micahclay wrote:...
Defense - The value of a defensive big man (4/5) is higher than the value of a defensive perimeter player (1/2/3).
Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways.
Offense vs defense – Offensive players have a higher capacity to affect the game (or at least do so more frequently), but the scarcity of defenders who can produce at that level makes those defenders at least equally valuable (aka scarcity theory).
Playstyle – Except for situations where a team is so weak it needs a player to “carry them,” a team-friendly playstyle is most preferred.
Longevity/peak – Unless there is a clear advantage in peak, assuming levels similar to one another, the player with more effective longevity is more highly valued.
Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.
Era – The player must be considered in the context of the era in which they played, and any “era translation” must be done consistently in all directions in context as well.
Some thoughts on some of these to add on, before I continue:
1. Axioms 1/2/3 are why I value ATG defensive anchors so much, and axiom 4 is why I view inefficiency as less valuable by default. In my first post on the project, I made the following distinctions (assuming equal levels of talent - obviously the hierarchy is not used in the instance of a GOAT level player) -
...
Therefore IF shots in the lane are most effective, and IF they are the shots that demonstrably CAN be altered, it follows that players who can alter shots the most effectively are HIGHLY valuable.
The best rim protectors of the past 4 years or so have altered the oppFG% <5 ft. by between 10-15% (sometimes more). The average fg% for teams in that range was roughly 60%. 60% gives a rate of 1.2ppp, which is the same efficacy as a 40% 3 pt. shooter. This means that the best rim protectors of the last few years have shifted the ppp of shots at the rim from 1.2ppp to anywhere from 0.9-1.0ppp.
This means the most elite rim protectors make shots at the rim nearly as inefficient as midrange shots.
Now, imagine the players who were even better rim protectors than Gobert - Russell, Robinson, Hakeem, Mutombo - and then all of a sudden, the massive RAPM scores of Deke start to make a lot of sense. Could Deke have altered oppFG% by near 20%, and thus made shots at the rim LESS efficient than midrange shots? Quite possibly, as there have been some players over the last few years who have been in the high teens. Deke exhibited massive anti-gravity, and accompanied it with arguably GOAT level rim protection.
For all of the reasons above, my vote is:
1. Dikembe Mutombo
2. Alonzo Mourning
First off, I appreciate the analysis. I don't agree with all of it, but I agree with a lot of it. Plus, explaining WHY you value what you do is a great place to start a discussion, and you make your case well.
It's currently fashionable to think that big men are passe, that they've been relegated to the dustbin of history by the rise of three-point shooting, that rim-protecting defensive anchors don't have value when so much of game is happening outside the three-point line, but I don't think that's true. Of course the position has evolved, as it has for all players, and a relatively immobile Mark Eaton type would get run off the court, but the best rim protecting defensive anchors have been agile and athletic -- Bill Russell being the first name that comes to mind. Mark Eaton was a one-trick pony who was a decent but not great rebounder, used his size to defend a spot around the basket but wasn't otherwise a good defender, wasn't a scorer, had poor hands, wasn't a facilitator, but had a successful career paired with an all-time great power forward.
Mutombo, on the other hand, didn't have Russell-level athleticism, but he was closer to that end of the rim-protecting scale than to the Eaton end. Plus he had what, in my view, is a defining characteristic for the anti-gravity you describe -- a fierce defensive mindset. It's an attitude that
this is my key, this is my end of the court, don't bring that **** inside. It's a competitiveness that is focused and taken to badger-level intensity. Combine that with size, length, and athleticism, and you've got something special.
In addition to shotblocking, that mindset usually includes rebounding. It's a fanatical ownership of that end of the court, that you're not going to get a shot off against me, I own this 15-foot bubble around the rim and this rebound is
mine.
Garnett is the most recent example that comes to mind. Howard knocked on that door, but there was too much other stuff going on in his head to achieve that all-consuming sense of defensive purpose that defines players capable of anti-gravity. Russell had all that plus a singular basketball IQ.
To support the case for Mutombo in a recent thread (
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=58630118#p58630118), Trex posted a video of Mutombo's 31 blocks in a five-game series against Seattle. Trex was countering an argument that Mutombo was "stiff and not a fluid athlete" by showing that early Mutombo wasn't that way. Because Mutombo had such a long career, people tend to remember him in his later years, when his athleticism had diminished, but early Deke was quick and agile.
Which, of course, brings me to Thurmond. I'm assuming you didn't see Thurmond play, or you would've at least had him in the discussion, because he checks all the anti-gravity boxes -- shotblocker/rim protector, individual defender, help defender, rebounder, mindset. If only I could post a video of the time he blocked 42 shots in three games or point to the stats showing he averaged 7.2 blocks per game from 1964-65 to 1972-73, but alas, those games weren't recorded on video tape and those stats weren't kept.
I get the offensive efficiency and era arguments against Nate, but oh man, that anti-gravity. He and Steph are my two favorite players, and they're like a yin and yang -- Steph has incredible gravity on the offensive end, warping the game with his three-point shooting, and has made himself into a credible defender, while Nate had incredible anti-gravity on the defensive end, warping the game with his tenacity as a defender, shotblocker, and rebounder, and made himself into a credible offensive option.
Thurmond had superior anti-gravity, but Mutombo had superior longevity and efficiency. I firmly believe Nate was the better player, but I need to give Mutombo his due.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.