RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #17

[JoeMalburg]

If we count mutual prime seasons as '88-'92 in H2H games, excluding Isiah's performance in the Karl Malone elbow game we get:

Stockton - 17 pts/12ast/2reb/2 steal/2.7 TO/66% TS
Isiah - 23 pts/7 ast/4 reb/ 1 steal/3.4 TO/66% TS

This misnomer that Isiah dominated Stockton H2H just isn't real. Both guys excelled at what they did against each other.

You're being too dependent on numbers and not looking for the bigger picture through context. And also bear in mind you're talking about two all-time greats, don't expect one guy to do nothing at all.

I'll go more deeply into this when the time comes in the project, but that's a pretty clear edge to Isiah H2H. His scoring efficiency way goes up, Stockton's mostly levels off. Isiah scores at will (17-30% above his average for those seasons) and his team wins like 7 out of 10 or 6 out of 9. Stockton's assist numbers typically were down vs. Isiah. Stockton averaged 14 per game in this period and only once in that span did Stockton reach that total, it was 18 in a blowout for the Pistons. So never in 8-9 competitive prime games was Stockton able to hit his assist average and Isiah scored on Stockton more effectively than almost any other starter he faced with regularity.

Also, if we expand the comparison to the last game of 1987 and the first meeting on 1993 (the next time Isiah saw Utah after Malone's elbow) Isiah adds another 40 ('93) and 30 ('87) point game against Stockton.

If look at each game individually you'll see that Isiah gets the better of Stockton much more frequently than otherwise.

Isiah owned him. Isiah knew and so did John.

[Doctor MJ]

Isiah has five primes seasons as leader of team with talent to contend, result: 2 Rings, 3 Finals, 15 playoff series victories
CPS has five primes seasons as leader of team with talent to contend, result: 0 Rings, 0 Finals, 3 playoff series victories

That's a bigger gap and far more significant to what I believe the common measure of great players is, than anything impact stats can demonstrate. So that's what I would need someone making your argument to explain. How that happened, if Chris Paul is better.

For me Pistons supporting cast is a lot better than Clippers, who have offensive talent but are obvious pretenders from a defense etc. standpoint and the difference in depth between the two teams is mammoth.

There is a case to be made that Isiah, who put up 18/9/.52 type of production and didn't make All-NBA teams or get MVP votes during title years, should be put in a category more like 04 Pistons or 79 Sonics best player

Only if you look exclusively at statistics and ignore all context available.

Isiah played on a team with one of the most dominant playoff defenses of all-time. He wasn't the defensive star.

Right there it makes it hard to take seriously that his supporting cast wasn't special.

In general I don't find lead scorers on defense-oriented teams very impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[JoeMalburg]

For me Pistons supporting cast is a lot better than Clippers, who have offensive talent but are obvious pretenders from a defense etc. standpoint and the difference in depth between the two teams is mammoth.

There is a case to be made that Isiah, who put up 18/9/.52 type of production and didn't make All-NBA teams or get MVP votes during title years, should be put in a category more like 04 Pistons or 79 Sonics best player

Only if you look exclusively at statistics and ignore all context available.

Isiah played on a team with one of the most dominant playoff defenses of all-time. He wasn't the defensive star.

Right there it makes it hard to take seriously that his supporting cast wasn't special.

In general I don't find lead scorers on defense-oriented teams very impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Had they not played together without Isiah as the leader they'd be remembered a lot differently.

Bill Laimbeer would be a journeyman enforcer who led the league in rebounding once. He's Michael Cage.

Mark Aguirre is a bulk scorer, poor defender with poor advanced stats who never played for a contender.

James Edwards is a one dimensional journeyman.

Rick Mahorn is a run of the mill enforcer.

Dennis Rodman probably never makes it through his first five years as a pro.

Vinnie Johnson is one dimensional guard who never found a home.

John Salley peaked with the Pistons. He was never as good in different roles.

Dumars was never as good as the #1 option or alongside Grant Hill.

The Pistons won because of their defense, no doubt. But these weren't great individual defenders. Dumars was a very good in ball defender, Rodman would become great, but was a part time player until 1990. Laimbeer played good post defense and was a good rebounder. Salley was a shot blocker and their eighth or ninth man. They played team defense and believed in each other. They were great because they were a great team. They were a great team because of Isiah. He made them believe they were great. They won back to back titles because of Isiah and the toughness he gave them. Lots of great team defenses never came close to the dominance in terms of winning the Pistons Posted. That's not just my opinion, that's what the people involved will tell you.

