RealGM Top 100 List #19

[penbeast0]

CENTERS
Moses has great longevity and 3 MVPs; George Mikan who is the only player left that was the undisputed best player in basketball for a reasonably long stretch of time (5 years +). But, his era was the last vestige of white only, no shot-clock basketball. Patrick Ewing and Artis Gilmore should get mentioned here as well.

FORWARDS
Pettit, Barkley, Baylor, McHale, Pippen, Havlicek, Rodman, and even Kevin Durant. For Barkley to go over the likes of Pettit or Baylor, he'd have to have a clear statistical edge. Since I have many times compared Pettit to Baylor, and it always comes out Pettit, I will compare the numbers for Pettit, Barkley, and throw in George Mikan -- all regularized to a standard year (I usually use 2000).

GUARDS
Wade or Frazier. Wade is the most explosive scorer and plays excellent defense, Frazier didn't score as much but was an even better defender and playmaker, and even more known for stepping up and dominating 2 NBA finals. This one is very close; I lean Frazier over Wade but willing to be convinced. I see Clyde as a step up over Nash and Stockton for his ability to take over games with both his scoring and defense, over Payton, Kidd, or Isiah for his scoring efficiency and superior all around game. Both Wade and Frazier do suffer a little from short or injury riddled primes.

To get an idea of Mikan and Pettit's impact, I am going to bring their numbers from one of their prime seasons up to the year 2000 by taking simple ratios. So, their points, rebounds, assists, and ts% will all be adjusted to numbers that would approximate their impact in year 2000 numbers (I will also add in Barkley for comparison).

Mikan
1951 28.4pts 14.1reb 3.0ast .428efg
2000 32.8pts 12.3reb 3.2ast .578efg Mikan's offensive dominance was Wilt like; more dominant than Shaq! Note that both Mikan and Pettit had massive foul draws of over 10/g with very good FT shooting so the ts% is even greater.

Pettit
1959 29.2pts 16.4reb 3.1ast .438efg
2000 26.3pts 10.4reb 3.5ast .530efg Pettit's rebounding numbers come down to earth while his efficiency shows as pretty decent. The key is that he was able to maintain them his whole career from the 50s all the way through the mid 60s while the NBA changed drastically around him. He's basically a nice guy predecessor of Karl Malone.

Barkley
1988 28.3pts 11.9reb 3.2ast .604efg
2000 25.5pts 11.8reb 2.8ast .590efg The average ppg for a team in 1988 was exactly the same as it was in 1959 interestingly enough. Mikan and Pettit both also had decent defensive reps; though playing in the 50s is the weakest era in NBA history.

Pettit and Barkley are close enough that I go with the classy team leader who worked hard on defense and has possibly the greatest finals game 7 4th quarter ever played rather than the more efficient but lazy and often obnoxious modern player. However, looking at Mikan's numbers, they are even stronger than I had thought and really do put him into play even with his play in a weaker era and issues with the shot clock.

Still, someone is going to have to talk me out of voting for Moses Malone; he's my default vote right now.

[magicmerl]

Still, someone is going to have to talk me out of voting for Moses Malone; he's my default vote right now.

My thoughts as well.

I think it's interesting that we've basically enshrined all of the non-piston championship winners for the last 30 years already.

Maybe Ben Wallace and Isiah Thomas should be getting some traction here?

[colts18]

Vote: Steve Nash

-Greatest offensive player in history
-Great postseason performer

If Wade gets more support, I'll try to do a Nash vs Wade comparison

[rich316]

I vote for Moses Malone. Dominant, championship-winning offense, and an outlier beast on the boards. I also give him some "historic" credit for being the first high school-to-NBA superstar. A defined cluster of seasons when he was the league's top dog, and the centerpiece of one of the most talented squads in NBA history. The early-80s 76ers sometimes get mentioned with the great teams, but not enough.

Given the conversations that have already happened in the #17 and #18 threads, this will probably be a shoo-in for Moses. We could start setting the table for who comes next - personally, I'm strongly leaning towards Barkley at #20, but I'm willing to bet that Nash will be getting a LOT of discussion soon. We are about to come up to a group of talented perimeter players who may or may not be good at all facets of the game, and we will have to weigh how much we value certain contributions over others.

