RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #14

[trex_8063]

1st vote: Karl Malone
2nd vote: Dirk Nowitzki

Well, I more or less laid out my case for my 2nd pick in my above post; and frankly, I wouldn't be much upset if Dirk squeezed in ahead of Mailman, as it's very nearly splitting hairs for me.

Why I go for K.Malone (relative to the other options), is frankly just that longevity. I rate Dirk's peak a little ahead of Karl's, but Karl just has so many peaks, I can hardly decide which was his best year. '97? '98? '92? Other? He's got about four seasons that were all basically the same level, and a prime that lasts like 14 seasons (in which he hardly ever misses a game), and was a useful player right to the last. 19 iron man seasons of constant use (if not dominance).

His playoff inconsistencies (generally falling off more than most greats) are a problem; it's frankly the only reason I don't have him in my top 10 (or even top 6-8). Because if we look at rs only, he's got a fantastic case for top 6-8. His playoff troubles is what pushes him outside my top 11-12.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #41:

Jerry West - 5 (andrewww, Doctor MJ, mdonnelly1989, Outside, RCM88x)
Karl Malone - 4 (scabbarista, trex_8063, Winsome Gerbil, Joao Saraiva)
Julius Erving - 3 (BasketballFan7, Dr Positivity, Pablo Novi)
Moses Malone - 1 (JordansBulls)
George Mikan - 1 (penbeast0)


Will be closing this one down sometime tomorrow afternoon. Oh, and I'm back, penbeast .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[oldschooled]

Voting's close already?

I'm voting for Malone w/c is crucial because Logo is just leading with a point. No?

You can see my reasoning since #12.

Vote : Mailman
Alt : Dirk, DRob

[Doctor MJ]

Dr. J. This one is tough for me. I named myself after Dr. J here. I love the ABA, and I love Dr. J's style, attitude, you name it. I also think the value he had on the '75-76 Nets was GOAT peak territory, and he'd be seen very differently if he had been take from that team and pushed to a team with about the worst fit imaginable. And for these reasons I used to have Erving above Oscar and West on peak alone, let alone longevity. The more I see data though in the NBA years, he's just not in the same league as Oscar & West impact-wise and I can't justify it by saying the fit was bad, because they fixed that when they got rid of McGinnis. I see Oscar & West as quite easily the two best offensive players in history until the arrival of Bird & Magic, and I also see West as a superior defensive player.

I wonder why we can't use the same critical thinking we do to realize that KG's lack of playoff success has little to do with him and more to do with things beyond his control to see that Julius Erving didn't get worse in 1977-79, but it was simply a toxic situation for any player. It seems like you are almost there already based on your post. Erving was the best player in Basketball in 1975 and 1976 on a team where his best teammate was Billy Paultz, an average to slightly above average undersized center. I won't explain why the post-merger 76ers were poorly constructed, you already well know. But there they were in 1977 Finals nonetheless and Dr. J led the way averaging 26/7/5/2 on 58 ts%. The 76ers won 55 games and lost to the eventual Champions in 1978 and by 1979 Dr. J was putting up superstar box numbers with Bobby Jones level impact stats. And then of course from 1980-83 he was a top three player every year, probably the best in the league in 1981 and 1982 and his team made the Finals three of four seasons.

Point is, I think your first instinct was right and if the data is telling you something else now, it's because you're putting too much stock in it.

Oscar and West spent most of their prime seasons clearly behind Wilt and Russell, Doctor J was Kareem's rival during their mutual peak and seemed to be the superior of Bird and Magic during their early prime seasons.

I think the three of them each have their various advantages over one another and weaknesses unique to themselves. I think they are three in the same class, I'm fine with ranking them in any order, but within the same 4-6 spots all-time I believe.

To clarify: What I intended to say was that Erving's lack of apparent massive impact lasts after McGinnis leaves.
And also to be clear: That's not what I expected either.

Re: putting too much stock in it. That's entirely possible but what you say is not an argument, just an opinion. An opinion that basically I used to share but ceased to be able to justify. I need more than that.

Re: rivalries, pecking order, etc. Okay, but that's still just opinion from you. Do you see why that's not enough?

Moses. The problem with Moses is that he's a specialist that teams didn't actually seem to love having that much. The top tier of guys are franchise players. Given Moses 3 MVPs and his lead role on the '83 76ers, he seems like a franchise player and then some. I tend to see him though as a guy who just focused on simple things that in the right context could make him very valuable, but don't make him as "build around able" as really any of the other guys we've discussed so far. I mean Wilt & Shaq have headcase issues, but Moses actually seems to be just limited in what he does out there.

You said it. Three MVP's and a primary role on one of the greatest Championship teams ever. Arguing he wasn't a superstar is just not doable. Every time the Lakers slipped up from 1980-1983, it was because Moses was on the other side. He may be the least traditional franchise superstar we have and he may have had one of the shortest primes/peaks, but there is no doubt he was a superstar from 1979-1983. For those five years, cumulatively, he is questionably the best player in basketball. Can we say the same about Dirk, West, Oscar, KG, Malone, Robinson or any other player that went after Bird? (aside from Mikan and maybe Kobe if you're very generous) I don't think so. And I think that should matter.

Re: arguing not doable. Y'know it's funny. You could say I have a history of working really hard to convince people of things here, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. When I do it, I don't it as one of a series of quick hits. I'm glad you took what I said, picked it up, and advocated in the other direction, but what you say is not arguable is indeed arguable because my opinion has been informed by many on the matter, and I'll be magnanimous enough to say they didn't argue badly at all.

