RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #74 (Giannis Antetokounmpo)

[Owly]

But it's still important to think about. Especially when we have evidence ['93] that Hornacek is not going to thrive in just any old environment in the same way that KJ could.

Notes on this/First thoughts:
I favor KJ but ...
Philly '93 not an optimal barometer for Hornacek.
JH not without significant value in Philly.
Tangent: Phoenix didn't get much better despite arguable talent upgrades.
Sansterre seems to be arguing impact data as KJ didn't "thrive" that much in any environment (i.e. the ones he was in).
Some of the measures behind these are noisy and as such to be taken as possibilities rather than certainties.

1) Moe's freelance passing offense was arguably not suited to Hornacek but certainly not to what do not seem like a collection of high bb-iq, high motor, strong passing, (strong shooting) players required for a freewheeling decision making offense (the "maybe not a fit for him - not a fit for the players" ideas come from the Barry handbook). Hornacek is also functioning as pg this year, which ... he could do but it's probably not best use of him and takes away from his off-ball game.

2) Philly lose the 3 games he's out (by 5 in OT, home to NYK; by 14 road to NJN; by 6 road to BC). Hard to say it's meaningful and may have been a strategy or philosophy thing (giving bench guys time in garbage time, junking the game up, keep the guys who got you behind out, keep the guys who dropped you out of the game out on the floor, rest your best players - it's often not just Hornacek and probably not a simple cause and effect thing) but the games Hornacek plays less than 24mpg are really bad too (two 56 point losses, a 38 point loss and a 24 point loss, all on the road). Noisy measures all, but some things to consider perhaps.

3 (tangent)) Super noisy with significant turnover, but I'd say the other outs in the trade are replaced (Lang - Miller) or upgraded (Perry - Dumas and more/better Ceballos), Ainge added ... but significant loss of time for KJ. It's probably too noisy to make much out but Phoenix didn't improve that much adding what some seem to consider peak Barkley.

4) I don't know about the details of the impact data for KJ's prime, and haven't read super closely but the argument seems to be that KJ wasn't that impactful, so perhaps arguably not thriving. I don't know on this one.

I think the big pro for KJ (if you believe all of it) that I've seen perhaps alluded to but not (at a glance) as a key, simple, emphasized point is
a) a higher peak (though the extent of this may vary depending on [box-composite-y] metric of choice)
and
b) high peaks and bigger difference from league average scaling in a non-linear way to title odds.

[sansterre]

But it's still important to think about. Especially when we have evidence ['93] that Hornacek is not going to thrive in just any old environment in the same way that KJ could.

Notes on this/First thoughts:
I favor KJ but ...
Philly '93 not an optimal barometer for Hornacek.
JH not without significant value in Philly.
Tangent: Phoenix didn't get much better despite arguable talent upgrades.
Sansterre seems to be arguing impact data as KJ didn't "thrive" that much in any environment (i.e. the ones he was in).
Some of the measures behind these are noisy and as such to be taken as possibilities rather than certainties.

1) Moe's freelance passing offense was arguably not suited to Hornacek but certainly not to what do not seem like a collection of high bb-iq, high motor, strong passing, (strong shooting) players required for a freewheeling decision making offense (the "maybe not a fit for him - not a fit for the players" ideas come from the Barry handbook). Hornacek is also functioning as pg this year, which ... he could do but it's probably not best use of him and takes away from his off-ball game.

2) Philly lose the 3 games he's out (by 5 in OT, home to NYK; by 14 road to NJN; by 6 road to BC). Hard to say it's meaningful and may have been a strategy or philosophy thing (giving bench guys time in garbage time, junking the game up, keep the guys who got you behind out, keep the guys who dropped you out of the game out on the floor, rest your best players - it's often not just Hornacek and probably not a simple cause and effect thing) but the games Hornacek plays less than 24mpg are really bad too (two 56 point losses, a 38 point loss and a 24 point loss, all on the road). Noisy measures all, but some things to consider perhaps.

3 (tangent)) Super noisy with significant turnover, but I'd say the other outs in the trade are replaced (Lang - Miller) or upgraded (Perry - Dumas and more/better Ceballos), Ainge added ... but significant loss of time for KJ. It's probably too noisy to make much out but Phoenix didn't improve that much adding what some seem to consider peak Barkley.

