RealGM Top 100 List #13

[acrossthecourt]

Doesn't per-100 and per-36 assume that basketball performance is perfectly linear with respect to pace and time?

In other words, the (shaky) assumption is that those playing fewer minutes at slower pace suffer no performance degradation when their pace and minutes increase.

(cf. Manu Ginóbili)

No, you're operating on the shaky assumption that performance declines with more playing time, which is unsubstantiated.

http://basketballprospectus.com/article ... icleid=501

What this article established is that the inflection point (point of diminishing returns) for performance with respect to playing time is greater than ~30 minutes (for Millsap).

But the inflection point might be around the 40-minute mark.

Here's the original article with several examples:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712230003 ... _doctrine/

Shooting percentage: On average, effective field goal percentage and True Shooting percentage both increased by .003. Eight players saw their shooting percentages improve with the extra minutes; nine saw declines.

Points per 40 minutes: +1.82 on average; 15 improved, 2 declined.

Rebounds per 40 minutes: -0.01 on average; 11 improved, 6 declined.

Assists per 40 minutes: +0.48 on average; 10 improved, 7 declined.

Steals + Blocks per 40 minutes: -0.11 on average; 4 improved, 13 declined.

Turnovers per 40 minutes: -0.10 on average; 9 improved, 8 declined. (Of course, improved means lower turnovers here.)

Fouls per 40 minutes: -0.92 on average; 13 improved, 4 declined.

And finally... PER: +2.38 on average, 15 improved, 2 declined.

Important note on the selection method:

To satisfy Silverbird's previously requested natural experiment, Kevin Pelton and I (but mostly Kevin Pelton -- he watches way too much basketball) compiled a list of players who got stretches of starter-level playing time due to injuries to starting teammates.

So this isn't a set of guys who got more playing time because they got better.

[Texas Chuck]

And with era comparisons, we want to figure out the *share* of the contributions. Scoring 35 is impressive, but less so when your entire team scores 130 a game. A better way to compare Baylor's scoring to Kobe's is to look at the percentage of their team's points they were scoring at their best.

This is flawed as well. Surely you can see that?

[An Unbiased Fan]

Sure Kobe requires doubles at times, but he spent a lot more time out on the perimeter where he is going to be guarded by one guy--and a non big at that. Dirk is either in the post requiring multiple defenders or he's on the perimeter drawing a big out with him. That's why I'm not sure that Kobe's playmaking is an advantage over the pressure Dirk is constantly putting on defenses. Kobe is a spectacular scorer to be sure, but teams typically just put their best wing defender on him and provide help when he drives. Fairly standard defensive stuff.

You're forgetting that Kobe works in the post alot too, and on the perimeter scoring, and driving to create for others. I definitely wouldn't call gameplanning for Kobe as standard stuff. And I don't see how Dirk is the harder cover. Kobe is serving a duel role, while Dirk is set in a scorer role on offense.

Dirk is just a whole different animal who requires a unique gameplan to deal with in ways Kobe simply doesnt.

Yeh I just don't see this. Kobe is arguably the most explosive player in history. he could work outside or inside. He could drop 30 points, or 10 assists. No diss to Dirk, but Kobe is a bit ahead in this regard.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJNoFs3G91A[/youtube]

[acrossthecourt]

And with era comparisons, we want to figure out the *share* of the contributions. Scoring 35 is impressive, but less so when your entire team scores 130 a game. A better way to compare Baylor's scoring to Kobe's is to look at the percentage of their team's points they were scoring at their best.

This is flawed as well. Surely you can see that?

Why are you only focusing on this? I'm not rating players based on their team points proportions. It was only to illustrate the point.

You're missing the point of that entire post entirely by focusing on the wrong details and drawing the wrong conclusions.

[Texas Chuck]

I understand your post was made in a larger context. However, a big part of the basis of your argument appeared to be flawed and I wanted to discuss that foundational piece of your argument.

It wasn't my intention to misquote you.