What's interesting to me is that is that don't believe I used the word "superstar" once. I said "franchise player" more than once, and elaborated with a definition of what I meant by that, but you didn't speak to any of that. You focused on a more abstract idea of what a top tier player was and then proceeded to talk about him as an individual and what he deserved.

You should understand that I view this topic in from a perspective that could be called franchise-oriented. I dislike fantasy sports. I'm interested in things with tangible meaning connected to these players, and the people who really have to make that call are the people who run franchises. One or two franchises can be mistaken, or a quirk of fate, or whatever, but the general rule is that you hold on to big time talent with your life. That's not how franchises treated Moses. Perhaps a case could be made they were utterly incompetent to do so?

Re: Every time Lakers. Well yeah, Kareem didn't handle the match up with Moses well at all. That says good things about Moses, but it's a known weakness of Kareem's: He could be bullied by shorter, sturdier guys. (Now might be a time to just remind the gallery that I felt Kareem was getting a tad more respect than he deserved by this committee.)

[Outside]

(re: Dirk) I have him #33.

Wow. That’s…….well that’s a tough sell. I read some of your argumentation for this (rebounding, lack of shot content coming <10 feet, deflated appreciation of the importance of big-man spacing, etc) and wish to reply to a few things.

...

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I really do appreciate it.

My 33 ranking for Dirk isn't set in stone, but I think the main point I've tried to make is that the differences between players in this range is so slight that we shouldn't look at the difference between #14 and #33 as 20 places on the list but more like 2% in the ranking scale. There have been so many great players, and some of these stats being used to promote Dirk aren't available for everyone. Where do guys like Elgin Baylor, George Mikan, Bob Pettit rank in OREB% or RAPM? Should we automatically drop them below Dirk because certain stats are unavailable or incomplete for them?

I don't see how it's unreasonable to put these guys above Dirk:

Jerry West
Karl Malone
Elgin Baylor
Julius Erving
David Robinson
Bob Pettit
John Havlicek
Moses Malone
Kevin McHale
Charles Barkley
Patrick Ewing
George Mikan
Walt Frazier
John Stockton
Nate Thurmond
Dave Cowens
Isaiah Thomas

Dirk's longevity gives him an advantage over many of those players, but most of the players listed above were far more impactful defensively, so it comes down to what you value. I downgrade Dirk's longevity a bit because if you've watched him play in recent years, the guy runs like an old guy in a church league and barely jumps anymore (he had only two dunks last year; floor-bound Zaza Pachulia had 10 dunks in fewer minutes). Dirk has the length and skill to get that shot off, and he's smart enough to adapt his old man game the best he can. Does it matter that the Mavs haven't won a playoff series since they won the title in 2011?

One poster (therealbig3) countered my arguments by saying I'm cherry-picking stats, but actually, I think I'm doing a better job of looking at everything compared to those who are promoting him as a candidate this high in the ATL. I may come across as only highlighting areas where he doesn't look good, but that's because those are the areas of contention. For example, I look at both his RS and PS stats, and we all agree his PS stats are a highlight, but that doesn't mean his RS stats are irrelevant. Same goes with DRB and ORB -- DRB is a strength, but ORB isn't, and saying things like "the Mavs offense is still top rate" or "they choose to get back on D instead of go for OREB" is just excusing it away instead of acknowledging that other candidates like Karl Malone deserve credit for being better in that area.

I'll likely move him up from #33, but that will apparently be irrelevant, because he'll be voted in long before that. And that's fine. I'm just one voice and one vote. If enough others think he's deserves to be in at this point, their votes win out.

One thing I've come to appreciate more about Dirk during all this is how well he takes care of the ball. He's absolutely fantastic at it, and his low turnover rate is a big plus.

Again, I think you could take Dirk and the guys I listed above and move them around in any order and that would be valid. All of these guys are all-time great in this general area.

Except Jerry West -- he definitely deserves to be at the top of the heap

[Outside]

People seem to forget Havlicek, who was the bridge between the Russell and Cowens eras. He was an all-around wing player (forward or guard) who did everything well and nothing spectacularly. He ran beat opponents with skill, endurance, and determination.

RS career averages: 20.8 points, 6.3 rebounds, 4.8 assists
PS career averages (172 games): 22.0 points, 6.9 rebounds, 4.8 assists
8 titles
Averaged 27.1 points, 6.1 rebounds, and 6.0 assists in the 1974 title run

That doesn't look better than, for example, Nowitzki, who did everything well and a couple of things spectacularly. Or Malone, who did everything well too and did it for longer.

Havlicek isn't the next guy on my list, but he's not very far down, and I thought I'd throw him in as my alternate just to have him enter the conversation. To me, West is the clear choice here, but as I've mentioned in other posts, the guys in this range are really close, and I think it's valid to have a dozen candidates from here on out. Havlicek hasn't been mentioned, so I thought I'd use my alternate vote to give him a little shine.

[BasketballFan7]

My argument for my already stated pick:

1. Julius Erving
2. Dirk Nowitzki

My argument for Erving is below.

I'll add a bit on Erving vs. West because West is gaining momentum. I don't put a ton of emphasis on longevity but it is pertinent here.
1. Neither West nor Erving's totals are inflated by low-impact, nigh irrelevant seasons/games/minutes. Neither player took time to adjust to the NBA. Nor did they linger too long past their primes.

