Where does Curry rank on offense since 1980?

[migya]

Let's use only players who peaked after 1980. The best offensive players:

Moses Malone
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Charles Barkley
Shaquille O'Neal
Steve Nash
Kobe Bryant
Dwyane Wade
Dirk Nowitzki
LeBron James
Chris Paul
Kevin Durant
James Harden
Giannis Antetokumpo
Nikola Jokic

That's 16 players (I don't think I missed anyone). Among those, I see no case for Moses, Barkley and Giannis over Curry. I see a weak case for Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Durant, Paul and Harden, but I wouldn't put them over Curry.

That leaves us with Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Nash, LeBron and Jokic - 7 players in total. I think that Shaq's case isn't the strongest and I'd also have Jokic lower (but can change this year, so far he's amazing). Nash is questionable as well, so is Bird actually.

With all that in mind, I have Curry inside top 8 with strong case for top 5, but without a clear spot. I can't wait to see him in the playoffs this year, it could give us bigger sample of prime Curry without KD as the clear first option.

How is Karl Malone, David Robinson and Olajuwon not on that list? Even non alltime top 30 players like Dantley and Dominique are better scorers than some of those on your list.

[70sFan]

Let's use only players who peaked after 1980. The best offensive players:

Moses Malone
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Charles Barkley
Shaquille O'Neal
Steve Nash
Kobe Bryant
Dwyane Wade
Dirk Nowitzki
LeBron James
Chris Paul
Kevin Durant
James Harden
Giannis Antetokumpo
Nikola Jokic

That's 16 players (I don't think I missed anyone). Among those, I see no case for Moses, Barkley and Giannis over Curry. I see a weak case for Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Durant, Paul and Harden, but I wouldn't put them over Curry.

That leaves us with Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Nash, LeBron and Jokic - 7 players in total. I think that Shaq's case isn't the strongest and I'd also have Jokic lower (but can change this year, so far he's amazing). Nash is questionable as well, so is Bird actually.

With all that in mind, I have Curry inside top 8 with strong case for top 5, but without a clear spot. I can't wait to see him in the playoffs this year, it could give us bigger sample of prime Curry without KD as the clear first option.

How is Karl Malone, David Robinson and Olajuwon not on that list? Even non alltime top 30 players like Dantley and Dominique are better scorers than some of those on your list.

Because scoring isn't everything?

Karl Malone and David Robinson were limited scorers who struggled in the playoffs against solid defenses. I'm aware that they don't always have perfect teammates, but the expectations for GOAT offensive player is incredibly high. These two are relatively easy to gameplan against. On top of that, Robinson wasn't elite passer or playmaker either. Malone is closer to that tier, but not good enough.

Olajuwon's mediocre passing skills and limited offensive versatility puts him below the GOAT offensive players. Even in terms of his biggest strength (volume scoring), he's not among the very best, though he's just in a tier below.

Wilkins and Dantley have no case in this discussion. One dimensional scoring isn't enough to reach these heights. Nique in particular is a strange mention - his scoring ability isn't even among very best, he's high volume scorer on mediocre efficiency who got worse in the playoffs. He had some strengths (offensive rebounding, low turnover numbers) but it's not a factor in a discussion about GOAT offensive players.

I think that you put way too big focus on volume scoring ability.

[feyki]

4th, behind Magic,Nash and Doncic.

[Colbinii]

Let's use only players who peaked after 1980. The best offensive players:

Moses Malone
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Charles Barkley
Shaquille O'Neal
Steve Nash
Kobe Bryant
Dwyane Wade
Dirk Nowitzki
LeBron James
Chris Paul
Kevin Durant
James Harden
Giannis Antetokumpo
Nikola Jokic

That's 16 players (I don't think I missed anyone). Among those, I see no case for Moses, Barkley and Giannis over Curry. I see a weak case for Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Durant, Paul and Harden, but I wouldn't put them over Curry.

That leaves us with Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Nash, LeBron and Jokic - 7 players in total. I think that Shaq's case isn't the strongest and I'd also have Jokic lower (but can change this year, so far he's amazing). Nash is questionable as well, so is Bird actually.

With all that in mind, I have Curry inside top 8 with strong case for top 5, but without a clear spot. I can't wait to see him in the playoffs this year, it could give us bigger sample of prime Curry without KD as the clear first option.