[colts18]

Previous post of mine where I compared David Robinson and Wilt Chamberlain. I'm not 100% convinced that Wilt was better than Robinson. I have him slightly ahead but its close. When Robinson was putting up monster box score stats, they actually translated to team wins while for Wilt there were times when his box score dominance did nothing for his team (1963).

-Both played 14 years with distinctive phases of their careers (7 years as the man, then becoming a supporting cast member)
-Massive box score impact for both

-Wilt's first 7 years were his highest regarded years. Those were his 7 volume scoring years. Robinson also started his career with his first 7 peak years.

-Both had a season cut short during their primes (1970 and 1997)

-After his 7th year, Wilt changed teams and played a different role. Robinson essentially changed teams when Duncan came in and started deferring.

-Both had a peak caliber year during their first years with a new team (1969 and 1998)

-Both played their last few years in reduced roles where they produced high impact for a title team (1972 Wilt equals 99 Robinson). 2003 Robinson and 73 Wilt both played on finals teams but were shells of themselves.

-Both had their numbers decline in the playoffs which gave them reputations as unclutch.

The only difference to me is that Wilt had his peak years in Year 8 and 9 while Robinson did them in his first 7 years. If you look at them statistically there isn't much of a difference. If you look at impact to the team, Robinson looks better since his teams improved more when he came back (90 and 98) and declined more when he left (92 and 97).

Robinson: 26.2 PER, .250 WS/48
Wilt: 26.1 PER, .248 WS/48

And this is with Robinson playing in a much more competitive league.

[ronnymac2]

That's crazy that LAL and DAL never met until 2011. I think that matchup in 2002 or 2003 would have been insane. LA always had trouble with PFs like Sheed, Webber, Duncan, and KG. Dallas could have really exploited LA with Dirk's shooting. Then again, Shaq and Kobe would have annihilated the Maverick D. I still don't know who would win that. Probably edge to LA if everybody is healthy, but damn that's a nice series.

Considering how the RS seasons went during this stretch it seems to me like the Lakers would probably have destroyed Dallas. We literally had no answers for Shaq(Bradley, Rafe, Dirk=gross) and none for Kobe really either. Dirk would have put up big numbers probably and Dallas would lose in 4 or 5 by double digit margins.

Sadly the Lakers just own the Mavericks. Somewhere in this stretch Dallas was leading by 30 to start the 4th and lost--Im sure one of the Kobe guys probably knows the exact year.

edit: Actually was curious and went back and looked at the matchups in that time. Dallas actually won twice in 02 against LA, none in 03, but the scores look closer than my memory(maybe Dallas did well in garbage time? or maybe my memory is faulty) But in 139 RS games the Lakers have won 104 and even after the sweep in 2011 they still hold a 12-10 advantage in the PS.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200212060LAL.html

44-15 in the 4th quarter.

[ShaqAttack3234]

If someone really wants to pick Karl Malone, they're entitled to their opinion, but I don't want to hear any nonsense about Kobe benefiting from Shaq's presence individually as much as Malone benefited from Stockton's game, it really is comical.

Even an older, more skilled Karl Malone was usually assisted on roughly 80% of his baskets, and that was with Stockton only playing 30 mpg! That's very high for a big man. Unusually high. Big men who aren't being spoonfed will usually be anywhere from 50% to 70%.

Unfortunately, we don't have a big sample size to go by of Malone without Stockton, but what we do have suggests he benefited greatly.

1998
With Stockton- 27.7 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 4 apg, 2.9 TO, 0.9 bpg, 1.2 spg, 53.2 FG%, 77.1 FT%, 60.1 TS%, 63 games
Without Stockton- 24.9 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 3.6 apg, 3.6 TO, 52.3 FG%, 72.4 FT%, 58.2 TS%, 18 games

Is it coincidence that most who watched both players thought Stockton set up Malone a lot, and in the season we finally see Malone in a significant sample size without Stockton his scoring drops by almost 3 ppg, his FG% drops a bit and his turnovers go up dramatically? And this was with Stockton only playing 29 mpg as opposed to the 35-36 mpg he usually played or the 37-39 mpg he was playing late 80's/early 90's!