- Frazier is obviously >>> Nash on defense - does that propel him over Nash? I think we will see real contentious debate over that choice, and it will be a true litmus test for what voters want to see in a player. A lot of the #10-18 discussion has sort of established that here, Great Defense + Good Enough offense > Great Offense, Bad Defense. The counterpoint: for guards, and point guards in particular, defense isn't that relevant. How do we feel about this claim? shutupandjam presented some very interesting data that seems to indicate that defense is relevant for every position to an extent not typically recognized. My eye test tells me that I would rather have Nash than Frazier, but I will admit I've seen much more of Nash. This thread, and subsequent ones, should look more at that stuff and decide if it's worth serious consideration.

How do people feel about Ben Wallace v. Steve Nash? Nash has more prime longevity, but consider this: Ben Wallace won DPoY 4 times in 5 years. If anybody has an argument for an all-defense player over Nash, the all-offense player, it might be him. He was the unquestioned tone-setter and best defensive player for those Pistons teams, who might be the equivalent of the Nash Suns in terms of dominance on one side of the ball.

Some quick +/- observations:

Nash has 4 seasons in the top 50 for RAPM.
Wallace doesn't show up until #215 in RAPM.

Nash has 5 of the top 12 offensive RAPM seasons.
Wallace has the 8th best defensive RAPM season, but his next best is down at #34.

How do we feel about that data? To me, it suggests that the ultimate offense-only PG was more valuable than the ultimate defense-only big man. Is that something that has any relevance at all to comparing other players, or is it totally context-dependent, and shouldn't be applied, to, say, Nash v. Frazier? I'm still new at this RAPM stuff, so cut me some slack if I'm butchering the data.

[Basketballefan]

Vote Moses Malone

As i said before, 3mvps, FMVP, best player in the game for several seasons, 31 ppg 15 rpg peak

Excellent playoff performer, one of the top rebounders of all time, dominated his matchups etc

The only other legitimate candidate i could see over him is Barkley, but i take Moses because he's the better defender. Wade and Petitt don't have enough longevity, while Hondo, Barry don't have a good enough peak to be argued over Moses.

[ushvinder88]

Hopefully moses gets voted in now. Outperforming kareem head to head from 1978-83, and outperforming hakeem olajuwon from 1985-1990 head to head. In those 12 game sample, he outscored, outrebounded and shot better than hakeem. He was the best player from 1979-83, went to the nba finals twice as the man and I think he would dominate certain players that were ranked above him because he was an excellent low post scorer, created his own buckets and would get physical in the paint. If he was put in better team situations and wasnt traded in 86, he likely ends up with more rings and playoff success.

[DannyNoonan1221]

My vote again is for Moses Malone

Right now I will just compare him to Karl Malone.

For all of Karl's Longevity talk and Moses' relatively short career for the guys on this list, KM appeared in 14 all-star games and MM in 12. While a simplistic way to look at it, it still shows to me that maybe the gap might not be what one would perceive from reading these threads.

5 year playoff Peak per100
89-93 KM- 34.3/10.8(3.7)/3.1 on .567 TS%
79-83 MM- 31.0/18.1(7.5)/1.9 on .551 TS%

Career per100
KM- 34.4/13.9(3.3)/4.9 on .577 TS%
MM- 30.4/18.3(7.6)/1.9 on .569 TS%

Playoffs- Not sure KM's gap in scoring/assists/TS% matches MM's rebounding superiority, especially when you consider how much is coming form the offensive end.

Career- MM shows a lot more consistency… but whether that's good or bad is up to each individual voter. For me it shows that no matter the quality or intensity of the defense, MM was going to get his. For KM, I can't decide whether its because he falters under pressure, excels when games aren't as intense or just a result of defenses focusing in on him.

