points.

And the "if Malone had been that lucky" excuse is hilarious. Nah, maybe if Malone had actually played as well as Kobe he'd have some rings.

Well he seems to have played better in fact. He killed Kobe with his regular season stats, and come playoff time his stats were still better, and his "mediocre" efficiency was still in line with Kobe's typical TS%. Plus, you know, Karl Malone kills Kobe on D, longevity and intangibles (see the lengthy material I posted on page 1). Not seeing how Kobe played better here. I think Kobe was a more "talented" player, just as Shaq was more talented than Duncan, but this is about how they actually played, not how they theoretically could have played if they both maxed out their potential.

And I have to laugh at the sample you're using. You mean 2011 on when Kobe was now firmly in decline? Or '99-'05, which was mostly a pre-prime early 20's Kobe and then two injury-plagued years, one of which he missed the playoffs.

So outside of the 5 years Kobe had from 06-10, he wasn't the same player, is that what you're saying? If so, isn't that a bad thing? It hurts his longevity argument, because it turns out Kobe wasn't Kobe most of his supposed prime.

Kobe has 4 multi-series playoff runs with a TS% of 55% or better, and he reached the finals in all of them, while averaged over 29 ppg and 5 apg in all of them. Malone has only 2 multi-series runs with a 55 TS% or better, one being '92 when he reached the conference finals while the other was 2000, which was only 2 series!

Again, when you objectively compare them in the playoffs, it becomes painfully obvious who was better.

Kobe was, generally speaking, a slightly better offensive player than Karl Malone, if we look just at the playoffs... but then Karl Malone is better on O in the regular season, a vastly more impactful defender in the RS and PO's, has much more longevity, none of Kobe's parade of negatives, comparable accolades, etc. All that makes it hard to see how Kobe is better than him.

PS- Can I just say how bizarre an argument it is that Kobe has a 4-2 advantage in "playoffs with a TS% above 55%". Seriously? What sort of argument is that, especially when Karl's got a career playoff TS% of 526. (and which would probably be equal to Kobe's career playoff TS% of 541 if we excluded the years Karl's average got dragged down at age 37-41 (where his TS% was at record lows of 469-484... which is unsurprising, cos, you know... the guy was ancient). I mean, if Kobe plays till 41 I can promise you his playoff TS% will be lower than 526. The TS argument against Malone is weird, because if we look at Malone's physical, statistical and actual prime from 88-93, at age 25-30, the guy was probably averaging about 54-55 TS% in the playoffs, while putting up 28.5ppg and 11.9rpg throughout the playoffs. In the regular season of course his efficiency was notably higher, and he was putting up 28.64ppg and 11.33rpg over this stretch... it looks pretty identical tbh, except somewhat lower efficiency. If Infamous wants to compare the 2, do it over this stretch and I'll have no problems.

[DQuinn1575]

[

Thank you for putting those numbers up for us. Not sure why you use a that "last season" thing; it seems a bit arbitrary but since I can't keep this thing running long enough for a serious data dump project (and Excel has just plain quit working as well), I appreciate your putting in the work.

You're welcome - thanks for the suggestion- it helped me focus on what to do with the data.

The last year shows the last year of the 9 selected so people know what time period I chose. I originally did it in response/defense of Oscar and admit some bias in the 9 year cutoff.

I'm not sure what the "right" number is - I think there probably should be 2 -one to show a peak/prime and one to show a career value.

Too many arbitrary year cutoffs going on, and I didn't help that.

[DQuinn1575]

I finally got to these two, I'll attempt Moses and Robinson next if I can.

Team Comparison

Oscar Robertson

14 year career

Years with 1 All Star: x14
With 2 All Star: x5
With 3 All Star: 0
HOF Coach: 0

[Note: No Defensive teams or accolades available until 68-69 season]

*Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(MVP x3, Finals MVP x1, All NBA 1st team x4, Def. 1st team x1, Def. 2nd team x1)
Jerry Lucas (All NBA 1st team x2, All NBA 2nd team x2, Rookie of the Year)
Jack Twyman (All NBA 2nd team x1)

Jerry West

14 year career

Years with 1 All Star: x14
With 2 All Star: x8
With 3 All Star: 0
HOF Coach: x3

[Note: West’s HOF coach is Bill Sharman. Also the same lack of defensive accolades until 68-69 season]

