RealGM Top 100 List 2017: #12

[JoeMalburg]

I think it's possible some of us are spending too much time admiring the groceries in a given players cart and not enough time considering how the food turned out.

Kevin Garnett had all the tools to do almost anything you could ask in any given possession on both ends of the floor.

Karl Malone has the numbers and accolades to be looked at as a candidate for the top 10 all-time.

A peak Shaq or Wilt, dialed in and in shape, absolutely unstoppable.

But we'll go in circles with that approach. We have too much information, there is always a rebuttal, a Devils advocate, always a "yeah but".

I think it's more useful to look past the specific strengths and weaknesses in a players game and instead focus on how much success they had given the circumstances they had to work with.

That explains my support of Mikan this round, but moreover I think it simplifies a complex pursuit. There is great value in the wealth of knowledge and analytical ability here, but once we are splitting hairs between guys we rank 1,2 or maybe 10 spots apart, I think it's better to focus on what happened than what could have if...

[Purch]

It depends, I think the most efficent way to know how a player plays defense is simply to watch it. However, if you're gonna make the asinine claim that Dirk was an equal defender to Malone, you need to explain why everything points towards the opposite.

I'm not saying that I would agree with it, but it's certainly not an asisine claim. It's not like he's comparing Dirk's defense to Russell's. Malone was no defensive anchor by any means. The +/- that we have on him (late prime) paints him as a mediocre to good defender depending on the year. Dirk is painted as a good defender overall. Of course one would expect Malone's defense to be better in earlier years, but by how much? Every great defender we have data for is posting great +/- scores even past their primes (Garnett, Duncan, Mutombo, Robinson, Wallace...); prime Malone seems to me more like the "notable, not elite defender" mold (LMA, Odom). Good post defense is overrated.

I thought most people would come into this project with an open mind, but I think that ship has already sailed.

I never stated that Malone was an elite defender. Noteble but not elite is something I would cosign.
My main issue is that Dirk belongs in thst same category. He seems prettt average(maybe slightly above).

I disagree with your post defense statement relative to the time he played. When he was playing post offense made up a significant amount of scoring within the league. When you play in a league with so many dominant post scorers, post defense was one of the most valuable skills. Whiles today post defense isn't as valuable, due to the way offenses are run. I dont think anyone would dispute that post offense was a significantly bigger part of the average nba team in the 90's.

So I think we have to asses values differently based on eras.

I actually don't disagree with a lot of your post. Though I'm not sure what your open minded post is relating to.

[Bad Gatorade]

Then how are you explaining the huge gap in their defensive ratings, defensive win shares as well as steals

Boxscore is useless at evaluating defense.

It depends, I think the most efficent way to know how a player plays defense is simply to watch it. However, if you're gonna make the asinine claim that Dirk was an equal defender to Malone, you need to explain why everything points towards the opposite.

Does everything truly support Malone though?

1997 NPI DRAPM: 0.14
1998 PI RAPM: 0.14
1999 PI RAPM: -0.44
2000 PI RAPM: -1.42
2001 NPI RAPM: -0.73
2002 PI RAPM: -1.85
2003 PI RAPM: -2.52

Looking at JE's estimated RAPM from the 90s, Malone has an estimated DRAPM of 1.6, 2.1, 2.0 and 1.7 across 1997-2000. So, his xDRAPM (whatever JE technically calls this variant) is something like +2.0 above JE's actual RAPM results for Malone. It does bear mention that Malone is quite a bit older in this sample, so is there anything from pre-1997 that we can find?

From 1991-1996, Malone has an xDRAPM of 2.0, 2.0, 2.6, 3.3, 3.0 and 2,4, which is a bit better than his 1997-2000 results, but with not too much separation. I don't think that an general estimate of +0.5 to +1.5 is all that unreasonable here for 90s Malone once we factor in that he seems to be overrated by xDRAPM somewhat based on the post 1996 samples.

Now, bear in mind that Dirk tends to be a positive on defence himself - he was very strong on DRAPM for quite a while. From 2002 until 2011, Dirk was 1.17, 2.41, 1.45, 2.17, 1.29, 0.88, 0.79, 0.89, 1.6, 2.67. His multi-year results are quite good too - he ranks somewhere between +1.8 and +2.8 in the 4, 6, 11, 14 and 15 year samples that have circulated the internet.

What also warrants mention is that Dirk's extremely low turnover count may inflate his DRAPM slightly as an offensive characteristic altering a defensive statistic, but if one adopts this philosophy, this low turnover count may consequently underrate his offence (i.e. if his RAPM theoretically represents true value, the split between offence/defence might be imprecise).