And although I know that steals and blocks do not necessarily equal defense, you have to be impressed (nay, stunned) that a 35 year old West was getting 2.6spg and .7bpg. Kobe's never even reached 2.6spg, and the last time he got .7bpg he was 25! West was likely a serious outlier as a help-defender in his prime, which is backed up by contemporary accounts IIRC.

Well, the per game averages aren't as good to go by as BLK% and STL% due to pace, though West wasn't playing big minutes anymore so that kind of evens out. For comparison, West's STL% was 3.6% and his BLK% was 1.1% in 1974. 2003 Kobe's combination of 2.8 STL% and 1.4 BLK% was still impressive, though that definitely wasn't Kobe's best defensive season. Kobe was significantly better defensively in 2000 and 2001 when he was a much more focused on the ball defender and an active help defender, who gambled at times, but not as much as 2003. Kobe has topped West's BLK% in '74 quite easily even though he's never approached his STL%. For example, 2000 Kobe had a STL% of 2.2% and a BLK% of 1.7%. But West also only played 31 games in 1974, so the sample size is a bit small meaning I can use 1999 Kobe when he had a STL% of just 2.0%, but a BLK% of 1.9%. And then there's Kobe's 22 game playoff run when he played 857 compared to West's 967 minutes in the '74 regular season, so not a really unfair comparison and Kobe's STL% was 2.0%, but his BLK% was 2.9%, which is exceptional for a guard.

Of course, this was Kobe in his athletic prime while '74 was a broken down 35 year old West on the verge of retirement so it's an unfair comparison in that regard.

[Notanoob]

And although I know that steals and blocks do not necessarily equal defense, you have to be impressed (nay, stunned) that a 35 year old West was getting 2.6spg and .7bpg. Kobe's never even reached 2.6spg, and the last time he got .7bpg he was 25! West was likely a serious outlier as a help-defender in his prime, which is backed up by contemporary accounts IIRC.

Well, the per game averages aren't as good to go by as BLK% and STL% due to pace, though West wasn't playing big minutes anymore so that kind of evens out. For comparison, West's STL% was 3.6% and his BLK% was 1.1% in 1974. 2003 Kobe's combination of 2.8 STL% and 1.4 BLK% was still impressive, though that definitely wasn't Kobe's best defensive season. Kobe was significantly better defensively in 2000 and 2001 when he was a much more focused on the ball defender and an active help defender, who gambled at times, but not as much as 2003. Kobe has topped West's BLK% in '74 quite easily even though he's never approached his STL%. For example, 2000 Kobe had a STL% of 2.2% and a BLK% of 1.7%. But West also only played 31 games in 1974, so the sample size is a bit small meaning I can use 1999 Kobe when he had a STL% of just 2.0%, but a BLK% of 1.9%. And then there's Kobe's 22 game playoff run when he played 857 compared to West's 967 minutes in the '74 regular season, so not a really unfair comparison and Kobe's STL% was 2.0%, but his BLK% was 2.9%, which is exceptional for a guard.

Of course, this was Kobe in his athletic prime while '74 was a broken down 35 year old West on the verge of retirement so it's an unfair comparison in that regard.

The bolded is exactly my point though. Washed up West was equaling prime Kobe in terms of steals and blocks- that's incredible. It lends some credence to the Wilt quote that West was the 3rd best shotblocker of his era.

West also went on to a successful coaching career, and I recall someone talking about how he understood where the ball was going to go before guys decided to pass it- he was likely a monster in his prime when it came to playing the passing lanes and help-defense.

Seeing that West's efficiency is basically equal to Kobe's given the TS% adjusted made to account for the FT rules changes and the 3 point shot being added to the arsenal of a guy with the rep of an elite shooter, and West's edge as a passer, where does Kobe's edge come in?

[drza]

I need more Dr. J conversation, and I don't have time at the moment to do the research myself. So, I found a few posts from others highlighting the good Doctor. Hopefully it's enough to at least spark some discussion.

