RealGM Top 100 List #15

[The Infamous1]

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.

All those big men

Russell
Kareem
Duncan
Shaq
Wilt
Hakeem

All won titles withHOF Perimeter players.(Wade,Cousy, Havlichek, Parker,ginobli,Kobe,Drexler,Magic,oscar,Worthy, West) etc So I don't see how it's easier to build around them.

[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.

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).

Maybe Willis was a better example. Parrish was a great player, no doubt, a perrenial all-star. Still his level of play and longevity don't make him a case over West.
Better examples are Oakley, Willis, Dale Ellis, Mark Jackson... ok?

[ElGee]

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.

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...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.

...Everybody was surprised by the 2011 title, and their playoff spot in the West was also somewhat unexpected this year. ..

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

No, not everybody was surprised by 2011.

My original thought is that the bolded is exactly what my criteria is (improving title odds), you are just phrasing it more simplistically; A 3 SRS team can win a title if they are lucky. The threshold is fairly low for "good enough." Of course, as the team gets better, so do the odds. And then there's the longevity thing -- your odds of winning increase the more overall value the guy gives you. (Which is why I'm asking people about their treatment of longevity...)

re: Guards needing "top-shelf bigs."

I really caution people about this line of thinking. Bigs need good teammates. Guards need good teammates. Those teammates need to be able to fill up the buckets that make basketball teams successful (interior D, perimeter D, outside shooting/spacing, on-ball creation, etc.) Thus, wings are more likely to need guys to fill up the interior D bucket, which can be accomplished by clear-cut non-all-star players, and bigs need wings who can do the things they can't, which can also be accomplished by clear-cut non-all-star players. Furthermore, the totality of the team contributions are significantly more important than an individual player or two (these means all 3 wings on the court can strengthen the team dimensions, or 1 superstar wing moreso than the other two.)

Historically, three's nothin significant to say a team is better with a dominant big over a dominant wing because of available personnel. Starting in 1987, the Lakers won back-to-back titles without a dominant big. Then the Pistons did the same. Then the Bulls won 6 of the 8. Right there that's 10 of 12 titles. Then a run of of 6 out of 7 around dominant bigs. Not sure how you categorize 06 Shaq. And 12 and 13 with James, and again not sure how you categorize 14 but clearly and ensemble team.

The runners-up in those years with a star big: 87, 94-98, 04, 06, 08, 09, 13?

The evidence suggests that it's about the totality of the team, does it not? The Suns in 2006 were a title-level team with Kurt Thomas. In 2010, Robin Lopez was a key for them. This is the guard version of a big needing shooters. It's not that it's "easy" to just pick up a bunch of shooters, but they are plentiful. And it's not that it's easy to pick up a good defensive big, but again, they are plentiful.

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.

Strongly disagree here on almost everything, especially the categorizations of "SSOL" and "can also defend in the half court." Nash is a GOAT-level half-court player -- google for articles, posts, or lineup analysis on this.

ElGee,

BTW, where do you rank Dirk?

17 or 18 right now. Depends upon my re-assessment of Barkley.

[Joao Saraiva]

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.

All those big men

Russell
Kareem
Duncan
Shaq
Wilt
Hakeem

All won titles withHOF Perimeter players.(Wade,Cousy, Havlichek, Parker,ginobli,Kobe,Drexler,Magic,oscar,Worthy, West) etc So I don't see how it's easier to build around them.

Hakeem won without an HOF perimeter player. Drexler won only 1 championship with Hakeem.

[DQuinn1575]

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 think this is very speculative -

I can argue that West can be point guard or off guard, has great range, defense, and smarts and would be very easy to build around.

I can argue that Moses Malone just needs to hit offensive boards, and really would fit in almost anywhere much more than people realize.

To me, it's impossible to speculate on what might have happened; it then becomes solely my opinion, which could be completely wrong or completely right. I might believe it, but my confidence level is pretty low -

[SactoKingsFan]

I see West as clearly the best candidate for the #15 spot. His combination of efficient volume scoring, elite skillset, consistently great prime, two-way play and playoff performances are enough to give him the edge over K. Malone, Dirk, Barkley, Moses and Robinson.

