RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18

[penbeast0]

BTW if you just do a correlation study over NBA history with team offensive ratings v. team defensive ratings, you will see a higher correlation with higher defense ratings and winning the NBA championship than with offense.

[70sFan]

BTW if you just do a correlation study over NBA history with team offensive ratings v. team defensive ratings, you will see a higher correlation with higher defense ratings and winning the NBA championship than with offense.

Yeah, this should be a well-known fact. There are more examples of mediocre offensive teams winning though their defense than mediocre defensive teams winning through their offense - even when you exclude Russell's Celtics.

[70sFan]

Complains about Dirk going 15th while claiming defense isn't half as important as offense. Huh?

Hakeem and Duncan weren't better offensive players than Barkley either and nobody finds it ridiculous that they are much higher. Why different criteria for someone like Robinson?

Because Robinson didn't win as a first option and that is often the only thing people look at when it comes to playoff performance.

Just to be clear - I have Duncan and Hakeem clearly ahead of Robinson, but the difference between them aren't as large as people claim to be.

By this reasoning, we shouldn't have Duncan, Russell and Hakeem in top 10 because they are not top 10 offensive players ever.

[Dutchball97]

Seems like I opened the saltmines. I'm not even the guy who started about offense. I'm talking about overall impact. When looking at the regular season then D-Rob's overall impact has an argument for the back end of the top 10 or at least top 15. In the play-offs I'm looking at what they actually did and I'm sorry if you don't see KD as a more impressive play-off performer than D-Rob. Talking about KD like he has no defense is ridiculous as well. He definitely wasn't known for his defense in his early days, which is why I don't agree with 2014 being KD's peak. I prefer 2017 comfortably due to his much better play-offs that year. In terms of overall impact, which is offense and defense and everything inbetween.

Team defense might be equally valuable to team offense but we're looking at individuals here. An individual's offense, especially an individual who is the first option for a team like KD or D-Rob, has a higher impact than individual defense. How else do you explain Trae Young being an All-Star when no amazing defender with bad offense even comes close to getting any accolades? Is it just casuals who are biased? Why is Steve Nash already getting votes when he was a negative defender?

I get that KD isn't a popular player but we just voted in Karl Malone of all people. Let's stay objective please.

[Hal14]

18) Moses Malone
19) Julius Erving
20) Elgin Baylor

As far as Moses over Dr. J, I posted in the other thread, but if Dr. J put up those numbers and had all of those accolades in the NBA, he'd have a stronger case. But his fist few years he did it in a slightly weaker league, the ABA - I only say slightly though. The ABA did have some very good teams and have a good amount of talent, but wasn't quite as good as the NBA, as evidenced by the Doctors individual stats and team success suffering a little bit after he went from ABA to NBA.

Moses meanwhile, matched up very well vs Kareem (the no. 3 GOAT according to this board), leadings his team to wins over Kareem's Lakers in the playoffs in both 81 and 83, leading his team to the finals in 81 and sweeping the defending champs Lakers in 83. Yes, Dr. J was on that 83 Sixers team but Moses was the MVP of the league that year and finals MVP. Moses won 3 NBA MVPs compared to 1 for Dr. J. Yes, Dr. J won 3 ABA MVPs, but again, it depends how much you value the level of competition in the ABA. IMO, 3 NBA MVPs is just as impressive as 3 ABA MVPs and 1 NBA MVP - possibly more.

Dr. J was a better defender and passer, but he was by no means GOAT level at either defending or passing, whereas Moses was a GOAT level rebounder.

Also - it certainly seems like I have Baylor ranked higher than most on here, but in terms of scoring and rebounding numbers in his prime - he was not far off at all from Wilt Chamberlain, despite the fact that Baylor was 8 inches shorter than Wilt. Wilt got voted in the no. 6 spot, so I see no reason why Baylor can't be no. 20. Also, while I do have West ahead of Baylor, I think the gap between those 2 is very close, much closer than what most people think. Often times when they were teammates, Baylor was simply the better, more dangerous player who was bigger, stronger, more powerful and more athletic. Baylor was an exceptional passer and defender. Again, I have West ahead of Baylor, but it's very close. West got voted in at no. 13, so I see no reason why Baylor can't be no. 20. Baylor played 14 seasons, the last 2 he missed most of them to injury so he played 12 full seasons which is the same amount as Bird and Magic and the same amount of full seasons Jordan played for the Bulls. Baylor was an 11 time all-star and 10 time all NBA first team selection, making it to 8 NBA finals. Baylor played one of the greatest games in NBA finals history, scoring 61 points to go with 22 rebounds to lead the Lakers to a 126-121 win over Bill Russell's Celtics in the 1962 NBA finals.