However, based on the data we have, DRAPM doesn't seem to really favour Malone above Nowitzki all that much. Not saying that it's impossible to consider Malone a better defender, or that he's worse than Dirk or anything, but the closest thing to accurate data re: Malone's defence doesn't truly create separation from Dirk, who appears better in DRAPM than his reputation would often imply.

[Doctor MJ]

I agree a lot with what you have said here, but I think saying that defense is half the game is misleading in this context. When comparing superstar players (at least the modern ones), the impact at the offensive end is much greater than that of the defensive end. We see this being played in important playoff games where the superstars have primary control over how a possession will be played out whereas on the defensive end, they can just be bystanders if the play does not happen to go through their way. I do acknowledge that for role players, they become secondary controls in both the offensive and the defensive ends, given that there is somewhat of a randomized chance that the play will be dictated by them in both ends and thus the weights become more 50/50.

However, when comparing superstar players, perhaps it should be more tilted around 70/30 to 80/20 in importance of offense over defense.

I like this weighting scheme idea, but let me suggest a few improvements:

For each player it's different of course, since different players put more energy on different sides of the court, and different players play different roles which are easier or harder to replace.

So we're going to need a scheme that somehow continually records events that are influenced by the offensive and defensive impacts of each player, and then in large enough sample size the noise falls away and will have a proper amount of impact each player actually has.

If only we had something like that to indicate that Garnett's defensive impact is large enough to make his overall impact offensive-oriented superstars like Malone, then we could finally begin to do some serious analysis, eh?

Point taken.

Cool.

Hey hope I didn't come across too snarky there. It was meant to be playful but when I read our exchange, I'd have to say I'm fortunate if it didn't come across as harsh.

[Dr Positivity]

I agree Malone's defense is better than Dirk's. Malone had better accolades (1st team All-Defense from 97-99) had better boxscore defensive stats and his post defense and his intimidation factor are things we can confidently say are better than Dirk while it's hard to find what Dirk is better than Malone at on D

[Doctor MJ]

Boxscore is useless at evaluating defense.

It depends, I think the most efficent way to know how a player plays defense is simply to watch it. However, if you're gonna make the asinine claim that Dirk was an equal defender to Malone, you need to explain why everything points towards the opposite.

Does everything truly support Malone though?

1997 NPI DRAPM: 0.14
1998 PI RAPM: 0.14
1999 PI RAPM: -0.44
2000 PI RAPM: -1.42
2001 NPI RAPM: -0.73
2002 PI RAPM: -1.85
2003 PI RAPM: -2.52

Looking at JE's estimated RAPM from the 90s, Malone has an estimated DRAPM of 1.6, 2.1, 2.0 and 1.7 across 1997-2000. So, his xDRAPM (whatever JE technically calls this variant) is something like +2.0 above JE's actual RAPM results for Malone. It does bear mention that Malone is quite a bit older in this sample, so is there anything from pre-1997 that we can find?

From 1991-1996, Malone has an xDRAPM of 2.0, 2.0, 2.6, 3.3, 3.0 and 2,4, which is a bit better than his 1997-2000 results, but with not too much separation. I don't think that an general estimate of +0.5 to +1.5 is all that unreasonable here for 90s Malone once we factor in that he seems to be overrated by xDRAPM somewhat based on the post 1996 samples.

Now, bear in mind that Dirk tends to be a positive on defence himself - he was very strong on DRAPM for quite a while. From 2002 until 2011, Dirk was 1.17, 2.41, 1.45, 2.17, 1.29, 0.88, 0.79, 0.89, 1.6, 2.67. His multi-year results are quite good too - he ranks somewhere between +1.8 and +2.8 in the 4, 6, 11, 14 and 15 year samples that have circulated the internet.

What also warrants mention is that Dirk's extremely low turnover count may inflate his DRAPM slightly as an offensive characteristic altering a defensive statistic, but if one adopts this philosophy, this low turnover count may consequently underrate his offence (i.e. if his RAPM theoretically represents true value, the split between offence/defence might be imprecise).

However, based on the data we have, DRAPM doesn't seem to really favour Malone above Nowitzki all that much.

Good data to bring up.

Eventually people are going to have to acknowledge and specifically reconcile that before analytics players sometimes just fell off a map impact-wise. Even all-time great players.

We're still at a point that most people choose to ignore it when it conflicts with their pre-conceived ideas, but eventually it'll become something people argue well that it should be adjusted for.