How is Karl Malone, David Robinson and Olajuwon not on that list? Even non alltime top 30 players like Dantley and Dominique are better scorers than some of those on your list.

Where are Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony and Chris Webber?

[migya]

Let's use only players who peaked after 1980. The best offensive players:

Moses Malone
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Charles Barkley
Shaquille O'Neal
Steve Nash
Kobe Bryant
Dwyane Wade
Dirk Nowitzki
LeBron James
Chris Paul
Kevin Durant
James Harden
Giannis Antetokumpo
Nikola Jokic

That's 16 players (I don't think I missed anyone). Among those, I see no case for Moses, Barkley and Giannis over Curry. I see a weak case for Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Durant, Paul and Harden, but I wouldn't put them over Curry.

That leaves us with Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Nash, LeBron and Jokic - 7 players in total. I think that Shaq's case isn't the strongest and I'd also have Jokic lower (but can change this year, so far he's amazing). Nash is questionable as well, so is Bird actually.

With all that in mind, I have Curry inside top 8 with strong case for top 5, but without a clear spot. I can't wait to see him in the playoffs this year, it could give us bigger sample of prime Curry without KD as the clear first option.

How is Karl Malone, David Robinson and Olajuwon not on that list? Even non alltime top 30 players like Dantley and Dominique are better scorers than some of those on your list.

Because scoring isn't everything?

Karl Malone and David Robinson were limited scorers who struggled in the playoffs against solid defenses. I'm aware that they don't always have perfect teammates, but the expectations for GOAT offensive player is incredibly high. These two are relatively easy to gameplan against. On top of that, Robinson wasn't elite passer or playmaker either. Malone is closer to that tier, but not good enough.

Olajuwon's mediocre passing skills and limited offensive versatility puts him below the GOAT offensive players. Even in terms of his biggest strength (volume scoring), he's not among the very best, though he's just in a tier below.

Wilkins and Dantley have no case in this discussion. One dimensional scoring isn't enough to reach these heights. Nique in particular is a strange mention - his scoring ability isn't even among very best, he's high volume scorer on mediocre efficiency who got worse in the playoffs. He had some strengths (offensive rebounding, low turnover numbers) but it's not a factor in a discussion about GOAT offensive players.

I think that you put way too big focus on volume scoring ability.

Moses isn't at the level of Olajuwon, at the very least that is an error in your list.

[Doctor MJ]

He's obviously near the top though I think someone like CP3 might be getting underrated here. Just look at what he did last year with Phoenix at the age of 35 or 36. Phx went from 12th to 5th in ORtg. LAC went from 22nd to 4th the year he joined them. Of course I could list a bunch of other stats as well to support him but I'll leave it at that.

sometimes i honestly feel like chris Paul is underated because he doesnt have enough turnovers

people seem to hold his methodical game and low tov% against him since is the opposite of nash and magic (running a lot, agressive/improvisational with high turnovers)

So, I do think you can argue that Paul gets underrated by some of us because he's too conservative.

However I'd note that the history here is that Paul came on the scene with his ultra-low turnovers and a stat like PER quickly said he was better than Magic Johnson despite the fact he really didn't seem to have the same type of effects as Magic did. This led to analysis of what was included in PER and what wasn't, and eventually led to 4-factors regression analysis where we could see that Paul had massive effects on turnover reduction but when it came to eFG% improvement, he wasn't in the same league as Nash - who played more like Magic.

Hence for me the battle has always really been trying to get more statistically minded folks to understand what the box score doesn't capture, and why therefore Paul tends to get overrated by metrics based solely on the box score relative to other floor generals.

[Colbinii]

How is Karl Malone, David Robinson and Olajuwon not on that list? Even non alltime top 30 players like Dantley and Dominique are better scorers than some of those on your list.

Because scoring isn't everything?

Karl Malone and David Robinson were limited scorers who struggled in the playoffs against solid defenses. I'm aware that they don't always have perfect teammates, but the expectations for GOAT offensive player is incredibly high. These two are relatively easy to gameplan against. On top of that, Robinson wasn't elite passer or playmaker either. Malone is closer to that tier, but not good enough.

