RealGM Top 100 List #18

[DQuinn1575]

Thats simply not true. He is a victim of style/era bias. The fact that he is a one of a kind outlier that doesnt fit into the stat geeks style in which they grew up watching is what is holding him back.

That's not the case for me.

Part of the reason I'm not voting Moses as highly as I might have 10 years ago is because I have a different appreciation of the value of offensive rebounds, which is Moses signature skill.

I used to think that offensive rebounds were a true signal of the rebounding ability of a player, and thus should be valued more highly than defensive rebounds (which have a definite team positional component to them). But over time I've become more aware of players like Duncan who are essentially eschewing offensive rebounding opportunities in order to play better transition defense. I don't know the exact numbers on the value of offensive rebounding vs transition defense, but I'm prepared to take on faith that if the Spurs consistently do something different from the rest of the league, it's because of information asymmetry (they are right.

So, back to Moses. His signature skill that makes him great (offensive rebounding) is not as important as we thought it was at the time. Plus, he pursued this skill at the cost of team defense, which is already a knock. That to me *really* takes the gloss of his 3x MVPs.

The spurs are not doing something different, virtually nobody is going to the off boards these days.

But Moses was a unique player who was a much much offensive rebounder than Duncan . He stopped the fast break by not letting his opponents get the ball to fast break.
Teams didn't run against Houston or Philly because they never got the ball. Moses's man would be trying to block him out.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

The spurs are not doing something different, virtually nobody is going to the off boards these days.

But Moses was a unique player who was a much much offensive rebounder than Duncan . He stopped the fast break by not letting his opponents get the ball to fast break.
Teams didn't run against Houston or Philly because they never got the ball. Moses's man would be trying to block him out.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

The offensive rebounding strategic shift is very interesting.

People have basically decided in general it's better to get back on defense, and so offensive rebounding is going down. That makes offensive rebounding a less valuable skill for most teams.

Does that mean Moses' offensive rebounding would be less valuable today? A good question.

Now first let's be clear: If you have Moses today, and you know what you have, you let him crash those boards. Simply put, you go where your talent lies. If you have Moses, your better off taking that more old school approach than the new approach almost certainly.

However, depending on the reasons for the strategic shift, it may indeed make Moses less valuable than he was before.

If teams are as good at defensive rebounding as they used to be but better at transition offense and more aggressive about pursuing it, then you are essentially getting "taxed" for not getting back on defense. Almost certainly not enough that you keep Moses from doing his thing, but still you're more paying more of this tax than you would have in Moses' day, and obviously more than a team than gets back on defense.

But, the other side has some form of tax too, and the question is what is that? One example would be a team getting an offensive rebound and finding that they are not playing 5 on 3 because the other side just assumed their team would get the ball. And so in this case, it's actually possible that the benefit of being a board fiend in an era where such a thing is rare makes you MORE valuable.

I don't have a real answer here, but I will note that I'll be interested to see what role Love plays next to LeBron. Were I the Cavs, I'd encourage Love to focus more on crashing the boards than he's been in previous years in Minny, which would mean a strategy 180 different from what the Heat did.

I'll also note that it's going to be very interesting to see what Andre Drummond becomes on this front.

[Doctor MJ]

The eye test is the ultimate judge and any stat that doesnt support the eye test is suspect.

All stats come from data learned through eyes and hence there shouldn't be a conflict between the eye test and the stat. The conflict exists when the interface between the two - the brain - misinterprets either or both.

Typically such misinterpretations stem from taking either source too far. With stats the issues along those lines are pretty clear to others if not the person making the statement, the thing that's tough about the eye test is that unless you are good with words people often can't tell what it is your brain has concluded it saw.

[HeartBreakKid]

Gonna vote for Bill Walton again. Second best defender behind Robinson from the guys left, I prefer his offense to Robinsons though. Robinson is a bit too one dimensional for me, Walton's abilities seem to fit better within a team construct, as evident with some of his Blazers run.

