RealGM Top 100 List #15

[Clyde Frazier]

He has an unofficial quadruple double where he shot 16/17, 12/12 FT and went 44/12/12/10blk against the Celtics.

I've seen this mentioned before several times over the years, and I'll see if I can find it, as I wish to verify it for myself.

It's on his NBA.com bio page when I did the search just now. When I searched for Jerry West here, I initially found it in your thread.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=994965

Interesting that the NBA recognizes it as having happened, even though blocks weren't officially recorded back then. Unless that blurb just slipped through the cracks when originally added to his bio.

[PCProductions]

Vote: Dirk Nowitzki

Extensive prime similar to Kobe Bryant. Quality years outside of his prime. One of the most impressive championship runs in NBA history. Solidified the European presence in the NBA.

Offense: A true creator who can hit it from anywhere on the court. 50/40/90 seasons making him an efficient offensive machine who could also pass very well for a big. Fadeaway possibly the most unstoppable move not named the Skyhook.

Defense: At worst a neutral defender who was hidden on the opposing, defensive centers. During his later years, he developed better into a slightly more two-way role and ended up as a positive on that, utilizing good instincts on rotations who didn't bite on pump fakes.

Rebounding: Good rebounder who would find good positioning without sacrificing defense. Wasn't a leaper and was limited to "just" above average rebounding because of it.

I like Dirk here because he's got the longevity of Malone with proven playoff success. In fact, he was rarely a letdown in the postseason barring the catastrophic 2007 first round exit after a 69 win season, but that was a fluke and ran into a team that both got hot at the right time and knew how to play them because of having their old coach.

And he's still going.

[ElGee]

I think the question should be, how do you define "Longevity" ?

Simply years of play, years as starters, all-star years, etc.? Malone was clearly an ELITE player for very long... That's why I call it "prime longevity"... That DOES matter, a sustained level of play.. None the less I have him still a couple spots down.

The term "longevity" is part of the problem. *I* use it to quickly convey the idea that the volume of someone's good seasons matter. Others clearly use it create an arbitrary cutoff point using a blunt tool. "Prime." "Good enough to X." Or even "years played." Those are all arbitrary.

I've used the miles traveled analogy to explain this in the past. High peak players are like fast cars with no gas tanks. If what we care about is how far the car traveled, then the function is speed * distance. What are we actually communicating by making a list of cars that had "longevity" by having "8 miles at over 80 MPH!" and throwing away the rest of the trip?

[RayBan-Sematra]

Voting for : Jerry West :

Dude was an absolute monster of a player who raised his level of play in the playoffs and further raised it in the Finals.

Had a 5 year playoff Peak where he averaged 33 / 6apg on 57%TS. Averaged 29 / 6.4apg over his 11 year playoff Prime.

He was also one of the most explosive scorers ever regularly dropping 35-40+pt games even in the playoffs where many famous "explosive scorers" struggle to drop such high volume games the way they did VS regular-season fodder foes.

______

I don't see the argument for Malone. Clearly he wasn't near the offensive force that West was in the playoffs.
He lacked the shot creation ability that West had and his offensive game had more flaws/holes in it which could be exploited by good defenses.

Even on defense I don't see him being a greater force then West and perhaps not even an equal force given how highly regarded West seems to have been on that end.

Longevity is his only argument that I see and it isn't enough.

Dork on the other hand stepped up his game in the playoffs and has better longevity then West.
He is a reasonable candidate though I think the argument for West is stronger.

[Basketballefan]

Vote: Dirk Nowitzki



I like Dirk here because he's got the longevity of Malone with proven playoff success. In fact, he was rarely a letdown in the postseason barring the catastrophic 2007 first round exit after a 69 win season, but that was a fluke and ran into a team that both got hot at the right time and knew how to play them because of having their old coach.

And he's still going.

In what Way is Dirk's longevity on par with Karl Malone's? That's reaching imo.

[90sAllDecade]

Team Comparison

Moses Malone

20 year career

Years with 1 All Star: x12
With 2 All Star: x4
With 3 All Star: 1
HOF Coach: 0

[Note: Moses didn’t play with Dominique or David Robinson/Rodman until age 33 and 39]

Julius Erving (All NBA 1st team x1, All NBA 2nd team x1)
Ron Boone (All ABA 1st team x1)
Maurice Cheeks (Def. 1st team x4)
Bobby Jones (Sixth Man of the Year x1, Def. 1st team x2, 2nd team x1)
Dominique Wilkins (All NBA 2nd team x1, All NBA 3rd team x1)
David Robinson (MVP, All NBA 1st team x1, Def. 1st team x1)
Dennis Rodman (All NBA 3rd team x1, Def. 1st team x1)

Karl Malone

18 year career

Years with 1 All Star: x12
With 2 All Star: x2
With 3 All Star: 0
HOF Coach: x16 years

[Includes Sloan mid-season and Phil Jackson, but Karl was age 40 with Phil, Kobe & Shaq]

*John Stockton (All NBA 1st team x2, All NBA 2nd x6, All NBA 3rd x2, Def. 2nd team x5)
Mark Eaton (Defensive Player of the Year x1, Def. 1st team x2, Def. 2nd team x2)
Kobe Bryant (All NBA 1st team x1, Def. 1st team x1)
Shaq O’neal (All NBA 1st team x1)


Moses team support wasn't great with before Philly at age 26, but his team support was pretty good overall.