Guys today are being taught by coaches using analytics, and thus more and more players are just going to have "analytically engineered" games that basically weed out bad habits not because the player has a high BBIQ, but simply because we know better how to instruct players and thus even guys who don't see the game as well will know what to avoid.

The toughest thing for me has always been how to deal with the fact that misguided players of the past have more to benefit from in today's game, and thus can be argued to deserve more positive adjustment than their contemporaries on the basis of how wrongly they used their talents.

Re: Dirk's DRAPM/offensive effect. Yup big thing to understand. Stats like this can't really separate out between offense and defensive impact as you'd think.

[Doctor MJ]

I think it's possible some of us are spending too much time admiring the groceries in a given players cart and not enough time considering how the food turned out.

Kevin Garnett had all the tools to do almost anything you could ask in any given possession on both ends of the floor.

Karl Malone has the numbers and accolades to be looked at as a candidate for the top 10 all-time.

A peak Shaq or Wilt, dialed in and in shape, absolutely unstoppable.

But we'll go in circles with that approach. We have too much information, there is always a rebuttal, a Devils advocate, always a "yeah but".

I think it's more useful to look past the specific strengths and weaknesses in a players game and instead focus on how much success they had given the circumstances they had to work with.

That explains my support of Mikan this round, but moreover I think it simplifies a complex pursuit. There is great value in the wealth of knowledge and analytical ability here, but once we are splitting hairs between guys we rank 1,2 or maybe 10 spots apart, I think it's better to focus on what happened than what could have if...

So let's combine:

1) Garnett had all the tools to do almost anything you could ask for.

With:

2) Garnett made a massive change to his game when he changed teams.
3) Data that analyzes impact says he had massive, massive impact either way.

And as you're alluding to:

4) He didn't win a bunch of rings.

What explains all of this?

KG is an individual in a team game. That's what happens some times to individuals in team games.

What fails to explain all this?

An argument that looks at the rings but doesn't look at the impact stats.
or
An argument that looks at both but then blows off the later because it doesn't fit with the former.

[Dr Positivity]

I think it's more useful to look past the specific strengths and weaknesses in a players game and instead focus on how much success they had given the circumstances they had to work with.

That explains my support of Mikan this round, but moreover I think it simplifies a complex pursuit. There is great value in the wealth of knowledge and analytical ability here, but once we are splitting hairs between guys we rank 1,2 or maybe 10 spots apart, I think it's better to focus on what happened than what could have if...

I see Mikan as having far easier circumstances to work with than other players in contention here. Dominating a league without black players is not the same.

[JoeMalburg]

I think it's more useful to look past the specific strengths and weaknesses in a players game and instead focus on how much success they had given the circumstances they had to work with.

That explains my support of Mikan this round, but moreover I think it simplifies a complex pursuit. There is great value in the wealth of knowledge and analytical ability here, but once we are splitting hairs between guys we rank 1,2 or maybe 10 spots apart, I think it's better to focus on what happened than what could have if...

I see Mikan as having far easier circumstances to work with than other players in contention here. Dominating a league without black players is not the same.

And I don't disagree at all. But, I have to ask how this can be held against him?

Is it not the most fair thing to do, to judge a player by the circumstances that exist?

[wojoaderge]

I think it's more useful to look past the specific strengths and weaknesses in a players game and instead focus on how much success they had given the circumstances they had to work with.

That explains my support of Mikan this round, but moreover I think it simplifies a complex pursuit. There is great value in the wealth of knowledge and analytical ability here, but once we are splitting hairs between guys we rank 1,2 or maybe 10 spots apart, I think it's better to focus on what happened than what could have if...

I see Mikan as having far easier circumstances to work with than other players in contention here. Dominating a league without black players is not the same.

And I don't disagree at all. But, I have to ask how this can be held against him?

Is it not the most fair thing to do, to judge a player by the circumstances that exist?

It's the Babe Ruth thing

[JoeMalburg]

I think it's possible some of us are spending too much time admiring the groceries in a given players cart and not enough time considering how the food turned out.

Kevin Garnett had all the tools to do almost anything you could ask in any given possession on both ends of the floor.

Karl Malone has the numbers and accolades to be looked at as a candidate for the top 10 all-time.

A peak Shaq or Wilt, dialed in and in shape, absolutely unstoppable.

But we'll go in circles with that approach. We have too much information, there is always a rebuttal, a Devils advocate, always a "yeah but".

I think it's more useful to look past the specific strengths and weaknesses in a players game and instead focus on how much success they had given the circumstances they had to work with.

That explains my support of Mikan this round, but moreover I think it simplifies a complex pursuit. There is great value in the wealth of knowledge and analytical ability here, but once we are splitting hairs between guys we rank 1,2 or maybe 10 spots apart, I think it's better to focus on what happened than what could have if...