4) I don't know about the details of the impact data for KJ's prime, and haven't read super closely but the argument seems to be that KJ wasn't that impactful, so perhaps arguably not thriving. I don't know on this one.

I think the big pro for KJ (if you believe all of it) that I've seen perhaps alluded to but not (at a glance) as a key, simple, emphasized point is
a) a higher peak (though the extent of this may vary depending on [box-composite-y] metric of choice)
and
b) high peaks and bigger difference from league average scaling in a non-linear way to title odds.

Good points.

Only two quick thoughts:

1) I can't speculate as to impact data before '94; I only have KJ's stuff from '94 and after. So, to be clear, I can't make any representations as to impact data from '89 and '90. That said, his box score metrics (BPM, etc) has him at +3.8 BPM during the AuRPM years and +4.0 BPM before them. So BPM thinks the AuRPM and before timeframes are comparable, but that doesn't mean they are. For all we know, KJ threw up +2 AuRPMs post-'93 but +5s before it. So I don't want to misrepresent that KJ's peak had low impact metrics.
2) Completely agreed on the non-linear value of peak seasons in determining championship odds, a point that definitely favors KJ. But the counter-point is that another major determiner is how valuable the player is when playing with strong teammates (as the ability to lift a team from 20 wins to 45 wins is both really impressive and worthless from a CORP point of view, but the ability to lift a 55-win team to a 65-win team is extremely valuable from a CORP point of view). And of the two, Hornacek seems to be *unusually good* with strong teammates.

So in terms of Peak -> CORP, that favors KJ. But Scalability -> CORP favors Hornacek.

[Cavsfansince84]

Along the lines of Hornacek, another guy I could throw out is Detlef Schrempf. Both I've considered for my own top 100 but just not quite in this range. Porter as well who I think has a case as the best playoff player on both of those Blazer finals teams.

[Cavsfansince84]

74. Hal Greer
-7x all nba 2nd team. 9-10 year prime where he is between 20-23ppg on very good efficiency(ts+ between 103 and 106) while being a + defender. Many high scoring playoff runs including the 67 title Sixers that he led in playoff scoring(27.7ppg).

75. Giannis Antetokounmpo
-Great 4 yr stretch with 2 mvps, 1 dpoy and I would say some good playoff runs. 4x all nba 3x all defensive

76. Bobby Jones
-Obviously all time level defender at his position(10x all defense 1st team), supplied decent scoring on very high efficiency(career ts+ of 115 is great)
-top 4 in mvp voting twice in the aba, large part of two very good Nuggets teams before becoming a top 2/3 player on two finals teams and 3/4 best player on an all time level championship team.
-Ranks 53rd in career vorp and 34th in career bpm

77. McAdoo
78. Lucas
79. DeBusschere
80. Johnston
81. Cunningham
82. Wallace
83. Worthy
84. KJ
85. Cheeks
86. Rodman
87. Lillard
88. Hill
89. Mullin
90. Marion
91. DJohnson
92. Nance
93. Porter
94. Issel
95. Butler
96. Moncrief
97. Jokic
98. Dumars
99. Griffin
100. M Johnson

[trex_8063]

Along the lines of Hornacek, another guy I could throw out is Detlef Schrempf. Both I've considered for my own top 100 but just not quite in this range. Porter as well who I think has a case as the best playoff player on both of those Blazer finals teams.

Porter ahead of Hornacek for me.
Among players who were along the lines of "REALLY good role players [*despite not scoring a ton of points] who mesh well with a variety of very good casts" (*and who are thus very underrated), I'll again mention Horace Grant (also ahead of Hornacek [and Porter] for me).

[trex_8063]

Thru post #25:

Giannis Antetokounmpo - 2 (Dutchball97, trex_8063)
Dennis Rodman - 1 (Hal14)
Larry Nance - 1 (sansterre)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Bobby Jones - 1 (penbeast0)
Hal Greer - 1 (Cavsfansince84)


About 26 hours left for this one. Nice discussion, keep it going.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Cavsfansince84]

Along the lines of Hornacek, another guy I could throw out is Detlef Schrempf. Both I've considered for my own top 100 but just not quite in this range. Porter as well who I think has a case as the best playoff player on both of those Blazer finals teams.

Porter ahead of Hornacek for me.
Among players who were along the lines of "REALLY good role players [*despite not scoring a ton of points] who mesh well with a variety of very good casts" (*and who are thus very underrated), I'll again mention Horace Grant (also ahead of Hornacek [and Porter] for me).