He also played for six different NBA teams (four during his all-star years), eight including the ABA. He had a very long career but moved around a lot more than many of the all time greats I've looked at, so I wonder why he kept moving from team to team?

[rich316]

I will vote again for Dirk Nowitzki.

When I judge the "greatness" of a player, I am combining a lot of concepts. Longevity, peak impact, prime length, non-prime contributions, playoff wins, durability, teamwork. Most significantly, though, I am considering what that player can bring to the table in a hypothetical team-building scenario. I firmly believe that Nowitzki is the strongest remaining candidate based on those criteria, with some weight given to overall career value. Nobody else left on the board gives you more years of "If this guy is on my team, we have a really good chance of fielding a team good enough to win the title."

Dirk's offensive play is a unique asset. Nobody else can stretch defenses in the ways that he can, which gives his club enormous team-building advantages relative to the rest of the league. Don't have a top-shelf perimeter scorer? No problem, just find any journeyman combo guard and he will look like an all-star running the PnR with Dirk. Having problems with a rim-protecting big on the other team? No problem, Dirk can draw him away from the basket. Don't have a real point guard? It's cool, Dirk will work in the high post and create open looks for his teammates through his massive defense-warping talents.

Jerry West was a great, great player. He doesn't do as much as Dirk Nowtizki to fundamentally change the topography of the court. He can score in spades and get his teammates involved. Still, with him, as with many great perimeter players, you can let him "get his" to an extent, and live with the consequences. He can drain all the midrange jumpers he wants, but that kind of offense isn't fundamentally changing how his teammates can generate their own offense.

Karl Malone was certainly a physical specimen, but I feel that's the only thing that's keeping him in this conversation. Big men who don't score efficiently, don't really threaten the defense in a court-shifting manner, and don't protect the rim very well just aren't that valuable. I have similar feelings about Moses Malone. He is kind of a K Malone+ in his peak (strictly in terms of impact), with a shorter prime.

ElGee's graph comparing playoff performances v. strong and weak defenses of some greats is very informative. Dirk just doesn't care who is guarding him, he scores as well as ever in the playoffs, versus great defenses. Not only that, he gives his team a market advantage over the rest of the league when it comes to team-building. With the right defensive personnel and a few capable guards, he can lead a title contender. His impact edge seems clear.

[ceiling raiser]

I'm probably going to vote for Dirk here again, but it is worth noting that the monster post game wasn't always there. It's not something that he necessarily couldn't develop earlier, but it is something he didn't, based on the eye test, and the post up numbers (thanks again to shutupandjam).

I try not to project players' peak skills across their careers (that's why I wanted to be extremely sure about pre-peak Hakeem before voting for him starting at #5), so I might need to take a step back here with Dirk. As such, it's becoming increasingly likely (though not necessarily probably) that I switch to Robinson.

Anyhow, I really do hope West makes it in here. I feel that he's potentially the best candidate (and perhaps was last thread as well), but I still have too many questions about his handles. I don't want to sound like a broken record so this is probably the last time I'll mention this, and perhaps I'm exaggerating the issue, but I don't feel comfortable casting votes unless I'm extremely confident that I understand a guy's game.

BTW, just to throw some names out there...how do people feel about Stockton, Barry, Ewing, Baylor, Frazier? Is it reasonable to discuss them now or soon?

[SactoKingsFan]

Seems a bit early to start discussing Stockton, Barry, Ewing, Frazier and Baylor. They'll most likely get consideration after the top 20 have been voted in.

[D Nice]

BTW, just to throw some names out there...how do people feel about Stockton, Barry, Ewing, Baylor, Frazier? Is it reasonable to discuss them now or soon?

Other than Ewing I think all of those guys would be huge reaches at this point. And I rank Wade, Nash, and Petit higher than all of those guys save Pat, though I do occasionally flip-flop on Baylor and Wade.

[ThaRegul8r]

ElGee's graph comparing playoff performances v. strong and weak defenses of some greats is very informative. Dirk just doesn't care who is guarding him, he scores as well as ever in the playoffs, versus great defenses. Not only that, he gives his team a market advantage over the rest of the league when it comes to team-building.

This actually relates to something I was writing, and is a nice segue. As I already finished it, I'm just going to post it as I wrote it before reading that:

I'm going to take a moment to talk about some of the criterion from my list and how it relates to players that I look at. Perhaps this will spark further discussion as I apply specific criteria that I'm looking for, and relate it to some of the candidates on the board. Representatives for those players can then help me see how well they meet that criteria. Perhaps the resulting discussion will also help me to further refine my own criteria. Perhaps the process of explaining it will help me to realize something. Explaining something to someone can help further one's own understanding rather than the idea simply sitting in one's head.