Not gonna say much else, no need to repeat myself. I vote for Bill Walton.


EDIT: My vote has been changed from Bill Walton to David Robinson, see page 9 or 10 for more details.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Charles Barkley

He was All-NBA caliber for many years and was one of the most dynamic and dominant offensive threats in history. No ball-handler has have been as dominant on the offensive glass as Sir Charles. He was unique.

He's also got underrated longevity. He's got over a solid decade of strong prime play with more solid years surrounding it, so he's got a little longevity edge over Robinson. Dominant postseason play, too.

I do hope to explore the Ewing discussion a little more. Hopefully time allows over the next few threads.

[magicmerl]

The spurs are not doing something different, virtually nobody is going to the off boards these days.

Well, that's because the Spurs have been winning for 15 years now, and half the league is actively trying to copy their every move. From drafting foreign players, to stashing them overseas, to analytics, to going for 'character' guys, to the corner 3 (taking and defending), to getting a bonus possession every quarter.

There's a reason why 'rumors' the spurs like a player mean that Portland or Houston are more likely to draft him higher.

But Moses was a unique player who was a much much offensive rebounder than Duncan . He stopped the fast break by not letting his opponents get the ball to fast break.
Teams didn't run against Houston or Philly because they never got the ball. Moses's man would be trying to block him out.

You don't need your power forward to get out on the break. Karl Malone is the exception, not the rule.

You do need your bigs to defend the rim though.

[E-Balla]

The more I look at it, the more it makes sense to include Patrick Ewing with Robinson/Barkley/Malone.

If there's one player who can say "Playing in the Michael Jordan era kept me from winning titles," it's Patrick Ewing. Jordan's Bulls eliminated Patrick's Knicks in 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996. New York was beaten by the NBA champion Detroit Pistons (who also beat Jordan's Bulls) in 1990. When MJ left, New York won the East only to be met by the Apex Predator of big men, Hakeem Olajuwon, who has already been voted in.

Ewing was the defensive anchor of two of the GOAT defensive teams, the 1993 Knicks (-8.3) and the 1994 Knicks (-8.1). He was an 11-time All-Star and was a useful player up to 2000. In his 1990 season, he put up box score stats comparable to any of the players left: 28.6 points, 10.9 rebounds, 4 blocks, 55% shooting, 77 percent from the FT line.

Ewing and Barkley had a common opponent in the 1993 playoffs: the NBA champion Chicago Bulls. This is arguably the peak of both players.

Charles: 27.3 points, 13 rebounds, 5.5 assists, 1.2 steals, .5 blocks, 1.7 turnovers, 9.3 FTAs
54.4% TS, 16.4% Rebound Rate, 26.1%USG, 123 individual ORTG

Patrick: 25.8 points, 11.2 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.8 blocks, 2.3 turnovers, 8 FTAs
56.9% TS, 17.4% rebound rate, 28.5% USG, 116 individual ORTG

Ewing had to take on even more offensive responsibility than Charles did since the other Knicks sucked on offense while Barkley's PHX teammates were good, and Ewing still put up comparable offensive numbers to MVP Barkley. Ewing put up a tremendous 26/13 game in the closeout GM 6. Ewing was not the choker that he's painted to be.

Note: I'm not saying that based on the 1993 playoffs, Ewing > Barkley.

I was going to bring up Pat next thread. I actually rank him over David Robinson on my ATL. I just haven't had the time to make my monster post on it.

[E-Balla]

Prime Ewing was definitely a better playoff performer than Robinson, imo, and I'd take him over Malone as well. Look at Ewing in the '90, '92 and '93 playoffs, and as for '91, that series was so lopsided it's difficult to determine anything.

Even in 94 he played great until he went up against Hakeem (and still be played great defense limiting Hakeem and the Rockets enough to get to game 7 unlike Robinson who wasn't such a great defender).