MM does have what KM doesn't that seems to play a lot into his legacy- a championship. And it wasn't as if MM joined a super team and became a 3rd option- he was finals MVP and is generally considered the playoff MVP that season. He out rebounded Kareem 72-30 (27-5) in that 4 game series, outscored him 103-94 and played 39.25 mpg. That's the guy who was ranked 2nd on this list. Not that one series defines a career but it certainly helps support it.

While Karl has the advantage defensively, I do not think MM's defense is as poor as people make it seem. From what I've been reading his man-to-man was solid (goes right along with his physical offensive nature) but his team defense is what brings him down. I would still like to see a little more about MM's defense.

But at this point, as I have stated before with my bias to offensive rebounds that no one else seems to really share, I have to vote Moses Malone.

Sorry, too lazy to start this all over again. Think of Karl Malone as my reasoning why he should be in now since Karl already is. If this doesn't suffice let me know but I am trying to get this out of the way because I'll probably be out of commission all day tomorrow and into sunday.

[colts18]

How does Moses compare to Steve Nash offensively? We know Moses is a bad defender so he doesn't have a huge advantage over Nash in that category.

[DannyNoonan1221]

How does Moses compare to Steve Nash offensively? We know Moses is a bad defender so he doesn't have a huge advantage over Nash in that category.

I would argue that. Moses was a good man to man center which is more than Nash can say. And, as many, many people have pointed out here, the center position has more impact on defense than the point guard position. So even if they were even, Moses would get the nod.

[Basketballefan]

How does Moses compare to Steve Nash offensively? We know Moses is a bad defender so he doesn't have a huge advantage over Nash in that category.

With the offense thing aside, Nash was nowhere near a top 10 player before 05 so that's basically at least half his career that he was either a slightly above average player or a borderline all star. So he had what about 6 years as a top 10 player 05-2010?(i suppose you could stretch it out to '11 0r 12') Moses has far more dominant seasons and seasons as a top player, i think the gap in star longevity it far too large to even compare Nash to Moses. Moses also has the better peak and better accolades to go with it. I don't see how it's even debatable.

[ThaRegul8r]

We are about to come up to a group of talented perimeter players who may or may not be good at all facets of the game, and we will have to weigh how much we value certain contributions over others.

- Frazier is obviously >>> Nash on defense - does that propel him over Nash? I think we will see real contentious debate over that choice, and it will be a true litmus test for what voters want to see in a player. A lot of the #10-18 discussion has sort of established that here, Great Defense + Good Enough offense > Great Offense, Bad Defense. The counterpoint: for guards, and point guards in particular, defense isn't that relevant. How do we feel about this claim? shutupandjam presented some very interesting data that seems to indicate that defense is relevant for every position to an extent not typically recognized. My eye test tells me that I would rather have Nash than Frazier, but I will admit I've seen much more of Nash. This thread, and subsequent ones, should look more at that stuff and decide if it's worth serious consideration.

Speaking solely for myself, I will continue to refer to the preestablished criteria for this purpose:

First and foremost, the object of the game is to help your team win. Basketball is a job like any other, and a basketball player’s job is to help bring his team wins just as a salesman’s job is to make sales for his company. When a player is drafted, he’s drafted so that he can help that team win. When a player is signed, he’s signed so that he can help that team win. When a player is scouted, he’s scouted because the scouts hope to find in him a player who can help their team win. That’s the bottom line. A basketball player has more impact on the game than any player in any other team sport. Football is too specialized, with separate teams for offense and defense, and one player is one of 11 on the field for his team; in baseball, one man is only one of nine, and position players only come to bat 3-4 times a game. Pitchers have the most impact on a game, but only pitch once every five games. A basketball player can help his team win to a greater extent than football or baseball players are capable of due to the inherent constraints of their sports. Therefore, the most important thing for a basketball player to have is 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, the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectuation of said purpose, and the ability to effectively employ their respective abilities toward the purpose of helping their team win.

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.

The player who was better able to effectively utilize whatever respective abilities he brings to the table to help his team win is the player who will receive the higher ranking. That way any stylistic biases can be eliminated. The only thing I continue to ask of player advocates is to show how their chosen player utilized whatever it is he brought to the table to help his team win.