[Doctor MJ]

Only if you look exclusively at statistics and ignore all context available.

Isiah played on a team with one of the most dominant playoff defenses of all-time. He wasn't the defensive star.

Right there it makes it hard to take seriously that his supporting cast wasn't special.

In general I don't find lead scorers on defense-oriented teams very impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Had they not played together without Isiah as the leader they'd be remembered a lot differently.

Bill Laimbeer would be a journeyman enforcer who led the league in rebounding once. He's Michael Cage.

Mark Aguirre is a bulk scorer, poor defender with poor advanced stats who never played for a contender.

James Edwards is a one dimensional journeyman.

Rick Mahorn is a run of the mill enforcer.

Dennis Rodman probably never makes it through his first five years as a pro.

Vinnie Johnson is one dimensional guard who never found a home.

John Salley peaked with the Pistons. He was never as good in different roles.

Dumars was never as good as the #1 option or alongside Grant Hill.

The Pistons won because of their defense, no doubt. But these weren't great individual defenders. Dumars was a very good in ball defender, Rodman would become great, but was a part time player until 1990. Laimbeer played good post defense and was a good rebounder. Salley was a shot blocker and their eighth or ninth man. They played team defense and believed in each other. They were great because they were a great team. They were a great team because of Isiah. He made them believe they were great. They won back to back titles because of Isiah and the toughness he gave them. Lots of great team defenses never came close to the dominance in terms of winning the Pistons Posted. That's not just my opinion, that's what the people involved will tell you.

And had Isiah not played with a major advantage in the defensive end he would have no rings, and you'd probably thin very differently about him.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[therealbig3]

I have Paul, Stockton, and Nash over Isiah for sure, and the likes of Walt and KJ and Kidd are certainly in the discussion.

[JoeMalburg]

I have no doubt that the effects of the echo chamber within this forum are very strong.

Edit: In case anyone's feelings were hurt by this...well, my bad, didn't know this was a safe space.

[pandrade83]

If we count mutual prime seasons as '88-'92 in H2H games, excluding Isiah's performance in the Karl Malone elbow game we get:

Stockton - 17 pts/12ast/2reb/2 steal/2.7 TO/66% TS
Isiah - 23 pts/7 ast/4 reb/ 1 steal/3.4 TO/66% TS

This misnomer that Isiah dominated Stockton H2H just isn't real. Both guys excelled at what they did against each other.

You're being too dependent on numbers and not looking for the bigger picture through context. And also bear in mind you're talking about two all-time greats, don't expect one guy to do nothing at all.

So what is that context? It's hard to take you seriously when you just say you're not looking for context without providing any.

I'll go more deeply into this when the time comes in the project, but that's a pretty clear edge to Isiah H2H. His scoring efficiency way goes up, Stockton's mostly levels off. Isiah scores at will (17-30% above his average for those seasons) and his team wins like 7 out of 10 or 6 out of 9. Stockton's assist numbers typically were down vs. Isiah. Stockton averaged 14 per game in this period and only once in that span did Stockton reach that total, it was 18 in a blowout for the Pistons. So never in 8-9 competitive prime games was Stockton able to hit his assist average and Isiah scored on Stockton more effectively than almost any other starter he faced with regularity.

I'll go out on a limb and say that Stockton's #'s being down might've had more to do with facing an elite defense than anything Isiah did to disrupt it.

Also, if we expand the comparison to the last game of 1987 and the first meeting on 1993 (the next time Isiah saw Utah after Malone's elbow) Isiah adds another 40 ('93) and 30 ('87) point game against Stockton.

Well, I wanted to limit it to each player's mutual prime but if you want to pick seasons where Stockton wasn't a starter and cherrypick that's your choice I guess. I expanded this to include '93 (but not '94 - not fair to Isiah).
Stockton - 16 pts, 12 ast, 2 reb, 2 stl, 66% TS 2.5 TO - 5 Wins
Isiah - 24 pts, 7 ast, 3 reb, 1 stl, 64% TS 3.4 TO - 6 wins


If look at each game individually you'll see that Isiah gets the better of Stockton much more frequently than otherwise.