Olajuwon's mediocre passing skills and limited offensive versatility puts him below the GOAT offensive players. Even in terms of his biggest strength (volume scoring), he's not among the very best, though he's just in a tier below.

Wilkins and Dantley have no case in this discussion. One dimensional scoring isn't enough to reach these heights. Nique in particular is a strange mention - his scoring ability isn't even among very best, he's high volume scorer on mediocre efficiency who got worse in the playoffs. He had some strengths (offensive rebounding, low turnover numbers) but it's not a factor in a discussion about GOAT offensive players.

I think that you put way too big focus on volume scoring ability.

Moses isn't at the level of Olajuwon, at the very least that is an error in your list.

Olajuwon had significantly more spacing around him when he peaked (Mid-90s) and didn't produce the same offenses as Moses was able to produce.

Moses (79-83): 31.9 PTS/100, 7.8 OREB/100, 53.2 FTR, 4.8 OBPM, 860 TS+
Hakeem (91-95): 32.3 PTS/100, 4.1 OREB/100, 33.7 FTR, 3.0 OBPM, 455 TS+

The difference here is obvious and apparent. The only way to truly think Hakeem was a better offensive basketball player compared to Moses Malone is if you stick your head in the ground to ignore the swath of data we have...

[Colbinii]

He's obviously near the top though I think someone like CP3 might be getting underrated here. Just look at what he did last year with Phoenix at the age of 35 or 36. Phx went from 12th to 5th in ORtg. LAC went from 22nd to 4th the year he joined them. Of course I could list a bunch of other stats as well to support him but I'll leave it at that.

sometimes i honestly feel like chris Paul is underated because he doesnt have enough turnovers

people seem to hold his methodical game and low tov% against him since is the opposite of nash and magic (running a lot, agressive/improvisational with high turnovers)

So, I do think you can argue that Paul gets underrated by some of us because he's too conservative.

However I'd note that the history here is that Paul came on the scene with his ultra-low turnovers and a stat like PER quickly said he was better than Magic Johnson despite the fact he really didn't seem to have the same type of effects as Magic did. This led to analysis of what was included in PER and what wasn't, and eventually led to 4-factors regression analysis where we could see that Paul had massive effects on turnover reduction but when it came to eFG% improvement, he wasn't in the same league as Nash - who played more like Magic.

Hence for me the battle has always really been trying to get more statistically minded folks to understand what the box score doesn't capture, and why therefore Paul tends to get overrated by metrics based solely on the box score relative to other floor generals.

Offensively--not as a whole.

Paul's style has a net-positive impact on defense, something statistically minded folks still need to venture further into.

[Doctor MJ]

sometimes i honestly feel like chris Paul is underated because he doesnt have enough turnovers

people seem to hold his methodical game and low tov% against him since is the opposite of nash and magic (running a lot, agressive/improvisational with high turnovers)

So, I do think you can argue that Paul gets underrated by some of us because he's too conservative.

However I'd note that the history here is that Paul came on the scene with his ultra-low turnovers and a stat like PER quickly said he was better than Magic Johnson despite the fact he really didn't seem to have the same type of effects as Magic did. This led to analysis of what was included in PER and what wasn't, and eventually led to 4-factors regression analysis where we could see that Paul had massive effects on turnover reduction but when it came to eFG% improvement, he wasn't in the same league as Nash - who played more like Magic.

Hence for me the battle has always really been trying to get more statistically minded folks to understand what the box score doesn't capture, and why therefore Paul tends to get overrated by metrics based solely on the box score relative to other floor generals.

Offensively--not as a whole.

Paul's style has a net-positive impact on defense, something statistically minded folks still need to venture further into.

This is true, but it should be noted that because of Paul's steals tend to make him show out very well on the defensive box score.

So from a regression perspective, you can argue that Paul's approach make us underrate him because his offensive style has some defensive implications, but from a box score perspective, it's part of the same story of Paul seemingly having the perfect game as a pass-first point guard to make him look as good as possible in a stat that typically underrates pass-first point guards.

[Doctor MJ]

Olajuwon had significantly more spacing around him when he peaked (Mid-90s) and didn't produce the same offenses as Moses was able to produce.