[Doctor MJ]

I
How do people feel about Ben Wallace v. Steve Nash? Nash has more prime longevity, but consider this: Ben Wallace won DPoY 4 times in 5 years. If anybody has an argument for an all-defense player over Nash, the all-offense player, it might be him. He was the unquestioned tone-setter and best defensive player for those Pistons teams, who might be the equivalent of the Nash Suns in terms of dominance on one side of the ball.

Some quick +/- observations:

Nash has 4 seasons in the top 50 for RAPM.
Wallace doesn't show up until #215 in RAPM.

Nash has 5 of the top 12 offensive RAPM seasons.
Wallace has the 8th best defensive RAPM season, but his next best is down at #34.

How do we feel about that data? To me, it suggests that the ultimate offense-only PG was more valuable than the ultimate defense-only big man. Is that something that has any relevance at all to comparing other players, or is it totally context-dependent, and shouldn't be applied, to, say, Nash v. Frazier? I'm still new at this RAPM stuff, so cut me some slack if I'm butchering the data.

To the question you ask here: Nash is glaringly superior, and that relates to a general trend, that in modern basketball offensive stars typically have more impact than defensive stars.

As far as how that relates to Nash vs Frazier, well there's more to it and I'll try to get to later.

[ThaRegul8r]

in modern basketball offensive stars typically have more impact than defensive stars.

This might have a little something to do with it:

Spoiler:

Four Years Later, N.B.A. Sees the Points
By HOWARD BECK
Published: May 13, 2005

There is change and then there is evolution, and the difference between the two explains the curious and sudden appearance of a points explosion in the N.B.A.

Like a contagion, the higher scores spread from city to city until even the supposed slow pokes of the league, San Antonio and Detroit, hit the century mark with some regularity.

If the story ended there, it would be just another hiccup in league history, a strange uptick on the statistical charts, and the Suns would be just another one-year wonder.

But what happened this season, with six teams averaging at least 100 points a game, was neither sudden nor transitory.

It was deliberate and it was planned, through a series of often unwelcome rules changes and rules emphases, aided by an influx of new talent on the court and, finally, abetted by coaches who saw no choice but to adapt.

This is the game the N.B.A. wanted when it overhauled its defensive rules four years ago. It just needed several more tweaks and some fine tuning to get it here.

"As far as the way the game looks and the way it's being played, it's really in a good place," said Stu Jackson, the N.B.A. senior vice president for basketball operations.

The Suns are the model, an entertaining throwback to the 1980's, a modern-day reflection of the Los Angeles Lakers' "Showtime" era. But five other teams joined them in averaging at least 100 points this season, and the league average of 194.4 points a game was the highest in five years. Even the N.B.A.'s deeply ingrained conventional wisdom has not stopped the trend.

Scoring has historically declined in the playoffs, but not this year. Through Wednesday's games, the average combined points a game was 197.5, a 3-point increase over the regular-season average, and an incredible 21-point increase over the 2004 playoffs.

The trend is not limited to the Suns and other run-and-gun practitioners like the Dallas Mavericks and Seattle SuperSonics.

The Detroit Pistons, who muscled their way to the 2004 championship with bruising defense, are averaging 96.1 points in these playoffs, a 9-point increase over their 2004 postseason average. The San Antonio Spurs, long known as a half-court team with a defensive bent, are averaging 101.9 points, a 12-point increase over their 2004 average.

"Teams are playing faster," Sonics Coach Nate McMillan said. "They've changed their style. You don't see as many teams playing a primary half-court game."

The statistics give the appearance of an overnight transformation. But the revolution has been emerging in subtle steps for four years.

In 2001, the N.B.A. scrapped its illegal-defense rule, which generally dictated that each defender be attached to a specific offensive player (with or without the ball). So the game was often reduced to eight players standing still on one side of the court while a skilled ball-handler went one-on-one with his defender on the other side.

These "clear-outs" were deemed unsightly and bad for the game.

"It was boring, and it wasn't the intent of how the game should be played," said Jerry Colangelo, the Suns' chairman and chief executive officer. Colangelo recalled telling Commissioner David Stern, "If I get turned off, it's a serious problem."