Isiah owned him. Isiah knew and so did John.
Source? I can find where Magic said it but not Stockton.

[JoeMalburg]

Dream Team, The Jack McCallum book. Also talks a lot about the mutual respect they have for each other. Isiah introduced Stockton at his HOF induction.

[Senior]

I think the case for Wade would be valuing his best 5 seasons or so over Robinson's. While regular season stats wouldn't back that up, a case can be made on playoff credibility - Wade has shown he can step up big, while Robinson was on the other end too often. If someone valued Wade's peak years > Robinson, it may be enough to justify him over Robinson having a higher quantity of good to great seasons. I see 00-03 Robinson as hands down more valuable than 14-17 Wade for example, but how much should clearly post prime seasons move the needle compared to quality of peak seasons? Depends on the person's criteria. Overall I would lean Robinson but I see a case for Wade if treating the difference between playoff clutch play as critical.

No way I could vote Wade over players like Dirk or Barkley based on the longevity difference though. They have twice as many prime seasons and prime Wade isn't even for sure better. Both Dirk and Barkley have some amazing highs in the playoffs so the Wade can push you through to a championship argument isn't as strong as for DRob

Yeah, D-Rob's playoff questions/flameouts take off some of the luster of his RS/impact numbers. At his absolute peak he and his teams got taken apart by the Jazz and Rockets. His team wasn't great but they certainly weren't garbage - certainly better than what Kobe/KG/Tmac/late 80s Jordan were saddled with. That's just something I can't ignore compared to Dirk, despite the enormous defensive advantage (and even that seems like it slipped a little bit in the playoffs). I'm a big proponent of a player's strengths holding up in the playoffs, and Dirk did that better than D-Rob throughout his prime. I feel D-Rob's box-score offensive numbers significantly overrate what he was capable of against playoff-level defenses whereas you could argue that Dirk's box-scores underrated him. D-Rob's offensive numbers are kinda nuts but I would never take his offense over Dirk's. Too many unreliable things in his offense - not great jumper, too much transition, tended to avoid physical play, didn't handle doubles well, and most importantly - not the offensive creator Dirk was.

Same with Wade, but his shorter career is a concern...but does it matter enough? Would I rather have a guy who only gives me ~6 years of prime but who's ready to go in the playoffs or a guy with 8-9 years of superstar impact (not necessarily play) but needs more support in the playoffs because his game doesn't stand up as well? D-Rob missing 1992 playoffs makes the longevity thing even closer. Barkley is another guy looking in, although his defensive question marks are not only huge, they hurt his team drastically more than a perimeter player's, plus his health is also suspect.

Moses is also an interesting choice since he's similar to Chuck, although Chuck was a more dynamic offensive threat.

Isiah is underrated but not for the reasons covered so far - him vs Stockton will be interesting.

anyway,

vote: dirk
alt: d-rob

[oldschooled]

First of all, a bit of relief (for me) that Dr. J's already in. Its not that i want him to be IN. Its because I really have a HARD time ranking I'm because i dunno what to do with his ABA days. And i dont want that problem

Ok this parts are really the toughest one. I'm one of the guys here that are high on DRob, but i just can't ignore his stats regarding his playoff drop. Playoff play has the edge over regular season, at least for me. So thinking between Dirk and Charles which are both great playoff performers.

Barkley led Dirk in almost all advanced metrics, MVP shares, PER, etc.

MVP Shares (all time)

21st Chuck - 2.437
26th Dirk - 1.810

Code: Select all

                                                                                                                                                   
Rk             Player   PER  TS%  OBPM DBPM BPM VORP
1    Charles Barkley*  24.6 .612   5.7  1.8 7.4 93.5
2       Dirk Nowitzki  22.9 .578   3.2  0.2 3.4 66.0


Barkley has a slim lead over Dirk regarding playoff performance.

Code: Select all

                                                                                                                                             
Rk             Player   PER  TS% OBPM DBPM BPM VORP
1    Charles Barkley*  24.2 .584  4.0  3.3 7.3 11.3
2       Dirk Nowitzki  23.8 .577  1.8  2.2 4.0  8.9


Vote : Sir Charles
Alt : Dirk

[trex_8063]

Chris Paul is simply significantly better than either of them, imo; can go into my reasoning or justification/evidence for saying that, but I think I'll save that for a later thread (when he's more of a candidate).
His longevity is somewhat lacking, but not really when compared to Isiah. Although he's only played 12 seasons (and had some injuries), ALL twelve have essentially been "prime" seasons (so he's already played nearly 200 more "prime-level" rs games than Isiah did): Paul came into the league an elite player, and has remained so to present.