Moses (79-83): 31.9 PTS/100, 7.8 OREB/100, 53.2 FTR, 4.8 OBPM, 860 TS+
Hakeem (91-95): 32.3 PTS/100, 4.1 OREB/100, 33.7 FTR, 3.0 OBPM, 455 TS+

The difference here is obvious and apparent. The only way to truly think Hakeem was a better offensive basketball player compared to Moses Malone is if you stick your head in the ground to ignore the swath of data we have...

Ooh, I disagree strongly here.

I think you can make the argument that Moses was more conducive to being on a team with elite offense in his era, but he did what he did with a vastly less diverse skillset predicated on being able to dominate through offensive rebounding...which you wouldn't be able to do with the better spacing you speak of. Once guys take shots from outside, the rebounds can't be dominated by one man the same way.

[Colbinii]

Olajuwon had significantly more spacing around him when he peaked (Mid-90s) and didn't produce the same offenses as Moses was able to produce.

Moses (79-83): 31.9 PTS/100, 7.8 OREB/100, 53.2 FTR, 4.8 OBPM, 860 TS+
Hakeem (91-95): 32.3 PTS/100, 4.1 OREB/100, 33.7 FTR, 3.0 OBPM, 455 TS+

The difference here is obvious and apparent. The only way to truly think Hakeem was a better offensive basketball player compared to Moses Malone is if you stick your head in the ground to ignore the swath of data we have...

Ooh, I disagree strongly here.

I think you can make the argument that Moses was more conducive to being on a team with elite offense in his era, but he did what he did with a vastly less diverse skillset predicated on being able to dominate through offensive rebounding...which you wouldn't be able to do with the better spacing you speak of. Once guys take shots from outside, the rebounds can't be dominated by one man the same way.

You don't think Moses could have dominated in the 1990s with the spacing Hakeem had?

Did Hakeem have more spacing than Jordan did? The 1994 Rockets had a similar amount of 3PAR as the 1996 and 1997 Bulls while the 1995 Rockets had a noticeable amount more [26.7% for the Rockets, Bulls were around 20% in 1996 and 1997]. The reason I am bringing this up is because the Bulls had top-tier offenses predicated on Offensive Rebounding in the same era Hakeem played and put up significantly better results as a result.

I'm not transposing these guys to 2020, I'm look at them in the lens of the late 1970s through the mid-1990s.

[Texas Chuck]

Paul's style has a net-positive impact on defense, something statistically minded folks still need to venture further into.

Doc seems to be suggesting an impact stat versus box score stat way of looking at players and perhaps not intentionally but seems to be implying that those who give Paul more credit are relying on box score data to do so. I don't believe that to necessarily be the case.

I look at the Mavericks who are uniquely both a historically offensive-minded team and a low turnover team. Like a mind-bogglingly consistent low turnover team. Certain teams seem to have identities that last generations, and for Dallas this is them. This franchise does not turn the ball over. This isn't just a Rick Carlisle thing. It was true under Avery. It was true under Nelson. In fact, the last 3 years with Nash despite him being known as a high risk guy--in fact this risk is used often to justify his greatness to a degree--Dallas committed the fewest turnovers in the league.

Now the immediate connection here is Dirk one of the all-time great low turnover offensive anchors along with Paul and Kobe. But this was still true 2 seasons ago when the year after he retired Luka and the boys led a GOAT efficiency offense and yep 2nd fewest turnovers in the league despite Luka also being known as a high risk guy.

But what we see basically no connection with is Dallas having stronger defensive teams as a result. In fact outside of the 67 win team the defense has ranged from tragic to slightly above average in a few seasons, but mostly being a bad defense.

Now of course that doesn't mean it doesn't help the defense. Nothing is worse than live-ball turnovers and if you don't have many of those it helps. But in and of itself I don't think its all that significant. I think we should focus more on Paul's care with the ball means his team is more likely to get the opportunity to score. His ball security is a much bigger boon to the offense than the defense.

I highlight these numbers because I think they probably will surprise some people.

[No-more-rings]

This is probably how I'd break it down.

Definitely ahead:
Jordan
Magic
Lebron

Maybe but uncertain:

Bird
Shaq
Nash

Weak arguments:

Dirk
Barkley
Kobe
Durant
Wade
Harden
CP3

May be forgetting one or two. Jokic hasn't done it long enough to be considered here, he's probably in the Bird/Nash/Shaq tier as far as offensive peak goes though.