I'll start with my first criterion:

1. The ability to integrate oneself and whatever respective abilities one brings to the table with the rest of the players on one’s team in order to enhance the whole for the facilitation of the ultimate objective of winning, and the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectuation of said purpose.

The means by which a player helps his team are inconsequential. What is important is the end. The player in question should use whatever skills he brings to the table to help his team win. As different players have different abilities, the means employed will vary. The only thing that matters are results. No one way of helping one’s team is inherently valued more than another.

When looking at a player, firstly, I want to know: What is it that a player does? What does he bring to the table? Different players have different abilities, so I don't care what it is in as far as saying one way is better than another, I just want to identify it. There are many roads one can take in order to reach a destination. I just want to know what a player's strengths are, what positive things they can do.

Secondly, I then want to know how a player employs the answer to the above question in order to help his team win. After identifying whatever it is that a player brings to the table, how does he use it to help his team win? Nothing a player does on a court has any worth to me if it doesn't help his team win. For me, that is my sole concern.

5. The ability to rise to the occasion during big games and crucial moments in order to bring about the ultimate objective of winning, and the mental fortitude to do so.

This criterion is relevant in that I want to know if a player is able to effectively employ whatever it is he brings to the table in important moments in his team's quest for a title. Can he still do whatever it is that he does in big games? Players who can, that is a positive in my evaluation, causing them to move up in my rankings. If, for whatever reason, they cannot, that devalues them in my eyes. Whatever it is they bring to the table won't be of much use if they can't do it—whatever "it" is—when his team needs it most. This is what I'm getting at if when I want to know how a given player performs in the postseason. How well did he employ what he brings to the table in the postseason?

To that effect, being able to employ whatever it is that he brings in varying situations and against varying opponents is relevant. He needs to be able to do what he does against whatever opponent his team may face. Every player may have particular bad matchups, but a player who has less of these is more valuable to his team. I'm going to call it "matchup independence." The degree to which the ability of a player to employ whatever he bring to the table to help his team win isn't diminished by particular matchups. Greater matchup independence is a positive. For you may run up against your bad matchup in the postseason, and thus your ability to effectively employ what you bring to the table to help your team win can be diminished, for some, drastically.

Just as anything a player does on a court for me only has relevance if it helps his team win, anything a player can't do only has relevance for me if it hinders his team's ability to win, or, worse yet, helps his team lose. For example (from my notes on Durant this last season):

“One thing I criticize about Kevin Durant’s game, he still hasn’t learned to post up the little guys that guard him,” Charles Barkley said during the Sprint Halftime Report of Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals between the Oklahoma City Thunder and San Antonio Spurs. “My criticism of Durant has always been the same,” Barkley said on the postgame show. “He lets little guys guard him.” This was a problem for Dirk Nowitzki at one point, and this hindered his team's ability to win. It hindered his ability to effectively employ what he brought to the table to help his team win. But Dirk rectified this, and this helped his team win. Which brings me to:

Any improvement a player makes is only relevant to me if it increases his ability to employ what he brings to the team to help his team win. Dirk's addition of a post game helped his team win, which is the only thing that matters to me.

Longevity was brought up, and I've revised my criterion to reflect my current thoughts:

11. The object of the game is to help your team win. Nothing else matters. Thus longevity is only relevant as far as when evaluating a player, the question is: how much did that player help the team(s) he played on during his career win, from draft day to retirement? This encompasses more than just a player’s peak/prime, it encompasses the moment he plays his first NBA game to the moment he announces his retirement, not an arbitrarily selected portion of his career. A player can help his team win before reaching his peak/prime (e.g., Magic Johnson), and can continue to do so after passing it. These years will not be excluded simply because they didn’t fall inside the period labeled as that player’s peak/prime.

A player does not cease to help his team win after passing his peak/prime. He may not be able to make as large a contribution as he formerly did due to age, but continuing to contribute to team wins to the extent one is able is still valuable to the team he plays for and helps the team obtain the ultimate objective. A player’s career consists of more than just his peak, as he won’t be at his peak for his entire career. The mere fact that one player “peaked” higher than another at one point in his career does not mean that he helped the team(s) he played for win more from draft day to retirement.

Longevity only has any meaning insofar as the length of time a player can continue to effectively employ whatever skills he brings to the table at whatever degree he is able to at that point in time to remain a positive contributor to team success. Post-prime longevity only matters when adding extra value. That is to say, if a player failed to effectively employ whatever abilities he brings to the table to help his team win during his prime, then simply outlasting the competition long enough to luck into a favorable situation is not adding extra value. Post-prime longevity cannot make up for the failure to meet Criteria #1 and #5 during one’s prime. Only seasons in which a player helped his team win will be considered in the overall evaluation (Criterion #7).

Tim Duncan is an easy recent example. Duncan helped his team win four NBA championships during his prime, and then helped his team reach the NBA Finals and win an NBA title in back-to-back seasons after his prime. Helping his team reach those Finals—winning one—is extra value Duncan provided beyond the four championships he helped them win during his prime.

