Peak Project #8

[E-Balla]

2nd Ballot: David Robinson 94-95 - I see him as the closest comparison to Russell defensively in the modern era. Can't really say he had a single defensive weakness even when compared to the other all time greats (maybe a bit weak relatively on the glass). His offensive faceup game was deadly, and I could see him really thriving in one of today's pick and roll heavy style offenses.

Seriously not one weakness? Not one?

Hakeem 94 Finals vs Ewing: 43.0 mpg, 26.9 ppg, 1.7 orpg, 3.6 apg, 3.6 topg, 55.6 TS%, 105 ORTG

Hakeem 95 Finals vs young Shaq: 44.8 mpg, 32.8 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.5 apg, 2.8 topg, 51.4 TS%, 107 ORTG

Hakeem 95 WCF vs Robinson: 43.5 mpg, 35.3 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.0 apg, 4.1 topg, 59.0 TS%, 111 ORTG

Of course David wasn't bad (as you can see none of them really guarded Hakeem well) but he isn't at the defensive standard of some of the other ATGs one on one.

Here's a great post that explains how I feel about Robinson's defense:

Spoiler:

excellent post though I think that should be also brought up:

What about a contemporary of Hakeem though, that isn't considered to have great defensive help or coaching, David Robinson? He anchored better defenses than Hakeem did.

And Duncan's anchored elite defenses year after year, sometimes without great defensive help (although he's always had a great coach in Popovich, true).

I get what you're saying, that no one guy can really guarantee an elite defense, but it seems that Duncan and Robinson did that moreso than Hakeem did. They didn't have great defensive players around them at times either, but their defenses were better.

I might be looking at this too much from a team angle though, and not enough from an individual one.

I think you overlooked several factors. coaching is extremely important from the standpoint of team defense. you think OKC would have #20 defense in the league with Pat Riley or Phil Jackson ? Popovich is THE coach when talking about defense. he was one of the first to acknowledge the importance of sacrificing midrange defense for paint defense (Spurs D always gave up the most midrange 2s in the league), he was a guy who discovered Bowen, who made Tony Parker into a reasonably good team defender etc.

Larry Brown is another guy who comes to mind as all-time great defensive coach. recently I've come to realization that coach of that caliber can be nearly as effective as defensive anchor. if you look at Larry's history you'll notice teams always played great D. just looking at the 90s Spurs... they were tanking in 89 but still played avg defense. then added D-Rob and Cummings in 90, their defense improved to 3rd in the league. then 1st in 91, 1st in 92, but only one top3 finish in 93-96. so what happened in 93 ? Larry Brown left the team. Spurs defense was still great but clearly fell level below... and that's despite Rodman on the team in 94-95. at the time Larry Brown became Clippers coach they also became much better defense. then he became Pacers head coach and they went from being one of the worst defensive teams in the league, to one of the best defenses in the league. meanwhile Clippers fell off a cliff after Brown left the team. then he became Philly's head coach and they also went on to produce top5 defenses year in year out. and we already know what happened in 04-05... best defensive team ever.

so comparing D-Rob's record without Larry to Hakeem's record... pretty close. always top10 defense, but never the best in the league. 10th in 93, 9th in 94, 5th in 95, 3rd in 96. that doesn't really seperate Robinson from Olajuwon at all. pretty much the only time Olajuwon didn't anchor top5 defense was in 92 and Rockets defense without Hakeem gave up like 10 pts more per game.

give Hakeem all time great defensive coach and reasonably good defensive personnel and you'll see him anchor dominant defenses too.

as well as this:

Admiral vs. Dream on Defense

I'm too young to have seen them play at their primes but it seems like everyone chooses Dream over Admiral on D as well. I understand that Hakeem roasted Robinson in the WCF and that that was a legacy making series that in some ways defined both their careers. I understand that Hakeem's complete offensive repertoire, while less efficient than D-Rob's attacking and jumpshooting style, translated better in the slowed down tougher playoffs environment.

But was Hakeem really the better defender? What exactly was the difference between the two as defenders? From 90-95 when they both played in the league and were roughly at their defensive primes, these are the numbers they posted...

Code: Select all

HO: 12.6 RPG, 4.0 BPG, 1.9 SPG, 3.7 PFG, 6.4 BLK%, 2.4 STL%, 41.6 DWS
DR: 11.7 RPG, 3.7 BPG, 1.7 SPG, 3.0 PFG, 6.0 BLK%, 2.3 STL%, 41.5 DWS

Both of them were anchoring great defenses during this time as well, with the Spurs posting a 104.7 DRtg (2nd in the league) and Rockets posting a 104.9 DRtg (3rd) over this span. I really don't see much of a difference at all here based on the team results and individual numbers.

Actually the biggest thing I see is that while Hakeem was slightly more active in terms of creating turnovers, he was more foul prone as well. 3.7 PF vs. 3.0 PF seems to be the only significant difference.

5.9 S+B/3.7 PF
5.4 S+B/3.0 PF

Hakeem definitely got into more foul trouble than Robinson. Why was this? Did the Admiral’s superior run and jump ability help him in this regard vs. Hakeem?

Also for those who watched them play, was Hakeem really a better low post man defender? I know both of these guys were good but it seems like people treat it as a fact that Hakeem was the superior man defender. They don’t even give examples and explanations, “Hakeem was the better man defender” is all they say without further comments.

From the videos I’ve watched it does appear that Hakeem had the stronger base, and his body is clearly wider than Robinson’s (clearly seen when they match up). And his longer arms do seem to make up for the slight height disadvantage vs. Robinson.

But was Hakeem really a better overall defender? Both of them anchored similarly dominant defenses, both of them posted eerily similar defensive numbers, both of them won DPOY’s and were recognized as tremendous defenders. So what gives? Why is Hakeem considered the better defender than Robinson by 90% of this board? I 100% agree that Hakeem was the better player because I prefer his offensive style, but I really can’t find a discernable difference in their defense. So can someone who watched them both play on D and has something to say other than “trust me” tell me why Hakeem was a better defender than Robinson?

I think Dream was a better overall defender although they're on the same platform. I'll quote a post where I broke down Dream's defense that you might be interested in.

Hakeem is most likely the greatest defender I've seen (1990/91-present).

Taking accomplishments into account, he has 2 Defensive Player of the Year awards and should've probably won more in retrospect. I don't see how one can make a great case for Rodman's selection in 1990. Yes, Rodman was a better man defender than Hakeem when locked in but he doesn't come close to providing the overall impact Dream did. Not to mention, Rodman was only playing 29.0 minutes per game compared to Hakeem's 38.3 which suggests that Dream was having more impact just by the virtue of staying in the game longer.

Now that statistics like DRtg are available, we can analyze and measure the impact these two had. Detroit, despite having better defenders around Rodman, posted a lower DRtg than Houston. Dream had the Rockets as #1 in the league and was far and away the best defensive player on the team. Buck Johnson was solid; great man defender but he couldn't dream (no pun intended) of matching Dream's impact. I don't use numbers to measure a player's defender but Hakeem's numbers that year (14.0 rpg/2.1 spg/4.6 bpg) make a good case in my book. He also finished runner up in Defensive Player of the Year voting in 1989 (would've won by one more vote) and 1990. Made 5 all-defensive first teams in his career, 9 in total.

As for his defense, I can mostly comment on post-1990 but he seemed to have some flaws early on in his career. He was a bit too aggressive which led to gambling, went for pumpfakes a bit too much and didn't seem as strong as he did in the early 1990s which is when he started lifting weight from what I remember. I think his defense peaked in the early 1990s around the time he won his first DPOY award. Around that time, he had significantly toned down his aggression, decreased the gambling and didn't get into foul trouble as much. Man defense was also great which is evident in the 1993 series with Seattle and the 1994 finals with New York.

He shut down the interior along with setting a record for blocked shots in a seven game series in the 1993 Western Conference Semi-finals. Dream also shut down Kemp limiting his penetration a bit and swatted away anything around the rim. Great help defense in this series. 1994 finals, he held Patrick Ewing to 36% shooting from the field. Did this by pushing him away from the basket and make him shoot turnaround jumpshots. His relatively low rebounding numbers are explained by him battling with Patrick outside the paint. Otis Thorpe picked up the slack in Dream's absence.

I would put guys like David Robinson, Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan on his level but would hesitate taking any of them before the Dream. Mostly because Admiral, while a great weakside shot blocker and interior defender, wasn't as good as a man defender. I also want to know how much of that great early 1990s Spurs defense is influenced by Larry Brown's defensive schemes and Admiral's defense. No doubt Admiral was a terrific defender and rightfully won a DPOY award but the Spurs DRtg took a hit in the 1992-93 season (first full year without LB) and this was with Admiral playing all 82 games. Their DRtg in 1994, 1995 and 1996 isn't as good, relative to league average, either. By no means am I implying Robinson didn't have a huge impact and he did because the Spurs were horrible without him when he went down late in the 1991-92 season but it does generate some food for thought.

Dream has a greater impact than Duncan on the defensive end due to his major edge in athleticism which is something Mario Elie commented on when comparing the two players. Garnett is a very good defender and better on the defensive glass but he doesn't have Dream's overall impact due to Dream being a greater paint defender and shot blocking threat. It's all subjective, though.

To give more examples of Hakeem's jaw-dropping defense, I'd point to the 1986 finals like bastillon mentioned. Parish couldn't manage anything against him. One thing I didn't talk about was his versatility as a defender. His determination in running the floor, protecting the basket and not giving up on any play. You should check out that chasedown block (all the way from halfcourt) he had on Rod Strickland in the 1994 playoffs. Just mind-boggling quickness and recovery time. He also had one on K.J. with K.J. falling flat on his arse. I've seen him guard power forwards as well. For reference, see his stellar defense on Karl Malone in game 4 of the 1994 Western Conference Semi finals. Otis Thorpe was in foul trouble and Dream got the job of checking Malone in the second half if I'm not mistaken. He shut Karl down and helped the Rockets take a big lead. It's the infamous game where the Utah time keeper doesn't start the clock. He also checked Barkley for stretches in the 1994 and 1995 conference semis and held his own. The thing about his defense was that he didn't let anyone get anything going inside. I remember being astonished at how Cedric Ceballos, the snake (great nose for the ball, terrific rebounder), couldn't finish around the basket because of Dream's presence. Most of the points he got that series were with Hakeem coming over to help on penetration. We had to take him out of games 6 and 7 and start AC Green although some of it had to do with the defensive mismatches we had (Thorpe posting up Chuck, Dream beasting etc).