[Doctor MJ]

Olajuwon had significantly more spacing around him when he peaked (Mid-90s) and didn't produce the same offenses as Moses was able to produce.

Moses (79-83): 31.9 PTS/100, 7.8 OREB/100, 53.2 FTR, 4.8 OBPM, 860 TS+
Hakeem (91-95): 32.3 PTS/100, 4.1 OREB/100, 33.7 FTR, 3.0 OBPM, 455 TS+

The difference here is obvious and apparent. The only way to truly think Hakeem was a better offensive basketball player compared to Moses Malone is if you stick your head in the ground to ignore the swath of data we have...

Ooh, I disagree strongly here.

I think you can make the argument that Moses was more conducive to being on a team with elite offense in his era, but he did what he did with a vastly less diverse skillset predicated on being able to dominate through offensive rebounding...which you wouldn't be able to do with the better spacing you speak of. Once guys take shots from outside, the rebounds can't be dominated by one man the same way.

You don't think Moses could have dominated in the 1990s with the spacing Hakeem had?

Did Hakeem have more spacing than Jordan did? The 1994 Rockets had a similar amount of 3PAR as the 1996 and 1997 Bulls while the 1995 Rockets had a noticeable amount more [26.7% for the Rockets, Bulls were around 20% in 1996 and 1997]. The reason I am bringing this up is because the Bulls had top-tier offenses predicated on Offensive Rebounding in the same era Hakeem played and put up significantly better results as a result.

I'm not transposing these guys to 2020, I'm look at them in the lens of the late 1970s through the mid-1990s.

I think the spacing Hakeem had allowed him to use his GOAT big man coordination and footwork to be the primary attack on his team.

I don't think Moses makes sense as a primary attack in really any era. With Moses, you use other guys to generate the attack, and then rely on him to earn the secondary possession through his rebound, which he'll then use for a quick score.

To be clear, by and large, I do consider the '90s to be part of the same strategically primitive era that Moses played in before, so certainly I think Moses could do his think in the '90s...but the spacing that the Rudy T Rockets had wouldn't have been helpful to Moses the way they were for Hakeem.

[Doctor MJ]

Paul's style has a net-positive impact on defense, something statistically minded folks still need to venture further into.

Doc seems to be suggesting an impact stat versus box score stat way of looking at players and perhaps not intentionally but seems to be implying that those who give Paul more credit are relying on box score data to do so. I don't believe that to necessarily be the case.

I look at the Mavericks who are uniquely both a historically offensive-minded team and a low turnover team. Like a mind-bogglingly consistent low turnover team. Certain teams seem to have identities that last generations, and for Dallas this is them. This franchise does not turn the ball over. This isn't just a Rick Carlisle thing. It was true under Avery. It was true under Nelson. In fact, the last 3 years with Nash despite him being known as a high risk guy--in fact this risk is used often to justify his greatness to a degree--Dallas committed the fewest turnovers in the league.

Now the immediate connection here is Dirk one of the all-time great low turnover offensive anchors along with Paul and Kobe. But this was still true 2 seasons ago when the year after he retired Luka and the boys led a GOAT efficiency offense and yep 2nd fewest turnovers in the league despite Luka also being known as a high risk guy.

But what we see basically no connection with is Dallas having stronger defensive teams as a result. In fact outside of the 67 win team the defense has ranged from tragic to slightly above average in a few seasons, but mostly being a bad defense.

Now of course that doesn't mean it doesn't help the defense. Nothing is worse than live-ball turnovers and if you don't have many of those it helps. But in and of itself I don't think its all that significant. I think we should focus more on Paul's care with the ball means his team is more likely to get the opportunity to score. His ball security is a much bigger boon to the offense than the defense.

I highlight these numbers because I think they probably will surprise some people.

Great points in general.

To the question of whether I think Paul's supporters tend to be box-score-oriented, I'd specifically say all-in-one-from-box-score-oriented. Your average reader of box scores underrates all pass-first point guards because they largely just look at Points.

So to the extent I'm taking issue with a group, it's a fairly elite group.

Now as I say that, at this point in Paul's career there's a whole narrative built around Paul being a guy who can go to new teams and make them great in part due to his leadership. Those focused on this narrative are not part of the group I'm speaking of.