So let's combine:

1) Garnett had all the tools to do almost anything you could ask for.

With:

2) Garnett made a massive change to his game when he changed teams.
3) Data that analyzes impact says he had massive, massive impact either way.

And as you're alluding to:

4) He didn't win a bunch of rings.

What explains all of this?

KG is an individual in a team game. That's what happens some times to individuals in team games.

What fails to explain all this?

An argument that looks at the rings but doesn't look at the impact stats.
or
An argument that looks at both but then blows off the later because it doesn't fit with the former.

I i'm not trying to make that argument. I am not trying to say that because Kevin Garnet was loyal to the franchise the drafted him, which eventually made a number of critical errors, which resulted in some of the best statistical seasons we've seen in recent memory essentially wasted on a team that would not likely have been competitive in any circumstance negates Garnetts obvious greatness. Or in case you believe I am trying to be so simple, that because he only won one ring in the season when his traditional stats went down, that that means he needed help to win and somehow he is less than as a result.

I'm just saying, that there are better things to debate then an incremental difference in combined offensive and defensive abilities as observed through statistics, when it comes to the greatest players of all time.

If we can agree that two players are within a few spots all time, isn't it more worthwhile to focus on the most pivotal moments of their career and what they did to maximize that opportunity, particularly if such opportunities were limited and thus rare?

I offer this, not in a harsh or scolding tone, but genuinely in an inquisitive one. As an outsider, but one with similar hobbies, and with a fresh perspective.

[Doctor MJ]

I think it's more useful to look past the specific strengths and weaknesses in a players game and instead focus on how much success they had given the circumstances they had to work with.

That explains my support of Mikan this round, but moreover I think it simplifies a complex pursuit. There is great value in the wealth of knowledge and analytical ability here, but once we are splitting hairs between guys we rank 1,2 or maybe 10 spots apart, I think it's better to focus on what happened than what could have if...

I see Mikan as having far easier circumstances to work with than other players in contention here. Dominating a league without black players is not the same.

And I don't disagree at all. But, I have to ask how this can be held against him?

Is it not the most fair thing to do, to judge a player by the circumstances that exist?

I judge players based on the level of play they achieved in achieving those team and individual accomplishments. It's subjective but there's no way around this.

In general, things in human society follow S-curves of growth.



What I would say is that the step part of basketball's performance graph came with the arrival of the NBA. If you look at data from the late '40s in the NBL/BAA, you see horrible, horrible shooting efficiency. It's not cause the defense was great. It's because these were guys who had spent far less time practicing their shot than, say, Steph Curry had done by the time he was done with high school, and possible less than Curry had done by the end of middle school.

How you tend to know that you've reached the end of the rapid growth is that people tend to be older before they learn to dominate and they tend to be able to maintain their domination at a longer age.

Mikan was the best pro in the world the moment he went pro, and his peak came in '50-51 when he was still only 26, after that he fell of rapidly. One player is just an anecdote, but such a young player dominating is precisely what we'd expect from someone in a "young" sport.

Within a decade, you'd have Russell arrive an instantly be the best defensive player, and Oscar arrive and be the best offensive player, and both of those guys were able to dominate consistently for more than a decade despite the fact the league was going through massive changes.

Combine that with the weirdness of expansion and your rapidly maturing league quality hits a plateau around 1970. It's grown since then, but not enough to keep old guys from being awesome.

If Steve Nash can still dominate the league offensively today at the age of 35, it's pretty clear to me that the big changes since that time are less about talent quality and more about strategic change, and to the extent those are brought by league, management, and coach, players should largely have that adjusted for.

So, I find it very hard to take seriously guys who peaked at an early age in the 50s and showed no signs of "figuring stuff out" as new guys came in and played the game smarter. With Mikan, it's possible that it was just bad luck we didn't get to see him more, but on the other hand, he wasn't an efficient volume scorer, and it's hard for me to see him as a specimen capable of Russell/Nate/Wilt defense.

[Winsome Gerbil]

...

Considering defense is KG's argument over Malone and KG isn't that far off vs Malone when it comes to overall offense. How do you value Malone's with KG's massive gap in defense?

Well I fundamentally disagree about "not that far off in overall offense".

I mean, it's not close. It's not even close to being close. In fact I think one of the forgotten lessons from really looking through the numbers is that Karl Malone was a really good passing PF too, or became one over the course of his career. And this was a guy who was famously paired with the GOAT assistman for most of his career. It's KG's best trait offensively, and yet over their careers:

Assist Rate
Garnett 19.3
Mailman 17.6

Was KG not far off from Jordan then? Or Kareem? Or Dirk?