[Basketballefan]

Vote: Moses Malone

3 time mvp which is tied for the 6th most in nba history
NBA champion and Finals MVP with a dominant finals performance against Kareem
Arguably a top 5 rebounder ever, and some of the best post moves ever

As for the other 2 canidates; Drob and Barkley i take Moses over Drob because of longevity and better playoff performer, and more dominant for his time imo. I take Moses over Barkley because of defense.

Something i don't understand, people took Dirk over Karl because he was a better playoff performer, so why aren't those same people taking Moses over Drob then? It doesn't make sense to me, especially when he also has the better longevity, Moses wasn't all time great at defense but he was very good nonetheless.

[RSCD3_]

Going to vote for David Robinson

One of the greatest defenders ever, Robinson is arguably the greatest defender of the modern era. His size and athleticism allowed him to protect the rim while still eating up a lot of space on defense.

I'm a bit high on Dwight Howard's defensive impact and I think Robinson is the rich man's version of him on that side.

People point to him being a failure in the playoffs but his lack of offensive support offensively leads to him being viewed with thorn rimmed glasses.

Russell's defensive impact was worthy of him voted in at 3 and Robinson is superior offensively and not that far below defensively.

His longevity is a major reason why he is not higher on this list because his two way impact is near KG IMO


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't vote in all time lists but from the players I watched playing I'd go with Barkley or D-Rob. I would lean towards Barkley here.

Still I find it a bit awkward that Moses Malone hasn't gone in yet, given his accodales.

[ushvinder88]

Im disappointed robinson is getting voted in before moses, this board overrates people who peaked in MJ's era. Better longevity, has a finals mvp and carried a 41-41 team to the finals and hes getting shafted for choker second banana robinson. This board is obsessed with the 90s.

[E-Balla]

Im disappointed robinson is getting voted in before moses, this board overrates people who peaked in MJ's era. Better longevity, has a finals mvp and carried a 41-41 team to the finals and hes getting shafted for choker second banana robinson. This board is obsessed with the 90s.

Not that but I've been noticing a lot of boxscore watching. Moses' number one skill is offensive rebounding and the don't see how that translates to the modern era despite Dennis Rodman, Zach Randolph, and Kevin Love showing how valuable the skill is.

At the same time they're questioning Moses' offense I see no mention of Robinson basically turning into a slightly better Pat Ewing offensively in the playoffs and I see the mentioning of his defense but no one saying how that would help him lead teams to a ring. You see people questioning Moses' status as best in the game without mentioning Robinson was probably not the second best player in any one season. I don't know I don't see the argument for a guy that was a very underwhelming postseason performer who was dominated by the top bigmen he played (in the playoffs where it mattered) over the guy that dominated the top bigmen he played.

[ushvinder88]

Im disappointed robinson is getting voted in before moses, this board overrates people who peaked in MJ's era. Better longevity, has a finals mvp and carried a 41-41 team to the finals and hes getting shafted for choker second banana robinson. This board is obsessed with the 90s.

Not that but I've been noticing a lot of boxscore watching. Moses' number one skill is offensive rebounding and the don't see how that translates to the modern era despite Dennis Rodman, Zach Randolph, and Kevin Love showing how valuable the skill is.

At the same time they're questioning Moses' offense I see no mention of Robinson basically turning into a slightly better Pat Ewing offensively in the playoffs and I see the mentioning of his defense but no one saying how that would help him lead teams to a ring. You see people questioning Moses' status as best in the game without mentioning Robinson was probably not the second best player in any one season. I don't know I don't see the argument for a guy that was a very underwhelming postseason performer who was dominated by the top bigmen he played (in the playoffs where it mattered) over the guy that dominated the top bigmen he played.

Not just offensive rebounding, moses was very physical in the post and was an excellent scorer in the post, he had a much better back to the basket game than robinson. Honestly, I think moses would get the better of d-rob kg and dirk in hypothetical head to head matchups, he would get physical and bang in the post and I dont think they could handle it. I see moses tooling kg head to head.