2. Playoff availability is a big deal.

Games Played
West: 1,085
Erving: 1,432
Difference: 347

Minutes Played:
West: 42,892
Erving: 52,759
Difference: 9,867

Massive differences here that amount to the equivalent of ~3 seasons of play at the minimum. Very possibly 4+ seasons when health is taken into context.

Playoff Availability:

I'm not sure to what extent each individual poster values playoff availability. To me, this is a very big deal. I don't have a chance of winning a championship, ie accomplishing my goal, if my star is out for the playoffs.

- West missed the 1971 playoffs due to a knee injury
- West missed the 1974 playoffs due to a groin injury

Erving and his ABA peak:

I'll post here what I reiterate below in one of my quotes. 1976 Erving dominated two future NBA teams during the 1976 ABA playoffs, including Bobby Jones, David Thompson, and Dan Issel led Nuggets that had the NBA's best defense in 1977 (by a decent margin) and the NBA's second best expected W-L. Erving averaged ~38 PPG, 6 APG, 14 RPG against Denver. The other team that Erving played in the 1976 playoffs was the Spurs, who also transitioned successfully to the NBA (44-38 record in 1976).

In 1977, Erving's statistics fell off due to poor roster construction. He nevertheless increased his volume in the playoffs. His season culminated in his virtuoso performance in the finals against the Bill Walton-led Trailblazers, where Erving averaged 30 - 7 - 5 on 21.5 field goal attempts per game, including 40-8-6 in the game 6 that they lost by 2 and were eliminated.

My argument is not that Erving's peak is based wholly on these playoff series, although I do value playoff performance. These series more-so serve to add validity to his 1976 peak.

My post + previous argument

Vote: Julius Erving
Alternate: Kobe Bryant

These guys score closely in career value to me. Erving comes out a bit ahead across the board. He had a higher peak and by my criteria superior longevity. Kobe played more minutes but a substantial chunk of those minutes came post-2012 and pre-2000, and those seasons don't add a ton of value for me (2013 would have added significant value, enough to push him over Erving, had he not been injured late in the season, causing him to miss the playoffs). So, for me, longevity is a push at best and more likely going to Erving. Both players showed the ability to play with other star talent (that said, roster construction as a whole was far superior for Kobe) and both players tend to be overrated defensively.

Erving tends to be underrated altogether IMO. His reputation is such that one may come to believe that he couldn't handle the ball, shoot, or really do anything outside of be athletic and finish at the rim. This likely has to do with his PPG dropping upon entering the NBA. To me, that's on roster construction. You aren't going to convince me that 77-79 Erving was somehow significantly inferior to the 1980 and 1981 MVP winning version.

Lastly, I prefer Erving's less abrasive personality. I have Magic and Bird/Dirk after this pair.

I just deleted my response on accident

To be brief-

Erving's 1977 playoff run adds validity to his performance. He dominated the Nuggets and the Spurs, two teams that would transition to the NBA the following season with significant roster carryover and achieve 50 and 44 wins, respectively. In particular, the Nuggets team he faced in the finals was excellent by both ABA and NBA standards. The following year the 1977 Nuggets had the best defense in the NBA, as well as the second best expected win-loss. I certainly believe Erving's 1976 to be an upper-echalon quality season.

His NBA production was stymied by poor roster construction. This affected his averages. During the 1977 playoffs he raised his game once again, both overall and in particular in the finals, where he averaged 30-7-5 against Portland after only putting up 21.6 PPG in the regular season. Portland was obviously an excellent team.

I don't have much time to go more in depth, particularly after already having to re-write this

Skill-set wise... I don't put much emphasis into that here. To be clear, Kobe had marvelous versatility. IMO this is valuable because it allowed him to maintain production against damn-near any defense that opposed him. But Erving was so good at what he did do that the inferior versatility doesn't bother me. I find his versatility to be underrated as is. Era-relative, which is all I care for (I have Russell at number one), his handle didn't impede him. You don't do what he did as a slasher without a handle. And he wasn't a non-shooter or non-passer, at least not to the extent where it hindered him.

Kobe's skill-set distinguishes him against players who I feel could be limited against `playoff defenses. For instance, I have Kobe over Malone and Bird (although Bird's playoff drop-off obviously wasn't likely due to versatility issues). I don't feel that Erving had an issue in this regard.

And a related argument:

But Dr J was elite ballhandler for his position. West wasn't. You don't understand, even with if MJ was a better ballhandler (he was elite so there is nothing strange with that), he handled the ball in illegal way. He couldn't palm the ball in 1970s. Even rookie MJ played in an era when refs started allowing more flashy dribble moves. It would be easier for Julius Erving to handle the ball today. Now everyone carries the ball. Without carrying rules it's so easy that even bigs try to be flashy ballhandlers.

Last point, bolded part is just not true. Julius played in the same league with MJ and he was productive even in his last season. People overrate handling abilities. Elgin Baylor didn't use many dribble moves and he could beat any defender off the dribble. All this behind the back and between the legs stuff isn't really important for basketball player. If you think it is, Dr J was quite flashy ballhandler for his era. Sometimes he was allowed to do more with the ball than the rest because people loved him. He could do all important things to beat defender off the dribble and he could beat double teams with his dribbling. Players now are more comfortable with his dribbling because they basically can't do any illegal dribbles with the way refs call the game. They can also travel in almost any possesion.

If you wish, I can break down Dr J handling ability with video evidence.

PockyCandy's video:

Watch on YouTube

Most of the first 2/3 of the video is near the rim action. However, there are a few instances where he exhibits his ball handling by going between the legs or using a spin move.