Career:

Kareem 38387pts .592TS% 24.6pts 3.6ast 14.6AST%
Mailman 36928pts .577TS% 25.0pts 3.9ast 17.6AST%
Jordan 32292pts .569TS% 30.1pts 5.3ast 24.9AST%
Nowitzki 30260pts .578TS% 21.7pts 2.5ast 12.8AST%
.
.
.
Garnett 26071pts .546TS% 17.8pts 3.7ast 19.3AST%


Mailman scored almost 50% (41.6%) more points over his career. He did it on an efficiency gap as large as the one between KG and Dirk. And as mentioned, even the idea that there was a huge passing gap isn't even really true. Malone wasn't a great passer in his youth, but he became potent as he got older. Not brilliant and intuitive, but smart and systematic in picking apart teams from the post and as part of Utah's system. KG broke 4 ast/gm 10 times in his career. Mailman did it 7 times. And frankly other than Stockton, who was efficient but low volume, its not like Utah's annual assortment of roleplayers around the Stockton to Malone duo were that standout superior offensively to KG's own random casts, let alone his late career Pierce/Allen teams.

[rebirthoftheM]

Going back to Oscar v West, and noting I have a general bias against most of the dudes from the 60s due to era concerns (skills, quality of defense etc.)

I wanted to research their production over a 10 year prime window between 61-70. I got these stuff per 100, working off some estimates online.... please verify:

Regular season

Oscar 61-70 RS

PPG: 26.96
RPG: 7.73
APG: 9.44
PER: 24.94
TS%: 57.24
GP: 752
MPG: 44.0

West 61-70 RS

PPG: 28.44
RPG: 6.37
APG: 6.22
PER: 22.71
TS%: 55.00
GP: 607
MPG: 39.8

Oscar 5 year consecutive prime run 61-65 RS

PPG: 27.41
RPG: 9.38
APG: 9.61
PER: 26.16
TS%: 56.68
GP: 384
MPG: 44.4

West 5 year consecutive prime run 64-68 RS

PPG: 29.73
RPG: 6.27
APG: 6.01
PER: 23.94
TS%: 57.12
GP: 342
MPG: 40.3

Things that strike me: Oscar was able to play many more games than West. West doesn't seem very durable in the RS. Oscar's box score stuff looks amazing and his teams were consistently elite on offense, even before Jerry Lucas came on board. West was seemingly the better scorer (and this is the general opinion anyways) but both dudes were hella efficient for their day. Oscar's 5 year prime run between 61-65 comes across looking amazing in the box score department, far outstripping anything West did in a 5 year RS span. Oscar did start to fade though, at least in the box score stuff in the last two seasons of this sample.


Playoffs

Oscar 62-67 (Per game averages, not per 100):

PPG: 29.7
RPG: 9.3
APG: 9.4
PER: 24.1
TS%: 56.6
GP: 39

West 61-70

PPG: 30.9
RPG: 5.9
APG: 5.9
PER: 23.7
TS%: 55.6
GP: 120

Comment: Obviously there is a massive volume difference in the games played, because Oscar tended to be on worse teams than West, whose teams avoided Boston until the finals. Per box score stuff, they look pretty even to me. These are of course aggregates, so let's consider their performances against the elite of the elites, and by that I mean against Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain:

West 62-69 v Russell averages:

PPG: 32.92
RPG: 5.72
APG: 4.80
FG%: 47.68
TS%: N/A (missing some data)
Series Played: 6

Oscar 63-67 v Russell and Wilt averages:

PPG: 29.24
RPG: 7.68
APG: 9.4* (assists missing in 66 v Bos)
FG%: 44.68%
TS%: 55.04
Series Played: 5

Comment: Again, not much separation to be honest. West again the better scorer, while Oscar was that all around dude. Oscar's raw FG% was compensated for by his FTMs. West had one series v the Celtics where he shot uncharacteristically low, but then again, Elgin was out in that series.

And there is the skill-set. West had that killer pull-up jumper and was able to shift directions and speeds at will. Truly a legendary scorer, and who defs. lived up to his Mr Clutch reputation. Oscar meanwhile from the game-tape, appears to be a more methodical plodder, who broke down defenses less stylistically and more physically at that. Very simple looking game, yet really deadly. He also had a very good mid-range jumper it appears, though one wouldn't equate it to West. Oscar was also the better play-maker it seems, and his teams were pretty much consistently elite on offense, which has to count for something.