Colangelo headed a committee that called for elimination of the illegal-defense rule and the introduction, for the first time, of zone defense to the N.B.A. The committee also cut the time allotted to advance the ball from the back court, from 10 seconds to 8.

"We were going to try to dictate a faster game," Colangelo said.

At the time, many coaches and players assailed the changes. Pat Riley, the Miami coach at the time, called them "a huge mistake," saying zone defenses would clog driving lanes and destroy the league's most entertaining feature - flashy drives to the hoop. (Colangelo's committee instituted a 3-second rule for defenders in the lane to address that concern.)

Rather than impede the game, zone defense arguably has helped foster the offensive renaissance by giving teams more incentive to score on fast breaks.

"Coaches like the idea of running the ball and getting into an early offense before the defense is set," said Washington Wizards Coach Eddie Jordan. "Because they can get set in a zone and slow you up. So it's all about fast break, early offense, fast break, early offense."

The new defensive rules went into effect for the 2001-2 season. Two years later, the league's offense bottomed out, with a .421 field-goal percentage in the playoffs and an average combined score of 176.1 points a game. That was not the result anyone wanted, but in the N.B.A., evolution is slow.

Coaches needed time to teach zone defense, and players needed time to learn how to play it. They also needed to learn how to attack zones, through better ball and player movement.

"I think since the major rule changes of three and a half, four years ago, style-wise, we've become a better ball movement league," said the Indiana Pacers' coach, Rick Carlisle. "We've become a higher basketball I.Q. league."

Dwayne Casey, a Sonics assistant, agreed.

"The new rules have given players more freedom of movement," he said. "The fact that there are no illegal defenses has increased ball movement and increased man movement that make it hard to defend. And more coaches are relinquishing control. You look at Phoenix, the coaches give up control of the offensive set. That's no disrespect to the coaches, but a lot of plays you just can't really design a defense for. That makes for more points. I think players today are better offense players. Shooting has improved. Ball-handling has improved."

Yet it took one more sweeping dictum from the commissioner's office to produce the point-a-palooza.

Last fall, the league highlighted two areas for enforcement by referees. The league put more onus on defenders to establish position before drawing a charging foul, which led to more blocking calls and more incentive for players to drive to the rim. And the league instructed referees to tighten enforcement of forearm checking by perimeter defenders.

In past years, the league had cracked down on hand-checking, but players adapted.

"Defenders then started to use their forearm in the shoulder area and hip area of offensive players in an effort to re-route the offensive player or to slow them," Jackson said. "Forearms started to creep into the game."

Again, there was howling in some quarters. "Rules Changes Could Hurt Pistons," declared a headline in The Detroit News. The Pistons won the championship in part by setting a league record for fewest points allowed (83.4 per game).

"I don't understand," Pistons guard Chauncey Billups said then. "I think you should reward hard work, not try to make it softer."

But the Pistons, who are battling the Pacers in the Eastern Conference semifinals, adapted along with everyone else. A league once dominated by the defensive preachings of Riley and Chuck Daly is now being personified by the fast-and-loose approach of D'Antoni.

"The coaches are letting their players play," Stern said. "It's all about the coaches."

No one is more pleased than Colangelo, who said he always believed it would take several seasons for his committee's rules changes to make their full impact.

"Now we're starting to see the benefit," Colangelo said. "The game looks better."

So are the higher scores and fast-paced offense here to stay? Jackson said he was "cautiously optimistic."

"I really feel it's an evolution and a journey," he said. "Our players and our coaches, they're the best in the world. And they find ways, new ways, different ways, to skin the defensive cat. And if there's another defensive scheme or another technique to be used, they'll find it. It's really incumbent upon us at the league level to monitor it and be nimble, to adjust if we need to."

Spoiler:

New Jersey Nets executive Rod Thorn, a longtime expert on NBA rules, acknowledges that last season the league adopted a dramatic shift in how it interpreted the rules of the game.