*Wilt Chamberlain (Finals MVP x1, All NBA 2nd team x1, Def. 1st team x2)
Elgin Baylor (All NBA 1st team x8)
Gail Goodrich (All NBA 1st team x1)

Thanks
With a 4 or 5 team division and limit of 3 all-stars per team the numbers will be real similar for any 60s guys.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm not sure how much of a twin tower D.Rob still was at this point. Leaving that aside, you do understand that being guarded by rubbish players makes it really easy to get to the rim? The bigs can't just wait in the key to stop you, it's called the 3 second rule. The Spurs lost D.Anderson that series too, and their old players just played their age. Guys like Sean Elliot, hobbled D.Anderson in 2 games, and the Spurs ancient no-names just played flat out disgustingly, they were washed up. The Spurs had to play A.Daniels, a back-up combo guard, 42mpg that series. You act like Shaq had nothing to do with it. Obviously the Spurs D was further weakened by the amount of attention they had to give Shaq, which only made the historically horrible back court they had even easier to exploit.

Robinson was still comparable to anyone in the league defensively in 2001, so lets not get ridiculous. I never said Shaq didn't take pressure off Kobe, but it was still a remarkable series by Kobe. He was the best player in a series that included prime Shaq and prime Duncan, and Phil Jackson also said Kobe was the best player that series.

I never denied it was a favorable match up, but it's still a bad joke to compare it to Malone's '89 series vs the Warriors.

You talk about Kobe "leading" the Lakers to a sweep, but with no Shaq the Lakers would have lost. Kobe demonstrated pretty conclusively that without Shaq, or a stacked team, he couldn't lead the Lakers anywhere. The Laker record in games Shaq missed but Kobe played, from 99-04, was 23-26 (a 38 win pace). During that same period Shaq led the Lakers to a 30-10 record, a 61 win pace. And then the 05-07 years further confirmed that while Kobe put up big numbers, he didn't have a comparably big impact.

When did Kobe have a stacked team outside of '98 when he was a teenager, and when the '04 Lakers were healthy, which was what? Half the season? And that wasn't the case in the most important series, which also happened to be the only series they lost.

This is a ridiculous argument because the Lakers had very weak supporting casts outside of Shaq and Kobe, so while Shaq was dominant enough in his prime to keep them afloat at 60 or so win paces when Kobe was out, he was an anomaly. Those teams weren't build to last without their stars. They worked because they had a few solid defensive-minded role players whose limitations weren't a problem because of how dominant the duo was.

As for the '05-'07 Lakers, everyone knows those teams were garbage.

Offensively Kobe has a slight edge, they're pretty comparable though. That still leaves Karl Malone with a huge advantage though, once we factor in his vastly superior D, his longevity advantage, his lack of negatives, etc. You made a big deal about how Karl was supposedly "mediocre" in his efficiency in the 88 playoffs, yet you're being awfully quiet about it now. Let's come back to it for a moment; if Karl had "mediocre" efficiency in 88, then by that logic Kobe's whole playoff career had mediocre efficiency... and of course, in the regular season you can count on Karl for much better efficiency too (not so Kobe). That said, his supposedly bad playoff efficiency is actually on par with Kobe, isn't it?

I already addressed your ridiculously slanted comparison between Malone's '88 efficiency and Kobe's. '01-'10 Kobe was a 55 TS% player at a time when league average efficiency on average was significantly lower, so nice try.

And no, it's not a slight advantage on offense.

And in game 7 he buckled under media criticism and sabotaged the team by refusing to shoot in the 2nd half. I covered this on page 1. I'd also be cautious about praising Kobe for how he did against the Suns that year, since they were pretty banged up by playoff time, the loss of KT was particularly bad since he was their only inside player. The Suns had been playing guys out of position all year due to shorthandedness, and it really hurt their D. Having Raja Bell helped... except that 50 point game you mentioned? That was the game Raja Bell didn't play in. When Bell returned in game 7 the Suns won by 31 points.