The same can be said for Isiah....

Not really. You would go on to say yourself that by his 12th season......

...he was out of gas. He wasn't an elite player or even close anymore.

And by similar standards, I don't believe he can be argued as an elite player in his rookie year: avg 17.0 ppg @ 48.7% TS [-5.11% rTS; 43.2% eFG and 70.4% FT], 7.8 apg with a 1.89 Ast:TO [poor for a PG, and led the league in TO's], while leading a -1.1 rORTG team (17th of 23).
I mean we can debate semantics, but that is simply not an elite level player to me.


Beyond that, I think you've gone too far in basically giving Isiah credit for the caliber of players that guys like Dumars, Laimbeer, and Rodman were (which I also don't agree with). But I don't want to derail further on this topic before these guys are gaining traction.

[mdonnelly1989]

VOTE #1: Moses Malone

A walking double double.

VOTE #2: Admiral

Almost took him over Moses it's such a close call. Admiral had a great impact because of the defensive anchor he was.

[LA Bird]

I will hopefully have the time to vote more often from now on.

1. Dirk Nowitzki
A top 5 offensive GOAT who is not a complete disaster on defense (see Barkley). Dirk has great longevity and ranks very highly in both box score based stats as well as plus minus stats. Consistently excellent team win % throughout his prime and performs well in the playoffs. To a certain extent, I think Dirk's offensive style was so diametrically different from how PFs were traditionally supposed to play that many were more intent on scrutinizing any potential shortcomings of him as a player rather than look at what he actually achieved throughout his career.

2. David Robinson
Weak longevity is the only reason why DRob is so low. I rank him very highly (#2 player in the 90s) and he would have been a lock for top 10 had he not started so late as a rookie and missed the 92/97 seasons.

Not sure why there is so much discussion about Isiah already but if one wants to make a case for him in the top 20, one would need to believe his playoffs BPM is an accurate measure of his impact as a player throughout his career and justify why his numbers were so much worse in the regular season. Besides, if we are just counting rings, there is another point guard who not only contributed more to his team's 2 championships but was also better than Isiah on both ends of the floor.

[JoeMalburg]

Chris Paul is simply significantly better than either of them, imo; can go into my reasoning or justification/evidence for saying that, but I think I'll save that for a later thread (when he's more of a candidate).
His longevity is somewhat lacking, but not really when compared to Isiah. Although he's only played 12 seasons (and had some injuries), ALL twelve have essentially been "prime" seasons (so he's already played nearly 200 more "prime-level" rs games than Isiah did): Paul came into the league an elite player, and has remained so to present.

The same can be said for Isiah....

Not really. You would go on to say yourself that by his 12th season......

...he was out of gas. He wasn't an elite player or even close anymore.

And by similar standards, I don't believe he can be argued as an elite player in his rookie year: avg 17.0 ppg @ 48.7% TS [-5.11% rTS; 43.2% eFG and 70.4% FT], 7.8 apg with a 1.89 Ast:TO [poor for a PG, and led the league in TO's], while leading a -1.1 rORTG team (17th of 23).
I mean we can debate semantics, but that is simply not an elite level player to me.


Beyond that, I think you've gone too far in basically giving Isiah credit for the caliber of players that guys like Dumars, Laimbeer, and Rodman were (which I also don't agree with). But I don't want to derail further on this topic before these guys are gaining traction.

Fair enough. I'll just say that I'd highly recommend looking into the impact of Isiah on the city of Detroit and his teammates right from day one.

That will help bridge the gap between our perceptions.

[oldschooled]

1. Dirk Nowitzki
A top 5 offensive GOAT who is not a complete disaster on defense (see Barkley). Dirk has great longevity and ranks very highly in both box score based stats as well as plus minus stats. Consistently excellent team win % throughout his prime and performs well in the playoffs. To a certain extent, I think Dirk's offensive style was so diametrically different from how PFs were traditionally supposed to play that many were more intent on scrutinizing any potential shortcomings of him as a player rather than look at what he actually achieved throughout his career.