The last three minutes show jump shots, passes, and blocks. The game commentator on at least two occasions references Erving's shooting ability.

ABA footage is very rare, so this video's content was drawn from a restricted number of games. Despite that, it demonstrates that Erving was more diverse than what common perception leads one to believe.

[Senior]

What are people's thoughts on 88-95 Jazz teams? I am not exactly a Malone critique but this time period generally gets swept under the rug for whatever reason. Are his team playoff shortcomings thought to be acceptable? Once Jerry Sloan became coach I'd generally think Malone had plenty to get things done. I think this will turn into a supporting cast bashing series but I am curious either way.

88-95 Jazz

tldr Jazz didn't have the offensive support they needed until Hornacek came around in 94

anyway, I'm not really convinced by longevity arguments for Malone - even though his prime was absurdly long, longevity just means you have more chances at the title, not that your chances are better in any given year.

The Jazz had at least 6 chances at the title with Malone as an offensive anchor (94-99) and didn't take advantage of any of them - again, the Bulls only defeated the Jazz twice, so what happened to the rest of the years? I cannot take the MJ excuse seriously when the 99 Jazz had everything going for them; MJ gone, LA a year away, weak East, only the Spurs looked like legitimate contenders and the Jazz beat them in 98...but they lost to Portland with Malone having an awful series. even if Dirk in place of Malone doesn't win the 97/98 Finals you best believe he's not throwing away 1999 with everything in his favor. if I need to win a title in any given year, I'll take the guy with higher expected chances over a guy with more years every time. you could argue that Malone's longevity gave him the ability to outlast everyone and swoop in when the opportunity presented itself (kind of like Duncan, actually), but that didn't work out in real life and depending on outside circumstances for a title run is inherently a weaker method than just being a better player.

Dirk had around 5 chances (03, 05-07, 11), although the first 4 teams had mediocre defenses. I think that despite Dirk's defensive metrics he wasn't really much more than above average and his Mavs teams were always getting taken apart on defense - even though they were definitely a talented team, that talent was almost all on offense. Dirk wasn't the kind of defender to cover up for his perimeter guys getting killed by Wade, Nash, CP3, and even guys like Billups or JR Smith. They were contenders, albeit fatally flawed ones due to their suspect defense.

however, in 2011 when he had those guys such as Chandler, Marion, Kidd, and Stevenson they immediately won the title in dominant fashion. That might've been the only year they had because OKC and SA were coming on the horizon and Chandler was in the last year of his contract. Dirk grabbed that chance by the throat and that's why he's sitting at home with a title. Malone did not the same for the Jazz. I don't hold it against Dirk for having that support because every superstar needs support, but when he had guys that could hold up the defensive end they won. I think it's okay to hold the 06/07 eliminations against Dirk (although Dirk vs the 06 Spurs is a crazy-good series) and they were already in a position to win as Malone was in the Finals vs Chicago - but Dirk cashed in on another opportunity which Malone did not. their similar longevity can't make up that gap.

[Jaivl]

Jerry West
Karl Malone
Elgin Baylor
Julius Erving
David Robinson
Bob Pettit
John Havlicek
Moses Malone
Kevin McHale
Charles Barkley
Patrick Ewing
George Mikan
Walt Frazier
John Stockton
Nate Thurmond
Dave Cowens
Isaiah Thomas (sic)

Again, I think you could take Dirk and the guys I listed above and move them around in any order and that would be valid. All of these guys are all-time great in this general area.

Some of those players' cases would be really slim at best, IMO, but a case could exist depending on different perceptions or criteria... but what would you base the case for Isiah Thomas on? Especially when you left clearly better guards on both sides of the ball (Wade, Paul, that's not counting Nash). His case over those players is already weak and mostly accolade-based, and Dirk has about 50% more prime seasons. You'd have to think IT was an ATG offensive savant, quite better than Dirk, for that comparison to hold water.

[Winsome Gerbil]

I would like us to go ahead and get Mailman in so I can turn to what seem to be more interesting stacks of comparisons with Moses, Dirk, Barkley and Admiral.

[wojoaderge]

One or two franchises can be mistaken, or a quirk of fate, or whatever, but the general rule is that you hold on to big time talent with your life. That's not how franchises treated Moses.

What are you talking about?

[wojoaderge]

Not much more to say about George Mikan other than he's my first vote once again. To repeat, no one left on the board was as dominating in his particular time or served as the go-to guy on as championship teams as he did.

Now for my alternate. Moses - I just have no idea why he's so underrated. He's easily more dominating, more overpowering, and more impossible to stop than any of 5s or 4s remaining. 3 MVPs. He led a 65-17 team to the championship as its best player and led a sub-.500 team to the NBA Finals (only the 2nd one to date). If you want to talk longevity, he had at least 16 straight good to awesome seasons. So, I don't know the problem is here.

Regarding Moses, i've been seeing some very ethereal reasoning as to why he shouldn't be considered for these spots. He couldn't do this, he wasn't that, etc. Magic, for example, wasn't a great defender or scorer, and yet no one has a problem with putting him in the top 10. As some have said previously, perhaps we should examine what he actually accomplished rather than nitpick about little things in his game. If you're so inclined . . .

1-George Mikan
2-Moses Malone

[scrabbarista]

14. Karl Malone

15. Julius Erving

I. Karl Malone Bob Pettit are tied among remaining players in my MVP voting metric. Julius Erving is next after them.

II. Malone is second among remaining players in my "Honors" metric, after Jerry West.

III. Malone is the only player, along with Kareem, to have over 60,000 career regular season points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks. Kevin Garnett, in fourth all-time, has 50,074. This gigantic number for Malone is a major part of his case for being so high despite his relatively "lackluster" playoff resume.