No longer would a defensive player on the perimeter be allowed to use his hand, a barred arm or any sort of physical contact to impede or block the movement of either a cutter or a ball handler.

In a recent interview, Thorn said that the NBA had changed the rule to give an advantage to the offensive player.

“It’s more difficult now to guard the quick wing player who can handle the ball,” Thorn said of the change. “I think it helps skilled players over someone who just has strength or toughness. What the NBA is trying to do is promote unimpeded movement for dribblers or cutters.”

Thorn said the change was made because muscular defensive players had gotten the upper hand.

“My opinion is that the game had gone too much toward favoring strong players over skilled players,” Thorn said. “The NBA felt there was too much body, too much hand-checking, being used by defenders to the detriment of the game. There was a feeling that there was too much advantage for a defensive player who could merely use his strength to control the offensive player.”

The new rules interpretations have attempted to address that issue, Thorn said.

“If the refs perceive that a defender is bumping the cutter, or bumping a ball-handler, then they’ll blow their whistles.”

Blow their whistles is exactly what officials began doing in both the NBA and its Development League (where many nights officials were whistling a whopping 60 to 70 fouls a game).

This new way of calling became increasingly apparent with each regular-season game last year, and it really made an impression during the playoffs. Free from the physical challenge of defenders, offensive players found many more opportunities to attack the basket – and draw fouls.

As a result, the new rules interpretation helped promote the emergence last season of a new generation of super stars, from Kobe Bryant scoring his 81 points during a regular season game, to LeBron James, Vince Carter, Gilbert Arenas and Dwyane Wade making big splashes in the playoffs.

[...]

The results were immediate and pleasing to the league’s front office.

Offensive players were freed as never before and fans were thrilled by high-scoring games. Television ratings jumped with the excitement, and reporters began filing stories signaling an NBA revival not seen since the days when Jordan played for the Bulls.

The league had made an obvious move to try to pick up scoring averages that had been in decline since the late 1980s. And it seems to have worked.

But not everyone is enthused about the changes.

Tex Winter, now 84 and the veteran of more than a half century of coaching, has serious misgivings about what the league has done.

Winter acknowledges the outgrowth of the new rules interpretation is the rise of the super dominant offensive player, led by Wade’s performance in the NBA Finals and Bryant’s string of 40-, 50, even 60-point games during the regular season.

“It’s brought all these 40-point scorers,” Winter said. “They can’t score 40 points unless they get 15-20 free throws.”

And that’s exactly what they were getting on their big nights.

[E-Balla]

I'm voting for Moses Malone. The man was a terror on the boards and under the basket. He's by far the most accomplished player left and he has the most impressive accolades of anyone left.

Also I hate when a thread ends halfway through you making a post. Still head to the 18 thread for some pro-Ewing postseason arguments (basically a post where I'm saying he played pretty well against top competition in the playoffs).

[DQuinn1575]

My vote again is for Moses Malone

Right now I will just compare him to Karl Malone.

For all of Karl's Longevity talk and Moses' relatively short career for the guys on this list, KM appeared in 14 all-star games and MM in 12. While a simplistic way to look at it, it still shows to me that maybe the gap might not be what one would perceive from reading these threads.

5 year playoff Peak per100
89-93 KM- 34.3/10.8(3.7)/3.1 on .567 TS%
79-83 MM- 31.0/18.1(7.5)/1.9 on .551 TS%

Career per100
KM- 34.4/13.9(3.3)/4.9 on .577 TS%
MM- 30.4/18.3(7.6)/1.9 on .569 TS%

Playoffs- Not sure KM's gap in scoring/assists/TS% matches MM's rebounding superiority, especially when you consider how much is coming form the offensive end.

Career- MM shows a lot more consistency… but whether that's good or bad is up to each individual voter. For me it shows that no matter the quality or intensity of the defense, MM was going to get his. For KM, I can't decide whether its because he falters under pressure, excels when games aren't as intense or just a result of defenses focusing in on him.