I remember the start of the 1994-95 season. Rockets got off to a 9-0 start with Hakeem being a strong MVP candidate. There was a game against the Pacers where Dream absolutely annihilated Rik Smits by holding him to 1/11 shooting while putting up a 43 pts/16 reb/8 blks statline. Couple of games later, he took a dump on the Nets with 31 pts/10 reb/5 stl/5 blk and holding Derrick Coleman (back when he actually gave a F) to 1/15 from the field.

Just incredible all-around play. As for Admiral's defense, it was great but a couple of things stick out. How much of the early 1990s Spurs DRtg is influenced by Larry Brown's defensive schemes? And Hakeem having the series of his career against Robinson kind of sticks out here. I thought he could be taken one-on-one. He didn't seem as psychologically dominating/intimidating either, contrary to what his numbers imply. I'd point to the 1994 playoffs, here. Karl Malone had a greater impact on both offense and defense. I don't remember this series very well but I do remember the Jazz switching match ups by putting Karl on David and roughing him up. It proved to be successful as David was held to 41% shooting. Karl, meanwhile, beasted in the series with the Rodman/Robinson duo being unable to stop him. I'm not sure how much Robinson guarded Karl but it's a negative either way. Either he didn't step up to the challenge and guard Karl or he was unable to keep Malone from going off.

That said, I do think Robinson gets underrated due to his playoff failures. He was a great player; terrific on defense (weakside shot blocking, help defense, versatility). There's a game where he had 8 blks against MJ and the Bulls and along with Hakeem, he was the best center at getting those chasedown blocks.

Man defense seems to be the reason why people rate Hakeem above Robinson on defense. I don’t know if this is the truth or a copout response that is used because it’s hard to prove one way or the other. So I tried my best to answer my own question here.

From 1990-95 these were the top 8 scoring Centers in the NBA who played more than 200 games during this span (Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Alonzo, Daugherty, Seikaly, and Smits). These are some of their offensive numbers…

Code: Select all

SO: 27.3 PPG, .583 FG%, 3.0 TOV, 38.2 MPG
DR: 25.7 PPG, .527 FG%, 3.0 TOV, 38.3 MPG
PE: 25.3 PPG, .515 FG%, 3.2 TOV, 37.8 MPG
HO: 24.9 PPG, .515 FG%, 3.3 TOV, 38.9 MPG
AM: 21.3 PPG, .512 FG%, 3.1 TOV, 35.4 MPG
BD: 19.9 PPG, .535 FG%, 2.5 TOV, 37.2 MPG
SE: 15.9 PPG, .490 FG%, 2.9 TOV, 33.5 MPG (Seikaly)
SM: 14.7 PPG, .514 FG%, 1.8 TOV, 26.5 MPG (Smits)

These were the NBA Centers who played big minutes and were bigtime scoring options for their teams during 1990-95. So I took a look at both Hakeem and Robinson’s h2h numbers against these players during 90-95 to see how much they limited them.

Vs. Admiral / Vs. Dream
SO: 25.2 PPG -- .513 FG% -- 4.0 TOV -- 38.3 MPG (6 G)
SO: 20.7 PPG -- .557 FG% -- 2.8 TOV -- 40.3 MPG (6 G)
PE: 23.0 PPG -- .456 FG% -- 3.9 TOV -- 38.1 MPG (11 G)
PE: 24.1 PPG -- .441 FG% -- 3.1 TOV -- 38.6 MPG (12 G)
AM: 18.7 PPG -- .463 FG% -- 2.7 TOV -- 34.2 MPG (6 G)
AM: 15.0 PPG -- .464 FG% -- 4.6 TOV -- 36.2 MPG (5 G)
BD: 19.2 PPG -- .566 FG% -- 3.0 TOV -- 33.5 MPG (6 G)
BD: 14.4 PPG -- .509 FG% -- 1.8 TOV -- 34.2 MPG (5 G)
SE: 17.7 PPG -- .489 FG% -- 2.3 TOV -- 33.9 MPG (10 G)
SE: 13.3 PPG -- .487 FG% -- 3.7 TOV -- 33.4 MPG (11 G)
SM: 13.5 PPG -- .493 FG% -- 1.3 TOV -- 26.0 MPG (12 G)
SM: 10.7 PPG -- .516 FG% -- 2.0 TOV -- 23.1 MPG (10 G)

So what do you guys think about those numbers? Obviously this isn’t a perfect method as this doesn’t account for a whole bunch of things. There’s no such thing as one on one in the NBA, so any stats in an individual head to head matchup should be taken with a grain of salt. But if there is one position in the NBA where h2h stats have the most to do with individual play, it would be the Center position. We know that Hakeem and D-Rob guarded Centers 90% of the time, and we know that they were good enough to guard them in single coverage pretty much all the time as well (outside of Shaq and each other at times). So I think it is reasonable to assume that the numbers these opposing big men posted were primarily when they were being defended by Dream and Admiral. On to the actual results…

Looking at these numbers from these opposing bigs, the one thing that does jump out at you is the PPG they averaged. Outside of Ewing, every other big scored way less against Hakeem than they did Robinson. The FG%, TOV’s, and MP are roughly identical but Hakeem seems to have definitely had a greater impact on volume scoring than Robinson did. Could this be because of better general team defense, or did Hakeem just make it harder to get good looks inside? Despite D-Rob’s cartoon-like upper body, Hakeem did have the greater base strength based on his wider body and stronger legs, maybe this allowed him to keep the deep low post position easier than Robinson. No matter what the reason was, it’s a fact that opposing volume scoring centers found it easier to score in volume against Robinson. Here are the total numbers of these guys vs. Robinson and Hakeem without taking into account the individual games played (for example Shaq’s 6 G count the same as Ewing’s 11). And the total numbers of these 6 players vs. the entire league using the same method…

Vs. Admiral / Vs. Dream / Vs. NBA
20.7 PPG, .525 FG%, 2.8 TOV, 34.8 MPG
19.6 PPG, .497 FG%, 2.9 TOV, 34.0 MPG
16.4 PPG .496 FG%, 3.0 TOV, 34.3 MPG

So while these numbers suggest that Hakeem was a better man defender, it also suggests that the Admiral wasn’t far off. Sure the difference in volume scoring is notable, but Robinson held opponents to the same FG% and forced them into the same amount of turnovers. And like I mentioned above, he held Hakeem to a low FG% in h2h matchups as well. So I think it’s pretty obvious that Robinson was at the very least a very good individual man defender. But I think based on these stats and the video I’ve seen, Hakeem’s man defense was slightly better. And I think this also gives Hakeem the edge when it comes to who the better overall defender was.

Also you mention his faceup game being deadly? Couldn't be further from the truth. It was useful in the regular season but in a 7 game series against great defenders its not trustworthy. His performances against good defenses in the playoffs are historically disappointing outside of his rookie season.

From 93-96 he played 8 series. He played good defenses 3 times (Portland in 93, Utah in 94 and 96). Outside of that he also played 2 ATG Cs (Hakeem and Mutombo in 95) and here's how he performed:

vs Portland 93 (4th ranked defense): 19.3 ppg, 2.3 orpg, 4.8 apg, 2.0 topg, 48.7 TS%, 107 ORTG. This 4 game series included a 6/20 performance and a 4/11 performance in games 1 and 2.

vs Utah 94 (7th ranked defense): 20 ppg, 3.3 orpg, 3.5 apg, 2.3 topg, 47.1 TS%, 104 ORTG. Again they lost in 4. This time lost games 2 and 3 (in a best to 3) with Robinson shooting 10-35 for 28 points in those games combined.

vs Denver 95 (with Deke): 19 ppg, 1.7 orpg, 3.3 apg, 2.0 topg, 49.3 TS%, 105 ORTG. They swept but he did struggle against Deke and they won mostly due to the offense which was flourishing despite bad performances from Robinson.

vs Houston 95 (with Hakeem) has been a topic of conversation for a minute now so I won't list the numbers totally (23.8 ppg for DR). I'd just like to mention again that he shot under 40% 3 games in this series and had under a 90 ORTG in all 3 games.

vs Utah 96 (8th ranked defense): 19.3 ppg, 3.7 orpg, 2.0 apg, 2.3 topg, 52.6 TS%, 107 ORTG. Looks better than the rest on paper but he had under a 50 TS% in 4 games and the other 2 games were blowout losses (73 TS% in a game 1 20 point loss and 74 TS% in only 24 minutes of a game 4 15 point loss). Honestly outside of games 1 and 2 he was flat out bad.

I don't think a player like him can really be relied on in the postseason offensively. Now defensively there's another issue: in series where he disappointed offensively (is the 5 above) more often than not his team also underperformed defensively. In 93 they held Portland better than expected (-2.5) but Clyde missed game 1 (Portland's worst offensive performance of the series with a 95.0 ORTG). Take out that game and San Antonio performed worse than expected defensively. San Antonio also performed well against Denver (-4.2) but they were led by rookie Jalen Rose offensively by the time the playoffs came.

In 95 Houston performed better than expected (+3.0) mainly because of Hakeem's play and Utah killed them in 94 and 96 with the PNR (+4.0 in 94 and +5.7 in 96). TBH I'm not sure if I trust his defense to stand when he's taken out of the game offensively. I want to say its a small sample but 23 games is a pretty large postseason sample for Robinson to look so unspectacular in during his "peak" years.

[Clyde Frazier]

Ballot #1 - 87 Magic
Ballot #2 - 86 Bird
Ballot #3 - 76 Dr. J

--------------------

Ballot #1 - 87 Magic

Magic was a unique and special player. Took his game to another level that season, especially when relied on more as a primary offensive option. He led the lakers to league best 67-15 record and ultimately the championship against the celtics.