VOTE: Jerry West

Sent from my G2 via Tapatalk

[D Nice]

Those were some awesome posts by Drza and Rich which echo what I've been saying about Malone (in a theoretical comparison to Dirk or West) that no matter how many cracks he gives you in the form of seasons played, too much has to go right for Karl to actually end up capturing a ring when there will always be multiple players in the league at any given time more suited to leading a championship cast. You simply don't have this problem with Dirk. My favorite excerpts...

Rich

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.

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.

DRZA

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.

Only qualm I have with either post was Rich using Andrew Bynum as an example of a stacked championship cast. Perhaps in the regular season games he was fully healthy in this might be an argument, but there actually weren't very many RS games we had him and Pau at full strength at the same time, and he was battling serious injuries in both the '09 and '10 runs. He was a 6/4 guy and an 8/7 guy...that's black Luc Longley territory, he wasn't providing anything near a "stars" impact.

+1 though guys, good stuff.

[penbeast0]

3.5 hours left

Jerry West: 13- Penbeast (post 1); Clyde Frazier (33); ShaqAttack3234 (36, 52); Moonbeam (49); Warspite (58); GC Pantalones (62); ardee (78). batmana. Quotatious, john248, Heartbreak Kid, RayBan-Sematra, SactoKingsFan

Karl Malone: 5 - trex_8063 (39); FJS (54); ronnymac2 (82), magicmer1, therealbig3


Moses Malone: 3 - DannyNoonan1221 (post 23); DQuinn1575 (30), JordansBulls;

David Robinson: 2 - Owly (post 11); shutupandjam (77)

Dirk Nowitzki: 2 - rich316. PCProductions

[colts18]

West 13, everyone else 12. Looks like we might not get a run off.

[ceiling raiser]

I was going to vote Dirk again for the same reasons as in the past few threads, but I don't want to slow the project down.

It is good to see Moses getting some support here. I have a few questions about him that I'm going to ask when the new thread (an underrated aspect of this project is that you can ask as many questions as you want and usually get terrific responses typically you'd need to start dozens of threads to do so).

[Basketballefan]

Vote: Jerry West

NBA champion
NBA Finals MVP
14× NBA All-Star
10× All-NBA First Team
2× All-NBA Second Team
4× NBA All-Defensive First Team
NBA All-Defensive Second Team
NBA scoring champion
NBA assists leader

On top of his very impressive resume he was one of the best playoff performers not only in his era but of all time. The only player to ever win FMVP on the losing team. He could do everything at an elite level; score, defend, pass, rebound etc.

[DQuinn1575]

3.5 hours left

Jerry West: 13- Penbeast (post 1); Clyde Frazier (33); ShaqAttack3234 (36, 52); Moonbeam (49); Warspite (58); GC Pantalones (62); ardee (78). batmana. Quotatious, john248, Heartbreak Kid, RayBan-Sematra, SactoKingsFan

Karl Malone: 5 - trex_8063 (39); FJS (54); ronnymac2 (82), magicmer1, therealbig3


Moses Malone: 3 - DannyNoonan1221 (post 23); DQuinn1575 (30), JordansBulls;

David Robinson: 2 - Owly (post 11); shutupandjam (77)

Dirk Nowitzki: 2 - rich316. PCProductions

If there is a West - Karl Malone run-off my vote will be for West.

[penbeast0]

Had this issue before; no preemptive run-off votes. If you want to change your vote strategically to West now, you can. Only votes that show up after the start of the run-off post will be looked at. I'm not going back through the first 10 pages looking for changes after the run-off has started.

[penbeast0]

I was going to vote Dirk again for the same reasons as in the past few threads, but I don't want to slow the project down.

It is good to see Moses getting some support here. I have a few questions about him that I'm going to ask when the new thread (an underrated aspect of this project is that you can ask as many questions as you want and usually get terrific responses typically you'd need to start dozens of threads to do so).

Normally I'd agree with you but I can't get anyone to opine on Moses's defense v. Karl's; I know I've posted the question in two different threads so far. This might be the 3rd (or it might be the 2nd post in this thread about it).