Kobe was asked to be a decoy/facilitator in the Suns series because Phil knew Phoenix wanted him to try to beat them by himself because everyone knew one great player couldn't outscore a great offensive team. And the game 7 thing wasn't sabotaging the team ebcause of media criticism. You're thinking of that late regular season game a few seasons earlier when Shaq was on the team. You could argue Kobe sort of conceded defeat with LA down big in the 2nd half, but that's about it, and he's hardly the only player I've seen do that since you love to bring other players up whenever I criticize Malone.

Well he seems to have played better in fact. He killed Kobe with his regular season stats, and come playoff time his stats were still better, and his "mediocre" efficiency was still in line with Kobe's typical TS%. Plus, you know, Karl Malone kills Kobe on D, longevity and intangibles (see the lengthy material I posted on page 1). Not seeing how Kobe played better here. I think Kobe was a more "talented" player, just as Shaq was more talented than Duncan, but this is about how they actually played, not how they theoretically could have played if they both maxed out their potential.

In no way, shape or form was Malone even equal to Kobe in the playoffs, much less better, and stop lying about TS%. I already covered that. Kobe's TS% from '01-'10 was 55% in the playoffs. And I don't know what the Shaq vs Duncan thing has to do with anything, especially since you're talking to someone who has Shaq firmly above Duncan, so you're not convincing me with that analogy.

So outside of the 5 years Kobe had from 06-10, he wasn't the same player, is that what you're saying? If so, isn't that a bad thing? It hurts his longevity argument, because it turns out Kobe wasn't Kobe most of his supposed prime.

Actually, 5 years is a very normal prime. Players typically aren't the same player for much more than that. Even if you look at Malone and his freakish longevity and sustained excellence, he was pretty much a different player from '89-'93 and then '94-'00.

Kobe was, generally speaking, a slightly better offensive player than Karl Malone, if we look just at the playoffs... but then Karl Malone is better on O in the regular season, a vastly more impactful defender in the RS and PO's, has much more longevity, none of Kobe's parade of negatives, comparable accolades, etc. All that makes it hard to see how Kobe is better than him.

Again, the fact you're calling it slightly shows how difficult it is for you to give Kobe any credit. Yeah, Kobe had some negatives as a player, primarily the 2001 regular season(which he sorted out come playoff time when he played better than Malone did in his entire career), the 2004 season and sometimes hurting his team by shooting too much('03 vs the Spurs), but I'll take that with Kobe's ability to step up in the playoffs over Malone's good attitude and tendency for shrinking when it mattered most. I'd bet money almost everyone in or around the NBA would as well.

Malone wasn't a defensive anchor either. His greatest attribute was post defense(from about '94 on), but Kobe himself was a great individual defender during the 3peat, and very good some later seasons primarily '08, and typically stepped up in the playoffs defensively, which makes it more ridiculous to argue Malone's defense was a big enough advantage in the playoffs to negate Kobe's significant advantage offensively, especially since both were primarily offensive players first and foremost. Hell, even in the 2004 Finals when Kobe was horrible, he actually did play well defensively, and was just about the only Laker you could say that about.

PS- Can I just say how bizarre an argument it is that Kobe has a 4-2 advantage in "playoffs with a TS% above 55%". Seriously? What sort of argument is that, especially when Karl's got a career playoff TS% of 526. (and which would probably be equal to Kobe's career playoff TS% of 541 if we excluded the years Karl's average got dragged down at age 37-41. I mean, if Kobe plays till 41 I can promise you his playoff TS% will be lower than 526.

It's not a bizarre argument at all. 55 TS% is a solid number, Kobe did it in 4 playoff runs to the finals, Malone did it in 2 extended runs, only getting to the conference finals in one. Again, he's not slightly better.

[semi-sentient]

The Spurs lost D.Anderson that series too, and their old players just played their age.

Kobe dominated Anderson in the regular season even more than he did against the Spurs defenders in the playoffs. That loss wasn't as big as people make it out to be, IMO.

And in game 7 he buckled under media criticism and sabotaged the team by refusing to shoot in the 2nd half. I covered this on page 1.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/n ... id=5195953

That argument was debunked long ago, and it stemmed almost entirely from comments that Barkley made. He and Kobe would go on to clear the air on national TV during on of the halftime segments where Kobe sat on the panel with Chuck. If the above story isn't enough, here's exactly how that infamous 3rd quarter went down...