Kareem also provided extra value in his post-prime longevity by continuing to help the Lakers win and be an instrumental part of their success after his prime, helping them win in 1985 with a performance that garnered him the Finals MVP award (for my rankings though, the award is irrelevant. The performance is what matters). One of the things Kareem brought to the table was the most unstoppable shot in the history of the game, and even after he'd passed his prime, the Lakers continued to go to him when they needed a basket. That's extra value.

[ElGee]

Most significantly, though, I am considering what that player can bring to the table in a hypothetical team-building scenario. I firmly believe that Nowitzki is the strongest remaining candidate based on those criteria, with some weight given to overall career value. Nobody else left on the board gives you more years of "If this guy is on my team, we have a really good chance of fielding a team good enough to win the title."

This is a new kind of argument to me...are you saying that you think IF you put the guy in the right situation (building pieces around him) that he can give you a bigger lift in "best case scenario" than other guys left can in "best case scenario?" I'm unclear how far you taking this. Things to consider there:

-generally, is this a good way to construct team-building scenarios? How easy is it to actually get that optimal scenario? For instance, caution you heavily not to underrate the quality of Dallas' roster over the years.

-specifically, if that's your argument, why not consider Steve Nash? Has to be one of the most situationally valuable players in NBA history. Thus, if we have Nash, we pick up some shooters, a defensive big and add in a skilled AS level player somewhere else (like a big that can PnR) and enjoy the ride for 7-10 years...

PS If that's not your argument, and you are saying "in typical GMing circumstances," than I just disagree with your conclusion and lets just leave it at that.

[therealbig3]

ElGee,

BTW, where do you rank Dirk?

[HeartBreakKid]

Gonna be out of town for a bit, so gonna drop off my vote.


I'm actually thinking of putting Walton up here. I'm giving West the nod over him because West has played more seasons, but I think Walton may have peaked higher, but the sample size troubles me, so I will give the benefit to West.


Summary of the stuff I've mentioned in the past where I've voted for West.

- Good passer considering how much he scored, though we don't know his turnover situation

- Most likely a very good defender, athletic, long limb, high b-ball iq, has the reputation to back it up.

- Could create his shot and shoot from anywhere. Handle is obviously very dated, but I'm sure in another era he could reasonably get a left hand to a decent enough level. Probably, his biggest knock is his handle.

- Very efficient.

- Scoring in the playoffs shot up dramatically.

- Team player, would sacrifice and play any role needed.


I'm still not convinced Malone is nearly the playoff player that West is, and the sample size is large enough for both of them for me to reasonably suggest that when guys are playing for real, West can elevate his game, while Malone often times will struggle.

While Malone may score about as much as West, one has to take into account that West also is creating his own shot, Malone is a finisher. West also creates for others and stretches the floor, so there are other offensive attributes that likely make West a better offensive player, even if Malone may or may not have better scoring/TS ratio.

I don't care for longevity, I don't rank players based on how many quality seasons they had, so Malone's greatest attribute doesn't weight in that much in my criteria.



Nowitzki is nice, but because West has the offensive pros of being a guard, I feel like he is likely a more impactful player on that end. He seems like a better shooter than Dirk even was, and he could score more than Dirk (or perhaps as much depending on pacer or what ever), while also hooking his teammates up.

I think defensively West is probably more useful than Dirk is. Perhaps in a vacuum Dirk may be better by virtue of being bigger, but the defensive advantage Dirk would give you over another PF would be negligible, if he was even a better defender than the opposing Power Forward at all. I'll go off West's reputation in that he was a very good defender who could guard both 1s and 2s, which makes him more impactful than a decent-neutral defending power forward in my opinion.


My vote goes to Jerry West.

[FJS]

I don't care for longevity, I don't rank players based on how many quality seasons they had, so Malone's greatest attribute doesn't weight in that much in my criteria.

Altough it's your criteria and everyone have theirs, I think nobody should dismish longevity of players. Much less if this longevity it's insane.
I mean you can have Robert parrish or kevin Willis kind of longevity and maybe it's not a factor. Better 13 great seasons than 8 or 9 good seasons and other 10 declining. But when we are talking about Malone's or jabbar longevity we should stop and think.
Malone scored more than 25 ppg in 12 seasons as jabbar. More than 20 in 17. This is Difficult. As Difficult that only jabbar and karl has done it.

[Owly]

I don't care for longevity, I don't rank players based on how many quality seasons they had, so Malone's greatest attribute doesn't weight in that much in my criteria.

Altough it's your criteria and everyone have theirs, I think nobody should dismish longevity of players. Much less if this longevity it's insane.
I mean you can have Robert parrish or kevin Willis kind of longevity and maybe it's not a factor. Better 13 great seasons than 8 or 9 good seasons and other 10 declining. But when we are talking about Malone's or jabbar longevity we should stop and think.
Malone scored more than 25 ppg in 12 seasons as jabbar. More than 20 in 17. This is Difficult. As Difficult that only jabbar and karl has done it.