Curious for your opinion on Hornacek vs Marques Johnson. I'm currently having Johnson above based on some degree due to having some reasonably high mvp finishes compared to zero for Hornacek and due to defense but I'm not sure of how good of defender Johnson actually was.

[HeartBreakKid]

Terry Porter is probably the most underrated player in the past 30 years. He just played in an era where his style was a bit underappreciated, especially next to a very athletic and exciting player in Drexler.

There aren't many ways to really improve Terry Porter beyond generically saying he should score a ton more etc. He pretty much gives you everything an all-star point guard should want.

I would put him over a lot of bigger names on this list.

[penbeast0]

Curious for your opinion on Hornacek vs Marques Johnson. I'm currently having Johnson above based on some degree due to having some reasonably high mvp finishes compared to zero for Hornacek and due to defense but I'm not sure of how good of defender Johnson actually was.

Johnson was actually a pretty decent defender, better than King/Dantley/Nique/Bird (at SF), though not a stopper. The issues with him are the shortness of his career (about a 5 year peak) and the substance abuse issues. I'd have Sidney Moncrief and David Thompson above him in terms of short peak guys, and quite possibly Connie Hawkins too.

[trex_8063]

Along the lines of Hornacek, another guy I could throw out is Detlef Schrempf. Both I've considered for my own top 100 but just not quite in this range. Porter as well who I think has a case as the best playoff player on both of those Blazer finals teams.

Porter ahead of Hornacek for me.
Among players who were along the lines of "REALLY good role players [*despite not scoring a ton of points] who mesh well with a variety of very good casts" (*and who are thus very underrated), I'll again mention Horace Grant (also ahead of Hornacek [and Porter] for me).

Curious for your opinion on Hornacek vs Marques Johnson. I'm currently having Johnson above based on some degree due to having some reasonably high mvp finishes compared to zero for Hornacek and due to defense but I'm not sure of how good of defender Johnson actually was.

I've seen only a very small amount of Marques [other than whatever small amount I may have seen as a kid, which I don't remember]; so I somewhat have to go by what others tell me on his defense.
And I've heard mostly neutral to positive things regarding Johnson's defense, more or less consistent with what penbeast0 said (though he's also classified English as a strong defender, something I definitely do NOT see [and I have watched a couple mid-80s Nuggets games recently]).

Anyway, presently I have Hornacek 5-6 places ahead, both in the circa-100 range on my ATL (a half-dozen places separation in that region of the list is basically splitting hairs), though I wonder if I'm undercrediting Johnson [or rather overrating a few of the players I have in the 90-100 range].
Remember I'm a total career value guy, though, so that is part of the reasoning being a little lower on him. Marques's career is a pinch short even compared to Kevin Johnson [who I kinda think peaked marginally higher, too].

[trex_8063]

3. Dennis Rodman? Hate putting a bad character guy in here and the Worm is the poster boy for (non-drugs) bad character guys. On the other hand, he's probably the GOAT impact guy without scoring, best rebounder in NBA history, terrific defender (though not in his GOAT rebounding seasons), decently smart passer.

Looking for someone to make a case.

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but fwiw I've become a touch skeptical of bolded.

His case over any number of other candidates is debatable even with no consideration of character whatsoever.
And multiple posters have made decent cases for multiple players [including several you say you're considering soon/presently]. I'd even specifically framed one case in a "vs Rodman" fashion (and which spoke directly to the "GOAT impact without scoring" statement, noting his impact [RAPM and/or AuPM] measured fairly consistently BELOW Horace Grant's [and in fewer minutes, too]).

For my part I'm beginning to feel that for whatever reason [convention?] you quite simply want Rodman positioned there, and the bolded portion, as well as professing to "hate" putting him here, is your way of acknowledging that it's a bit out of sync with values you've previously espoused as important [and in fact are using wrt Bobby Jones].

Anyway, that's my impression [or "eye-test"].
As with any eye-test, it's potentially wrong.

But I'll turn the request back at you: can YOU make a strong case [preferably one based on more than narrative/reputation, accolades, and conventional rankings] for Rodman over guys like Nance, Grant, Marion, or Bosh?