Here's TMacForMVP in the last top 100 list, arguing for Doctor J at #11 (which is where he was voted in)

Erving in general always gets underrated. His teams were always a near top five defensive team in the NBA. He was among the best shot blockers at his position, a monster team defender, and as someone alluded to, had some impressive defensive man performances throughout the course of his career as well. He was exceptional off the ball, and as noted by ronny, an extremely underrated passer/play-maker. He was an efficient high volume scorer at the peak of his career, with the ability to dominate games - often doing so to lead his team.

His latter year playoffs may not have been too sexy but Erving is definitely one of the top ten Finals performers of All-Time. Even in 83, 19 PPG might not be all that impressive, but five assists, nine boards, over a steal and three blocks with a game clinching steal and dunk in the sweep of the Finals screams impressive to me.

NBA Finals Statistics
77' Finals - 30.3 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 5.0 APG, 2.7 SPG, 0.8 BPG on .543
80' Finals - 25.5 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 5.0 APG, 2.0 SPG, 2.3 BPG on .522
82' Finals - 25.0 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 3.3 APG, 1.8 SPG, 1.3 BPG on .543
83' Finals - 19.0 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 5.0 APG, 1.3 SPG, 2.8 BPG on .469

76 ABA Finals - 37.7 PPG, 14.2 RPG, 6.0 APG, 3.0 SPG, 2.2 BPG.

*In the same Finals, he had back to back 45+ point games. He essentially hit the game-winner in Game 1 and 2. And the clinching Game 6, had 31 points, 19 boards, 5 assists, 5 steals, and 4 blocks.

**Note, I understand the Finals aren't a tell all story, but I'd argue that it's still a large measuring stick when we're comparing players of this caliber. Look at how much we downgrade LeBron for his performance last season. If a player leads his team to numerous finals, comes away with championships, and ridiculously dominant performances, that should count as something significant.

I'm not sure where to get other ABA Final statistics, but in 74' he opened up the Finals with a 47 point game, averaged 28/10/5 in the post-season run and led the Nets to the championship. Keep this in mind - the Nets with the addition of Erving and Kenon, went from a 30-54 win team to 55 wins and an ABA championship. And, let's not try to downgrade the sort of competition, when he was being defended by the best of the best, namely Bobby Jones and Willie Wise. I completely agree with ronny, the ABA from 74-76 was just as good as the NBA - and Erving came away with two championships. Look at the Nuggets team post-merger, finished with the 2nd best record in NBA - the same team that LOST to the Nets in the final season of the ABA. His impact on his teams have already been stated through the immense W/L records of prior to Erving opposed to with him.

And, while many people tend to give credit to Moses for their championship run (rightfully so), it's an often under looked fact that the Sixers the season before acquiring Moses were already a championship caliber team that challenged the Lakers in the Finals to six games. 5-6 Top 5 Finishes in MVP Voting, 5 straight All-NBA First team appearances, 1 Time NBA MVP, a champion, four NBA Finals appearances, 11 NBA All-Star games, THEN factor in what he accomplished in an ABA stretch as good as the NBA during the time, two more ABA championships, MVP's, and ridiculous dominant performances..

Erving has the best peak, doesn't lack in longevity, and was a big game performer.

[drza]

Another Doctor J post, this one from TLAF from an older thread. He's known for his great Doc posts, so I doubt this is the best one but it's more food for thought:

Erving's knees were bad in his first year or two in the NBA as well. That titanic 1976 title run probably hampered him for quite a while too...J played over 3750 minutes in the 1976 seasons at the very highest level. (This includes, somehow, stepping up massively in the playoffs.) In his first two year sin the NBA, as noted, the Gene Shue Sixers were an amalgam of all stars and ball dominant players. The unselfish guy was Julius Erving. He played/scored/shot less … but let's not somehow kid ourselves that he wasn't still great. First, well, you have the 1977 finals where Erving was colossally awesome. McGinnis folded up like a wet tortilla in almost every game. J had 24-4-6 with three steals and a block with only 14 shot attempts in Game 4. It was his off game. He wasn't under 30 for the rest of the series. He averaged 30-7-5 on 54% shooting. We are talking about a guy with three ABA MVPs, an NBA MVP, and three other NBA top 5 MVP finishes...and we don't have records for the MVP voting in Doc's first three years in the ABA. I'll go out on a limb and say he was a top 5 player in those years too. Looking at both in the NBA and ABA combined in that period, you can make a very good case that Julius Erving was one of the top 5-7 players in basketball for at least 10 years—more like 12 or 13. How great is that? Pretty damn great.