Elgin Baylor passing:

Watch on YouTube

Elgin Baylor defense - defensive rebound is part of defense, and Baylor is easily one of the best defensive rebounding wing players ever. Also, here's some defensive footage of Baylor, at the 12:54 mark of this video:

Watch on YouTube

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes
Dr. J
Moses Malone
Kevin Durant

Doc was the most dominant player in the ABA. As much as I don't take that with the same weight I weight the NBA, it still counts for this project, so obviously Doc gets a great boost from that situation.

Once he got in the NBA, he was still very successfull tough, so I'm confident he deserves the praise.

Bunch of great finals like the 77 series, and always played well. Well rounded player (scorer, rebounder, playmaker) and definitely a positive defender from what I saw.

Finally won in 83 in the NBA and Philadelphia won it in a very dominant way. They had to be very good to dominate the Lakers like that. Moses and Dr. J definitely deserve a ton of credit for that run. I know volume wise that is far from the best Dr. J we ever saw, but I won't penalize him for that since it worked so well with what the team needed.

Has all the accodales, has the peak, has the prime and the longevity. Has a ton of diferent situation for us to look at and he was very capable in all of them.

Another thing I'd like to point is that he was a very good and consistent playoff performer.

[Franco]

I know I haven't actively participated in the project (as I knew I would be unable to do), but I have some time free for the first time in a while so I'll give my votes and reasonings:

1) George Mikan

The dominance of Mikan's Lakers is something we basically have never seen outside of the top 10 (and even more than a few inside of the top 10), and he was unarguably the game's best player for a long period of time. While I do agree that the 50s was very different game compared to basically every decade moving forward, I don't think it's enough to penalize Mikan out of the top 20. From the period of 1949 to 1954 he led the league in DWS (except 49) and came out in the top 5 of WS every season, led the league in scoring on (relatively) mind-blowing efficiency.

As Eminence pointed out earlier, plenty of bigs came along before or during the same time period and didn't find anywhere near the same success, and I'm fairly convinced he would've led Minneapolis to 6 straight titles if it wasn't for his injury in the 1951 postseason. In the grand scheme his resume looks short (and it is), but it's dominant enough for me to give him the vote over...

2) Julius Erving
3) Moses Malone

Moses and Erving are fairly close to me, the only reason I have Dr. J ahead would be because I value his peak substantially higher. Outside of that factor the teammates would be a cointoss in my book.

[Dutchball97]

Anyway, here's my ballot again:

1. Kevin Durant - Looks like I might be doing this for a while haha. I had a ghost vote last round but if it came to it I'd have chosen Dirk over Karl Malone as well. I've mentioned my argument for KD over Karl Malone already. I think KD peaked higher in the regular season than Karl Malone, Malone does have a substantial longevity advantage but I think KD was better in his prime by quite a bit as well. The real kicker is the play-offs where KD and Karl Malone have accumulated a similar amount of WS and VORP but KD did this in 139 games, where Karl Malone needed 193 games. Because of that I don't see a significant longevity edge for Malone that could bridge the peak/prime advantage of KD.

2. Julius Erving - I'm still not quite sure if I prefer KD or Dr J here tbh. Dr J is the GOAT ABA player and he had a legitmate argument to be the best player in the NBA from 80-82 as well. Dr J's 1976 peak didn't come against terrible competition. The ABA at that point was a serious league and not far behind the NBA at all. You've got to wonder what would've happened if the NBA stars of the 70s had to adapt to the ABA style/rules instead of Dr J having to adapt to the NBA. What ifs are just what ifs though so I'm going with KD for my pick but if any of my votes are going to count this round it's probably going to be Dr J.