2. David Robinson
Weak longevity is the only reason why DRob is so low. I rank him very highly (#2 player in the 90s) and he would have been a lock for top 10 had he not started so late as a rookie and missed the 92/97 seasons.

Ok where did this come from since you're comparing him with Dirk regarding defense.

And regarding DRob being #2 player in the 90's, I'm high on him also but are you accounting both regular season and playoffs in that one?

[Winsome Gerbil]

I wanted to post something pro-Barkley in this thread rather than just referencing the last one, so thought I would just underline again the degree to which Charles Barkley compares favorably to Dirk Nowitzki in all the areas routinely pointed to as Dirk strengths, and then adds in the huge rebounding and assist totals as well.

1) Playoff Statistics:
CBarkley 39.4min 23.0pts (.584TS%) 12.9reb 3.9ast 1.6stl 0.9blk 2.9TO 24.2PER
Nowitzki 40.7min 25.3pts (.577TS%) 10.0reb 2.5ast 1.0stl 0.9blk 2.3TO 23.8PER

CBarkley 24.2PER (.584TS%) 25.3DRB% 18.9TRB% WS 19.5 WS/48 .193 BPM 7.3 VORP 11.3 ORTG 118 DRTG 107
Nowitzki 23.8PER (.577TS%) 24.4DRB% 14.0TRB% WS 23.1 WS/48 .188 BPM 4.0 VORP 8.9 ORTG 117 DRTG 107

*obviously raw win shares is dependent on number of games played and so is a longevity measure

Needless to say you have to do some serious work there to construct a Dirk > Barkley argument out of those numbers, and that is supposed to be one of Dirk's great strengths/best arguments.


2) Defense
What about Chuck's defense? Do we KNOW that Chuck was a worse defender than Dirk? Or is that hearsay and accepted wisdom while we have a more familiar figure in Dirk still playing?

Regular Season
CBarkley DRB% 23.7 DWS 53.9 DBPM 1.8 DRTG 105
Nowitzki DRB% 21.8 DWS 59.6 DBPM 0.2 DRTG 104

Playoffs
CBarkley DRB% 25.3 DWS 5.9 DBPM 3.3 DRTG 107
Nowitzki DRB% 24.4 DWS 5.1 DBPM 2.2 DRTG 107

Now none of those statistics is any sort of perfect defensive reflection, but if one guy was supposedly clearly superior to the other wouldn't you expect it to show up SOMEWHERE? By the time you hit the playoffs Chuck is even blocking as many shots as Dirk. It seems a bit convenient just to break ties (and what ties? Statistically Barkley looks superior to Dirk in virtually everything else but longevity) by saying "but oh, Dirk has a slight/moderate/significant edge on Barkley defensively/Barkley was a defensive disaster' so...Dirk wins! Where is the statistical evidence of that? I mean, the statistical evidence of him being that much worse than Dirk?


3) Goto Dirk v. Goto Barkley
Finally of course Dirk gets a ton of credit for being a "goto guy", and less verifiably for having offensive "gravity". I don't think those are unfair claims, except perhaps sometimes in degree. May I suggest that few players could ever match the gravity of somebody appropriately called The Round Mound:


Regular Season
CBarkley 22.1pts (.612TS%) 3.9ast 3.1TO 123.3 OWS 5.7 OBPM 119 ORTG
Nowitzki 21.7pts (.578TS%) 2.6ast 1.8TO 141.6 OWS 3.2 OBPM 116 ORTG

Playoffs
CBarkley 23.0pts (.584TS%) 3.9ast 2.9TO 13.6 OWS 4.0 OBPM 118 ORTG
Nowitzki 25.3pts (.577TS%) 2.5ast 2.3TO 18.0 OWS 1.8 OBPM 117 ORTG


And again, these are belly of the beast numbers. These are routinely claimed as Dirk's strengths that justify much of his prestige on these lists. But what people have forgotten is before they were Dirk's strengths, they were some of Chuck's strengths. He was always a dominant 1 on 1 guy. And he added in excellent passing too so he could beat the defense when the "gravity" effect took hold. He was always a huge playoff performer with some famous monster games on his resume. The difference being that he added in being a physical beast and overwhelming people on the glass, and being a top PF passer controlling games on the break and in the post, overpowering single coverage or forcing double teams, and then beating it with the pass.