I'm a huge fan of the newer talent in the NBA, and I think it's terrific that we have a player right now whose career arc and production is similar to that of Julius Erving. That player is Kevin Durant. Durant is a better scorer...and we'll never kn ow how much juice Erving could have gotten out of the three—after not having it in high school or college, Erving shot around .345 in his lost three ABA seasons before he was forced to give it up again. They are comparable as rebounders; Erving is slightly better (in his first 8 NBA years, Julius Erving had a Reb % of 11.1, same as Durant in his last five. Since Erving was a better rebounder in his first 5 years, he gets a slight edge.) They're comparable as ballhandlers but Durant is a better distributor. Erving is a better defensive player. None of the differences is really significant (except for assists...and in terms of Ast %, it's actually still quite close). I mean, it's great. I think Durant is awesome. And that's exactly how good Erving was. Awesome. For well more than a decade.

With a couple of extra spikes. First, there's the playoff/beast mode thing. Julius Erving's 1976 season is on the short list of the greatest of all time, including everyone who has ever played professional basketball. And overall, Erving won titles, and when he got the finals, he generally played his ass off. A few examples of that from Durant will help KD.

Then there's the charisma/respect aspect. Like I said, I think Kevin Durant is great. He is respected not just because he's a great player but because he is a genuinely good person. He “plays the game right.” But even that doesn't compare with how people felt about Julius Erving. Erving carried an entire league as a player in his early 20s. Doug Moe told me that Julius Erving fostered an atmosphere of teamwork and camaraderie in the ABA that was vastly superior to the NBA of the time (and later). Make no mistake about it—everyone knew it too. It never stopped. Everyone knew how hard Julius Erving worked to help not just his team, but the bottom line for the NBA and image of the league as a whole. Players as diverse as (uncommunicative) Moses Malone and Larry Bird and Mo Lucas and Charles Barkley talked about how much they wanted Julius Erving to win, how much they wanted to win for him. That went for everybody. In an informal poll taken in early 1987 to determine who was the “nicest” person (not just player) in sports (not just basketball), Julius Erving was a runaway winner. In Frank Deford lovely valedictory on Erving’s career in Sports Illustrated, Deford notes: “But, in the final analysis, the Doctor was more like a Ph.D, one who studied and learned, and then passed on his knowledge. The Doctor's gift was that he added to the game and helped us to enjoy it so much more.”

I love statistics, but...in certain ways and when you get to a certain point, statistics become kind of meaningless. If you're in the conversation for the top 15 players of all time, the fact is, statistics start to even out. You're arguing about numerical semantics. But there are other factors. And it is hard to communicate now the total and complete respect--and more than, personal admiration and liking--that Julius Erving commanded. Teammates played hard because they wanted to him to get what they felt he deserved. I don't think anyone in the league commands that level of complete admiration now.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The bolded is exactly my point though. Washed up West was equaling prime Kobe in terms of steals and blocks- that's incredible. It lends some credence to the Wilt quote that West was the 3rd best shotblocker of his era.

West also went on to a successful coaching career, and I recall someone talking about how he understood where the ball was going to go before guys decided to pass it- he was likely a monster in his prime when it came to playing the passing lanes and help-defense.

West might have been a better defender, but it's very difficult to say. The fact that West was washed up and still getting steals at a higher rate than Kobe in his physical prime is interesting, but not conclusive. I've never bought the argument that a player did something when they were washed up so they must have done it at a much higher rate statistically when they were younger. It makes you think, but we can't assume. And while West was getting steals at a higher rate, he wasn't equaling Kobe in blocks during this sample size. But again, it's a small sample size as well at 31 games. Interesting to look at, but hardly conclusive both because West was past his prime and because it's a small sample size.