MM does have what KM doesn't that seems to play a lot into his legacy- a championship. And it wasn't as if MM joined a super team and became a 3rd option- he was finals MVP and is generally considered the playoff MVP that season. He out rebounded Kareem 72-30 (27-5) in that 4 game series, outscored him 103-94 and played 39.25 mpg. That's the guy who was ranked 2nd on this list. Not that one series defines a career but it certainly helps support it.

While Karl has the advantage defensively, I do not think MM's defense is as poor as people make it seem. From what I've been reading his man-to-man was solid (goes right along with his physical offensive nature) but his team defense is what brings him down. I would still like to see a little more about MM's defense.

But at this point, as I have stated before with my bias to offensive rebounds that no one else seems to really share, I have to vote Moses Malone.

Sorry, too lazy to start this all over again. Think of Karl Malone as my reasoning why he should be in now since Karl already is. If this doesn't suffice let me know but I am trying to get this out of the way because I'll probably be out of commission all day tomorrow and into sunday.

All of the above plus
outplayed Kareem 78-83
defeated Lakers twice,
best player on one of top teams in history,
3 time MVP
Best player in league from 1979-1983
VOTE FOR MOSES MALONE AT 19

[drza]

How do people feel about Ben Wallace v. Steve Nash? Nash has more prime longevity, but consider this: Ben Wallace won DPoY 4 times in 5 years. If anybody has an argument for an all-defense player over Nash, the all-offense player, it might be him. He was the unquestioned tone-setter and best defensive player for those Pistons teams, who might be the equivalent of the Nash Suns in terms of dominance on one side of the ball.

Some quick +/- observations:

Nash has 4 seasons in the top 50 for RAPM.
Wallace doesn't show up until #215 in RAPM.

Nash has 5 of the top 12 offensive RAPM seasons.
Wallace has the 8th best defensive RAPM season, but his next best is down at #34.

How do we feel about that data? To me, it suggests that the ultimate offense-only PG was more valuable than the ultimate defense-only big man. Is that something that has any relevance at all to comparing other players, or is it totally context-dependent, and shouldn't be applied, to, say, Nash v. Frazier? I'm still new at this RAPM stuff, so cut me some slack if I'm butchering the data.

I would say that if you were going to do the all-defense player to compare to Nash, especially using +/- data, it would be Dikembe Mutombo. Mutombo also has 4 Defensive Player of the Years, and his RAPM scores are distinctly better than Wallace's. He in fact has the best defensive RAPM scores on record back through 1998, and that doesn't include two of his DPoY awards.

Offense only, Nash's top-3 O-RAPM scores averaged to +9.6 in Doc MJ's scaled PI RAPM spreadsheet (1998 - 2012). Defense only, Mutombo's top-3 D-RAPM scores averaged to +8.7 (all in the three seasons from '98 - 2000). That isn't a big difference, and it is certainly arguable that Mutombo may have had more seasons at that level or higher before '98. Mutombo's overall RAPM score from '98 is slightly higher than the best that Nash ever scored, but we don't have 2001 and only partial for 2002 and after he had declined. But I think one could make an interesting case for at least mentioning Mutombo around the time that Nash starts getting major traction.

[drza]

So far I've really only seen Moses votes. I'd think Barkley would at least get some traction, and I saw the start of some interesting stuff about Ewing last thread. Anyone else worthy of big mentions now?

[ThaRegul8r]

How do people feel about Ben Wallace v. Steve Nash? Nash has more prime longevity, but consider this: Ben Wallace won DPoY 4 times in 5 years. If anybody has an argument for an all-defense player over Nash, the all-offense player, it might be him. He was the unquestioned tone-setter and best defensive player for those Pistons teams, who might be the equivalent of the Nash Suns in terms of dominance on one side of the ball.

Some quick +/- observations:

Nash has 4 seasons in the top 50 for RAPM.
Wallace doesn't show up until #215 in RAPM.

Nash has 5 of the top 12 offensive RAPM seasons.
Wallace has the 8th best defensive RAPM season, but his next best is down at #34.

How do we feel about that data? To me, it suggests that the ultimate offense-only PG was more valuable than the ultimate defense-only big man. Is that something that has any relevance at all to comparing other players, or is it totally context-dependent, and shouldn't be applied, to, say, Nash v. Frazier? I'm still new at this RAPM stuff, so cut me some slack if I'm butchering the data.