IV. Speaking of the playoffs, Malone is 9th all-time in playoff points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. He is above all remaining players, as well as Bill Russell, Larry Bird(!), Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin Garnett, and Oscar Robertson.

V. Significant parts of Erving's case come from his time in the ABA, which I penalize pretty heavily (I think I have the penalty at minus 30% for most accomplishments). Even with that penalty, his numbers are impressive, as is the fact that he was the best player on two championship teams while in his prime (also penalized at 30%). The only players left who have that on their resumes are Mikan, Isiah Thomas, and Dave Cowens, none of whom I would personally consider this high, meaning he is unique among players in consideration.

VI. Even with a 30% penalty for his ABA numbers, Erving is 12th all-time in postseason points, rebounds, blocks, steals, and assists. He finishes above Hakeem Olajuwon and Oscar Robertson as well as with over 38% more than Kevin Garnett (6800 to 4900 - that's with a 30% penalty for ABA totals).

In my GOAT list I have Dr J and Karl Malone in the same set of 5 GOAT Spots: GOAT #s 6-10 (Wilt, Dr J, Kobe, "O", K. Malone) - so I really don't have a gap between the two of them and could "live" with either ranked slightly ahead of or behind the other.

I will SUGGEST one thing about the ABA of Dr J's playing days.
1. THE ABA OUTPLAYED THE NBA IN THEIR MANY EXHIBITION GAMES, MORE SO EACH YEAR. Exhibition games seldom mean much; but back then, they meant more than they ever did at any other time. Why? Because so very much was at stake. Was the NBA really the dominant League (as they had been during the ABA's earliest years)? Had the upstart ABA caught up? The ABA "beat up" on the NBA in those later exhibition years to gain an over-all Dual-League period advantage (despite starting off losing decidedly more games in the earliest years).

2. EX-ABA SUPER-STARS GOT THEIR FAIR SHARE OF ALL-NBA 1st-Team & 2nd-Team honors.

3. Three of the four ex-ABA teams held their own in the NBA; with the fourth, the Nets having been raped (along with the remaining ABA teams that weren't allowed in thru the merger).

These three things tell me that the two Leagues, particularly their super-stars, were about equal during Dr J's ABA years.

So "equal" that I wouldn't deduct 5% from Dr J's ABA totals in any category - I basically treat them, like Basketball-Reference does - as stats equal to NBA stats.

I got to see a couple of ABA games - in that direct eye test, the level looked darned close to what I was seeing on TV with the NBA games.

Thank you. I have experimented with different penalties and lacks thereof for the ABA. I think the ABA played more games at a faster pace, which might call for a deduction. However, I don't really know for sure, and I don't create my list thinking in those terms. Rather, I use the available numbers to try to create a list that reflects both my own eye-test observations and the general consensus among the basketball minds who matter to me (all voters on this list are included there).

I actually have Dr. J at 13th on my ATG List and had him at 12th for the longest time before I increased the ABA penalty. For whatever reason, this seems to be higher than almost everyone else I'm aware of - yourself being a notable exception.

Nonetheless, I sincerely appreciate the response - great food for thought. I will certainly keep it in mind as I continue to think about my formula and develop its future iterations.

PS It's probably time I read some of the ABA books I've been avoiding over the years...

[Winsome Gerbil]

What are people's thoughts on 88-95 Jazz teams? I am not exactly a Malone critique but this time period generally gets swept under the rug for whatever reason. Are his team playoff shortcomings thought to be acceptable? Once Jerry Sloan became coach I'd generally think Malone had plenty to get things done. I think this will turn into a supporting cast bashing series but I am curious either way.

88-95 Jazz

tldr Jazz didn't have the offensive support they needed until Hornacek came around in 94

anyway, I'm not really convinced by longevity arguments for Malone - even though his prime was absurdly long, longevity just means you have more chances at the title, not that your chances are better in any given year.

The Jazz had at least 6 chances at the title with Malone as an offensive anchor (94-99) and didn't take advantage of any of them - again, the Bulls only defeated the Jazz twice, so what happened to the rest of the years? I cannot take the MJ excuse seriously when the 99 Jazz had everything going for them; MJ gone, LA a year away, weak East, only the Spurs looked like legitimate contenders and the Jazz beat them in 98...but they lost to Portland with Malone having an awful series. even if Dirk in place of Malone doesn't win the 97/98 Finals you best believe he's not throwing away 1999 with everything in his favor. if I need to win a title in any given year, I'll take the guy with higher expected chances over a guy with more years every time. you could argue that Malone's longevity gave him the ability to outlast everyone and swoop in when the opportunity presented itself (kind of like Duncan, actually), but that didn't work out in real life and depending on outside circumstances for a title run is inherently a weaker method than just being a better player.