Seeing that West's efficiency is basically equal to Kobe's given the TS% adjusted made to account for the FT rules changes and the 3 point shot being added to the arsenal of a guy with the rep of an elite shooter, and West's edge as a passer, where does Kobe's edge come in?

Kobe's edges? Size and post game, creating off the dribble, athleticism and finishing. I don't think these are insignificant advantages for the position. In addition to rebounding, which admittedly, is less significant.

[An Unbiased Fan]

The bolded is exactly my point though. Washed up West was equaling prime Kobe in terms of steals and blocks- that's incredible. It lends some credence to the Wilt quote that West was the 3rd best shotblocker of his era.

Steals/blocks doesn't equal better defense though. 2013 James Harden is better in steals/blocks than Prime Bruce Bowen.

[Owly]

Doesn't per-100 and per-36 assume that basketball performance is perfectly linear with respect to pace and time?

In other words, the (shaky) assumption is that those playing fewer minutes at slower pace suffer no performance degradation when their pace and minutes increase.

(cf. Manu Ginóbili)

The thing about pace is that both teams in a game play the same pace. So it affects all participants equally. Moses might have played more tired in absolute terms terms than David Robinson, but he wasn't relatively more tired (because his opponent should be equally tired). Minutes advantages can be useful but they could be factored in after looking at per possession stats. And unless you believe that Karl Malone and David Robinson (two of the best athletes in the history of the game) were just a few more minutes/possessions away from a collapse in production (so bad it would undo the previous, say, 38 minutes work) then playing the Manu card would be somewhat disingenuous. All of which is why I already said the stats should look at teams pace, and should include ts% and compare with what the rest of the league was doing.

Moses averaged 42 minutes (pace 97.2) in 1982 while Karl average 38 minutes (pace 96.1) in 1990.

My guess is that if Karl had to play 4 extra minutes, his stats would not increase by over 10%.

At the margin, the linear adjustments penalize players who shoulder a heavier load in terms of pace and minutes.

Well firstly as noted before, the both teams in a game play the same pace, so unless one team is doing something like equal time share at a position whilst the other plays guys the whole game, players should suffer roughly equal relative exhaustion across eras (that is each player should be playing against a player who is about as tired as he is).

And then note that Karl Malone missed 4 games through his first 12 seasons, 6 through his first 15, and 10 through his first 18 (through to that last point averaging 37.3 mpg). Prior to his apex season ('96-97) Karl Malone played 33801 NBA regular season minutes. To date 86 other players have played that many regular season minutes total (NBA and ABA combined). So I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Malone had good stamina, conditioning and ability to take wear and tear. I'm going to suggest that his case is not analagous to Manu Ginobili, it is more or less the diometric opposite in terms of have very little concern about his capacity to sustain excellence despite wear and tear. So even if we are to say there's typically a deterioration point immediately after 38 minutes (and this isn't a given - and would mean Robinson was already playing a couple of minutes beyond such a point) I don't think it follows that Karl Malone in particular would be vulnerable to it.

And then there's the fact as alluded to before that the impact any "substandard" play in an extra 4 minutes on per X possessions stats would be tiny unless the drop was huge. Because a shift in production which you acnowledge to be "at the margins" for a period that would be less than a tenth of your total playing time, just wouldn't register.

Which brings us right back to, use the metrics, they account for pace and they compare players to the league that they were in. They may be imperfect across eras but they're so much better than posting raw stats. And you can use (or calculate) metrics on a non-per minute scale (EWA instead of PER, WS instead of WS/48, WARP instead of win%) thus benefitting players who stay on court longer. Or use per 100 possessions. And factor in minutes afterwards. Just don't use stats without the context of the league they were in (Moses was less efficient than the other two, your stats posts have ignored that; he was playing at a faster pace, your stats don't acknowledge that).