Karl Malone dominated robinson in 1994, 1996 and 1998 I saw some of the games live, if karl can tool d-rob in the playoffs, I have no doubt moses would have thrashed him too.

[E-Balla]

Im disappointed robinson is getting voted in before moses, this board overrates people who peaked in MJ's era. Better longevity, has a finals mvp and carried a 41-41 team to the finals and hes getting shafted for choker second banana robinson. This board is obsessed with the 90s.

Not that but I've been noticing a lot of boxscore watching. Moses' number one skill is offensive rebounding and the don't see how that translates to the modern era despite Dennis Rodman, Zach Randolph, and Kevin Love showing how valuable the skill is.

At the same time they're questioning Moses' offense I see no mention of Robinson basically turning into a slightly better Pat Ewing offensively in the playoffs and I see the mentioning of his defense but no one saying how that would help him lead teams to a ring. You see people questioning Moses' status as best in the game without mentioning Robinson was probably not the second best player in any one season. I don't know I don't see the argument for a guy that was a very underwhelming postseason performer who was dominated by the top bigmen he played (in the playoffs where it mattered) over the guy that dominated the top bigmen he played.

Not just offensive rebounding, moses was very physical in the post and was an excellent scorer in the post, he had a much better back to the basket game than robinson. Honestly, I think moses would get the better of d-rob kg and dirk in hypothetical head to head matchups, he would get physical and bang in the post and I dont think they could handle it. I see moses tooling kg head to head.

I'm not saying it was his only skill just his most unique skill.

[rich316]

Whew, late night at work, I thought I missed the close of voting!

I'm gonna cast a vote for Moses Malone.

I think D-Rob and Moses are the clear choices here, and Malone is the guy for me. I will take GOAT-level defense and really good offense over great offense and meh defense every day, but Malone had a MUCH longer time period of effective play than Robinson did. Robinson's 5 year super-peak doesn't override Moses's 5 year very strong peak, plus all the other years of very effective work that he did. Not to mention that Moses had an offensive game that really works - reliable low-post offense works well in the playoffs, face-up big men not so much. Robinson will probably be a shoo-in at the next spot, and deservedly so.

Malone was also the first real high school-to-NBA superstar, something that doesn't get a lot of talk. Not that it's incredibly significant, but it does stand out in comparison to Robinson, who didn't even get in to the league until his mid-20s.

[Texas Chuck]

In regards to offensive rebounding if you have a big who isn't much of a defensive factor and who excels at offensive rebounds, great. No real loss to have Kevin Love crash the O-boards(tho he's an odd choice as your example since he's a much better defensive rebounder.) Or if he's paired with a big who hustles back(see Mavs where Dirk got back and Damp and Chandler crashed the O-boards for a great example of this), great. OR if you are Dennis Rodman with Moses like ability to retrieve the ball, but also the athleticism and stamina to hustle back when he doesn't get the ball.

But if not, its generally a higher percentage play to have your best defender(talented big man) get back on defense rather than trying for the <20% chance he gets the ball back. And then Moses wasn't exactly converting all those rebounds into points either. Those of us old enough to have actually watched him play realize that he frequently got those offensive rebounds 2,3, 4 at a time. So what looks on B_R.com like a whole bunch of extra possessions, in actuality isn't.

I posted several threads back about how little being a good offensive rebounding team translates into winning basketball. The best teams tend to among the worst offensive rebounding teams. And I keep hearing this idea that crashing the O-rebound stops fast breaks. That's not really correct. Again <20% of the time you get the ball back, which leaves more than 80% of the time the anchor of your defense who isnt really fleet of foot is 90 feet from the basket he should be defending. What stops the fast break is getting back and setting up defensively.

Look Moses Malone is a great player, but his offensive rebounding really isn't the reason why.