[penbeast0]

Nope, just left it in from when I first posted it. I do have Rodman higher than you do; I think his rebounding, particularly on the offensive end, gives him a significant weapon in the NBA of his day. I do have a problem with it dropping in the playoffs but from watching him that seems to be more about his playing better defense and not dropping off. Nance had trouble holding position against post up bigs, he just wasn't that strong though he got better with it as he got older. But it was so important in his era that I have him behind Marion at least. Grant and Marion are more interesting. Marion was just a pure spark of energy out there in his Phoenix days, covering for both Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire (Raja Bell was a fine man defender most of that period as well).

I will, however, take the bolded out and change it up to move Marion to #3 and Horace Grant up a bit too for the moment. I think big men who pass well tend to be underrated but he never struck me as a big moving the needle guy though RAPM type impact stats give my eye test the lie. Still listening though.

[trex_8063]

Nope, just left it in from when I first posted it. I do have Rodman higher than you do; I think his rebounding, particularly on the offensive end, gives him a significant weapon in the NBA of his day.

Oh, I totally agree. In fact, while he's typically labeled as a sort of "defensive specialist", I think most people fail to realize that he was probably more valuable on the offensive end for perhaps nearly the 2nd half of his career.
While his defense fell off [particularly on the perimeter] in ways previously described (just watch the '95 WCF to see for one's self), and he'd trend toward cannibalizing defensive rebounds [as opposed to boxing out], his offensive rebounding was something matched by basically no one save maybe Moses Malone.
He consequently was *more valuable offensively than defensively from circa-'94 thru to the end of his career, though his reputation continued to trend toward [severely] OVER-rated defense (while underrating him offensively).

*fwiw, from '97-'00 his ORAPM exceeds his DRAPM each year [usually by a pretty sizable margin]; his DRAPM is actually negative in those final two [tiny sample] seasons, while his ORAPM remained small positives. That's from a source that heavily weights the playoffs too [where '97 and '98 are concerned].

I'll present a little something wrt his defensive rebounding in a later post.

Nance had trouble holding position against post up bigs, he just wasn't that strong though he got better with it as he got older.

Yeah I had a little of that impression [lacking post physicality] of him too; I tentatively called he and Grant a wash in post-defense because I worried I was being too bullish on Grant. But hearing you say this as well.....post defense perhaps is a tiny edge to Grant.

But it was so important in his era that I have him behind Marion at least. Grant and Marion are more interesting. Marion was just a pure spark of energy out there in his Phoenix days, covering for both Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire (Raja Bell was a fine man defender most of that period as well).

I will, however, take the bolded out and change it up to move Marion to #3 and Horace Grant up a bit too for the moment. I think big men who pass well tend to be underrated but he never struck me as a big moving the needle guy though RAPM type impact stats give my eye test the lie. Still listening though.

Yeah, Marion's another guy who was under-appreciated in the mainstream.
Only listed 6'7", but he has a sort of short neck/small head, as well as rather high-set shoulders [sort of like McHale]; combined with his long arms I think his standing reach was more like that of a typical 6'9" or 6'10" player. He was also quick off the floor (especially on the 2nd jump).
Those things contributed to him being arguably the best rebounding SF of all-time (Baylor and maybe Bird being the only ones who maybe edge him).
He could be utilized in a variety of ways to score: able to play above the rim he was a pretty good finisher, great as a cutter/lane-filler or in transition, and also a capable floor-spreading 3pt threat, despite that childish-looking shot (in the heart of his prime ['02-'08] he was 34.7% on 3.4 att/game). And he made his FT's well, too. He made fair number of little runners in the approximately 8-13' range, too.
And because he played almost exclusively off-ball with low playmaking responsibilities, he actually had a very good turnover economy.

And then defensively is where he was really underrated (it's seriously a near-crime he never once received All-D honours). With his size and athleticism he was superbly versatile [as he proved more regularly in Dallas], while also averaging a combined 4.2 stl+blk/100 during the decade of '01-'10.