Kobe 3rd Quarter, Game 7 Suns

1st Possession: Kobe on the right wing, gets the ball and passes it off to Smush so he can dump it inside (remember, this is the triangle offense -- it's the correct way to set up the offense). Suns front Kwame so Smush ends up taking (and missing a jumper from the FT line. Suns up 17.

2nd Possession: Kobe working off the ball this time. Odom gets trapped inside so he kicks it out to Kobe who is quickly double-teamed. He swings it to Smush who swings it to Walton who hits a 3. Suns up 14. On the other end Kobe gives Bell space and then gets screened as Bell hits a 3. Suns up 17.

3rd Possession: Smush immediately dumps it into Brown who misses a shot at the rim. He gets his own rebound and misses again. On the other end Kwame fouls Marion on the perimeter and he hits 2 free throws. Kwame is immediately benched. Suns up 19.

4th Possession: Kobe calls for the ball and swings it to Walton who gets inside for a miss. Turiaf gets the putback. On the other end Diaw posts up Walton and spins baseline for a dunk. Suns up 19.

5th Possession: Kobe gets the ball and dumps it into Odom who is posting up. Odom hits Walton for a wide open shot at the FT line and he misses. On the other end Turiaf commits a goaltend and the Suns lead increases to 21.

6th Possession: Kobe dumps it into Odom who gets doubled. He kicks it over to Walton who cuts and hits Smush for a wide open 3 that misses. Smush gets his own rebound and lays it up. On the other end, after a jump ball, Diaw gets fouled by Odom as he posts up Walton. Diaw hits both free throws and the Suns lead is back to 21.

7th Possession: Kobe gets the ball from Odom and fires up a 3-pointer which misses.

8th Possession: Kobe calls for the ball to swing to the left wing. He receives it and dumps it into Walton who has good position. Walton backs his man down and misses an easy shot.

9th Possession: Kobe gets an offensive rebound in the backcourt and forwards it to Smush who dumps it into Odom. Odom is double-teamed and tries a risky pass to Walton underneath leading to a turnover.

10th Possession: Odom brings the ball up the court and posts up. After drawing defenders he swings it out to Smush to drives and kicks it over to Walton for an open 3-pointer. He misses again.

11th Possession: Kobe brings the ball up and gets double-teamed at the 3-point line. He swings it over to Smush since he's open, but Nash recovers. The Suns are called for a defensive 3-second and Kobe hits the free throw. Suns up 20 as Devean George comes in to relieve a usesless Walton. Odom now gets the inbounds pass and sets up the offense. Kobe screens Nash as Smush gets the ball and hits a 3-pointer. Suns up 17. On the other end the Lakers fail to switch properly (Odom and George) which ends up in a wide open 3 by Jones. Suns back up by 20.

12th Possession: Parker brings the ball down and swings it to Odom who gives it to Kobe up top. Kobe makes a mistake and picks up his dribble as he expects Smush to come around a screen. Smush comes over to receive the pass and then turns the ball over. Announcers at this point are wondering when Kobe will take over the offense, but the real problem here is clearly that the Lakers are missing easy, wide open shots. The ball movement is solid. Guys are cutting and utilizing screens. The looks are there, but the shots aren't falling. These are higher percentage looks than what Kobe would be getting as he'd get doubled as soon as he starts driving. On the other end Nash hits Marion on a PNR for a dunk. Suns up 22 thanks to poor weak side rotation.

13th Possession: Kobe brings the ball up and gets double-teams as he looks to use a screen. He swings it over to Smush who dumps it into Odom. No shot is available so the ball is kicked back out to Smush. Kobe cuts to the basket but a foul is called. When the ball is inbounded Kobe looks to make a move but is again double-teamed at the 3-point line. He picks up his dribble and then dumps it into Kwame who kicks it back to Kobe who misses a heavily contested 3-pointer late in the clock.

14th Possession: Odom brings the ball down and attacks the basket to draw a foul as the lanes were cleared. He hits both free throws and the Suns lead by 22.

15th Possession: Odom brings the ball up and passes it to Kobe. Kobe dumps it back into Odom who hits a cutting Kwame for a dunk. On the other end Barbosa hits a shot in Kwame's face. Lead back to 22.