I would say that if you were going to do the all-defense player to compare to Nash, especially using +/- data, it would be Dikembe Mutombo. Mutombo also has 4 Defensive Player of the Years, and his RAPM scores are distinctly better than Wallace's. He in fact has the best defensive RAPM scores on record back through 1998, and that doesn't include two of his DPoY awards.

Offense only, Nash's top-3 O-RAPM scores averaged to +9.6 in Doc MJ's scaled PI RAPM spreadsheet (1998 - 2012). Defense only, Mutombo's top-3 D-RAPM scores averaged to +8.7 (all in the three seasons from '98 - 2000). That isn't a big difference, and it is certainly arguable that Mutombo may have had more seasons at that level or higher before '98. Mutombo's overall RAPM score from '98 is slightly higher than the best that Nash ever scored, but we don't have 2001 and only partial for 2002 and after he had declined. But I think one could make an interesting case for at least mentioning Mutombo around the time that Nash starts getting major traction.

I've heard of these numbers for Mutombo (or, seen mention of them, more accurately). Where can they be found?

[penbeast0]

Spoiler:

We are about to come up to a group of talented perimeter players who may or may not be good at all facets of the game, and we will have to weigh how much we value certain contributions over others.

- Frazier is obviously >>> Nash on defense - does that propel him over Nash? I think we will see real contentious debate over that choice, and it will be a true litmus test for what voters want to see in a player. A lot of the #10-18 discussion has sort of established that here, Great Defense + Good Enough offense > Great Offense, Bad Defense. The counterpoint: for guards, and point guards in particular, defense isn't that relevant. How do we feel about this claim? shutupandjam presented some very interesting data that seems to indicate that defense is relevant for every position to an extent not typically recognized. My eye test tells me that I would rather have Nash than Frazier, but I will admit I've seen much more of Nash. This thread, and subsequent ones, should look more at that stuff and decide if it's worth serious consideration.

Speaking solely for myself, I will continue to refer to the preestablished criteria for this purpose:

Spoiler:

First and foremost, the object of the game is to help your team win. Basketball is a job like any other, and a basketball player’s job is to help bring his team wins just as a salesman’s job is to make sales for his company. When a player is drafted, he’s drafted so that he can help that team win. When a player is signed, he’s signed so that he can help that team win. When a player is scouted, he’s scouted because the scouts hope to find in him a player who can help their team win. That’s the bottom line. A basketball player has more impact on the game than any player in any other team sport. Football is too specialized, with separate teams for offense and defense, and one player is one of 11 on the field for his team; in baseball, one man is only one of nine, and position players only come to bat 3-4 times a game. Pitchers have the most impact on a game, but only pitch once every five games. A basketball player can help his team win to a greater extent than football or baseball players are capable of due to the inherent constraints of their sports. Therefore, the most important thing for a basketball player to have is 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, the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectuation of said purpose, and the ability to effectively employ their respective abilities toward the purpose of helping their team win.

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.

The player who was better able to effectively utilize whatever respective abilities he brings to the table to help his team win is the player who will receive the higher ranking. That way any stylistic biases can be eliminated. The only thing I continue to ask of player advocates is to show how their chosen player utilized whatever it is he brought to the table to help his team win.

It would seem to me that under these criteria, the clearly superior candidate is George Mikan. In the game of his day, using the tools he had, he contributed more to helping his team win than any other candidate by a fairly substantial margin.

Many of the rest of us, however, use some version of portability -- not how much you helped your team win but how much you would help teams win over the course of the NBA (and some only look at how much it would help a team win since 1990). Thus the questions about Mikan -- his athleticism, his skill set, his ability to adapt his game to the shot clock era -- become very real. I think he's a legitimate candidate here though.

[SactoKingsFan]

I've heard of these numbers for Mutombo (or, seen mention of them, more accurately). Where can they be found?

Doctor MJ's RAPM chronology spreadsheet.

viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1313139