3. Stephen Curry - Another guy I'm very high on already even if he still has more elite years ahead of him. He has an argument for the best regular season peak ever and while his numbers in the play-offs might not be as impressive as his regular season numbers, Steph is still one of the most proven play-off performers we've seen. Making the finals 5 years in a row, winning 3 of those, is very impressive by any standard. I prefer KD for now because his prime is a bit longer but Curry definitely has been gaining on him the last years.

[Whopper_Sr]

No changes from last round. If Curry or Erving is on the cusp, I could advocate for them first before Paul and Nash.

The Durant love is quite puzzling to me. His impact isn't on par with his box score numbers and he doesn't really have any ATG playoff runs under his belt. For example, are there any noticeable differences between the 2012 version of KD and the 2019 pre-Achilles version? Besides slightly improving as a passer (2014) and a defender (2016), I don't see it.

His longevity is decent but the two missed prime seasons hurt him (15, 20). I'm not convinced he's a top 10 scorer ever either. His skill set is that of a primary scorer but he's ill-suited for that role and is better off as a second option as he's not good at handling defenses keying on him and prone to wilt under pressure.

I view his GSW seasons as solid All NBA level but certainly not MVP or close to it. Durant was the 3rd best player on the Warriors when he won his first FMVP.

1. Chris Paul
2. Steve Nash
3. Stephen Curry

[eminence]

I'd probably take '16 as peak KD, but anywho don't think he has quite the longevity/dominance to vote for yet.

And all the different individual studies I've seen really do support offense/defense being roughly equal (maybe slightly imbalanced depending on the league/superstars at the top, but never past about a 60/40 split). 50s/60s the most defense slanted eras, 80s/10s the most offense slanted ones overall. 70s/90s more balanced and the 00s with a split halfway through due to significant rule changes.

[70sFan]

How else do you explain Trae Young being an All-Star when no amazing defender with bad offense even comes close to getting any accolades? Is it just casuals who are biased?

Yes, because it's much easier to realize offensive impact than defensive one. Most people don't scout and analyze games/players. Without that, you won't realize how good/bad player is. You need to rewatch games many times to understand defensive impact. Most people don't have time/patience to do that, that's why offensive stars are more rewarded.

Why is Steve Nash already getting votes when he was a negative defender?

Why is Bill Russell 4th in this list? Why Duncan is ahead of many better offensive players here?

[Dutchball97]

How else do you explain Trae Young being an All-Star when no amazing defender with bad offense even comes close to getting any accolades? Is it just casuals who are biased?

Yes, because it's much easier to realize offensive impact than defensive one. Most people don't scout and analyze games/players. Without that, you won't realize how good/bad player is. You need to rewatch games many times to understand defensive impact. Most people don't have time/patience to do that, that's why offensive stars are more rewarded.

Why is Steve Nash already getting votes when he was a negative defender?

Why is Bill Russell 4th in this list? Why Duncan is ahead of many better offensive players here?

Have you read anything I've said? I voted Russell 4th myself and Duncan 5th. They aren't the best offensive players but their overall impact was insane. Mostly play-offs though. Something in which Malone and D-Rob are somewhat lacking (compared to the other available All-Time greats available, not in general).

[70sFan]

How else do you explain Trae Young being an All-Star when no amazing defender with bad offense even comes close to getting any accolades? Is it just casuals who are biased?

Yes, because it's much easier to realize offensive impact than defensive one. Most people don't scout and analyze games/players. Without that, you won't realize how good/bad player is. You need to rewatch games many times to understand defensive impact. Most people don't have time/patience to do that, that's why offensive stars are more rewarded.

Why is Steve Nash already getting votes when he was a negative defender?

Why is Bill Russell 4th in this list? Why Duncan is ahead of many better offensive players here?

Have you read anything I've said? I voted Russell 4th myself and Duncan 5th. They aren't the best offensive players but their overall impact was insane. Mostly play-offs though. Something in which Malone and D-Rob are somewhat lacking (compared to the other available All-Time greats available, not in general).

Tell me what makes Durant's or Barkley's impact higher than Robinson's. You didn't prove that and you base your arguments on two things:

1. Robinson's scoring regressed in playoffs.
2. Robinson never went to the finals as the first scoring option.

These two things does not equal to "Robinson is worse than KD/Barkley in playoffs".