Odd that Parish should be part of the years that don't matter group.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... sro01.html

I can see him having a large range depending on how high you value peak (his is unexceptional) how high you rate longevity at (mid-low) all-star(ish) level (through to age 39 he was putting up 17+ PER, and GS years aside ususally .150+ WS/48, a slightly more efficient version of Elvin Hayes longevity); and playoffs (unfortunately Parish has quite a few quite substantial playoff fall-offs, at least by the boxscore). But I don't think a good productive starter through 39 then one year as a good backup and three hanging on years is the same career shape as Willis (first declining at 33, revival as starter at 35, thereafter rarely a starter, WS/48 never above average sometimes close, PER twice above average in the 8 year spell; 1 year out, 2465 minutes total over final 5 years - 6 if you count the year he wasn't on a team). Not that Willis is bad or it should be held against him. And I'd understand if Parish's later productivity (in relatively low minutes) is below a threshold or at a low level whereby you don't think he did/would make a substantial difference to your chances of winning it all. But whilst less consistent I think Parish's career arc (whilst having some peaks and troughes) isn't that far from Malone's (albeit at a lower level) tending not to go too far from what you got in most of his peak/prime years.

I don't care for longevity, I don't rank players based on how many quality seasons they had, so Malone's greatest attribute doesn't weight in that much in my criteria.

Altough it's your criteria and everyone have theirs, I think nobody should dismish longevity of players. Much less if this longevity it's insane.
I mean you can have Robert parrish or kevin Willis kind of longevity and maybe it's not a factor. Better 13 great seasons than 8 or 9 good seasons and other 10 declining. But when we are talking about Malone's or jabbar longevity we should stop and think.
Malone scored more than 25 ppg in 12 seasons as jabbar. More than 20 in 17. This is Difficult. As Difficult that only jabbar and karl has done it.

In defense of Moses he was with two clubs for most of his prime, and the reason he moved then was he wanted to move and Houston weren't in a position to build around him. All FAs were restricted but Philly put up a huge offer (including, initially some incentives that were specifically to induce Houston not to match, e.g. money if the team didn't draw large home and road attendences). The commissioner got involved but eventually Houston took a high value pick (Cleveland's '83, became 3rd pick Rodney McCray) and Caldwell Jones.

Trade analysis (for evaluating players) isn't perfect anyway (sometimes "equal value" doesn't mean much because what's of value to one team isn't to another) and a lot of team changes are at the start and end of his career. I guess the 76ers-Bullets trade trying to get cheaper (Ruland cheaper than Moses) and younger (of the picks exchanged one was already known to be late, the other would be "the latter of two"), plus Cliff Robinson was better than Catledge. But I wasn't around at the time, don't know the intricacies of the cap etc.


fplii raised an interesting question about Stockton and I'll say he's coming on to my radar (not going to vote for him very soon, but thinking about him). Superb cumulative metrics (1st in WARP ('80 onwards = WARP era), 5th all time in Win Shares). I think very portable, in particular for a good team (spaces floor, very high efficiency and willing - too willing? - to moderate usage, very good defender, high IQ, high character/effort, few if any notable flaws to exploit). Solid WoWY showing in mid 30s given how his minutes were limited. Given PER skews positively for volume scorers a peak of 23.87 is pretty good), WS and WS/48 suggest after Magic, Robertson and Paul his best years are as good as anyones
http://bkref.com/tiny/hQM0M

We don't have comprehensive numbers for WARP but of players considered primarily "of the 90s" the best three year peaks are MJ: 80.4; Admiral 76.3; Olajuwon 68.3; Sir Charles 68.2; Stockton 66. Only MJ and the Admiral have a better 5 consecutive year stretch. So it's safe to say he has a pretty impressive peak here.
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/art ... cleid=1196

And I've seen very limited amounts of it (probably mainly JE's xRAPM, maybe a bit SPM) but the +/- type stuff (albeit as before most of what I've seen has boxscore influences) that I recall he rates well, especially for a non-big (not that we shouldn't compare across positions or that position adjustments to stats aren't troublesome, but if you're going to play a couple of guards or at least ball handler/perimeter players then there's a degree to which saying he gives you so much over other guards makes sense).

[Sports Realist]

[quote="HeartBreakKid"]I don't care for longevity, I don't rank players based on how many quality seasons they had, so Malone's greatest attribute doesn't weight in that much in my criteria.quote]

You're ignoring a handful of great seasons then... What's wrong about sustained dominance?

This isn't like some chucking in the low 40's to squeek out 25 ppg seasons, Malone was still All-NBA in 2001.

Like said, I don't have him here anyway, but I don't think you can really ignore that Level of Play so late in his career.