[ceiling raiser]

I was going to vote Dirk again for the same reasons as in the past few threads, but I don't want to slow the project down.

It is good to see Moses getting some support here. I have a few questions about him that I'm going to ask when the new thread (an underrated aspect of this project is that you can ask as many questions as you want and usually get terrific responses typically you'd need to start dozens of threads to do so).

Normally I'd agree with you but I can't get anyone to opine on Moses's defense v. Karl's; I know I've posted the question in two different threads so far. This might be the 3rd (or it might be the 2nd post in this thread about it).

Good question, I'd like to second this.

Supporters of Moses and Karl Malone: How do you feel about their respective defenses?

[Clyde Frazier]

I was going to vote Dirk again for the same reasons as in the past few threads, but I don't want to slow the project down.

It is good to see Moses getting some support here. I have a few questions about him that I'm going to ask when the new thread (an underrated aspect of this project is that you can ask as many questions as you want and usually get terrific responses typically you'd need to start dozens of threads to do so).

Normally I'd agree with you but I can't get anyone to opine on Moses's defense v. Karl's; I know I've posted the question in two different threads so far. This might be the 3rd (or it might be the 2nd post in this thread about it).

Honestly, i'd have to go back and watch more footage of both of them. I personally never considered karl a "great" defender, and he seems to be propped up here a little more than I remember. As for moses, overall he's the king of raw stats, and never stood out to me as a great defender either. What are your initial thoughts on how they compare defensively?

[D Nice]

I was going to vote Dirk again for the same reasons as in the past few threads, but I don't want to slow the project down.

It is good to see Moses getting some support here. I have a few questions about him that I'm going to ask when the new thread (an underrated aspect of this project is that you can ask as many questions as you want and usually get terrific responses typically you'd need to start dozens of threads to do so).

Normally I'd agree with you but I can't get anyone to opine on Moses's defense v. Karl's; I know I've posted the question in two different threads so far. This might be the 3rd (or it might be the 2nd post in this thread about it).

I mean, they're not really very similar defensively at all. Moses's defensive "appraisal" if you will is kind of dependent on how much you value defensive rebounding as part of defensive (I've literally seen people say Barkley or even Kevin Love are average/slightly + defenders because of their DREB ability), but even if you allot a big portion of defensive value to Moses' rebounding he doesn't really come off as anything special. He's no liability, he's very good individual defender (perhaps these are where the similarities come into place), but only when matched up against other elite post scorers. He was a big "rise to the challenge guy," especially in the regular season. Like Kobe he had a propensity for forcing big-name guys into sub-par performances while role-player type guys typically saw no dip in performance when matched up against Moses (this could also simply be a function of the fact that he's not really a very good rotation guy and the non-elite post players are primarily catch-and-finish types rather than back you down and get their own shot types). When it comes to denying good position, finishing off possessions with a rebound, etc, Moses was certainly solid, but at a position where rotation is at a premium (IMO the single-most important defensive trait for center) Moses comes up short, and this is a big problem posters like me have with him as the hub of a team.

Karl, OTOH, was elite, virtually from day one. Of all of the elite volume scorers who are also good defenders of the past 25 or so years (Mike, Kobe, Lebron, Wade, etc) Karl's intensity and commitment to playing every possession waned the least. No, he wasn't always giving the attention to his individual matchup he gave in '04 for example, but from a superstar, I'm not sure what more you want. The only thing wrong with Karl's defense seems to be the fact that towards the end of his career the new-age 4s capable of providing DPOY-caliber impact seem to pop up left and right (Duncan and KG are the big ones, sure, but you also have Sheed and JO).

Horace Grant, someone whose defensive impact seems to be well-documented here, is actually a great template for understanding how Karl approached defense. They were very very very similar in that regard, they did pretty much all of the same things well. Top-Notch Pick & Roll defenders, elite one-on-one defenders (not just from the post, but for face-up triple-threat oriented guys out to 15+ feet), elite rotation guys who did as much "anchoring" as humanly possible without being super-swatters or being Garnett/Russel-type "horizontal" disruptors.