Dirk was great at what he was great at, but he had limitations. Chuck's limitations, such as they were, were that he never did master 3pt shooting, but then again why would you when you were one of the most efficient players in history doing it your way? Steph Curry's career TS% is .616 with all the 3pt spamming. Chuck's career TS% was .612 without ever mastering it. If he'd been a good 3pt shooter too he would have a .700 TS% and be the GOAT. Chuck's other limitation was of course defensively. But I question whether it was really that much worse than Dirk's. Where's the evidence? Or is this just Chuck's outsize personality making jokes about his own defense working its way into the debate? if Dirk started making self-deprecating remarks about how poor he is defensively would that be all we'd remember there too?

[eminence]

Box-score defensive stats rely heavily on rebounding, so Chuck coming out fine there shouldn't be a surprise. The impact type stats we do have for Chuck do seem to jive with his bad defensive reputation (a bit better in his early years). In the later years he was hanging around a -2 DRAPM score, and his defensive on/off was never particularly impressive and got progressively worse as the years in Philly went on.

[Bad Gatorade]

Been really strapped for time, so it's been hard to contribute.

My vote goes to Dirk Nowitzki - we've got a guy whose longevity + elite impact is exceptional (and IMO, could have gone a few places higher).

If we look at some RAPM splits, 06-11 Dirk was only 0.1 behind LeBron for #1 impact in the league, and he's got an elite impact footprint outside of this season too -

2002 PI - 4th (Duncan, Shaq and Stockton ahead, and T-Mac is waaay behind at 5th)
2003 PI - 3rd (Duncan, Garnett ahead, Shaq clearly behind in 4th, Stockton is well behind at 5th)
2004 PI - 4th (Duncan, Garnett, Shaq ahead, only Rasheed Wallace is really close to Dirk)
2005 PI - 6th (Duncan/Garnett/Shaq ahead, as well as Ginobili and Kidd)
2012 PI - 2nd (LeBron ahead)
2013 PI - 1st (!)
2014 PI - 5th (LeBron, CP3, Iggy and Curry ahead, and let's remember at this point, Dirk is 35, so this is still incredibly impressive)

In the larger splits, e.g. 2001-2015, Dirk ranks extremely highly too - the only higher minute players with a reasonable sample ranking ahead of him are LeBron, Duncan, Garnett and CP3. Dirk's impact is elite.

As an offensive fulcrum, he repeatedly led elite offensive teams in Dallas with exceptional impact numbers.

He's an excellent playoff performer - his playoff +- numbers (and I'm generally rather sceptical of playoff +- numbers) weren't that flash earlier in his career, but it's worth mentioning that early career Dirk arguably didn't play on teams that maximised playoff impact and are more prone to fluctuations (i.e. all offence, mediocre defence teams). Dirk's impact looks much more pronounced later in his career, and part of it might be due to his post game, but I feel like a lot of it is that Dallas did the smart thing, and improved the fit around Dirk as an offensive fulcrum.

And really, looking at some of the series that Dallas lost... players such as Finley/Nash played well below their level (Nash having multiple series with TS% < 0.500 is pretty shocking for an ATG shooter such as himself), even against tough opposition, and I don't know just how much of that can really be pinned on Dirk's gravity as much as the team structure being less than ideal for playoff success. Couple this with the fact that Dirk was able to emulate (and arguably improve) on his regular season numbers against teams with an average SRS of around 5.0 showcases some powerful playoff resilience to me.

I feel like the players beneath Dirk are either plain lower impact than him (e.g. Moses), or have worse longevity (CP3, Wade, Robinson). Robinson is probably the only player not voted in yet that I think has higher impact than Dirk (save for Walton, whose longevity is... shocking, or Mikan, who I really, really don't know where to rank, honestly). His combination of longevity and impact is exceptional.

I'd also like to throw in the idea that Dirk is one of the best close game players in history - from 2001 to 2015, Dirk averaged 28.5 clutch points per 36 minutes on 58.0 TS% (with excellent box score stats, e.g. lots of rebounds/extremely low turnovers). He thrived in close game situations. But what's even more incredible is the plus minus numbers that Dallas accrued over this time.