[Jim Naismith]

I've used the miles traveled analogy to explain this in the past. High peak players are like fast cars with no gas tanks. If what we care about is how far the car traveled, then the function is speed * distance. What are we actually communicating by making a list of cars that had "longevity" by having "8 miles at over 80 MPH!" and throwing away the rest of the trip?

distance = speed * time

[rich316]

Most significantly, though, I am considering what that player can bring to the table in a hypothetical team-building scenario. I firmly believe that Nowitzki is the strongest remaining candidate based on those criteria, with some weight given to overall career value. Nobody else left on the board gives you more years of "If this guy is on my team, we have a really good chance of fielding a team good enough to win the title."

This is a new kind of argument to me...are you saying that you think IF you put the guy in the right situation (building pieces around him) that he can give you a bigger lift in "best case scenario" than other guys left can in "best case scenario?" I'm unclear how far you taking this. Things to consider there:

-generally, is this a good way to construct team-building scenarios? How easy is it to actually get that optimal scenario? For instance, caution you heavily not to underrate the quality of Dallas' roster over the years.

-specifically, if that's your argument, why not consider Steve Nash? Has to be one of the most situationally valuable players in NBA history. Thus, if we have Nash, we pick up some shooters, a defensive big and add in a skilled AS level player somewhere else (like a big that can PnR) and enjoy the ride for 7-10 years...

PS If that's not your argument, and you are saying "in typical GMing circumstances," than I just disagree with your conclusion and lets just leave it at that.

I'm not looking for the optimal scenario, I'm looking for how easily a player appears to fit with a variety of casts to form a contender. In the market of NBA-quality basketball players, what options does Player X give you as the centerpiece in the task of putting together a title team? Most of the players in the top 30 could probably be the best player on a title team. Many of them weren't, because they never got the right teammates. "Greatness," IMO, has a lot to do with what kind of teams and pieces you can put around players and realistically contend. I might be just talking about intra-era "portability," rather than inter-era.

This project's top 10 is dominated by big men, which makes a lot of sense using this criteria. Highly skilled, very large humans are inherently the most difficult basketball asset to acquire, which means that if you have one, the rest of your team is already starting two moves ahead. Teams that are built around superstar guards also need top-shelf big man support in order to win titles. That support is harder to find than the level of guards and wings that can play with a superstar big and win the ship. It isn't hard to find lots of examples of this in NBA history. Erving, Kobe, Bird, and Magic all had top-shelf big-man support in all of their NBA title wins. Duncan, Hakeem, and Russell were all able to win titles with ensemble casts that didn't have headliners at the guard and wing positions. This isn't to say that they were dragging hot garbage to championships, but that in the NBA talent market, it is easier to find a 2003 Tony Parker/Bruce Bowen/Manu Ginobli backcourt than a 2009 Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom frontcourt. I voted for the top two wings off the board, Jordan and Lebron, in large part because their games are so strong from the wings that they give a team a shot at the title without elite big-man help. 2012-2013 Bosh is a nice player, as was 1991-1993 Ho Grant, but I don't think of their collective frontcourts in the same discussion as those Lakers frontcourts, or the Celtics and Lakers groups from the 80s. That's what makes them the 2 greatest non-bigs ever.

To return to Dirk, the last 5 years in Dallas is a very strong argument for his place here. Everybody was surprised by the 2011 title, and their playoff spot in the West was also somewhat unexpected this year. Because of Dirk, they are able to exploit market inefficiencies and pick up players that are mostly unwanted elsewhere who can play very well in their system. There was no reason to believe that Jason Terry could have been the 2nd option on a title team before 2011, or that Monte Ellis would ever be more than a low-efficiency chucker before this year. That kind of undersized, scoring combo guard is a player often disregarded in the NBA, because they don't have a clear role aside from being the 6th man scorer off the bench. Because of the way Dirk distorts defenses, a player like Monte Ellis can have a career year playing next to him. He makes journeymen look like all-stars. To field a title contender with Dirk on your team, you just need a player like that, a few decent defenders on the wings, and a solid rim-protecting presence in the middle, and you are good to go. I will be voting for Nash much later, because it's unclear if it's even possible to build a title team around him, within realistic constraints. You need at least a few elite athletes/shooters/defenders on the wings, and a top-shelf big man defender. For his offense to work, he needs running mates who can thrive in SSOL, but can also defend in the halfcourt. It's extremely, extremely difficult to find the kind of big man who can both run the floor with Nash and defend at a high level, because those guys are typically the kind of player who has already been voted in the top 10 of this project. Dirk gives you far more flexibility, and the kind of players that work with him are much more easily attainable.

This all might sound pretty speculative, especially to the more hard-stats guys here, but that kind of logic is a big criteria in my votes. "In a vacuum, how easily can I build a title team around him?" is a big question for me, and I like Dirk over West and both Malones in that conversation.

[drza]

Spoiler:

Most significantly, though, I am considering what that player can bring to the table in a hypothetical team-building scenario. I firmly believe that Nowitzki is the strongest remaining candidate based on those criteria, with some weight given to overall career value. Nobody else left on the board gives you more years of "If this guy is on my team, we have a really good chance of fielding a team good enough to win the title."