[magicmerl]

In regards to offensive rebounding if you have a big who isn't much of a defensive factor and who excels at offensive rebounds, great. No real loss to have Kevin Love crash the O-boards(tho he's an odd choice as your example since he's a much better defensive rebounder.) Or if he's paired with a big who hustles back(see Mavs where Dirk got back and Damp and Chandler crashed the O-boards for a great example of this), great. OR if you are Dennis Rodman with Moses like ability to retrieve the ball, but also the athleticism and stamina to hustle back when he doesn't get the ball.

But if not, its generally a higher percentage play to have your best defender(talented big man) get back on defense rather than trying for the <20% chance he gets the ball back. And then Moses wasn't exactly converting all those rebounds into points either. Those of us old enough to have actually watched him play realize that he frequently got those offensive rebounds 2,3, 4 at a time. So what looks on B_R.com like a whole bunch of extra possessions, in actuality isn't.

I posted several threads back about how little being a good offensive rebounding team translates into winning basketball. The best teams tend to among the worst offensive rebounding teams. And I keep hearing this idea that crashing the O-rebound stops fast breaks. That's not really correct. Again <20% of the time you get the ball back, which leaves more than 80% of the time the anchor of your defense who isnt really fleet of foot is 90 feet from the basket he should be defending. What stops the fast break is getting back and setting up defensively.

Look Moses Malone is a great player, but his offensive rebounding really isn't the reason why.

Agreed. Bolded and embiggened for emphasis.

Love isn't actually a horrendous comparison to make to Moses, since he led the league in ORB% his first two years. Both are great offensive rebounders, although Love's offensive rebounds have declined every year as he's fallen in love with the 3pt shot. Love actually has a higher total RB% than Moses thus far in his career.

[ElGee]

I've run the numbers and nothing shows the Spurs defense having a significant falloff in the postseason. I agree with those who have expressed doubt here that without a causal explanation, it seems strange...and it it indeed verified by the results that nothing out of the ordinary happened to the Spurs on defense in the playoffs. There is a small decline against 110+ offenses in the PS as you can see on the graph below, but that decline comprises 33 games.



There is enormous variation in ORtg -- moreso that SRS. For SRS, the 95% significant point for a 33-game sample is about 2 points in differential. The standard deviation for the Spurs DRtg in this sample was 11.1, slightly higher than the 10.6 for their SRS in the same sample. Keep in mind that they only played 53 PS games in these 6 playoffs (Robinson missed 1992), and all of their opponents had a 108 offense or better (rounded). In the PS sample, the Spurs gave up 109.0 pts/100 at -1.4 pts relative to the opponent, a slight decline from their RS performance against 108+ defenses of 108.1 pts/100 at -2.2 pts relative to the opponent. Is that statistically significant?

I did not run a formal statistical test but significance seems impossible given that the variation is higher than the variance in SRS and that difference wouldn't produce significance for an SRS sample. In short, that small decline you're seeing in the Spurs PS defense, it's likely just noise. As an example to illustrate this, the 138-132 OT loss in Robinson's rookie season to Portland cost the Spurs 5 DRtg points that postseason and 0.6 points in the 53 game sample.

And of course, even if the sample were large enough for statistical significance...look at the absolute numbers. Less than 1 point per game...hardly enough that it seems it would matter, even if somehow all of the results could be attributed to Robinson.

PS There was a 0.96 correlation in the RS between opponent RS ORtg and the DRtg of the Spurs...meaning they don't feast on bad teams or anything like that -- their relative performance is essentially constant against all teams. Their graph of the above mapped to relative DRtg has a slope of 0.003.

[Texas Chuck]

Thanks ElGee for posting the Spurs data. The information we had on Robinson's individual data already showed how well he did against other elite bigs. And this supports what many of us thought about his team defenses as well.


Amazing how much that one series against a top 10 all-time guy has managed to shape his legacy for the bad.