Defensively Karl >> Moses >/= Dirk (any advantage Moses gives you over Dirk is probably off-set by the fact Nowitski is a 4 and Moses is a 5). Very different types of defenders, with Karl clearly being the better of the two. I can take more time and make a more organized/thoughtful post as well as go through whatever metrics are available, but off the top of the head that's how I see it shaking out.

[Jim Naismith]

I mean, they're not really very similar defensively at all. Moses's defensive "appraisal" if you will is kind of dependent on how much you value defensive rebounding as part of defensive (I've literally seen people say Barkley or even Kevin Love are average/slightly + defenders because of their DREB ability), but even if you allot a big portion of defensive value to Moses' rebounding he doesn't really come off as anything special. He's no liability, he's very good individual defender (perhaps these are where the similarities come into place), but only when matched up against other elite post scorers

DRB is considered defense in my crude TotalDefense metric, and by that measure Moses doesn't trail Karl defensively by too much.

Statistical peaks of various big men

Code: Select all

Player             Season   ORB   DRB    TRB   AST   STL   BLK   TOV    PTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Duncan        2001-02   3.3   9.4   12.7   3.7   0.7   2.5   3.2   25.5
Kevin Garnett     2003-04   3.0  10.9   13.9   5.0   1.5   2.2   2.6   24.2
Karl Malone       1989-90   2.8   8.3   11.1   2.8   1.5   0.6   3.7   31.0
Moses Malone      1981-82   6.9   7.8   14.7   1.8   0.9   1.5   3.6   31.1
Shaquille O'Neal  1999-00   4.3   9.4   13.6   3.8   0.5   3.0   2.8   29.7
David Robinson    1993-94   3.0   7.7   10.7   4.8   1.7   3.3   3.2   29.8

To measure their offense, let TotalOffense = PTS + ORB + AST - TOV

TotalOffense
Moses Malone.......36.2
Shaquille O'Neal.....35.0
David Robinson.....34.4
Karl Malone..........32.9
Kevin Garnett.......29.6
Tim Duncan.........29.3

To measure their defense, let TotalDefense = DRB + STL + BLK

TotalDefense
Kevin Garnett.......14.6
Shaquille O'Neal.....12.9
David Robinson.....12.7
Tim Duncan.........12.6
Karl Malone..........10.4
Moses Malone.......10.2

[john248]

Regarding Moses, I just want to know what happened in Houston that they were last in DRTG in 78, 2nd to last in 79, 18 of 22 in 80, 16 of 23 in 81 & 82. Philly was 7th in 82 at 103.9 DRTG (106.9 league avg, -3). When Moses joins, Philly improves to 5th at 100.9 (104.7 league avg, -3.8). It's tougher to hide a big on defense, esp a center.

mysticbb Moses vs Dirk: viewtopic.php?p=32949177#p32949177
viewtopic.php?p=32949562#p32949562

[ardee]

I was going to vote Dirk again for the same reasons as in the past few threads, but I don't want to slow the project down.

It is good to see Moses getting some support here. I have a few questions about him that I'm going to ask when the new thread (an underrated aspect of this project is that you can ask as many questions as you want and usually get terrific responses typically you'd need to start dozens of threads to do so).

Normally I'd agree with you but I can't get anyone to opine on Moses's defense v. Karl's; I know I've posted the question in two different threads so far. This might be the 3rd (or it might be the 2nd post in this thread about it).

Good question, I'd like to second this.

Supporters of Moses and Karl Malone: How do you feel about their respective defenses?

I'll admit I don't know too much about Moses' Houston era defense but in his first Philly year he was a beast. Probably having to do with being freed of so much scoring responsibility but he was a pretty good rim protector and like D Nice said, effective as a man defender too.

Again, this is just '83, which is where I've seen most of my Moses footage.

Karl was a great, great man defender and also very good at making rotations. Never an anchor or rim protector though, that's no knock however.

If Moses played '83 level defense his whole career I'd take him over Karl on that end but I don't know if he did.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app