RS - 23.9 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 12.2 APG, 1.7 SPG, .5 BPG, 60.2% TS, 124 ORTG, .263 WS/48

PS - 21.8 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 12.2 APG, 1.7 SPG, .4 BPG, 60.2% TS, 129 ORTG, .265 WS/48

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1987-nba-finals-celtics-vs-lakers.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n1-KIcoIzU[/youtube]

Via NY Times from 12/6/87

Even then he flirted with a reputation as the game's greatest player. Now 28 - the start of what many feel are a player's peak years - and coming off his best season, he has a legitimate claim to it.

What a season it was! Playing brilliantly from November to June, Johnson led Los Angeles to its fifth world championship, ran away with the N.B.A.'s Most Valuable Player Award, led the league in assists (his 977 were 129 more than the runner-up) and finished in the top 10 in scoring.

He was also named the best player in the championship series against the Boston Celtics, his hook shot with two seconds left winning the pivotal fourth game and his all-out play breaking open a close final contest. His totals for that last game were 16 points (12 in the third quarter when the Lakers rallied), 19 assists, 8 rebounds and 3 steals.

''Can the game be played any better than Magic played it in the third period. . .?'' asked Sports Illustrated.

Via Sports Illustrated from 6/29/87

This year the Lakers finally were Magic's team: Speed is power, power is speed. Slowly the cast had changed. Michael Cooper had emerged; A.C. Green and James Worthy had been added. Even Mychal Thompson, the most important pickup by either team this year, once was strong enough to play center yet was fast enough to play small forward at times. One had, at certain moments, a sense of watching a prototype of a different breed of athlete -- strong, fast, disciplined -- playing at a level of stunning intensity, with surprisingly few turnovers.

If the Knicks of the late '60s could be described as four guards and one forward (Willis Reed), then this was often a team of four forwards led by a point guard who could, in a very recent era, have played power forward. What made the series so special was the sharp contrast in the styles of Los Angeles and Boston and the knowledge that these two teams, with cameo appearances by Philadelphia and Houston, have essentially dominated the championships since Bird and Johnson entered the league in 1979. That and, of course, the fact that both teams have gradually been shaped to the styles and contours of their superstars, one white and one black.

The Celtics, this year's defending champions, play half-court basketball, and they play it better than any team in the league. That they had even made it to the finals was remarkable, given the death of Len Bias, the infirmities of Bill Walton and the fact that Kevin McHale and Robert Parish were both playing with injuries. But Boston finally lacked the bench mandatory for a tough playoff final and the speed to stay with L.A. in a running game. The Celtic front line, after all, was composed of three exceptional basketball players, while the first seven players for the Lakers seemed to be both exceptional basketball players and exceptional athletes.

One had to look no further than the contrast between McHale and Worthy to understand the classic matchup displayed in this series. If the Lakers controlled the tempo, it would mean that Worthy -- possibly the fastest big man going to the basket in the league -- would be a dominant player; if the Celtics controlled the pace, it meant they would be able to get the ball to McHale, surprisingly nimble and deft, uncommonly skilled at using his body and arms for maximum leverage. Each was an extension of the best of his team. For Worthy to be Worthy, Magic had to be Magic; for McHale to get the ball where he wanted it, Larry Bird and the Celtic offense had to move in proper mesh. If one was having a good game, the other probably was not.

Ballot #2 - 86 Bird

I can't help but tie magic and bird together here. They're 2 of the best on the fly decision makers the league has ever seen, and that's something you can't teach. I'll have to start looking closely at kidd to see where I'll rank him since i put him in that group as well.

Bird, similar to Duncan had a great regular season in 86, but took his game even further in the playoffs averaging nearly a triple double on 61.5% TS en route to the title.

RS - 25.8 PPG, 9.8 RPG, 6.8 APG, 2 SPG, .4 BPG, 58% TS, 114 ORTG, .244 WS/48

PS - 25.9 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 8.2 APG, 2.1 SPG, .6 BPG, 61.5% TS, 127 ORTG, .263 WS/48

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1986-nba-finals-rockets-vs-celtics.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3i9gt3UE0Q[/youtube]

Via Sports Illustrated from 3/3/86 -- to say bird was highly regarded by his peers is an understatement

"The question didn't seem relevant. But Bird came along with all the skills, all the things a basketball player has to do. I think he's the greatest." Chimes in Milwaukee Bucks coach Don Nelson, "He's the best player ever to play the game." And there comes this weighty word from Westwood. "I've always considered Oscar Robertson to be the best player in the game," says John Wooden. "Now I'm not so sure that Larry Bird isn't." Even Laker general manager Jerry West, who refuses to compare players from different eras, says of Bird, "He is as nearly perfect as you can get in almost every phase of basketball.”

Bird's play over the recent weeks has revealed an athlete at the height of his powers. When Kevin McHale went down with a heel injury, Bird just gritted his teeth, stooped and hefted McHale's load to his shoulders. In the Celtics' eight games since the All-Star break, Bird has averaged 30.8 points, 13.1 rebounds and 7.8 assists.

​​Inasmuch as the Celtics, with a best-in-the-league record of 43-11, have hardly missed a beat without McHale, Bird has to be the leading contender for his third straight MVP award, an accomplishment achieved in the NBA by only Russell and Chamberlain. Bird can probably count on Jack Ramsay's vote. After Bird struck for 47 points (including the game winner in overtime), 14 rebounds and 11 assists at Portland on Feb. 14, the Trail Blazer coach, a man not given to overstatement, called him "the greatest clutch player of all time."

"As an all-around player, there's never been anyone better," said Pacer coach George Irvine, the victim of a 30-11-12 Bird line Sunday night (his sixth triple double of the season). "A unique phenomenon," says San Antonio veteran Artis Gilmore of Bird.

[And yet…]

Bird, who has never been accused of false modesty, clings to the position (publicly at least) that Magic Johnson is the game's best active player. "He makes his teammates better to a greater degree than I do. It's his character, not just his abilities," says Bird.

Via NY Times, Bird’s clutch play en route to the title in 86

Bird's mood was different today. Not only did the Celtics sweep the Bucks in the Eastern Conference final and advance into the championship round a third straight year, but it was his 3-point shooting extravaganza that put them there.

He hit four of his five 3-point baskets in the final 4 minutes 6 seconds of the game and paved the way for the Celtics' 111-98 victory. Bird attempted six 3-point shots and made five of them, equaling his previous high, which he made earlier in the season against the Cleveland Cavaliers. Danny Ainge took five 3-point shots and made them all.

The Celtics, 11-1 in the playoffs, will await the outcome of the Western Conference final in which the Houston Rockets lead the Los Angeles Lakers, the defending champions, by a 3-1 margin.

Bird, who finished with 30 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists and 2 steals, got 17 of his points in the final quarter. Fourteen of those came after Coach K. C. Jones shifted him into the backcourt after Dennis Johnson had fouled out of the game with 4:57 remaining and Boston ahead, 95-92. For the rest of the game, the Celtics played with a front line of Bill Walton, Robert Parish and Kevin McHale with Ainge as the ball-handler.

After Bird had made his third basket from 3-point range and the partisan capacity crowd of 11,052 began to realize that the Bucks had no chance to win, it began to chant, ''Give the ball to Larry.''

The Celtics obliged and Bird hit his last 3-pointer from the 24-foot range at the buzzer.

''I think I was unconscious today, especially on the one that Bill Walton pitched back to me,'' said Bird of the second of his four attempts. ''The ball was a little to my left, and I was little off balance.’’

From same SI article in 87 above (Magic ballot), describing why I can't help but link the 2 together

Slowly, inevitably, as they raised their teams to the highest professional level, as their teams became perennial challengers for the title, the connection between them, which had once been hyped and artificial, gradually became real. In a league in which expansion had ruined traditional rivalries, their rivalry and that of their teams remained genuine, and they reached the rare point where rivalry turns into respect and even affection. Bird led the campaign for Magic as MVP this year, and Magic talked during the playoffs about how playing against Bird raised his game, made him better, and how he thought that when Bird retired he, too, might retire, that the special challenge implicit in their careers and their mutual era would be over. It was the statement of an athlete thinking not so much of a given series as of the athletic history books.

Ballot #3 - 76 Dr. J

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qNqZVklGm0[/youtube]

I get it. It's a 5 minute clip, but I still think you can tell just how talented this guy was that year. An unstoppable offensive force leading his team to the championship. Nets also ranked 1st in defense that season.

For those who doubt the ABA, check out his per 100 #s in 76 vs. 80:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ervinju01.html#per_poss::none

They’re nearly identical including efficiency. This is when he was given a bigger role in the offense after Cunningham came aboard as coach.

[The-Power]

2nd Ballot: David Robinson 94-95 - I see him as the closest comparison to Russell defensively in the modern era. Can't really say he had a single defensive weakness even when compared to the other all time greats (maybe a bit weak relatively on the glass). His offensive faceup game was deadly, and I could see him really thriving in one of today's pick and roll heavy style offenses.

Seriously not one weakness? Not one?

Hakeem 94 Finals vs Ewing: 43.0 mpg, 26.9 ppg, 1.7 orpg, 3.6 apg, 3.6 topg, 55.6 TS%, 105 ORTG

Hakeem 95 Finals vs young Shaq: 44.8 mpg, 32.8 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.5 apg, 2.8 topg, 51.4 TS%, 107 ORTG

Hakeem 95 WCF vs Robinson: 43.5 mpg, 35.3 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.0 apg, 4.1 topg, 59.0 TS%, 111 ORTG

Of course David wasn't bad (as you can see none of them really guarded Hakeem well) but he isn't at the defensive standard of some of the other ATGs one on one.

What does citing the stats of one series have to do with the general skill-set of a player? I fail to see your point here.

[E-Balla]

2nd Ballot: David Robinson 94-95 - I see him as the closest comparison to Russell defensively in the modern era. Can't really say he had a single defensive weakness even when compared to the other all time greats (maybe a bit weak relatively on the glass). His offensive faceup game was deadly, and I could see him really thriving in one of today's pick and roll heavy style offenses.

Seriously not one weakness? Not one?

Hakeem 94 Finals vs Ewing: 43.0 mpg, 26.9 ppg, 1.7 orpg, 3.6 apg, 3.6 topg, 55.6 TS%, 105 ORTG

Hakeem 95 Finals vs young Shaq: 44.8 mpg, 32.8 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.5 apg, 2.8 topg, 51.4 TS%, 107 ORTG

Hakeem 95 WCF vs Robinson: 43.5 mpg, 35.3 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.0 apg, 4.1 topg, 59.0 TS%, 111 ORTG

Of course David wasn't bad (as you can see none of them really guarded Hakeem well) but he isn't at the defensive standard of some of the other ATGs one on one.