[Dutchball97]

Yes, because it's much easier to realize offensive impact than defensive one. Most people don't scout and analyze games/players. Without that, you won't realize how good/bad player is. You need to rewatch games many times to understand defensive impact. Most people don't have time/patience to do that, that's why offensive stars are more rewarded.


Why is Bill Russell 4th in this list? Why Duncan is ahead of many better offensive players here?

Have you read anything I've said? I voted Russell 4th myself and Duncan 5th. They aren't the best offensive players but their overall impact was insane. Mostly play-offs though. Something in which Malone and D-Rob are somewhat lacking (compared to the other available All-Time greats available, not in general).

Tell me what makes Durant's or Barkley's impact higher than Robinson's. You didn't prove that and you base your arguments on two things:

1. Robinson's scoring regressed in playoffs.
2. Robinson never went to the finals as the first scoring option.

These two things does not equal to "Robinson is worse than KD/Barkley in playoffs".

I'm not sure if you got the right guy because I didn't give those two arguments. My argument is that while D-Rob is at least as impressive as Barkley and KD in the regular season, he doesn't have the same success/impact in the play-offs imo. I've been clear this entire project that for me, the post-season is where players accumulate the majority of their All-Time case. D-Rob certainly wasn't bad in the play-offs (nor was Karl Malone for that matter), just that I'm not as impressed with their post-season success as others.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Have you read anything I've said? I voted Russell 4th myself and Duncan 5th. They aren't the best offensive players but their overall impact was insane. Mostly play-offs though. Something in which Malone and D-Rob are somewhat lacking (compared to the other available All-Time greats available, not in general).

Tell me what makes Durant's or Barkley's impact higher than Robinson's. You didn't prove that and you base your arguments on two things:

1. Robinson's scoring regressed in playoffs.
2. Robinson never went to the finals as the first scoring option.

These two things does not equal to "Robinson is worse than KD/Barkley in playoffs".

I'm not sure if you got the right guy because I didn't give those two arguments. My argument is that while D-Rob is at least as impressive as Barkley and KD in the regular season, he doesn't have the same success/impact in the play-offs imo. I've been clear this entire project that for me, the post-season is where players accumulate the majority of their All-Time case. D-Rob certainly wasn't bad in the play-offs (nor was Karl Malone for that matter), just that I'm not as impressed with their post-season success as others.

I'm confused why you are so upset other people value Robinson ahead of Durant at this point? The arguments put forth have been strong and detailed and Robinson rightfully ended up at #17.

I get you yourself having Durant over Robinson (I had Nash) but there is no need to get all up and arms here.

[70sFan]

Have you read anything I've said? I voted Russell 4th myself and Duncan 5th. They aren't the best offensive players but their overall impact was insane. Mostly play-offs though. Something in which Malone and D-Rob are somewhat lacking (compared to the other available All-Time greats available, not in general).

Tell me what makes Durant's or Barkley's impact higher than Robinson's. You didn't prove that and you base your arguments on two things:

1. Robinson's scoring regressed in playoffs.
2. Robinson never went to the finals as the first scoring option.

These two things does not equal to "Robinson is worse than KD/Barkley in playoffs".

I'm not sure if you got the right guy because I didn't give those two arguments. My argument is that while D-Rob is at least as impressive as Barkley and KD in the regular season, he doesn't have the same success/impact in the play-offs imo. I've been clear this entire project that for me, the post-season is where players accumulate the majority of their All-Time case. D-Rob certainly wasn't bad in the play-offs (nor was Karl Malone for that matter), just that I'm not as impressed with their post-season success as others.

But that's your opinion, which isn't backed up by facts. The truth is that Robinson was more impactful player than KD or Barkley in RS, so he'd have to go down very hard in playoffs to lose this advantage. I don't believe that's true, sure he struggled to score against elite defenders but the rest of his game remained very strong (there are arguments that he was even better defensively in playoffs). KD and Barkley also regressed scoring-wise in playoffs, so it's not like they stayed the same.

Unless your argument about results includes strictly results - then this is completely out of context as Robinson played with far weaker supporting casts than KD and Barkley (at least in Suns). Robinson had arguably bigger role in 1999 title than KD had in 2017 by the way.

[Dutchball97]

Tell me what makes Durant's or Barkley's impact higher than Robinson's. You didn't prove that and you base your arguments on two things:

1. Robinson's scoring regressed in playoffs.
2. Robinson never went to the finals as the first scoring option.

These two things does not equal to "Robinson is worse than KD/Barkley in playoffs".