Dirk had around 5 chances (03, 05-07, 11), although the first 4 teams had mediocre defenses. I think that despite Dirk's defensive metrics he wasn't really much more than above average and his Mavs teams were always getting taken apart on defense - even though they were definitely a talented team, that talent was almost all on offense. Dirk wasn't the kind of defender to cover up for his perimeter guys getting killed by Wade, Nash, CP3, and even guys like Billups or JR Smith. They were contenders, albeit fatally flawed ones due to their suspect defense.

however, in 2011 when he had those guys such as Chandler, Marion, Kidd, and Stevenson they immediately won the title in dominant fashion. That might've been the only year they had because OKC and SA were coming on the horizon and Chandler was in the last year of his contract. Dirk grabbed that chance by the throat and that's why he's sitting at home with a title. Malone did not the same for the Jazz. I don't hold it against Dirk for having that support because every superstar needs support, but when he had guys that could hold up the defensive end they won. I think it's okay to hold the 06/07 eliminations against Dirk (although Dirk vs the 06 Spurs is a crazy-good series) and they were already in a position to win as Malone was in the Finals vs Chicago - but Dirk cashed in on another opportunity which Malone did not. their similar longevity can't make up that gap.

You do realize Mailman was 35 by 1999 point right? And Stockton was 36, Hornacek 35?

I can't think of any title team to break through with such an old core. They just ran out of time.

For comparison Dirk was getting old when he broke though in 2011...at age 32. Hakeem was getting old when he broke through in 1994...at age 31.

[Senior]

You do realize Mailman was 35 by 1999 point right? And Stockton was 36, Hornacek 35?

I can't think of any title team to break through with such an old core. They just ran out of time.

For comparison Dirk was getting old when he broke though in 2011...at age 32. Hakeem was getting old when he broke through in 1994...at age 31.

Malone was the MVP in 1999 and his team was good enough for the best record in the league. They were on a 61 win pace. Either their core's ages didn't matter or Malone's MVP was fraudulent. Malone won MVPs at older ages than Dirk/Hakeem won titles at and he's even cited his peak as 98, so his age obviously didn't matter to him.

If anything the Jazz had MORE time than every other 90s contender except the Bulls who went 6/8 in the 90s with MJ anyway. They outlasted the contemporary Sonics, Rockets, Suns, Drexler's Blazers, Magic's Lakers, and Nellie's Warriors. All of those teams eliminated the Jazz at some point from 1988 to 1999. They had plenty of time. Certainly more than other ATGs had. Malone's Jazz could've broken through at any time during the 90s - it's not a passive event.

Again, it's not the ages that matter. It's the level you're playing at that matters. Malone in 99 was thought to be the MVP even at 35 and his team had their chance to take the title with MJ gone. By 00 it was too late because other, better teams stormed in and made Utah irrelevant.

[penbeast0]

Thank you. I have experimented with different penalties and lacks thereof for the ABA. I think the ABA played more games at a faster pace, which might call for a deduction. However, I don't really know for sure, and I don't create my list thinking in those terms. Rather, I use the available numbers to try to create a list that reflects both my own eye-test observations and the general consensus among the basketball minds who matter to me (all voters on this list are included there).

I actually have Dr. J at 13th on my ATG List and had him at 12th for the longest time before I increased the ABA penalty. For whatever reason, this seems to be higher than almost everyone else I'm aware of - yourself being a notable exception.

Nonetheless, I sincerely appreciate the response - great food for thought. I will certainly keep it in mind as I continue to think about my formula and develop its future iterations.

PS It's probably time I read some of the ABA books I've been avoiding over the years...

I think I said this before, but the ABA penalty has to differ. Had a metric for it based on players who changed leagues, but can't find it. Basically it starts big, 30% is quite reasonable, for the first 2 years. Then 20% for 70-71, 15 for 72, 10 for 73, 5 for 74, EVEN for 75, and 76 is just a mess, talent concentrated on top few teams so probably no penalty unless you play for Virginia . . . but then again, there could be a penalty to take into account playing against Virginia, so call it 5% again.

The most fun ABA read I've found is Terry Pluto's "Loose Balls," which has a narrative but most of the book are quotes and short interviews with ABA people about it. Very easy fun read and really lays out the whole spirit and a lot of the real talent of the ABA.

[Outside]

Jerry West
Karl Malone
Elgin Baylor
Julius Erving
David Robinson
Bob Pettit
John Havlicek
Moses Malone
Kevin McHale
Charles Barkley
Patrick Ewing
George Mikan
Walt Frazier
John Stockton
Nate Thurmond
Dave Cowens
Isaiah Thomas (sic)

Again, I think you could take Dirk and the guys I listed above and move them around in any order and that would be valid. All of these guys are all-time great in this general area.

Some of those players' cases would be really slim at best, IMO, but a case could exist depending on different perceptions or criteria... but what would you base the case for Isiah Thomas on? Especially when you left clearly better guards on both sides of the ball (Wade, Paul, that's not counting Nash). His case over those players is already weak and mostly accolade-based, and Dirk has about 50% more prime seasons. You'd have to think IT was an ATG offensive savant, quite better than Dirk, for that comparison to hold water.

Fine, take Isiah off the list (sorry about listing him as Isaiah, which is the spelling for the current Celtics Thomas). I figure many people could pick one or two guys and say, "hey, they don't qualify." The point is that there are a lot of great players, and that one person having player X from the group at 15 and another having the same player at 30 is valid and probably expected at this point.

We all use different criteria, and we all judge each player's impact in each area differently. These guys are all great players, and where they wind up within this tier depends more on how we assess them than on any clearcut difference in quality.

[drza]

Travel has completely disconnected me from these discussions, and makes it hard to jump in at this point in the thread and make any difference. My main methods of evaluation thus far have been impact-oriented, trying to identify which (among the sea of great NBA players) have done the most to help their teams succeed. Evaluating this is more difficult once we get before the databall era, but with the +/- data from the 76ers statistician that fpliii gathered and the WOWY work that ElGee has spearheaded we've got more tools on that front than we have for any previous project.