What does citing the stats of one series have to do with the general skill-set of a player? I fail to see your point here.

Well read the whole post like the part where the numbers of Hakeem and Robinson vs many 90s centers were put up and Hakeem was better. I would say compared to other ATGs (like Hakeem in that post) his man defense is lacking.

[drza]

On Magic vs. Oscar
I was thinking Magic would probably be my 3rd ballot, but how do you guys rate a Magic vs. Oscar comparison?
Despite the raw numbers of Oscar's career, I think Magic was probably the more impressive rebounding PG (pace and shooting% differences). I like Magic better as a passer/play-maker (GOAT?). Better scorer is close and I'm not sure who I'd go with there (leaning perhaps slightly toward Oscar). Defensively, Oscar certainly has the much better reputation; I guess my question would be how large we feel that defensive gap is? Oscar's record of team success appears somewhat below expectation in a few years of his prime; although fwiw I recall someone (in another thread) had provided some with/without data on Oscar and Jerry, and Oscar's was super-impressive. Was Oscar's supporting cast just under-achieving throughout much of his prime? And if so, did Oscar have anything to do with it? fwiw, I think Magic is the better (certainly more likable) teammate; is it possible that Oscar's surly demeanor isn't conducive to a winning culture with some groups of individuals? idk.....not trying to lay blame at his door, but just spit-ballin'.
Add it all up and where does that leave us on this comparison?

Magic/Oscar vs. Walton
I'm newly kind of considering Walton for my third ballot, too (need to try and watch some more game tape in the next 12-18 hours). He's a difficult one for me to rank. His numbers are not overly impressive in the company of other players we're considering; and yet his impact seems almost other-worldly. And as such, it seems he should at least be in the conversation.
And as I'd previously (in response to eminence, I think) said that I think predilection for big-men so far in this project is only natural because they (in most eras, at least) have a greater capacity/potential to impact the game on BOTH sides of the court.........anyway, I find myself thinking about yet another big man.


I'm otherwise working out a detailed rebuttle on an argument I should probably just let die, but I'm too damn OCD.....

I'm really high on all three, here. Oscar seems somewhat like a mix between Magic and LeBron to me...he had floor generalship, as well as a very strong scoring touch. Pace adjustment brings his per-100 numbers much closer to Magic, though, especially at Magic's peak (on the scoring front). And while Oscar was a floor general in every sense of the word, my feel is that Magic was more gifted in that regard. That's my impression, though, caveated that I grew up with Magic as "The Point Guard" of the time and Oscar's time already past. But among the two, I have Magic slightly higher.

The two point guards vs. Walton is challenging, because Walton is so non-traditional. But with these projects we've had enough examples of players with strong stylistic similarities to Walton (Russell/certain Wilts/KG) that it helps to wrap the mind around where his impact could be coming from outside of the box scores and of course he missed so many games that ElGee's WOWY studies help quantify his impact into the OMG range. I could be convinced to put him over both point guards. But I also could be convinced that at least Magic may have been better.

I also never am entirely convinced how to factor in Walton's fragility...ElGee's numbers suggest that Walton missing 17 games in the regular season isn't the biggest deal, as long as he was healthy for the playoffs. And in 1977 Walton was actually healthy for the playoffs. But...I've been approaching this "peaks" thing on evaluating what a player playing at his peak might contribute in a variety of situatoins. Which means that I have to consider that what actually happened could change in some ways, if circumstances change. And knowing that in real life Walton really missed almost every season due to injury, can I really ignore that if the 1977 season was played many times then there are a lot of times when Walton's almost inevitable injury might hit at a worse time of the season? Never sure how to factor that in a peaks ranking.

[70sFan]

How would you compare KG and Walton guys?
The more I think about it, the more I'm positive about Walton over KG and Moses. Can someone tell me how good Walton was defensively? I know that he was all time great defender from what I've seen/read, but was he on KG level or not?

[The-Power]

Seriously not one weakness? Not one?

Hakeem 94 Finals vs Ewing: 43.0 mpg, 26.9 ppg, 1.7 orpg, 3.6 apg, 3.6 topg, 55.6 TS%, 105 ORTG

Hakeem 95 Finals vs young Shaq: 44.8 mpg, 32.8 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.5 apg, 2.8 topg, 51.4 TS%, 107 ORTG

Hakeem 95 WCF vs Robinson: 43.5 mpg, 35.3 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.0 apg, 4.1 topg, 59.0 TS%, 111 ORTG

Of course David wasn't bad (as you can see none of them really guarded Hakeem well) but he isn't at the defensive standard of some of the other ATGs one on one.

What does citing the stats of one series have to do with the general skill-set of a player? I fail to see your point here.

Well read the whole post like the part where the numbers of Hakeem and Robinson vs many 90s centers were put up and Hakeem was better. I would say compared to other ATGs (like Hakeem in that post) his man defense is lacking.

You can't seriously use a sample size of 6 games and draw this conclusion based on it. If you see weaknesses regarding his man-defense I'm all ears but the stats you provided basically tell us nothing. Unless we can declare Magic an insufficient playmaker based on a couple of games he struggled to create, Curry a human 3pt-shooter based on his series against Memphis or Russell a not-so-dominant rebounder looking at a relatively weak stretch of games. And I'm sure nobody would buy these arguments.

I looked at the posts you quoted and what I saw was mostly comparisons between Robinson and Hakeem and further some assertions. Hakeem was an outstandig man-defender, we don't need to argue about that, but did I miss the part where it was unveiled that man-defense was a weakness of Robinson? Because this is what you basically wrote: man-defense as a weakness. It's not about whether there is another player superior in this regard or not. This would be a completely different stance.

[Quotatious]

How would you compare KG and Walton guys?
The more I think about it, the more I'm positive about Walton over KG and Moses. Can someone tell me how good Walton was defensively? I know that he was all time great defender from what I've seen/read, but was he on KG level or not?

I'm not sure how I feel about Garnett and Walton, anymore (I'd probably lean towards KG, but it's extremely close to me, as is Robinson vs Walton and Robinson vs Garnett), but yeah, I think Walton was on KG's level defensively, if we are talking about '77 Walton and '04 KG (2004 wasn't Garnett's best defensive season, 2008 was, but obviously he was a better overall player in '04). Walton was a better shotblocker and rim protector, plus a marginally better defensive rebounder (but they're extremely close in the latter), while Garnett was more mobile, and he could guard more positions effectively. Walton was pretty mobile, too, and if you watch the '77 finals, you can see him being able to stay in front of Dr. J about 15 feet away from the basket a few times. KG had a bit quicker hands in terms of being able to intercept or steal the ball. He was also more vocal and intense, although Walton was a damn good defensive coordinator, too.

I find it hard to decide who was better defensively between Garnett and Walton, but I'd give KG the edge on offense. Better overall shooter (clearly), better ball-handler, at least as good of a playmaker. Walton had a decent mid-range J, but KG was elite in this regard. I'd give Walton the edge as an inside scorer, though. He had a nice jump hook, and an excellent touch around the rim. That's still not enough to make up for the advantages that Garnett has in those other areas on offense, though.

Garnett looks better based on advanced metrics, too.

So, ultimately, I'd lean KG, but you can't really go wrong with Walton, either (just to illustrate how close it is, in my opinion - I had Garnett at 12, Robinson at 13 and Walton at 14 on my peaks list before the project).

[drza]

How would you compare KG and Walton guys?
The more I think about it, the more I'm positive about Walton over KG and Moses. Can someone tell me how good Walton was defensively? I know that he was all time great defender from what I've seen/read, but was he on KG level or not?

I wrote most of this in 2012, but really, everything in here seems like it was written directly in response to this.

Garnett vs. Walton

Physically: Basketball-reference lists Walton as 6-11 and 210 pounds, and lists Garnett as 6-11 220 pounds. Both are clearly incorrect, as both Walton and Garnett are both openly recognized as being well over 7-feet tall. I also know that KG was weighing in around 250 pounds in 2004. I can't speak to Walton's weight at his peak, but my point here is that Walton doesn't have any kind of height or girth advantage here. And any that have more expertise on Walton are welcome to challenge this, but I think I can fairly say that peak Garnett was (if anything) the quicker laterally and the bigger leaper of the two.

Impact stats: ElGee's in/out stats paint Walton's on-court impact as massive in 1977 and 1978. On the other hand, Garnett's on/off +/- stats for 2003 and 2004 are the #1 and #3 highest marks in the decade of +/- stats we have available (sandwiched around #2 LeBron in '09), and Garnett also finished #1 in the NBA in RAPM for both years. Considering that the impact stats are not directly comparable, I think all we can safely say is that in both seasons in question Walton and Garnett were beyond-the-max as far as what the impact stats can tell us.

Non-scoring offense: Walton is acknowledged to not be the scorer that many of the all-time greats are, but he is still considered an elite offensive player because of his passing ability, ability to run an offense through the high-post, basketball smarts, and ability to use picks/teammate cutting to his advantage to make an offense run. Here is one of ElGee's posts from the RPoY thread:

On a more subtle level, I think that highlights some of the differences between Walton and Jabbar offensively. Although, in Jabbar's defense, his teammates weren't very good in 77 and 78, so it's possible LA/Jabbar's approach was closer to optimal anyway.

Walton and Jabbar clearly have different offensive skill-sets. It's possible that Walton's defense/outlet passing does just help the Blazers that much when he's on the court. But it's also possible, that despite his lower TS% and fewer post moves, he was playing at a more "optimal" approach offensively; he had a perfect balance of when to shoot, when to cut, when and where to screen, where to pass, spacing, angles and boxing out. And of course, he was a ridiculous half-court passer and "coached" on the floor.

Obviously, in a one-on-one game, we'd all take Kareem. When he puts his pivot foot down and goes to work, he can spin, hit the jumper over his left shoulder, finger roll, drop step, and of course...dribble...dribble...swing...Sky Hook.

But Walton's bringing something very different to the table, and I'm not sure it isn't better at the end of the day. Or at least, better if we include his defense.