This is a new kind of argument to me...are you saying that you think IF you put the guy in the right situation (building pieces around him) that he can give you a bigger lift in "best case scenario" than other guys left can in "best case scenario?" I'm unclear how far you taking this. Things to consider there:

-generally, is this a good way to construct team-building scenarios? How easy is it to actually get that optimal scenario? For instance, caution you heavily not to underrate the quality of Dallas' roster over the years.

-specifically, if that's your argument, why not consider Steve Nash? Has to be one of the most situationally valuable players in NBA history. Thus, if we have Nash, we pick up some shooters, a defensive big and add in a skilled AS level player somewhere else (like a big that can PnR) and enjoy the ride for 7-10 years...

PS If that's not your argument, and you are saying "in typical GMing circumstances," than I just disagree with your conclusion and lets just leave it at that.

I'm not looking for the optimal scenario, I'm looking for how easily a player appears to fit with a variety of casts to form a contender. In the market of NBA-quality basketball players, what options does Player X give you as the centerpiece in the task of putting together a title team? Most of the players in the top 30 could probably be the best player on a title team. Many of them weren't, because they never got the right teammates. "Greatness," IMO, has a lot to do with what kind of teams and pieces you can put around players and realistically contend. I might be just talking about intra-era "portability," rather than inter-era.

This project's top 10 is dominated by big men, which makes a lot of sense using this criteria. Highly skilled, very large humans are inherently the most difficult basketball asset to acquire, which means that if you have one, the rest of your team is already starting two moves ahead. Teams that are built around superstar guards also need top-shelf big man support in order to win titles. That support is harder to find than the level of guards and wings that can play with a superstar big and win the ship. It isn't hard to find lots of examples of this in NBA history. Erving, Kobe, Bird, and Magic all had top-shelf big-man support in all of their NBA title wins. Duncan, Hakeem, and Russell were all able to win titles with ensemble casts that didn't have headliners at the guard and wing positions. This isn't to say that they were dragging hot garbage to championships, but that in the NBA talent market, it is easier to find a 2003 Tony Parker/Bruce Bowen/Manu Ginobli backcourt than a 2009 Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom frontcourt. I voted for the top two wings off the board, Jordan and Lebron, in large part because their games are so strong from the wings that they give a team a shot at the title without elite big-man help. 2012-2013 Bosh is a nice player, as was 1991-1993 Ho Grant, but I don't think of their collective frontcourts in the same discussion as those Lakers frontcourts, or the Celtics and Lakers groups from the 80s. That's what makes them the 2 greatest non-bigs ever.

To return to Dirk, the last 5 years in Dallas is a very strong argument for his place here. Everybody was surprised by the 2011 title, and their playoff spot in the West was also somewhat unexpected this year. Because of Dirk, they are able to exploit market inefficiencies and pick up players that are mostly unwanted elsewhere who can play very well in their system. There was no reason to believe that Jason Terry could have been the 2nd option on a title team before 2011, or that Monte Ellis would ever be more than a low-efficiency chucker before this year. That kind of undersized, scoring combo guard is a player often disregarded in the NBA, because they don't have a clear role aside from being the 6th man scorer off the bench. Because of the way Dirk distorts defenses, a player like Monte Ellis can have a career year playing next to him. He makes journeymen look like all-stars. To field a title contender with Dirk on your team, you just need a player like that, a few decent defenders on the wings, and a solid rim-protecting presence in the middle, and you are good to go. I will be voting for Nash much later, because it's unclear if it's even possible to build a title team around him, within realistic constraints. You need at least a few elite athletes/shooters/defenders on the wings, and a top-shelf big man defender. For his offense to work, he needs running mates who can thrive in SSOL, but can also defend in the halfcourt. It's extremely, extremely difficult to find the kind of big man who can both run the floor with Nash and defend at a high level, because those guys are typically the kind of player who has already been voted in the top 10 of this project. Dirk gives you far more flexibility, and the kind of players that work with him are much more easily attainable.

This all might sound pretty speculative, especially to the more hard-stats guys here, but that kind of logic is a big criteria in my votes. "In a vacuum, how easily can I build a title team around him?" is a big question for me, and I like Dirk over West and both Malones in that conversation.

I like your thought process here, and there are definite echoes of my own. In fact, your post makes a really good jumping off point for some of what I've been wrestling with in this thread. Taking what I wrote previously and fitting it into the framework of what you wrote here, I believe that Robinson and Dirk are the two players left on the board that give me the best chance of building a championship team around them the easiest in a given year. And both players have at least a decade where this is the case. I think West (or even Barkley) may be the next-best in that respect, but that the two unique 7-footers are better still. I think Moses is the most limited of the players currently under consideration. Karl deserves consideration due to his extreme longevity, but I think he is more difficult to build a championship squad around than either Robinson or Dirk and that his added years at that lesser level don't increase my championship odds enough to choose him over either of the first two.