Of the players left on the board, it seems to me that West, Robinson and Dirk have the best impact cases left. Dr. J, Malone and Malone also have strong cases in general, but there are more questions there. I'll get into them more in future threads (any that don't go in here), and they have the chance to move up my list. But coming in late without much time, for this thread I'll focus most on West, Robinson and Dirk.

West's WOWY results support that his abilities as a scoring team offense initiator made him one of the biggest impact players of his era, or any other. His game also seems very translatable across era, as there's little doubt in my mind that he would have been able to use the 3-pointer as a weapon to make him even more effective in the modern game than he was in his own. Injuries are a big concern for West. I could consider them as another area, though, in which West would have benefited from the more modern era with better medical and training techniques. That's less tangible, though. What is tangible is that West, along with Oscar, was one of the greatest offensive players of his era with a separation from anyone else of that time. That West had a lot of injuries is a negative, but those injuries also gave us plenty of chances to evaluate what his teams looked like without him...and they struggled. With him, they were great. And he did have a history of putting up big boxscore numbers in the postseason that, without any method of estimating postseason impact, defaults to looking really elite considering his measured/estimated regular season impact.

Robinson was electric, to my eye test. His tournament run at Navy was some of the most exciting individual play I remember in the NCAA, and when he burst onto the scene in the pros after his tour of duty was up, he immediately looked like one of the best players in the NBA. Before the RPoY project I always felt like Robinson was overly downgraded for the Hakeem series in 95, but in that RPoY project several posters (especially Kaima) did a great job of pointing out how Robinson relatively struggled in 94, 96 and 98 against Karl Malone and the Jazz and used that as a basis for arguing that Robinson's playoff issues weren't just a Hakeem 95 thing, but a systemic issue. Subsequent research, posts and project discussions about Robinson's mechanisms of impact have been convincing that Robinson's game really does have tangible difficulty to be the focal iso-scoring lead in the playoffs...and that his overall offensive game wasn't diverse enough to maintain his offensive impact in the postseason. There is even some evidence that in the postseason in his peak, while trying to carry the load on both ends against some tough competition, Robinson's defensive impact slid a bit as well. These are all issues.

However, we have more information than that to work with to try to peg Robinson's level. It shouldn't have come as a shock to anyone, but Robinson's regular season on/off +/- data did peg him as the highest regular season impact player of the mid-90s (94 - 96). That's expected, but it is good to be able to quantify that. However, we also have quantitative impact estimates for another time period that is often minimized/ignored for Robinson...the 98 - 2000 period that has historically been considered the "Duncan era".

While it is unarguable that Duncan's presence as the focal point of the Spurs was huge in bringing the Spurs to championship level, and probably made the game much easier for Robinson...and while one could also strongly argue that Duncan may have been the actual leader of those teams and the player that opponents game-planned for...it's ALSO clear from the RAPM results that Robinson was having just about as much impact on the scoring margins of those 98 - 00 Spurs as Duncan was. Robinson was the defensive anchor on those teams, and with Timmy there as another offensive focus Robinson's offense was also able to flourish. And even in the postseason, the available on/off +/- numbers suggest that Robinson was able to maintain his huge regular season impact into the postseason in this era. Again, when we compare Robinson's postseason impact in the Duncan era to his impact at his peak, I think we have to credit Duncan's presence with making the game easier for him to maintain his best impact. However...that doesn't disqualify the impact itself. And I think that it also suggests that, while a team wouldn't want to move forward with Robinson as their focal offensive player, that a team that allows him to play to his strengths would be getting very possibly the highest impact player in the NBA in both the regular and post season.

Dirk played his whole career in the databall era, so we have the ability to measure/estimate his impact at a granularity that isn't available for previous generations. In both the regular and the postseason. He was a unique beast as a player, in that there isn't really a template for how a 7-footer with the offensive/scoring abilities of an elite wing can affect the game. What we saw, in practice, was that Dirk was able to make a very high impact on the game for much of the 2000s...he was regularly among the top 10, if not top-5, in the league as far as individual regular season impacts while carrying very successful teams.

But, while he actually improved on many of his boxscore stats in the postseason, he didn't have a very strong postseason impact run for most of the 2000s. I've argued, in the past, that those lower playoffs +/- numbers may have come from teams not distorting their defenses to defend him in the postseason the way that they did in the regular season. That teams may have been more willing to play Dirk straight up and let him get his as he could in the postseason, which allowed him to improve his scoring volume/efficiency, but may have weakened his spacing impact. That some of the teams would go so far as to defend Dirk with a wing instead of a big man, which further may have allowed him to get his but weakened his spacing impact on his team's results. And (as I've been arguing more and more in recent times), I think that a player's impact on team results can be much more important than his own scoring numbers, when it comes to estimating his overall impact.

Up through most of the 2000s, then, I'd argue that Dirk's seasons were similar impact-wise (in both the regular season and the playoffs) to what we saw from 90s Karl Malone. Malone's postseason scoring numbers dipped, unlike Dirk's, but again I don't know that Dirk's boxscore numbers were indicative of his actual impact. And in the larger regular season samples, both Karl (as measured by the available +/- numbers from 1994 on) and Dirk measured out in that top 5 - 10 players in the NBA range in the regular season and had trouble maintaining that in the postseason.