16th Possession: Everyone touches the ball except for Kobe who calls for it several times. As he's moving towards Odom he swings it and it ends up in a missed wide open 3 by George. On the other end Bell hits a 3 in transition and the Suns lead is up to 25.

17th Possession: Kobe waits for a screen from Kwame and the Suns decide to double to get the ball out of his hands (at the 3-point line). Kobe swings it to Odom who hits Kwame underneath, but Kwame again misses an easy shot from 8 feet.

18th Possession: Odom brings it down and swings it to Cook. who gives it back to Odom for a miss inside.

19th Possession: After a turnover Vujacic brings the ball up and immediately fires up a 3 which misses. Odom gets the offensive putback, but on the other end he takes it to Odom and scores. Suns up 25.

20th Possession: Odom brings it up and passes it to Kobe on the right wing. Kobe calls for a screen and again gets double-teamed, so he kicks it over to George who clanks another wide open 3.

21st Possession: Kobe brings the ball up and sees a double team early on. There aren't any lanes to the basket but as Thomas helps out on Kobe he hits Cook who misses a shot. On the other end Diaw gets an and-1 with George defending. He hits the FT and the Suns are up 28.

22nd Possession: Kobe brings the ball up and again sees a double-team beyond the 3-point line. He swings it over to Cook who hits Vujacic on the right side for a 3-pointer. These shots have been available all quarter, and they're the same shots that the Suns have been hitting and the Lakers have been missing. Collins mentions that Kobe isn't looking for his shot, but he's getting double-teamed so that's a silly statement. What I will say is that Kobe could have done a better job off the ball and posted up instead of waiting beyond the 3-point line, so from that standpoint I agree. Still, he's receiving lots of defensive attention any time he touches the ball in the halfcourt.

23rd Possession: Kobe starts to post up but Walton decides to take it in himself. You can see Kobe frustrated that he didn't get the ball back. Cook ends up hitting a shot so it doesn't matter much.

24th Possession: Kobe posting up on the right wing but Smush dumps it into Cook on the left elbow. He takes and misses turnaround jumper.

25th Possession: Kobe is screening for Walton who swings it to Cook for another missed wide open 3-pointer.

26th Possession: Vujacic passes it to Kobe at the top. Kobe is not facing much defensive pressure so this time he should have taken it straight to the basket. After a foul the Lakers inbound the ball and Kobe commits an offensive foul.

27th Possession: Kobe tries to take it to the basket and ends up throwing up a wild shot off the backboard, the commits a loose ball foul trying to get his own rebound. Thomas scores on the other end and the Suns go up 27. Game is pretty much over and has been for some time.


Consider that the rebuttal to whatever argument you made about Kobe's G7 sabotage versus the Suns.

[90sAllDecade]

Thanks
With a 4 or 5 team division and limit of 3 all-stars per team the numbers will be real similar for any 60s guys.

No problem. That is a fair enough point, I do also look at the teammate quality with those 60's guys.

At the same time there was no 3 all star minimum either and West only has one certain years (though he arguably has greater help though than Oscar).

I think perhaps yourself or someone else recommended looking at All NBA teams as more representative.

But I researched bottom teams like the 60's Knicks, Hawks and Pistons and there only two all stars or even one some years during the sixties:

Zelmo Beaty one year:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... _star.html

Willis Reed by himself 3 years
http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... _star.html

4 different Pistons by themselves four years:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... _star.html

So I do understand the league was more concentrated and there was a 3 player maximum (I think you provided a link in past threads confirming this, I can't remember), but at the same time there was no 3 all star floor and not everyone had 2-3 all stars on their teams even during the 60s.

But that idea should still be kept in mind comparing modern players I agree.

[acrossthecourt]

The issue I have when people pace adjust the 60s is they only do it one
way.

They do not adjust for shooting %, which would go up as the game is
slowed down.

They also do not adjust for the fact that scorers were more stingy giving
out assists

No, because that advantage applies to every player from that era. What you need to look at is how a player separates himself from his peers. It's the same way to get around the annoying arguments about handchecking or whatever.

I've tried to adjust for assists before by looking at the league average assists per field goal rate. There are only small changes.