And here is another blurb from DocMJ, from his notes watching Blazers/Lakers game 4:

Kareem's defense on Walton is clearly much more successful, but Walton doesn't spend a lot of time trying to score when Kareem's on him. Instead, he immediately starts looking for someone to pass it to, and once the ball is passed, Kareem seems largely out of the play. Part of that is due to Walton being able to draw Kareem out, which leaves Kareem in poor position to challenge shots. Walton's passes seem strategically smart, and often quite sharp, but he is committing a good amount of turnovers in the process.

So if these are the primary areas of strength for Walton, can't we also compare them directly with Garnett? For example, we can compare peak Garnett to peak Walton. I'm going to use numbers from 2003 Garnett and 1978 Walton because those are the seasons when both had roles that maximized their facillitator abilities and we have more complete stats for 1978, but these are still peak seasons and speaks to skill sets:

B-R single season comp of 2003 Garnett and 1978 Walton: http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=waltobi01&y1=1978&p2=garneke01&y2=2003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you follow that link, you'll see that Garnett had a higher assist percentage (25.8% vs 22.8%) and a MUCH lower turnover percentage (11.9% vs 17.2%). Garnett is openly acknowledged as an extremely effective pick setter (even if he's accused of illegal screens, he takes advantage of what the ref gives and gets lots of open shots for his teammates. Garnett routinely ran the Wolves' offense from the high-post, and led them to multiple high efficiency team offenses from that role. Garnett also provides excellent spacing as a 7-footer that must be accounted for in the high post.

In other words, Garnett seems to have all of Walton's non-scoring offensive strengths in at least similar measure, and in the tangible passing/turnover stats Garnett seemed to be the more efficient and effective of the two.

Defense This is the most difficult comparison to make across 25 years and a big lack of consistent global defensive stats. About all I can say is that Walton is openly acknowledged as one of the better defenders ever, and Garnett is the same. Walton has a lot of defensive strengths, highlited by his huge motor, his ability to help out in a large area, and his shot-blocking. Walton is a slightly bettter shot-blocker than Garnett showed, but at their peaks we're talking a small margin (5% block % for Walton '77 and 4% for Garnett '04). Meanwhile, Garnett had the higher steal percentage (2.0% vs 1.3%) and his horizontal defensive abilities are unmatched in this generation. He is openly acknowledged as the best pick-and-roll defender of this generation, he can and did switch off onto point guards when needed without issue, and at his peak he routinely guarded excellent wings for entire games if needed (KG famously shut down TMac during TMac's historic 2003 season).

Again, in this area that is the biggest feather in Walton's cap, is there any separation in his favor over Garnett? Is there any way that anyone can confidently say that he was a better defender?

Garnett's strengths: I look forward to rebuttals, but as far as I can tell KG at worst plays Walton to a stand still skill-set wise in the two absolute biggest strength-areas that Walton has: team defense and team offense. But on the other hand, Garnett is clearly a better scorer than Walton. Garnett showed the ability to score at higher volumes on similar efficiency. Garnett's scoring was also more versatile than Walton's, with a consistent jumper out to 20 feet that supplemented the excellent post skills that he could call upon at need.

Also, it goes without question that at their peaks Garnett was much more durable and available to play big minutes than Walton. KG played about 1000 more minutes in 2004 than Walton in 1977, and it wasn't all missed games. KG played about 5 more minutes per game in both the regular and the post season than Walton did. While I recognize that the ability to be there at the end is the biggest point, and Walton was there at the end, there is something to be said about the reliability of knowing that peak KG would be on the court every night while you didn't have that with Walton. And more importantly, the fact that Garnett could play more on a game-to-game basis is a key because both are per-minute giants, so every extra minute Garnett gives you is massive.

Leadership intangibles: This is even more murky than defense so you can't necessarily judge entirely on this, but Garnett is openly acknowledged as one of the best leaders of this generation. His focus on winning has been known to change the culture of two franchises. His fanaticism in practice has done the same. And his emphasis on team-over-all is also note-worthy. Again, I welcome rebuttals, but my understanding and reading on Walton's off-court leadership intangibles is that it isn't quite the strength for him that it is for Garnett.

Summary: Peak Garnett seems to have all of the same strengths as peak Walton, to a very similar degree. But on top of Walton's strengths, KG is also a better and more versatile scorer, is better at spacing the floor, is more athletically gifted, has more stamina and ability to play consistent big minutes, and may have a leadership/intangibles advantage if that's something that you want to subscribe in. There's a phenomenon called an "identical twin scenario", as from this quote:

This is a crucial point for me. I've talked before about the identical twin scenario - I don't want to mistakenly conclude one identical twin is better than the other because of his situation. If Walton is giving more lift to his team than Kareem, but Kareem has all Walton's skills and then some, then Kareem's my clear choice.

From what I can tell, Walton vs KG at their peaks is EXACTLY the identical twin scenario, with the only exception that we don't actually know that Walton was giving more lift to his team than Garnett. KG may have been giving similar lift, he has all of Walton's skills and then some, and he was the much more reliable player. So...why would Walton's peak be rated higher?

[E-Balla]

What does citing the stats of one series have to do with the general skill-set of a player? I fail to see your point here.

Well read the whole post like the part where the numbers of Hakeem and Robinson vs many 90s centers were put up and Hakeem was better. I would say compared to other ATGs (like Hakeem in that post) his man defense is lacking.

You can't seriously use a sample size of 6 games and draw this conclusion based on it. If you see weaknesses regarding his man-defense I'm all ears but the stats you provided basically tell us nothing. Unless we can declare Magic an insufficient playmaker based on a couple of games he struggled to create, Curry a human 3pt-shooter based on his series against Memphis or Russell a not-so-dominant rebounder looking at a relatively weak stretch of games. And I'm sure nobody would buy these arguments.

I looked at the posts you quoted and what I saw was mostly comparisons between Robinson and Hakeem and further some assertions. Hakeem was an outstandig man-defender, we don't need to argue about that, but did I miss the part where it was unveiled that man-defense was a weakness of Robinson? Because this is what you basically wrote: man-defense as a weakness. It's not about whether there is another player superior in this regard or not. This would be a completely different stance.

Read the post I quoted and what I've said. You're arguing something no one said or implied in context.

[drza]

Never sure what my home life will be like, so I'm going to go ahead and get my vote in now just in case (though I do hope to be around more before the thread closes):

Vote

1) 2004 Garnett

2) 1965 Bill Russell

3) 1987 Magic Johnson

Garnett rationale (from previous vote posts): I wrote a book about Garnett already in the #5 thread ( viewtopic.php?p=44647718#p44647718 ), so I'll keep this brief.

Spoiler:

I think that Garnett peaked with the best argument of any player of all-time to be both the best offensive and best defensive player in the league at the same time. He contributed in SO many ways that his impact was uniformly massive, in both the regular season and the playoffs, on a year-to-year basis. He was an excellent iso-scorer and 1-on-1 defensive player...but much more importantly, he was one of the best "help offense" and "help defense" big men of all time.

Hakeem is a better iso scorer, but Garnett's contributions made an across-the-board impact that was at least as large with a style that was much more portable and scaleable. Robinson and Duncan are probably the two players most similar to Garnett, most closely able to replicate the impact. Based on the regular season on/off +/- numbers we have, Robinson in the regular season is the closest thing we have on record to peak KG and peak Cavs Lebron. While I don't kill him for his postseason scoring difficulties (if anyone has championed the over-use we tend to put on scoring efficiency when making evaluations, it's me), I do note that if '95 Robinson isn't scoring up to par he has less that he can contribute in other aspects of offense to maintain his impact. With Garnett, even if his scoring efficiency goes down, he's still able to provide the same defense warping/spacing and offense initiation to keep his impact up. This gives him an edge on Robinson in my book.

Russell gets my 2nd vote. I'm still not convinced that peak Russell shouldn't already have been voted in. His impact was defense-centric, but it was MASSIVE. And portable. And scaleable. And I think he had both the physical and (more importantly) the mental tools to modify his game to fit the circumstances, so I believe his impact in 2015 would be very similar to what it was in 1965...still at the top of the league.

Third, I decided to go with Magic. Robinson or Walton would be the closest stylistic votes to my 1-2, but I think Magic is a nice symmetrical vote to Russell. He is, in my opinion, arguably the best offensive player of all-time. He's also an incredible mismatch, which works much more to his favor than to his detriment. He had the ability to completely control his team offensively from multiple different locations on the floor, which just gave him a huge number of ways to create his huge offensive impact. In +/- studies, on offense, floor generals always tend to have higher offensive impacts than the boxscores would suggest...but in Magic's case, the boxscores already suggested that his offensive production was huge. His rebounding and post-game also gives a team plenty of options for how to build around him...big men could be chosen who were more either stretch-4 or pure defensive types (think Theo Ratliff or Serge Ibaka) that weren't necessarily good rebounders and/or didn't necessarily have a good post game on offense. In all, he was just a brilliant offensive player whose offensive impact may be the closest analog that we have to Russell's defensive impact.

HM: Robinson, Bird, Walton, Oscar, Dr. J

[70sFan]

How would you compare KG and Walton guys?
The more I think about it, the more I'm positive about Walton over KG and Moses. Can someone tell me how good Walton was defensively? I know that he was all time great defender from what I've seen/read, but was he on KG level or not?

I'm not sure how I feel about Garnett and Walton, anymore (I'd probably lean towards KG, but it's extremely close to me, as is Robinson vs Walton and Robinson vs Garnett), but yeah, I think Walton was on KG's level defensively, if we are talking about '77 Walton and '04 KG (2004 wasn't Garnett's best defensive season, 2008 was, but obviously he was a better overall player in '04). Walton was a better shotblocker and rim protector, plus a marginally better defensive rebounder (but they're extremely close in the latter), while Garnett was more mobile, and he could guard more positions effectively. Walton was pretty mobile, too, and if you watch the '77 finals, you can see him being able to stay in front of Dr. J about 15 feet away from the basket a few times. KG had a bit quicker hands in terms of being able to intercept or steal the ball. He was also more vocal and intense, although Walton was a damn good defensive coordinator, too.