His longevity is fairly respectable, too.
He was the other one I was really thinking on, and I may end up favouring him [over Bosh] with my third vote. It's not gonna matter for this thread, so I'll just continue to think on it for now.


re: Horace Grant and impact
Whichever we go with (WOWYR, PIPM, AuPM, RAPM), all suggest mostly the same thing: somewhere between "good" to "borderline elite" impact.
For me, between my "eye-test" and the numbers, I can easily imagine or extrapolate where it's coming from:

*OFFENSE: elite turnover economy, solid/capable big-man passing, modest floor spacing, good offensive rebounding
**DEFENSE: solid(ish) post defense, moderately good rim-protection, excellent pnr defense, good rotational help, decent versatility, boxes out (I'll touch on this again later in same post regarding Rodman's defensive rebounding)

All of those things provide value [but only some show up on the boxscore]. Telling of this is his league rank each year in AuPM [for '94-'96] and RAPM ['97]:

'94: 20th
'95: 11th (though Clyde Drexler is missing from the data; not a guarantee he'd be ahead of Grant, but jsia)
'96: 10th
'97: 30th

^^^All of these years on big(ish) minutes while missing few games. And this doesn't even include was is arguably his best all-around season ('92).

[Owly]

Nance had trouble holding position against post up bigs, he just wasn't that strong though he got better with it as he got older.

Yeah I had a little of that impression [lacking post physicality] of him too; I tentatively called he and Grant a wash in post-defense because I worried I was being too bullish on Grant. But hearing you say this as well.....post defense perhaps is a tiny edge to Grant.

I won't claim any great scouting eye but based on what I've read power matchups were the relative weakness of prime Grant too (and in both cases it was a relative, rather than absolute weakness). Through 1993 (offseason publication) he's listed at 220lbs, though up to 235 in 1994 (that's the same weight as Harvey, whilst an inch taller, in '94, and 5 pounds lighter than him in 1993). Honestly I don't think it was an issue in either case (at a push Grant wasn't playing the 3 as Nance did in his younger years so maybe there's a marginally higher cost though this is splitting hairs - and Grant's very young years aren't a huge part of his value though he's quickly a significant player).

I favor Nance overall but would love to have either (or both) on my team and think the low mistake, high efficiency, solid or better passer, fairly versatile high quality defender (Grant a little more horizontal, Nance more rim-protection/vertical), sub-20ppg, do everything at least pretty well (often nothing exceptional ... though maybe something low key like turnover economy [both otoh, Nance moreso later than early on] or blocks for a forward [Nance]) are a historically underrated archetype.

[Cavsfansince84]

Terry Porter is probably the most underrated player in the past 30 years. He just played in an era where his style was a bit underappreciated, especially next to a very athletic and exciting player in Drexler.

There aren't many ways to really improve Terry Porter beyond generically saying he should score a ton more etc. He pretty much gives you everything an all-star point guard should want.

I would put him over a lot of bigger names on this list.

Porter was also leading the 90-92 Blazers in win shares in almost all rs and ps.

[Cavsfansince84]

The main question I have with someone like Horace Grant is do the posters semi supporting him feel he should have been making all nba teams most years in his prime? Because otherwise I don't see much of a resume for him to be in a top 100 outside of having played on the first 3 peat but my issue there is that I feel like was a bit like Malone in the playoffs and was also a guy that Jordan specifically told teammates to not pass the ball to in the final minutes of any playoff game because he couldn't be trusted with the ball. Now having seen him play quite a bit I don't see his prime years as being good enough to be all nba in those years which of course he wasn't. He only made 1 all star team and his prime wasn't that long either. I think a guy like DeBusschere deserves to be much higher based on offense and rebounding he provided and his ability to step up in the playoffs. He was a guy those Knicks teams would actually look to to make big baskets.

[penbeast0]

DeBusschere gives you outside shooting but I think Nance's (and Grant's) offensive efficiency is more valuable.

[Owly]

The main question I have with someone like Horace Grant is do the posters semi supporting him feel he should have been making all nba teams most years in his prime? Because otherwise I don't see much of a resume for him to be in a top 100 outside of having played on the first 3 peat but my issue there is that I feel like was a bit like Malone in the playoffs and was also a guy that Jordan specifically told teammates to not pass the ball to in the final minutes of any playoff game because he couldn't be trusted with the ball. Now having seen him play quite a bit I don't see his prime years as being good enough to be all nba in those years which of course he wasn't. He only made 1 all star team and his prime wasn't that long either.