Per 100 possessions -

2001: 4.3
2002: 19.9
2003: 17.0
2004: -9.6
2005: 22.4
2006: 16.7
2007: 30.7
2008: 15.8
2009: 17.4
2010: 30.5
2011: 38.4 (!)
2012: 3.9
2013: -1.2
2014: 24.9
2015: 30.3

In a 15 year sample, we've got 1 horrible year (2004, and that roster construction was... stupid) and 3 mediocre years (2001, 2012 and 2013). And it's worth considering that +- numbers are prone to quite a bit of fluctuation on a year to year basis. If we look at a 15 year sample, Dirk's career plus minus is around +17.9 per 100 possessions in clutch situations. That is... remarkable. And even though Dallas was generally a good team during this time, +17.9 is so good that despite the sheer fluctuation that a tiny, single season sample size provides, this +17.9 would have ranked 5th in 2017, 3rd in 2016, 4th in 2015 and so on. Dirk was a demon in close games, and his effect on Win Probability (factoring in scoring margin) from 2001 to 2015 is 4th, but in a fairly tight tier with Garnett, Duncan and Paul from 2-5 (LeBron is clearly 1st). He's almost a cheat code in this respect.

And what his close game excellence + playoff game excellence tells me is that despite his already gaudy, MVP-level impact, Dirk's impact numbers might actually underrate how much he influences the probability of winning a game (and series) of basketball. He's got incredible resilience against tough opponents and scenarios, maintains these elite numbers on consistently good teams as the primary offensive option. I don't have a top 100 list or anything of my own, but I feel like Dirk would almost definitely go higher than #17 on my list.

Second vote goes to David Robinson - if we had impact numbers for Robinson's prime, he'd almost definitely rate above Dirk. I put Dirk above Robinson though, as Robinson appears to trend the other way in playoff resilience/clutch performance to Dirk, and his longevity is quite a bit worse. Absolutely unreal player though.

...

I don't think I'd honestly place Isiah in the top 30, let alone top 20, and this is somebody that acknowledges that he's one of the best playoff PGs of all time.

Those Detroit teams were pretty stacked, man. The current +- footprint of the 80s (i.e. ElGee's WOWY work) actually portrays Thomas as the 3rd highest impact guy on that team behind Rodman and Laimbeer. And that's not factoring in that there were clearly other guys, e.g. Dumars, who contributed quite a bit to winning. CP3's teams have had a few big names (Griffin, Jordan) and these guys are definitely good players - but they also had an utter fart brain of a coach in Doc Rivers, some horrible bench support and the team chemistry assassin known as Jamal Crawford plaguing their teams.

Even looking at the playoff results for Detroit, their most successful run was the 1988-1990 period, where they won 11 series (and 2 titles), Detroit were clearly not winning on the basis of their offence - in the 60 games they played these 3 years, their average relative playoff ORTG was +2.9. That is... not a bad offence, by any means, but it's probably one of the worse playoff offences that actually won any championships, let alone two. And it's not like Thomas was doing it with zero offensive help at all - Dumars was a good offensive player in his own right, Rodman's offensive rebound is projected to have a reasonable offensive impact, Laimbeer spaced the floor very well as a big (allowing guards like Thomas to actually penetrate to the rim and occupy the paint more than a paint-orientated center would) etc.

Even if one prescribes to the belief that LAC provided CP3 better offensive support than Thomas (and I don't think that's unreasonable at all, although I don't think the gap is quite as large as people would make out thanks to the negative presence of guys like Jamal Crawford on the team), CP3 actually averaged an ORTG of +4.9 in series in which the Clippers were eliminated the past 6 years. If you ignore the Spurs series of 2012 (where CP3 played poorly, no sugarcoating there), that improves to +6.4. Using team success as a barometer doesn't seem entirely fair here, because the gap in offensive support isn't as large as the general gap in ORTG, IMO. And in terms of defence, I can't vouch for Thomas all that much since he's before my time (and defensive statistics are spotty at best back then), but I don't hear all that much about Thomas really being a needle-mover on that end of the court, whereas CP3 is one of the best defensive PGs of all time.

This seems to imply that one of the biggest reasons behind their disparity in success is more so that the Pistons were a well oiled, very talented unit, and that the Clippers had a heap of structural issues despite having some big names on the squad. Couple that in with injuries (partially attributed to CP3) and an incredibly hard conference (CP3 has only once played a team with under 51 wins in the playoffs... ever), and using team success as the metric of choice just seems to omit far too much information to me. After all, you mentioned looking at context... but also use team success as a barometer to state that Thomas is better, when team success is quite arguably the metric most void of context when taken in its most raw form.