I find it hard to decide who was better defensively between Garnett and Walton, but I'd give KG the edge on offense. Better overall shooter (clearly), better ball-handler, at least as good of a playmaker. Walton had a decent mid-range J, but KG was elite in this regard. I'd give Walton the edge as an inside scorer, though. He had a nice jump hook, and an excellent touch around the rim. That's still not enough to make up for the advantages that Garnett has in those other areas on offense, though.

Garnett looks better based on advanced metrics, too.

So, ultimately, I'd lean KG, but you can't really go wrong with Walton, either (just to illustrate how close it is, in my opinion - I had Garnett at 12, Robinson at 13 and Walton at 14 on my peaks list before the project).

Nice, thanks.
I'm not sure about KG being clearly better offensive player. Walton is similar for me to Magic - when I watch him I always see player with huge impact, doing small things really well. He could not score any points and he still would be the best offensive player of the team. His passing skills are unmatched for a bigman (well, maybe Sabonis is close). That's what I see watching him. I know, eye-test isn't the best method, but it's still important.
On the other hand, altough Walton was very skilled scorer, he couldn't handle this bad Minny teams on offense. They would need more scoring. In this aspect KG is clearly better - volume scoring. Right now I have KG over him, mainly because of stats. Based on eye-test, I may choose Walton, but I want to be as objective as I can.

[Joao Saraiva]

I try not to have too much of a "winning bias", but the playoffs are the most important part of the season and I do have an extremely difficult time ranking players who didn't make at least a two round playoff appearance. Guys like Westbrook '15, Wade '09, Tmac '03 amongst others. Interested in hearing from others how they view these types of seasons.

I understand the trouble. However, I usually ask myself these questions:
- Did the guy take a team to the best seed he could in the RS and exceded expectations? (Kobe 06 or T-Mac 03 took the team as far as they could I think. Not many guys could have done better)
- Did he play well in the playoffs or did he drop his production? (Dwight played at very high level in 2011 and lost in the 1st round. I won't fault him for the outcome of the series)
- Did he have the best approach possible given the team context? (ex: Iverson shot a lot and his ts% was low. But the way I see it, I understand his style of paly since Philadelphia had no other capable shot creators. Same for LeBron 15).

[trex_8063]

Seriously not one weakness? Not one?

Hakeem 94 Finals vs Ewing: 43.0 mpg, 26.9 ppg, 1.7 orpg, 3.6 apg, 3.6 topg, 55.6 TS%, 105 ORTG

Hakeem 95 Finals vs young Shaq: 44.8 mpg, 32.8 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.5 apg, 2.8 topg, 51.4 TS%, 107 ORTG

Hakeem 95 WCF vs Robinson: 43.5 mpg, 35.3 ppg, 2.8 orpg, 5.0 apg, 4.1 topg, 59.0 TS%, 111 ORTG

Of course David wasn't bad (as you can see none of them really guarded Hakeem well) but he isn't at the defensive standard of some of the other ATGs one on one.

What does citing the stats of one series have to do with the general skill-set of a player? I fail to see your point here.

Well read the whole post like the part where the numbers of Hakeem and Robinson vs many 90s centers were put up and Hakeem was better. I would say compared to other ATGs (like Hakeem in that post) his man defense is lacking.

I'm gonna harp on this again, but look at the 6 rs games played between Robinson and Hakeem in '95:

1st meeting
Hakeem - 20 pts, 8 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 5 blk, 3 tov, 40.2% TS, 79 ORtg/103 DRtg (-24)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 2 blk, 1 tov, 67.6% TS, 138 ORtg/94 DRtg (+44)
Result: Spurs win

2nd meeting
Hakeem - 19 pts, 10 reb, 0 ast, 2 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 45.8% TS, 82 ORtg/91 DRtg (-9)
David - 18 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 48.0% TS, 89 ORtg/96 DRtg (-7)
Result: Spurs win

3rd meeting
Hakeem - 47 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 7 tov, 61.7% TS, 105 ORtg/101 DRtg (+4)
David - 23 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 5 stl, 0 blk, 3 tov, 45.3% TS, 92 ORtg/99 DRtg (-7)
Result: Rockets win

4th meeting
Hakeem - 36 pts, 14 reb, 2 ast, 3 stl, 4 blk, 6 tov, 49.1% TS, 98 ORtg/106 DRtg (-8)
David - 25 pts, 9 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 3 tov, 55.5% TS, 113 ORtg/103 DRtg (+10)
Result: Spurs win

5th meeting
Hakeem - 30 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 0 stl, 3 blk, 3 tov, 48.1% TS, 100 ORtg/112 DRtg (-12)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 2 blk, 9 tov, 37.9% TS, 74 ORtg/102 DRtg (-28)
Result: Spurs win

6th meeting
Hakeem - 25 pts, 6 reb, 3 ast, 0 stl, 2 blk, 4 tov, 47.7% TS, 94 ORtg/136 DRtg (-42)
David - 31 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 3 blk, 2 tov, 68.8% TS, 148 ORtg/105 DRtg (+43)
Result: Spurs win

So in 6 meetings, Robinson had the better game in 3-4 of them (vs. only 2 for Olajuwon).
Overall in these six games:
Hakeem - 29.5 pts, 9.7 reb, 2.8 ast, 1.3 stl, 3.5 blk, 4.5 tov, 49.8% TS
93 ORtg/108.2 DRtg (-15.2)
David - 22.2 pts, 10.3 reb, 3.3 ast, 2.2 stl, 2.8 blk, 3.7 tov, 52.7% TS
109 ORtg/99.8 DRtg (+9.2)
Spurs win rs series 5-1.


Look at their five meetings in the '94 rs:
1st meeting
Hakeem - 21 pts, 10 reb, 6 ast, 2 stl, 2 blk, 3 tov, 59.5% TS, 114 ORtg/94 DRtg (+20)
David - 20 pts, 13 reb, 7 ast, 6 stl, 0 blk, 2 tov, 39.6% TS, 103 ORtg/90 DRtg (+13)
Result: Rockets win
Verdict: small edge to Olajuwon

2nd meeting
Hakeem - 28 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 1 tov, 54.9% TS, 118 ORtg/117 DRtg (+1)
David - 21 pts, 12 reb, 6 ast, 0 stl, 5 blk, 4 tov, 66.3% TS, 119 ORtg/97 DRtg (+22)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: tiny edge to Robinson

3rd meeting
Hakeem - 27 pts, 18 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 5 blk, 4 tov, 50.9% TS, 111 ORtg/104 DRtg (+7)
David - 40 pts, 16 reb, 7 ast, 2 stl, 4 blk, 5 tov, 62.2% TS, 119 ORtg/97 DRtg (+22)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: clear (decent sized) edge to Robinson

4th meeting
Hakeem - 20 pts, 13 reb, 7 ast, 1 stl, 2 blk, 1 tov, 52.4% TS, 120 ORtg/91 DRtg (+29)
David - 30 pts, 12 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 8 tov, 64.4% TS, 102 ORtg/106 DRtg (-4)
Result: Rockets win
Verdict: clear edge to Olajuwon

5th meeting
Hakeem - 25 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 5 blk, 2 tov, 36.5% TS, 84 ORtg/97 DRtg (-13)
David - 22 pts, 18 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 3 tov, 37.6% TS, 93 ORtg/72 DRtg (+21)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: clear edge to Robinson

Overall avg of '94 head-to-heads
Hakeem - 24.2 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, 1.2 spg, 3.0 bpg, 2.2 topg, 43.5% eFG, 49.2% TS, 109.4 ORtg/100.6 DRtg (+8.8) (2W-3L)
David - 26.6 ppg, 14.2 rpg, 5.4 apg, 2.2 spg, 3.0 bpg, 4.4 topg, 42.9% eFG, 52.8% TS, 107.2 ORtg/92.4 DRtg (+14.8) (3W-2L)


Unless we're going to play the "playoffs is the only time that matters" card (which I don't have an answer for.....I don't agree with it, but I don't have an answer), the whole "Hakeem always outplayed his elite-level peers" narrative is simply untrue.

[trex_8063]

Does anyone have the with/without team ORtg and DRtg (maybe SRS, too) for the '77 and '78 Blazers (with/without Walton, that is)?

I have the with/without records, and can do the rest of the work myself, too; was just hoping someone could save me the trouble.

[theonlyclutch]

Getting my vote in before the deadline:

Ballot 1: 1996 David Robinson

Reasons here: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1406391&p=44635030#p44635030

Ballot 2: 2004 Kevin Garnett

A book and a half has been written about the beneficial things that Kevin Garnett does on both sides of the ball that makes his team better. 2004 happens to be his team peak in Minn, which coincides pretty clearly with his boxscore production peak, with all-round versatility that makes him ridiculously portable for a superstar.

Ballot 3: 1987 Magic Johnson

Pretty much the GOAT PG season, Magic led a team to awesome offensive heights, with Kareem having pretty much fallen off a cliff at this point. At that point in his career, Magic had a jumper as a threat, which enabled him to be more resilient as an offensive threat, and yet was still able to keep his trademark efficiency very much intact, that's a very rare trait to see, especially without use of the 3..

[drza]

Does anyone have the with/without team ORtg and DRtg (maybe SRS, too) for the '77 and '78 Blazers (with/without Walton, that is)?

I have the with/without records, and can do the rest of the work myself, too; was just hoping someone could save me the trouble.

This isn't broken down into offense and defense, so not sure if it helps you, but this is the one I remember off the top of my head. I've also been reading a bunch of old stuff lately, and I know someone broke it down by offense and defense (because there was controversy that a lot of Walton's impact was tied to offense, when folks expected it to be more defense). But I can't remember off the top of my head, the way I did this one

77-78: Walton's impact versus Kareem's impact.

Sort of a crude on/off type of measure, but when players miss large chunks of time like Walton and Kareem (in 78) it gives us a fairly interesting interesting picture of their value. Obviously there are potential confounds like other injuries, strategy changes, schedule, etc. This is raw data so pace isn't adjusted for either. Nonetheless, thought this data was pretty darn interesting from this period:

Portland 1977:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   43-21    113.4    105.1       +8.3
W/O Walton    6-12     105.7    110.0       -4.3       0.26      61%
Total Difference                            +12.6


Los Angeles 78:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Kareem   37-24    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    8-13     105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03      48%
Total Difference                            +5.7


Walton's game on 12/30 and Kareem's season opener counted as "missed" games because they both played only a few minutes. Of course, there's more Walton data, as he went on to miss a comparable chunk of time in 1978 as well.