[Notanoob]

Kobe's edges? Size and post game, creating off the dribble, athleticism and finishing. I don't think these are insignificant advantages for the position. In addition to rebounding, which admittedly, is less significant.

With regards to size, West was 6'4" IIRC, but that was before they included shoes in the measurements, and West was a PG not a SG, so he actually has the size advantage at his position.

What do these advantages mean in terms of results though?

West had an identical TS% before adjustment comparing Kobe's 00-10 seasons to West's 62-73 seasons (55.8 to 55.7), but West's got the better FTr (47% to 39%), and so I bet you he would have a superior TS% today. Volume-wise he put up the same PPG since we don't have his USG%.

If you don't hold 60's guard play in high regard, I won't argue with you, but I'm thinking West produced more in his time.

The bolded is exactly my point though. Washed up West was equaling prime Kobe in terms of steals and blocks- that's incredible. It lends some credence to the Wilt quote that West was the 3rd best shotblocker of his era.

Steals/blocks doesn't equal better defense though. 2013 James Harden is better in steals/blocks than Prime Bruce Bowen.

Oh, I realize that, what I'm saying is that if you extrapolate backwards, and assume that West was getting a lot more steals when he was in his athletic prime, he was probably getting monster steals+blocks numbers for a guard, and given his impeccable rep as a defensive player, his bbiq which allowed him to go on to become a successful coach, it's likely that West was really, really good on defense. I also mentioned that Wilt called him his era's 3rd best shot blocker, which is likely absurd but makes me feel more confident in what I'm saying.

[G35]

I think you're misunderstanding a position you don't hold. Kobe was great at defense during the first 3-peat. His defensive rep and awards during that time are well earned. However, once Shaq was run out of town and Kobe didn't have to share the ball any more, he coasted on defense so he had more energy for offense.

I would argue that his defensive awards since that time are largely based on rep and not merited by reality.

Why would coaches care about reputation? They gameplan around players on a nightly basis, and watch more game film than any of us. Why hasn't Wade gotten "rep" votes? Why haven't other great defenders gotten "rep" votes?

The All-D teams are 2nd most reliable award out there behind All-NBA teams. Where are all these 'rep" votes? http://www.basketball-reference.com/awa ... fense.html

Synergy is an awful way to judge defense and it's completely untested.

Novak famously had one of the best defensive ratings on Synergy in 2013. Why? Most of that is because they put him on weak defenders.

Kobe post-Shaq was mostly hidden on weaker defenders to conserve him for defense.

And the flaws we're talking about can't be picked up by Synergy well: team/help defense!

James Harden got votes for All-D team this year. That should tell you what you need to know about the award. It's the NBA version of the Gold Glove.

From 2005-2007, when Nash was on the court, his team had a 106.7 D rating. When Kobe was on the court his teams had a 108.8 D rating. If Kobe was so great defensively, why did his team finish last in defense during his prime? Why was his teams worse defensively than the Mike D'Antoni Suns?

When guys start implying Nash is a better defender than Kobe its probably time to move on, no?I get why Colts18 is using Nash here since he's promoting Nash for this spot, but it really illustrates that its time to talk about something else.

The guys who think Kobe's D is overrated aren't going to change their minds based on All-D teams or the breaking down of one of Kobe's games and the guys convinced he was playing all-time great defense throughout his career aren't going to be convinced based on statistical evidence to the contrary.

I don't think he was implying Nash is a better defender than Kobe.

Rather Nash is brought up in that circumstance to prove logically that Kobe wasn't a plus defender. If Kobe can't lead his team to a better defensive rating than Nash can on the Suns, then it stands to reason Kobe isn't that great.

Hey, I know it's based on box score stats and those don't capture defense very well. But I still think that it's telling that Kobe is the WORST on his team, which coincides with the eyeball narrative of him conserving energy on defense so he can consume more possessions on offense.

Just as telling as Bruce Bowen constantly having the lowest DRTG on the Spurs. It means absolutely nothing when used as a comparison between teammates. Nada, zilch, zero.

Ryan Anderson's defensive rating went from like the 94th percentile to the 17th in two years.