Defensively, it appears West had the better reputation, though again, and forgive me, the entire era looks substandard when it comes to defense. West was also a guard, and his teams were not very elite on D. I therefore question whether his better defense should even matter.

And there's stuff like leadership, intangibles etc. which tend to favour West. Again, narrative stuff which I'd have to research up on. Both dudes come out looking like elites in WOWY also.

[JoeMalburg]

I see Mikan as having far easier circumstances to work with than other players in contention here. Dominating a league without black players is not the same.

And I don't disagree at all. But, I have to ask how this can be held against him?

Is it not the most fair thing to do, to judge a player by the circumstances that exist?

I judge players based on the level of play they achieved in achieving those team and individual accomplishments. It's subjective but there's no way around this.

In general, things in human society follow S-curves of growth.



What I would say is that the step part of basketball's performance graph came with the arrival of the NBA. If you look at data from the late '40s in the NBL/BAA, you see horrible, horrible shooting efficiency. It's not cause the defense was great. It's because these were guys who had spent far less time practicing their shot than, say, Steph Curry had done by the time he was done with high school, and possible less than Curry had done by the end of middle school.

How you tend to know that you've reached the end of the rapid growth is that people tend to be older before they learn to dominate and they tend to be able to maintain their domination at a longer age.

Mikan was the best pro in the world the moment he went pro, and his peak came in '50-51 when he was still only 26, after that he fell of rapidly. One player is just an anecdote, but such a young player dominating is precisely what we'd expect from someone in a "young" sport.

Within a decade, you'd have Russell arrive an instantly be the best defensive player, and Oscar arrive and be the best offensive player, and both of those guys were able to dominate consistently for more than a decade despite the fact the league was going through massive changes.

Combine that with the weirdness of expansion and your rapidly maturing league quality hits a plateau around 1970. It's grown since then, but not enough to keep old guys from being awesome.

If Steve Nash can still dominate the league offensively today at the age of 35, it's pretty clear to me that the big changes since that time are less about talent quality and more about strategic change, and to the extent those are brought by league, management, and coach, players should largely have that adjusted for.

So, I find it very hard to take seriously guys who peaked at an early age in the 50s and showed no signs of "figuring stuff out" as new guys came in and played the game smarter. With Mikan, it's possible that it was just bad luck we didn't get to see him more, but on the other hand, he wasn't an efficient volume scorer, and it's hard for me to see him as a specimen capable of Russell/Nate/Wilt defense.

You have an exceptional way of expressing yourself and your opinions. I've greatly enjoyed learning from a number of the things you've posted here.

I've rarely heard the argument made that you just made about players from the dawn of modern professional basketball. I do think it is the one legitimate argument I've heard.

So Having qualified my response, perhaps I'm a bit of a romantic in that I still think the contributions of big George are significant enough to overlook the fact that he obviously was not able to adapt to the quickening pace and more skill-based game that would emerge.

While he unquestioningly benefited from arriving in a league during its infancy stages, I also think it's reasonable to assume he'll have benefited from the improved strategy and physical conditioning in evolution that players foreign a decade or two later on questionably did.

For all his physical advantages, it seems the defining characteristic of Mikan what's his tenacity and competitive spirit. These traits he shares with almost every great player we've talked about already and will talk about among the top 50 players.

And in a bubble or perhaps better a vacuum, I will take a run of shortsighted, but absolute dominance over a gradual progression to temporary excellence.

[Winsome Gerbil]

difference maker on defense. Even at Malone's best, we're talking about a difference on the scale of Gobert vs LaMarcus Aldridge.

That's an utterly ridiculous statement. I mean, that shows no knowledge of Mailman at all. And a rather distorted one of KG.

In Karl Malone's first few years he:

1) was a poor FT shooter
2) was a poor passer
3) was a middling defender

But his work ethic was Jordanian in scale, and he turned all of those traits by his prime, which lasted forever BTW. He was a tough buckaroo defensively for the entire decade of the 90s. He had strong quick hands, was immensely physical, and was just flat mean. People were scared of him, with reason. His coach was Jerry Sloan, and he passed on every ounce of that scrappy, dirty, and yes cheap spirit to his charges.

Comparing him to LaMarcus Aldridge would be slanderous if it were not so ridiculously far off to be parody.

If I go around the league now, with its sad assortment of "PFs", for a player who exists in the same sort of space as Mailman once did it would have to be something like a bigger stronger prime Taj Gibson. Or a more consistent Derrick Favors. A PF version of PJ Tucker. A tough rugged s.o.b. who was going to give you a working over every night you played him. You'd have the bruises the next morning.