Portland 1978:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   48-10    110.4    100.4       +10.0
W/O Walton    10-14     101.0    104.3       -3.3      -0.07     58%
Total Difference                            +13.3


Now, one major difference between 77 and 78 in Portland was Lloyd Neal's play off the bench. Praised by commentators and writers, he actually led the 78 team in pts/36, posted a nice .179 WS/48 line, and had 31 points filling in for Walton in the first game he missed (a 111-106 win at Detroit). And still the profound difference is still there without Walton.

If we combine the two seasons and pro-rate the records to 82-games:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS   %Road Games
With Walton   61-21    112.0    102.9       +9.1
W/O Walton    31-51    103.0    106.7       -3.7       0.07     60%
Total Difference                            +12.6
         
With Kareem   52-30    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    31-51    105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03     48%
Total Difference                            +5.7



[drza]

Does anyone have the with/without team ORtg and DRtg (maybe SRS, too) for the '77 and '78 Blazers (with/without Walton, that is)?

I have the with/without records, and can do the rest of the work myself, too; was just hoping someone could save me the trouble.

Alright, found some more on SRS and stuff:

Spoiler:

77-78: Walton's impact versus Kareem's impact.

Sort of a crude on/off type of measure, but when players miss large chunks of time like Walton and Kareem (in 78) it gives us a fairly interesting interesting picture of their value. Obviously there are potential confounds like other injuries, strategy changes, schedule, etc. This is raw data so pace isn't adjusted for either. Nonetheless, thought this data was pretty darn interesting from this period:

Portland 1977:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   43-21    113.4    105.1       +8.3
W/O Walton    6-12     105.7    110.0       -4.3       0.26      61%
Total Difference                            +12.6


Los Angeles 78:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Kareem   37-24    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    8-13     105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03      48%
Total Difference                            +5.7


Walton's game on 12/30 and Kareem's season opener counted as "missed" games because they both played only a few minutes. Of course, there's more Walton data, as he went on to miss a comparable chunk of time in 1978 as well.

Portland 1978:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   48-10    110.4    100.4       +10.0
W/O Walton    10-14     101.0    104.3       -3.3      -0.07     58%
Total Difference                            +13.3


Now, one major difference between 77 and 78 in Portland was Lloyd Neal's play off the bench. Praised by commentators and writers, he actually led the 78 team in pts/36, posted a nice .179 WS/48 line, and had 31 points filling in for Walton in the first game he missed (a 111-106 win at Detroit). And still the profound difference is still there without Walton.

If we combine the two seasons and pro-rate the records to 82-games:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS   %Road Games
With Walton   61-21    112.0    102.9       +9.1
W/O Walton    31-51    103.0    106.7       -3.7       0.07     60%
Total Difference                            +12.6
         
With Kareem   52-30    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    31-51    105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03     48%
Total Difference                            +5.7



Im looking at this thread and regret not being here at the time... this is such an amazing post elgee.

what makes me extremely impressed by Walton is how poor Blazers played without him.

year - SRS
73 - -5.68
74 - -4.30
75 - 0.28 (Walton 35 games)
76 - -1.12 (51 games)
77 - 5.39 (65 games)
78 - 5.92 (58 games)
79 - 1.12 (missed season)
80 - -0.87 (14 games injured)

his 2nd season was a down year, low shotblocking numbers, inefficient, probably he was dealing with injured as usual.

but aside from that ? comes to garbage team in 75 and makes them competitive playing 35 games ? then in 77 he's finally healthy and Portland's automatically 5.4 SRS (best in the league) ? and then MVP year with 5.9 SRS ? damn.

but now with Elgee's post I can fully understand why he was considered as equivalent to prime Kareem. maybe he didn't post great statline and wasn't a really good iso scorer, but he did all the little things. deflections, screens, outlet passing, play calling, you name it.

let's put it in some perspective. 77 Blazers with healthy Walton were ~8 SRS team. that's pretty much all time dominant... and they did that in a league where everyone was coasting around .500, which makes it even more impressive. then they went to the playoffs and won with by margin of victory of +4.4. that's while playing against top3 teams in the league: Issel-Bobby Jones-Thompson Nuggets, Kareem's Lakers and all time talented Sixers with Dr J, McGinnis, Doug Collins, Dawkins etc. Blazers had a playoff record 14-5. damn.

78 Blazers were 10 SRS team with healthy Walton. basically top3 all time along with Bucks 71 and Bulls 96. those two seasons combined + playoffs, Blazers with healthy Walton were 105-36... and about 9 SRS.

without healthy Walton 77 Blazers were 6-12, 10-14 in 78 RS and 2-4 in the 78 playoffs. combined 18-30 record and -3.5 SRS.

then 79 Blazers (no Walton at all) had 1.1 SRS after they brought Tom Owens (18/9/4/55%) and Mychal Thompson (15/8/2/49%). Walton's impact was GOAT like.

semi healthy Walton (say... half of each RS and full playoffs) would've had a 3-peat easily by 1980. now I know why they say he'd have been a top10 player easily. he really had the potential to be the GOAT. what he did in 77 and 78 was basically taking a mediocre team and making them all timers.

[E-Balla]

What does citing the stats of one series have to do with the general skill-set of a player? I fail to see your point here.

Well read the whole post like the part where the numbers of Hakeem and Robinson vs many 90s centers were put up and Hakeem was better. I would say compared to other ATGs (like Hakeem in that post) his man defense is lacking.

I'm gonna harp on this again, but look at the 6 rs games played between Robinson and Hakeem in '95:

1st meeting
Hakeem - 20 pts, 8 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 5 blk, 3 tov, 40.2% TS, 79 ORtg/103 DRtg (-24)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 2 blk, 1 tov, 67.6% TS, 138 ORtg/94 DRtg (+44)
Result: Spurs win

2nd meeting
Hakeem - 19 pts, 10 reb, 0 ast, 2 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 45.8% TS, 82 ORtg/91 DRtg (-9)
David - 18 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 48.0% TS, 89 ORtg/96 DRtg (-7)
Result: Spurs win

3rd meeting
Hakeem - 47 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 7 tov, 61.7% TS, 105 ORtg/101 DRtg (+4)
David - 23 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 5 stl, 0 blk, 3 tov, 45.3% TS, 92 ORtg/99 DRtg (-7)
Result: Rockets win

4th meeting
Hakeem - 36 pts, 14 reb, 2 ast, 3 stl, 4 blk, 6 tov, 49.1% TS, 98 ORtg/106 DRtg (-8)
David - 25 pts, 9 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 3 tov, 55.5% TS, 113 ORtg/103 DRtg (+10)
Result: Spurs win

5th meeting
Hakeem - 30 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 0 stl, 3 blk, 3 tov, 48.1% TS, 100 ORtg/112 DRtg (-12)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 2 blk, 9 tov, 37.9% TS, 74 ORtg/102 DRtg (-28)
Result: Spurs win

6th meeting
Hakeem - 25 pts, 6 reb, 3 ast, 0 stl, 2 blk, 4 tov, 47.7% TS, 94 ORtg/136 DRtg (-42)
David - 31 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 3 blk, 2 tov, 68.8% TS, 148 ORtg/105 DRtg (+43)
Result: Spurs win

So in 6 meetings, Robinson had the better game in 3-4 of them (vs. only 2 for Olajuwon).
Overall in these six games:
Hakeem - 29.5 pts, 9.7 reb, 2.8 ast, 1.3 stl, 3.5 blk, 4.5 tov, 49.8% TS
93 ORtg/108.2 DRtg (-15.2)
David - 22.2 pts, 10.3 reb, 3.3 ast, 2.2 stl, 2.8 blk, 3.7 tov, 52.7% TS
109 ORtg/99.8 DRtg (+9.2)
Spurs win rs series 5-1.


Look at their five meetings in the '94 rs:
1st meeting
Hakeem - 21 pts, 10 reb, 6 ast, 2 stl, 2 blk, 3 tov, 59.5% TS, 114 ORtg/94 DRtg (+20)
David - 20 pts, 13 reb, 7 ast, 6 stl, 0 blk, 2 tov, 39.6% TS, 103 ORtg/90 DRtg (+13)
Result: Rockets win
Verdict: small edge to Olajuwon

2nd meeting
Hakeem - 28 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 1 tov, 54.9% TS, 118 ORtg/117 DRtg (+1)
David - 21 pts, 12 reb, 6 ast, 0 stl, 5 blk, 4 tov, 66.3% TS, 119 ORtg/97 DRtg (+22)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: tiny edge to Robinson

3rd meeting
Hakeem - 27 pts, 18 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 5 blk, 4 tov, 50.9% TS, 111 ORtg/104 DRtg (+7)
David - 40 pts, 16 reb, 7 ast, 2 stl, 4 blk, 5 tov, 62.2% TS, 119 ORtg/97 DRtg (+22)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: clear (decent sized) edge to Robinson

4th meeting
Hakeem - 20 pts, 13 reb, 7 ast, 1 stl, 2 blk, 1 tov, 52.4% TS, 120 ORtg/91 DRtg (+29)
David - 30 pts, 12 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 8 tov, 64.4% TS, 102 ORtg/106 DRtg (-4)
Result: Rockets win
Verdict: clear edge to Olajuwon

5th meeting
Hakeem - 25 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 5 blk, 2 tov, 36.5% TS, 84 ORtg/97 DRtg (-13)
David - 22 pts, 18 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 3 tov, 37.6% TS, 93 ORtg/72 DRtg (+21)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: clear edge to Robinson

Overall avg of '94 head-to-heads
Hakeem - 24.2 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, 1.2 spg, 3.0 bpg, 2.2 topg, 43.5% eFG, 49.2% TS, 109.4 ORtg/100.6 DRtg (+8.8) (2W-3L)
David - 26.6 ppg, 14.2 rpg, 5.4 apg, 2.2 spg, 3.0 bpg, 4.4 topg, 42.9% eFG, 52.8% TS, 107.2 ORtg/92.4 DRtg (+14.8) (3W-2L)


Unless we're going to play the "playoffs is the only time that matters" card (which I don't have an answer for.....I don't agree with it, but I don't have an answer), the whole "Hakeem always outplayed his elite-level peers" narrative is simply untrue.