I'm not sure if you got the right guy because I didn't give those two arguments. My argument is that while D-Rob is at least as impressive as Barkley and KD in the regular season, he doesn't have the same success/impact in the play-offs imo. I've been clear this entire project that for me, the post-season is where players accumulate the majority of their All-Time case. D-Rob certainly wasn't bad in the play-offs (nor was Karl Malone for that matter), just that I'm not as impressed with their post-season success as others.

I'm confused why you are so upset other people value Robinson ahead of Durant at this point? The arguments put forth have been strong and detailed and Robinson rightfully ended up at #17.

I get you yourself having Durant over Robinson (I had Nash) but there is no need to get all up and arms here.

I expressed my discontent at how the last few rounds have been going because I personally value post-season success over regular season longevity. I didn't call anyone out, I didn't start a fight, I was just venting. Then multiple people piled onto me because oh how could I have KD over guys that played for longer. There have been multiple people attributing comments and arguments to me that I haven't made so idk what is even going on. Mentioning KD apparently gets an overreaction out of people here for some reason.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I'm not sure if you got the right guy because I didn't give those two arguments. My argument is that while D-Rob is at least as impressive as Barkley and KD in the regular season, he doesn't have the same success/impact in the play-offs imo. I've been clear this entire project that for me, the post-season is where players accumulate the majority of their All-Time case. D-Rob certainly wasn't bad in the play-offs (nor was Karl Malone for that matter), just that I'm not as impressed with their post-season success as others.

I'm confused why you are so upset other people value Robinson ahead of Durant at this point? The arguments put forth have been strong and detailed and Robinson rightfully ended up at #17.

I get you yourself having Durant over Robinson (I had Nash) but there is no need to get all up and arms here.

I expressed my discontent at how the last few rounds have been going because I personally value post-season success over regular season longevity. I didn't call anyone out, I didn't start a fight, I was just venting. Then multiple people piled onto me because oh how could I have KD over guys that played for longer. There have been multiple people attributing comments and arguments to me that I haven't made so idk what is even going on. Mentioning KD apparently gets an overreaction out of people here for some reason.

You made some tongue in cheek comments about how people are only voting longevity and then implying Kawhi Leonard won't get in until 50 and how burdensome that will be to you. Then you said there was no reasonable argument for peak David Robinson over Durant while I could simply say "If I value Offense/Defense 50/50 then Robinson clearly has more impact than Durant".

Then you mention opening up the salt mines when you have come off as the saltiest person here complaining/commenting on the voting results.

It's amusing, that's for sure.

[70sFan]

I'm not sure if you got the right guy because I didn't give those two arguments. My argument is that while D-Rob is at least as impressive as Barkley and KD in the regular season, he doesn't have the same success/impact in the play-offs imo. I've been clear this entire project that for me, the post-season is where players accumulate the majority of their All-Time case. D-Rob certainly wasn't bad in the play-offs (nor was Karl Malone for that matter), just that I'm not as impressed with their post-season success as others.

I'm confused why you are so upset other people value Robinson ahead of Durant at this point? The arguments put forth have been strong and detailed and Robinson rightfully ended up at #17.

I get you yourself having Durant over Robinson (I had Nash) but there is no need to get all up and arms here.

I expressed my discontent at how the last few rounds have been going because I personally value post-season success over regular season longevity. I didn't call anyone out, I didn't start a fight, I was just venting. Then multiple people piled onto me because oh how could I have KD over guys that played for longer. There have been multiple people attributing comments and arguments to me that I haven't made so idk what is even going on. Mentioning KD apparently gets an overreaction out of people here for some reason.

No, we called your opinion out because you acted like "KD/Barkley > Robinson in playoffs" is a fact, not your opinion. A lot of people disagree with you, because some of us believe that Robinson was better in playoffs than them. Barkley doesn't even have more playoff success from team perspective. Durant has, but he played with tons of talent compared to Admiral.

Again, having KD outside of top 20 doesn't equal to not praising playoffs success or overvaluing longevity. Stop acting as such, because it's dishonest.

[Dutchball97]

You guys go be the community police and I'll go do something else, see you in the #19 thread.