However, in the late 2000s up through 2011, Dirk upped his game. He added a more effective iso post game on offense, that took him out of the range of 7-foot scoring wing and gave him a legit big-boy component to his game. Thereafter, teams that tried to defend him with Stephen Jackson types would get punished. Also, I'd argue that by diversifying his scoring mechanisms an operating more from the post, it changed Dirk's center of offensive gravity and caused defenses to have to react to him in a more dynamic way. His shooting still provided interior spacing by bringing folks out, but his post-game could pull defenses more into the paint and make life a breeze for guys like Jason Terry. And his ability to partner the pick and roll/pop did the same, most famously around here for guys like J.J. Barea. And it's this late-prime modification to his game that separates Dirk from a player like Karl Malone, who also developed and diversified his offensive game in his late-prime to become a bigger offensive impact player...but never was able to do so to the full extent/effectiveness demonstrated by late-prime Dirk.

Overall: each of West, Robinson an Dirk had both a demonstrated/measurable all-time level impact that neither Erving, the Malones, or anyone else up in this category were able to match. However, each also had warts/limitations that kept them from going even higher on this list. To me, that means that right here is the exact right time to be discussing all three. And I'm not sure which is the correct order for the three. However, at the moment, Robinson's all-time defense in addition to his ability to operate at high level impacts as a secondary offensive threat (which is actually ideal for almost all big men) seems like the most effective of these three in the widest array of possibilities. West's injuries bother me, especially compared to a relative iron man like Dirk, but he also seemed to maintain his impact better throughout the course of his career...perhaps because his impact didn't rely so heavily on how teams chose to defend him, the way that Dirk's did until his post-game came into focus. Again, could be argued in any number of directions here (including with players that I didn't focus on), but having come in at this late stage of the thread, for now I have to just pick an order to vote, and then hope to have better discussions moving forward.

Vote: David Robinson
2nd: Jerry West

[Winsome Gerbil]

You do realize Mailman was 35 by 1999 point right? And Stockton was 36, Hornacek 35?

I can't think of any title team to break through with such an old core. They just ran out of time.

For comparison Dirk was getting old when he broke though in 2011...at age 32. Hakeem was getting old when he broke through in 1994...at age 31.

Malone was the MVP in 1999 and his team was good enough for the best record in the league. They were on a 61 win pace. Either their core's ages didn't matter or Malone's MVP was fraudulent. Malone won MVPs at older ages than Dirk/Hakeem won titles at and he's even cited his peak as 98, so his age obviously didn't matter to him.

If anything the Jazz had MORE time than every other 90s contender except the Bulls who went 6/8 in the 90s with MJ anyway. They outlasted the contemporary Sonics, Rockets, Suns, Drexler's Blazers, Magic's Lakers, and Nellie's Warriors. All of those teams eliminated the Jazz at some point from 1988 to 1999. They had plenty of time. Certainly more than other ATGs had. Malone's Jazz could've broken through at any time during the 90s - it's not a passive event.

Again, it's not the ages that matter. It's the level you're playing at that matters. Malone in 99 was thought to be the MVP even at 35 and his team had their chance to take the title with MJ gone. By 00 it was too late because other, better teams stormed in and made Utah irrelevant.

1) by 2000 Mailman was 36. Stockton was 37. It's beyond irrational to think that any team in history at that stage of its life cycle would contend.

2) actually what happened back then was this: MJ's Final MVP was a bit dicey. Or...maybe not dicey because it was always said back then that you could have given him the MVP every year for the last 10 years of his main career, but voters got tired and wanted to spread the wealth to some of the other all timers being eclipsed. But in any case in Jordan's last season the voters wanted to make sure they tipped their caps, and so in 1998 Mailman was imminently worthy of the MVP and everybody knew it, but Jordan was going to get it. Then 1999 comes around, there is the strike and resulting chaos, nobody really looks worthy, and so they gave it to Mailman for continued excellence and as a bit of an apology for 1998. But his numbers were already falling off, and critically, John Stockton was getting ancient. Its a ridiculous expectation that a 36 yr old PG is going to be able to lead his barely talented team to a title. By that point Hornacek was nothing. A 12ppg scorer. And their roleplayers were nothing. Their best roleplayer was a guy named David Benoit. So it was Mailman at 35 having to do everything during a sprint season, and it was just too much. That's not a real opportunity. Or if it is, if Mailman pulls that off at that age, then a large chunk of the Top 10 should be tasting his rear end fumes, because there's no way they could have pulled that off.

Just ran out of time. And despite all the hubub, in the end, during the entire prime run for Stockton to Malone there were only 2 seasons where they could have had their shot, and those were the two seasons Hakeem surged forward to take instead. In fact when you get down to it, 4 times in 5 years the Jazz lost to the eventual NBA champions ('94, '95, '97, '98).

[Hornet Mania]

I'm sorry I don't have more time to write my reasons, but work has been heavy lately and I just want to get under the wire. I've already written some about Dr. J in the last thread.

14. Julius Erving
2nd vote: Karl Malone

Mailman gets the slight edge over Robinson/West/Moses because of longevity. His iron man endurance s absolutely ridiculous. Not just the number of seasons, or advanced age at which he was still winning MVP awards an making ASG appearances, but also the minute-per-game burden he carried year after year while playing 75+ games basically every season. Even though I believe he was an inferior player at his best to the others I just listed (and several more I didn't list) at some point the sheer utility of having a Malone-caliber player at a HUGE advantage in years/minutes outweighs peak. Now that we've set aside the generational uber-talents (for the most part) Malone is towards the top of the next tier anyway and his longevity gives him the lead in my eyes.