[Doctor MJ]

And I don't disagree at all. But, I have to ask how this can be held against him?

Is it not the most fair thing to do, to judge a player by the circumstances that exist?

I judge players based on the level of play they achieved in achieving those team and individual accomplishments. It's subjective but there's no way around this.

In general, things in human society follow S-curves of growth.



What I would say is that the step part of basketball's performance graph came with the arrival of the NBA. If you look at data from the late '40s in the NBL/BAA, you see horrible, horrible shooting efficiency. It's not cause the defense was great. It's because these were guys who had spent far less time practicing their shot than, say, Steph Curry had done by the time he was done with high school, and possible less than Curry had done by the end of middle school.

How you tend to know that you've reached the end of the rapid growth is that people tend to be older before they learn to dominate and they tend to be able to maintain their domination at a longer age.

Mikan was the best pro in the world the moment he went pro, and his peak came in '50-51 when he was still only 26, after that he fell of rapidly. One player is just an anecdote, but such a young player dominating is precisely what we'd expect from someone in a "young" sport.

Within a decade, you'd have Russell arrive an instantly be the best defensive player, and Oscar arrive and be the best offensive player, and both of those guys were able to dominate consistently for more than a decade despite the fact the league was going through massive changes.

Combine that with the weirdness of expansion and your rapidly maturing league quality hits a plateau around 1970. It's grown since then, but not enough to keep old guys from being awesome.

If Steve Nash can still dominate the league offensively today at the age of 35, it's pretty clear to me that the big changes since that time are less about talent quality and more about strategic change, and to the extent those are brought by league, management, and coach, players should largely have that adjusted for.

So, I find it very hard to take seriously guys who peaked at an early age in the 50s and showed no signs of "figuring stuff out" as new guys came in and played the game smarter. With Mikan, it's possible that it was just bad luck we didn't get to see him more, but on the other hand, he wasn't an efficient volume scorer, and it's hard for me to see him as a specimen capable of Russell/Nate/Wilt defense.

You have an exceptional way of expressing yourself and your opinions. I've greatly enjoyed learning from a number of the things you've posted here.

I've rarely heard the argument made that you just made about players from the dawn of modern professional basketball. I do think it is the one legitimate argument I've heard.

So Having qualified my response, perhaps I'm a bit of a romantic in that I still think the contributions of big George are significant enough to overlook the fact that he obviously was not able to adapt to the quickening pace and more skill-based game that would emerge.

While he unquestioningly benefited from arriving in a league during its infancy stages, I also think it's reasonable to assume he'll have benefited from the improved strategy and physical conditioning in evolution that players foreign a decade or two later on questionably did.

For all his physical advantages, it seems the defining characteristic of Mikan what's his tenacity and competitive spirit. These traits he shares with almost every great player we've talked about already and will talk about among the top 50 players.

And in a bubble or perhaps better a vacuum, I will take a run of shortsighted, but absolute dominance over a gradual progression to temporary excellence.

Thank you for your kind words. They themselves were quite well constructed.

I also apologize if I came across as aggressive earlier, and I do get the pull to include what we might call influence into this list. It's tricky.

George MIkan is one of a handful of the most important players to ever play the game, and that's a legit list. We could make a list that's basically "Draft your own Hall of Fame" one player at a time based on the idea of what should be there for kids to see from now until the end times when ball do lie.

But this isn't that list.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that being a spearhead is irrelevant to the discussion, it's just that only the consequences of the spearhead with direct impact on the court should be considered.

Of course, therein lies the rub. What constitutes direct impact? I tend to think of things from a franchise perspective, so if a guy comes up with something that benefits the whole league, that's could be said to cancel out franchise benefit.

However, to the extent the spearhead spearheads something of great advantage that cannot be emulated rapidly or entirely, it is quite plausible to think on that impact as a predictor of intelligent action in any era.

All this basically means that I think as long as you know that this is not a Rushmore project, and don't try to make it one, your perspective is probably distinct only enough to add dimension to our conversation.

[Doctor MJ]

difference maker on defense. Even at Malone's best, we're talking about a difference on the scale of Gobert vs LaMarcus Aldridge.

That's an utterly ridiculous statement. I mean, that shows no knowledge of Mailman at all. And a rather distorted one of KG.

In Karl Malone's first few years he:

1) was a poor FT shooter
2) was a poor passer
3) was a middling defender

But his work ethic was Jordanian in scale, and he turned all of those traits by his prime, which lasted forever BTW. He was a tough buckaroo defensively for the entire decade of the 90s. He had strong quick hands, was immensely physical, and was just flat mean. People were scared of him, with reason. His coach was Jerry Sloan, and he passed on every ounce of that scrappy, dirty, and yes cheap spirit to his charges.