Well that's not what I said and it has nothing to do with my post. The bolded part of the post I quoted specifically mentioned Robinson's post defense as not being worse than other ATGs. To that I posted those postseason numbers and another very long post partially comparing Hakeem and Robinson in one on one matchups in an attempt to show how I feel about Robinson defensively. I'll repost it again here since as the last part in a long spoiler it seems like many people aren't reading/noticing it:

Man defense seems to be the reason why people rate Hakeem above Robinson on defense. I don’t know if this is the truth or a copout response that is used because it’s hard to prove one way or the other. So I tried my best to answer my own question here.

From 1990-95 these were the top 8 scoring Centers in the NBA who played more than 200 games during this span (Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Alonzo, Daugherty, Seikaly, and Smits). These are some of their offensive numbers…

Code: Select all

SO: 27.3 PPG, .583 FG%, 3.0 TOV, 38.2 MPG
DR: 25.7 PPG, .527 FG%, 3.0 TOV, 38.3 MPG
PE: 25.3 PPG, .515 FG%, 3.2 TOV, 37.8 MPG
HO: 24.9 PPG, .515 FG%, 3.3 TOV, 38.9 MPG
AM: 21.3 PPG, .512 FG%, 3.1 TOV, 35.4 MPG
BD: 19.9 PPG, .535 FG%, 2.5 TOV, 37.2 MPG
SE: 15.9 PPG, .490 FG%, 2.9 TOV, 33.5 MPG (Seikaly)
SM: 14.7 PPG, .514 FG%, 1.8 TOV, 26.5 MPG (Smits)

These were the NBA Centers who played big minutes and were bigtime scoring options for their teams during 1990-95. So I took a look at both Hakeem and Robinson’s h2h numbers against these players during 90-95 to see how much they limited them.

Vs. Admiral / Vs. Dream
SO: 25.2 PPG -- .513 FG% -- 4.0 TOV -- 38.3 MPG (6 G)
SO: 20.7 PPG -- .557 FG% -- 2.8 TOV -- 40.3 MPG (6 G)
PE: 23.0 PPG -- .456 FG% -- 3.9 TOV -- 38.1 MPG (11 G)
PE: 24.1 PPG -- .441 FG% -- 3.1 TOV -- 38.6 MPG (12 G)
AM: 18.7 PPG -- .463 FG% -- 2.7 TOV -- 34.2 MPG (6 G)
AM: 15.0 PPG -- .464 FG% -- 4.6 TOV -- 36.2 MPG (5 G)
BD: 19.2 PPG -- .566 FG% -- 3.0 TOV -- 33.5 MPG (6 G)
BD: 14.4 PPG -- .509 FG% -- 1.8 TOV -- 34.2 MPG (5 G)
SE: 17.7 PPG -- .489 FG% -- 2.3 TOV -- 33.9 MPG (10 G)
SE: 13.3 PPG -- .487 FG% -- 3.7 TOV -- 33.4 MPG (11 G)
SM: 13.5 PPG -- .493 FG% -- 1.3 TOV -- 26.0 MPG (12 G)
SM: 10.7 PPG -- .516 FG% -- 2.0 TOV -- 23.1 MPG (10 G)

So what do you guys think about those numbers? Obviously this isn’t a perfect method as this doesn’t account for a whole bunch of things. There’s no such thing as one on one in the NBA, so any stats in an individual head to head matchup should be taken with a grain of salt. But if there is one position in the NBA where h2h stats have the most to do with individual play, it would be the Center position. We know that Hakeem and D-Rob guarded Centers 90% of the time, and we know that they were good enough to guard them in single coverage pretty much all the time as well (outside of Shaq and each other at times). So I think it is reasonable to assume that the numbers these opposing big men posted were primarily when they were being defended by Dream and Admiral. On to the actual results…

Looking at these numbers from these opposing bigs, the one thing that does jump out at you is the PPG they averaged. Outside of Ewing, every other big scored way less against Hakeem than they did Robinson. The FG%, TOV’s, and MP are roughly identical but Hakeem seems to have definitely had a greater impact on volume scoring than Robinson did. Could this be because of better general team defense, or did Hakeem just make it harder to get good looks inside? Despite D-Rob’s cartoon-like upper body, Hakeem did have the greater base strength based on his wider body and stronger legs, maybe this allowed him to keep the deep low post position easier than Robinson. No matter what the reason was, it’s a fact that opposing volume scoring centers found it easier to score in volume against Robinson. Here are the total numbers of these guys vs. Robinson and Hakeem without taking into account the individual games played (for example Shaq’s 6 G count the same as Ewing’s 11). And the total numbers of these 6 players vs. the entire league using the same method…

Vs. Admiral / Vs. Dream / Vs. NBA
20.7 PPG, .525 FG%, 2.8 TOV, 34.8 MPG
19.6 PPG, .497 FG%, 2.9 TOV, 34.0 MPG
16.4 PPG .496 FG%, 3.0 TOV, 34.3 MPG

So while these numbers suggest that Hakeem was a better man defender, it also suggests that the Admiral wasn’t far off. Sure the difference in volume scoring is notable, but Robinson held opponents to the same FG% and forced them into the same amount of turnovers. And like I mentioned above, he held Hakeem to a low FG% in h2h matchups as well. So I think it’s pretty obvious that Robinson was at the very least a very good individual man defender. But I think based on these stats and the video I’ve seen, Hakeem’s man defense was slightly better. And I think this also gives Hakeem the edge when it comes to who the better overall defender was.

Saying his man defense wasn't a weakness compared to other ATGs isn't accurate at all IMO. He's very good but compared to guys like Shaq (who's defensive numbers we have for later in his career) and Ewing who all played in Robinson's era and were elite post defenders he trailed behind as a man defender. He was more Zo than Shaq defensively in the post.

[trex_8063]

1st ballot: David Robinson '95 (I think; though '94 and '96 are both amazing seasons, too)
Robinson, to me, is the GOAT defensive player (or at least the GOAT not named Bill Russell). As far as in-era defensive dominance, no one reaches what Bill Russell did....no one. But the thing is, I don't think he could exert that level of dominance in a later era (NOTE: although I freely admit that that is in part due to the fact that everyone to come after has had the Bill Russell Blueprint to work from), and I further think Robinson has the ability to be just as defensively dominant as Russell in the 1950's/60's (if he'd have anywhere near the ingenuity, anyway).
One other thing about Robinson's defense that sort of reminds my of Russell is the manner in which he blocks shots: ever notice how often he keeps the ball in play? Often even tipping it toward teammates? Also a top-notch pnr defender (has a serious edge on Olajuwon in this regard, imo), which would come in quite handy in today's league.

Combine that with being GOAT-level as far as a running and transition-finishing center (amazing finisher in general), having an outstanding face-up game, decent range, excellent foul-draw rate and being the best FT-shooting center we've discussed so far (or at least the best that has received any ballots thus far).
Dr Spaceman can provide the rest of the justification (he already has).


2nd ballot: Kevin Garnett '04
Splittin' hairs between my first and second ballots, fwiw.
While I don't agree with drza regarding Garnett's overall offensive potential, he's clearly quite a bit more than what his biggest critics make him out to be offensively. The very slow pace of the '04 TWolves (89.0) belays his production somewhat, too.
Per 100 possessions: 33.2 pts, 6.8 ast, 3.5 tov; 54.7% TS (+3.10% rTS), 112 ORtg (+9.1 to league avg) while playing 39.4 mpg; and anchoring the 5th best offense in the league (+3.0 to league avg). His responsibilities often even included advancing the ball up-court in sort of a point-forward role.

Meanwhile, he was netting (per 100 possessions): 19.0 reb, 2.0 stl, 3.0 blk, playing superb pnr D, excellent low-post D, dictating the half-court defense, etc.....ultimately earning (not just receiving) All-Defensive 1st Team.

A bit of a dip offensively in the playoffs where he faced:
1st rd: -0.2 rDRTG Nuggets team featuring Nene and Marcus Camby in the post.
2nd rd: an admittedly weak (+2.0 rDRTG) Kings team
WCF: -1.6 rDRTG Lakers team, where was being mostly guarded by a very capable Karl Malone

Cassell got injured and missed two games in the WCF. For all people criticize his lack of playoff success in Minnesota, he may have been a Cassell injury away from taking them to the finals for the first time (with a primary supporting cast of Sam Cassell, 33-year-old Latrell Sprewell, Trenton Hassell, Fred Hoiberg, Wally Szczerbiak, Mark Madsen, and Michael Olowakandi). Bear in mind this was (perhaps by far) the BEST supporting cast he saw in Minnesota, too.

drza's pretty well covered the rest. As far as eye-test is concerned, I remember being pretty convinced that he was handily the best player in the league that year.


3rd ballot: Magic Johnson '87
I couldn't find enough of a reason to alter my third pick. Magic is probably the GOAT transition passer, and certainly one of the best half-court passers ever (maybe GOAT there, too??). He just seemed to see angles others didn't.
Arguably the GOAT rebounding PG (Kidd is the only other with a good case, imo), and an amazing scorer in his own right.
After the reins to the team had definitively been turned over to Magic, he had his biggest individual statistical year while leading a cast containing prime versions of James Worthy, Byron Scott, Michael Cooper, and Kurt Rambis, post-prime Kareem, and 2nd-year AC Green to a fairly historic offense (+7.4 to league avg, which is the 6th-best on record, as far as I can tell---->incidentally, I was interested to find that one of the five ahead of them was the '98 Jazz at +7.7).
Per 100 possessions that year, Magic was going for 31.1 pts @ 60.2% TS (+6.4% rTS), along with 8.2 reb and 15.9 ast (with a 3.26 ast:TO ratio).
In the playoffs per 100 possessions (championship run): 28.1 pts @ 60.7% TS, 10.0 reb, 15.7 ast (with 4.29 ast:TO ratio). Went for 26.2 ppg/8.0 rpg/13.0 apg/2.2 topg @ 59.0% TS in the finals .
That's an amazing year.

HM's: Oscar, Bird, Walton.