I won't argue for a particular spot but "should have been making all star [edit: should have read "all NBA"] teams" is a pretty poor measure. Grant is playing the same time frame as Malone and Barkley. Just as Elton Brand shouldn't be punished for playing in the same era as Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki (others with some overlap). If everyone at the position was putting up inflated numbers and there wasn't separation from league average at the position there'd maybe be a case but I don't think that's what's happening here (without digging deep, though at points in history box metrics for bigs have, imo. been relatively inflated). If you happen to think that, say, Nance (in addition to the two above names) edges him in a given year does that vastly diminish that year?

I think "is all NBA caliber" is a more meaningful and useful idea/phrasing to convey what I hope is the same intent.

Regarding playoffs I hadn't heard the MJ quote (do you have a source ... tbh it probably doesn't matter, I - and perhaps others - have reservations on MJ as a talent evaluator) but the playoff claim seems a touch mean on the face of it given his career box-composites hold pretty steady in the playoffs (as ever this is an imperfect comparison as different players have different proportions of their playoff careers aligned to their prime years, but given the higher level of competition holding his numbers seems like a small win for him).

Plus leaving aside offense there's the fact that a lot of his value is on D. (And if one wants to get anecdotal - not really my bag for heavy weighting - Bach [the defensive coach] supposedly considered Grant ... I don't recall the exact detail of the quote ... the most crucial? Most important? Something like that [think the quote is from one of the Sam Smith books] ... of the "Dobermans" and that vaunted defense.)

[Cavsfansince84]

I won't argue for a particular spot but "should have been making all star teams" is a pretty poor measure. Grant is playing the same time frame as Malone and Barkley. Just as Elton Brand shouldn't be punished for playing in the same era as Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki (others with some overlap). If everyone at the position was putting up inflated numbers and there wasn't separation from league average at the position there'd maybe be a case but I don't think that's what's happening here (without digging deep, though at points in history box metrics for bigs have, imo. been relatively inflated). If you happen to think that, say, Nance (in addition to the two above names) edges him in a given year does that vastly diminish that year?

I think "is all NBA caliber" is a more meaningful and useful idea/phrasing to convey what I hope is the same intent.

Regarding playoffs I hadn't heard the MJ quote (do you have a source ... tbh it probably doesn't matter, I - and perhaps others - have reservations on MJ as a talent evaluator) but the playoff claim seems a touch mean on the face of it given his career box-composites hold pretty steady in the playoffs (as ever this is an imperfect comparison as different players have different proportions of their playoff careers aligned to their prime years, but given the higher level of competition holding his numbers seems like a small win for him).

Plus leaving aside offense there's the fact that a lot of his value is on D. (And if one wants to get anecdotal - not really my bag for heavy weighting - Bach [the defensive coach] supposedly considered Grant ... I don't recall the exact detail of the quote ... the most crucial? Most important? Something like that [think the quote is from one of the Sam Smith books] ... of the "Dobermans" and that vaunted defense.)

The question I posed was specifically about all nba teams. It wasn't all star teams.

[Owly]

I won't argue for a particular spot but "should have been making all star teams" is a pretty poor measure. Grant is playing the same time frame as Malone and Barkley. Just as Elton Brand shouldn't be punished for playing in the same era as Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki (others with some overlap). If everyone at the position was putting up inflated numbers and there wasn't separation from league average at the position there'd maybe be a case but I don't think that's what's happening here (without digging deep, though at points in history box metrics for bigs have, imo. been relatively inflated). If you happen to think that, say, Nance (in addition to the two above names) edges him in a given year does that vastly diminish that year?

I think "is all NBA caliber" is a more meaningful and useful idea/phrasing to convey what I hope is the same intent.

Regarding playoffs I hadn't heard the MJ quote (do you have a source ... tbh it probably doesn't matter, I - and perhaps others - have reservations on MJ as a talent evaluator) but the playoff claim seems a touch mean on the face of it given his career box-composites hold pretty steady in the playoffs (as ever this is an imperfect comparison as different players have different proportions of their playoff careers aligned to their prime years, but given the higher level of competition holding his numbers seems like a small win for him).

Plus leaving aside offense there's the fact that a lot of his value is on D. (And if one wants to get anecdotal - not really my bag for heavy weighting - Bach [the defensive coach] supposedly considered Grant ... I don't recall the exact detail of the quote ... the most crucial? Most important? Something like that [think the quote is from one of the Sam Smith books] ... of the "Dobermans" and that vaunted defense.)

The question I posed was specifically about all nba teams. It wasn't all star teams.

So was my post. Sorry on the typo in line one.