Comparing him to LaMarcus Aldridge would be slanderous if it were not so ridiculously far off to be parody.

If I go around the league now, with its sad assortment of "PFs", for a player who exists in the same sort of space as Mailman once did it would have to be something like a bigger stronger prime Taj Gibson. Or a more consistent Derrick Favors. A PF version of PJ Tucker. A tough rugged s.o.b. who was going to give you a working over every night you played him. You'd have the bruises the next morning.

Don't worry, I'm sure he wasn't saying Gobert was as good as Garnett.

[Pablo Novi]

VOTE #1. Oscar Robertson


I sometimes feel like Oscar Robertson get's really downplayed because of ERA and Pacing. I'm not saying that is isn't a reason to take him over Magic as I would take Magic of all time but there is a discussion to be had that The Big O was better than Magic during their primes.

At the end of the day we will never truly know how great O was because of such the distance of ERA.

Vote #2. Jerry West

The Logo was considered one of the greatest shooters of his generation, average 25+ and 9 assists during his prime and on all time level defense.

I agree - the Big "O" was about as good a PG as was Magic. (He averaged a triple-double over the first FIVE years of his career.

I also agree about Jerry West - he was the original Curry - virtually unlimited range (if they'd have had the 3-point shot back then!). Back then we all knew about his defensive prowess. He certainly earned his nickname, "Mr Clutch".

Here's a sample from my Reg. Seas. GOAT list. Col. 1 is their Over-All GOAT rank (based on their "Points", in Col 2. Those "Points" are based on their number of selections to ALL-League 1st-Teams, 2nd-Teams, etc. A player gets 5 "Points" for each 1st-Team selection; 3 "Points" for each 2nd-Team selection.

My basic criteria for my GOAT rankings is based on the NUMBER of Great Years each player had. All these guys had at least 10 such Great Years.

..8 ! 55.. ! 3 ! West, Jerry ............ !! 2
..9 ! 54.. ! 2 ! Erving, Julius .......... !! 3
10 ! 51.. ! 1 ! Robertson, Oscar ...... !! 1
11 ! 50.. ! 2 ! Johnson, Magic ......... !! 1

I never thought as highly of Dr. J as Jerry West or Oscar Robertson.

Jerry West and Oscar both seem to be much better playmakers than Dr. J and possibly even better scorers. It's hard to say though because Dr. J played a lot of his prime in the ABA.

I just feel like The Big O and West were flat out better.

It's just such a pity that Dr J (and the ABA) played to such small audiences (and, much worse) had miniscule TV coverage.

There was nothing on offense that Dr J wasn't the best ever up to that point in history, imo. His handle was just phenomenal.
Picture squeezing between two defenders with no room to spare; yet dribbling between his legs to do so.

The "world would go silent and gawky-eyed" when it was time for him to go iso. No defender had a chance to stop him. Entire teams couldn't stop his drives to the basket - where he often made spectacularly delicious dunks; or truly unbelievable moves.

Except for one dunk by Elgin Baylor over Wilt (where he floated across the key, Wilt came in to squash his shot - and Elgin flipped the ball to his other hand and hammered it home); ALL my All-Time favorite dunks are Dr J's - he was that flashy, that skilled, that athletic, that gifted, that ... aesthetically pleasing an artist.

Against the definitely favored Nuggets in the last ABA Finals, led on defense by arguably THE best defender in either League in Bobby Jones, Dr J just went off, iirc, 37.7 ppg (and played killed D to boot).

[Dr Positivity]

I think it's more useful to look past the specific strengths and weaknesses in a players game and instead focus on how much success they had given the circumstances they had to work with.

That explains my support of Mikan this round, but moreover I think it simplifies a complex pursuit. There is great value in the wealth of knowledge and analytical ability here, but once we are splitting hairs between guys we rank 1,2 or maybe 10 spots apart, I think it's better to focus on what happened than what could have if...

I see Mikan as having far easier circumstances to work with than other players in contention here. Dominating a league without black players is not the same.

And I don't disagree at all. But, I have to ask how this can be held against him?

Is it not the most fair thing to do, to judge a player by the circumstances that exist?

You make a fair point, but it comes down to judging Mikan's skillset I guess which didn't look as skilled or athletic as players after him. From the question of who's the best at basketball, it's hard to pick Mikan here.

Furthermore even before considering all that, I'm not sure 6 years of anyone would be enough for me to vote them this high.