This isn't to say that Isiah was a bad player at all - he was definitely a good player. But he's one of the key examples of a player whose mythos is drawn from championships/playoff success as opposed to his actual play.

Generally, players who are primary offensive pieces on elite defensive squads (and therefore upper tier squads by Win/Loss) are often overrated through MVP voting. Guys like Iverson/Rose were obviously good players, but after-the-fact analysis showcased that this type of player is the most prominent exhibition where dissonance between impact and perception takes place. Now, if Thomas, as the primary offensive creator on an elite team (that won through defence) still only finished 88th all time in MVP shares, despite fitting this profile rather well, I'd hazard a guess that his modern day reputation stems more from winners bias, rather than having a remarkable intangible impact that stats just don't explain.

[JoeMalburg]

I don't think I'd honestly place Isiah in the top 30, let alone top 20, and this is somebody that acknowledges that he's one of the best playoff PGs of all time.

Those Detroit teams were pretty stacked, man. The current +- footprint of the 80s (i.e. ElGee's WOWY work) actually portrays Thomas as the 3rd highest impact guy on that team behind Rodman and Laimbeer.

That just tells me those numbers are highly flawed and entirely unreliable. That's a ludicrous suggestion. I don't fully understand why so many here put so much stock in numbers that are highly questionable and never even been tested by peer review...

I play basketball on the weekends at a famous Church in Detroit, the scoreboard was donated by Jalen Rose and pictures of George Gervin and Ralph Simpson hang on the wall outside the gym among others. We talk basketball a lot, and advanced metrics never come up. I'm not saying that way of evaluating things is right, or better, but I can tell you I'm just as impressed with their knowledge of the game as I am with the people on here. I think the better approach is somewhere in the middle. If the numbers suggest that a conclusion that the basketball world has long drawn and accepted is wrong, we can't assume the numbers are right, we have to be skeptical. Just as when we see a player like Pete Maravich who is largely revered and selected to the 50@50 team, but the numbers suggest he was a far less impactful player, we can be expected to dig deeper and not just take the reputation at it's word.

I'll be honest, reading your response frustrates me a lot, I just want to laugh at how crazy some of your conclusions sound to me, but I know I'm just not understanding the context from which you're perspective is coming. Just as one example, you write this:

"This isn't to say that Isiah was a bad player at all - he was definitely a good player. But he's one of the key examples of a player whose mythos is drawn from championships/playoff success as opposed to his actual play."

And I have to laugh because Isiah was considered a Superstar by the end of his rookie season. His "mythos" is drawn from eyeballs watching him. You're doing after the fact analysis without the context of what smart people at the time were thinking and saying. That matters. At least to me it does.


I know that you probably don't care much about what the careers of the Bad Boy Pistons were like before that team was assembled or what their reputations were and how that team was able to put everyone (except Isiah) in an ideal spot for their strengths because of just how good Isiah was. Just as I don't care very much about some guy who doesn't use his real name's made up metric. Both have value, but only as much as you or I place on them. I'm here to better understand how you guys have used this amazing data to draw conclusions that seem way off base to me. The problem I'm running into is that you're much better at making your points to each other than someone who does;t share your analytical philosophy and zeitgeist.

I've been working on a way too long post about Isiah Thomas, as soon as someone votes for Stockton or Paul above him (which I can't wait to tell the guys at the gym and get a good laugh out of them) I'll lay out the case from my point of view as best I can and hope that can break the ice. If not I'll just go back to lingering, comparing my reactions to NBA events with others, using the team forums to see how fan bases are reacting and of course stealing y'all's good ideas when I come across them.

Have a Good Day Powerade!

[trex_8063]

Fair enough. I'll just say that I'd highly recommend looking into the impact of Isiah on the city of Detroit and his teammates right from day one.

That will help bridge the gap between our perceptions.

Fair enough. Do you perhaps have some recommended reading I could look into?

And fwiw, I do think Isiah's impact far outstrips his box-based advanced metrics (I have my own WOWY data I harvested a couple years ago, which looks pretty impressive; I'll share when he's gaining more traction).