I'm linking this because I specifically wrote it as a warning to those who use DWS:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.bl ... etely.html

According to Drtg, Boozer > Deng and Gibson:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2014.html

...and Lee and Iguodala are basically the same, whereas Curry > Thompson:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2014.html

See the problem? There's a systematic error in that bad defenders who rack up box score stats will be overrated, especially rebounding bigs who play matador defense.

(Not directed at you, GC, but anyone who wants to use Drtg.)

I have one question...when did Nash ever lead any team in defense? That is not a relevant comparison. Shawn Marion was the defensive leader for the Suns and once he left, you can readily see how far the Suns dropped in defense and that's after getting Shaq.

Whenever the Lakers had problems on defense it was because of an opposing PG i.e. CP3, Aaron Brooks, Russell Westbrook, Rondo and nearly every time they had Kobe switch on to him. Even in the 2001 finals Kobe was asked to chase Iverson.

I can't believe Nash and defense are even in the same sentence.....

[penbeast0]

...

And this is with Robinson playing in a much more competitive league (than Wilt).

You keep saying this; you keep getting it wrong. It may be a more competitive league for guys under 6-5 or so but the talent pool of 7 footers has not expanded as quickly as the teams in the league, even with recruiting from outside the USA which is much more common for true bigs. Look at the average center Wilt played against, look at the amount of centers in the league relative to the population pool of basketball players over 6-10, look at just about any measure and you will find that the center position in the 60s was the strongest concentration of talent in NBA history.

[ShaqAttack3234]

With regards to size, West was 6'4" IIRC, but that was before they included shoes in the measurements, and West was a PG not a SG, so he actually has the size advantage at his position.

What do these advantages mean in terms of results though?

West had an identical TS% before adjustment comparing Kobe's 00-10 seasons to West's 62-73 seasons (55.8 to 55.7), but West's got the better FTr (47% to 39%), and so I bet you he would have a superior TS% today. Volume-wise he put up the same PPG since we don't have his USG%.

If you don't hold 60's guard play in high regard, I won't argue with you, but I'm thinking West produced more in his time.

I've always heard West called a shooting guard, so I don't know. The guard positions were pretty much interchangeable in that time anyway. Kobe was often the closest thing his team had to a point guard anyway, especially from the 2nd half of the 2001 season on when he either played with Fisher or Smush. Even in 2000 and the first half of the 2001 season, Kobe was usually defending point guards, and even in 2000, Ron Harper had a big role in helping to run the offense since he had prior experience in the triangle, but Kobe was the only perimeter player who could really create off the dribble and had dynamic playmaking ability, even though his decision making was inconsistent until late in the 2001 season/2001 playoffs.

Also, West was clearly a couple of inches or more smaller than Kobe. Just look at the two side by side when Kobe was drafted.

[Moonbeam]

My initial thinking is to rank the main contenders in this order:

Jerry West
Julius Erving
Kobe Bryant
David Robinson
Dirk Nowitzki
Karl Malone
Charles Barkley
Moses Malone

I've only read through page 7, and I'm hoping in the subsequent pages somebody has posted a West/Erving comparison.

[semi-sentient]

Interestingly just like with KG, Dirk only faced Mailman and Kobe once in his career. With Malone this was obviously due to Karl being 15 years older, but its an oddity that he and Kobe only met once considering both teams were always in the playoffs.

Yeah, that's quite strange considering both teams were constantly in the playoffs.

I was glad to see them meet in the 2011 playoffs, but the results kind of sucked (for us Lakers fans, of course). Would have been nice to see them duke it out in their primes though.

Note: Lakers fans insist Kobe was badly hurt in 2011 and maybe he was, but he played all 82 games and played 37 mpg in that series so I'm hesitant to excuse him too much.

I think he was having some knee issues at the time, although I don't recall the extent of the injury. He looked really old heading into the playoffs, that's for sure.

That series was all about Dirk though. He was masterful. I'll never understand why Phil didn't put Odom on him. Pau got roasted hard.