So if that's where I am now, then that leaves me with the question of Robinson vs. Dirk. This has been a much, much harder choice to make than I expected. On the whole, I think that Robinson is more valuable in principle. He's one of the best defensive players ever, he's also extremely valuable on offense, and his presence/absence registers him as one of the outliers in terms of impact that we've seen. Even if we don't have full databall data available on him until 1998, it's easy to see the huge step-function change when he arrives and the corresponding fall off the cliff when he's injured pre-1998. Dirk is also an impact outlier based on the more complete RAPM studies that I've discussed several times here, but I suspect that Robinson's impact tends to be larger.

The problem, of course, is that Robinson has postseason question marks that seemingly Dirk doesn't have. And the questions extend beyond just a drop of a few True Shooting percentage points in the postseason. As we've explored in previous threads, there is some indication that Robinson's defensive impact may not have been as large as expected in the postseason of his peak as we may have hoped. This is somewhat assuaged by what he was able to accomplish defensively in the Duncan era, but when put in conjunction with his scoring difficulties and his role as more of a finisher than an initiator (e.g. no chance to mitigate the shooting struggles with better passing) and...we have questions. And those questions are exacerbated by Robinson seemingly getting outplayed three straight years at his absolute peak in the postseason by other dominant bigs on teams of similar overall caliber, which seemingly contributed to the defeats. Whenever I look beyond the expectation of what a player of Robinson's talent and demonstrated impact SHOULD produce in the postseason, and start looking at what actually happened from 1994 - 96 in the postseason, I find myself given pause.

On the flip side, Dirk seemingly doesn't have those postseason questions (*Though something has been niggling me about his postseason outcomes as well, and I hope to explore that in a separate post*). Dirk has the outlier impact in the regular season (even if not to what I perceive to be Robinson's level), he has the great postseason scoring volumes and percentages, and he hit the impact peak in 2011 that I spoke of that likely WAS at the level that I perceive for prime Robinson. And he put an exclamation mark on that peak with a story-book postseason run where the impact was still evident (postseason on/off +/1 of +16.8 per 100 possessions in 2011, which is outstanding). So again, if I read what I typed here (and gloss over the niggling detail about Dirk's postseason impact that's bugging me) then it seems to me that I should rank Dirk ahead of Robinson. But.

If I go back to the underlined part of your post that I quoted, then it makes me reconsider (again). Because while the 2011 and 1994 - 96 postseasons actually happened, they are all specific cases built around specific circumstances. And the argument could be made that Dirk's 2011 team structure was a perfect storm for maximizing Dirk's impact on a contender. And on the flip side, that those mid-90s Spurs required too much from Robinson at both ends and that he wasn't able to specialize like Dirk was in order to maximize his impact.

But going down this path is slippery, very slippery. Because Dirk was right on the verge of leading another championship squad in 2006, and arguably a third in 2003 under different circumstances. And while it's true that Robinson did have first-option-caliber impact on the 1999 championship Spurs (especially on defense), he was in-fact playing next to a player who was doing a bit more that season (and would go on to even greater heights in subsequent years) that was acknowledged as the focal point of the team. This obviously fits well with the narrative that Robinson was really more of a super 2nd option than a true franchise guy. My point with this paragraph is that I don't want to run so quickly with the abstract thought that I disparage actual events.

That said, though, I don't believe that Robinson needed to be a second option overall. In fact, I'll take it further, and say that I don't even believe that Robinson needed to be the second option on offense alone. I think that Robinson at his peak could easily have been the best offensive player on a championship team, as long as he had some good perimeter scoring teammates that could create their own shots and/or create for teammates. Which was something that he lacked for the vast majority of his career. I'm talking a backcourt on the order of Parker and Ginobili...a wing rotation like Pierce and Allen...a side-kick like young Kobe. Even on a lower level of support, I feel like if his guards had skillsets like Jason Terry or Jamal Crawford that Robinson's teams could have been stronger in the postseason than they were.

In this respect, Robinson may have just played in the exact wrong era. Up until the Jordan era, the scoring-minded wing who could handle the ball and initiate the offense wasn't so prevalent. In the 80s most shooting guards were more specialists as shooters, and most SFs were more 2-dribble finishers than true ball-handling offense initiators. But after Jordan, seemingly every wing wanted to be like Mike...which means that by the 2000s, the league is saturated with wings of this type. Ironically, both Robinson and Karl Malone lacked this type of teammate for most of their careers, and I think both could have benefited greatly from having one. And doubly ironically in this thread, Jerry West would have been a perfect teammate for both with his skill set. Part of the reason that I have Robinson over West is that I feel like, if they WOULD have been teammates, Robinson would have been the one making the bigger impact and thus the centerpiece. But that's a digression.

Anyway, I've rambled this into a TL;DR. And I still haven't come to any definite conclusion, as this was more of a written brainstorm to verbalize some of the deliberations I'm doing as I prepare to vote here. Do I pick who I believe to be the better player, who seemingly had history-level impact and a talent/skill-set that should make him easier to build titles around in theory? Or do I choose the player who also has demonstrated outlier impact and uniqueness with a more demonstrated history of being the focal point of contenders? I'm still not sure.