[Colbinii]

Paul's style has a net-positive impact on defense, something statistically minded folks still need to venture further into.

Doc seems to be suggesting an impact stat versus box score stat way of looking at players and perhaps not intentionally but seems to be implying that those who give Paul more credit are relying on box score data to do so. I don't believe that to necessarily be the case.

I look at the Mavericks who are uniquely both a historically offensive-minded team and a low turnover team. Like a mind-bogglingly consistent low turnover team. Certain teams seem to have identities that last generations, and for Dallas this is them. This franchise does not turn the ball over. This isn't just a Rick Carlisle thing. It was true under Avery. It was true under Nelson. In fact, the last 3 years with Nash despite him being known as a high risk guy--in fact this risk is used often to justify his greatness to a degree--Dallas committed the fewest turnovers in the league.

Now the immediate connection here is Dirk one of the all-time great low turnover offensive anchors along with Paul and Kobe. But this was still true 2 seasons ago when the year after he retired Luka and the boys led a GOAT efficiency offense and yep 2nd fewest turnovers in the league despite Luka also being known as a high risk guy.

But what we see basically no connection with is Dallas having stronger defensive teams as a result. In fact outside of the 67 win team the defense has ranged from tragic to slightly above average in a few seasons, but mostly being a bad defense.

Now of course that doesn't mean it doesn't help the defense. Nothing is worse than live-ball turnovers and if you don't have many of those it helps. But in and of itself I don't think its all that significant. I think we should focus more on Paul's care with the ball means his team is more likely to get the opportunity to score. His ball security is a much bigger boon to the offense than the defense.

I highlight these numbers because I think they probably will surprise some people.

I think Dirk had a strong impact on his teams defense with the combination of his High Usage/Low Turnover.

On / Off Splits with TEAM TOV% and Drtg

2001: 14.7% (101.1) / 15.4% (109.3)
2002: 12.8% (107.8) / 13.2% (106.3)
2003: 11.7% (101.1) / 15.3% (107.3)
2004: 12.7% (107.1) / 13.8% (107.5)
2005: 13.6% (103.3) / 17.0% (105.1)
2006: 14.2% (105.5) / 18.8% (102.5)
2007: 14.5% (103.9) / 18.0% (101.7)
2008: 13.1% (105.6) / 16.0% (106.5)
2009: 13.1% (108.4) / 16.3% (107.3)
2010: 13.5% (105.3) / 14.9% (109.8)
2011: 15.1% (103.0) / 15.8% (109.0

And after looking at this data as a single point, I see little correlation to my original hypothesis with Dirk.

[Djoker]

I think it's hard to say he isn't top 5. I would take MJ over him and then it's a toss up with Magic/Shaq/Lebron.

[falcolombardi]

an average hlafcourt shot is around 1 point, and average turnover leads to around 1.2 points

comitting a turnover gives the opposite team a expected 1.2 points vs the 1.0 points of a half court shot

avoiding a turnover gives the offense a expected 1 point rather than 0 points

the offensive value of avoiding a turnover is 1 point, the defensive value of avoidin g a turnover is 0.2 points

the offensive value of it is a lot, lot, lot higher than the defensive value, but it seems to be mostly the defensive value that is brought up when talking about cp3

if anythingh sometimes we look at chris Paul low turnovers and assume he is doing somethingh wrong even when each turnover a game he saves is absurdly valueable, that is what i mean with looking at low turnovers as a bad thingh because it doesnt fit the nash/magic mold

[70sFan]

How is Karl Malone, David Robinson and Olajuwon not on that list? Even non alltime top 30 players like Dantley and Dominique are better scorers than some of those on your list.

Because scoring isn't everything?

Karl Malone and David Robinson were limited scorers who struggled in the playoffs against solid defenses. I'm aware that they don't always have perfect teammates, but the expectations for GOAT offensive player is incredibly high. These two are relatively easy to gameplan against. On top of that, Robinson wasn't elite passer or playmaker either. Malone is closer to that tier, but not good enough.

Olajuwon's mediocre passing skills and limited offensive versatility puts him below the GOAT offensive players. Even in terms of his biggest strength (volume scoring), he's not among the very best, though he's just in a tier below.

Wilkins and Dantley have no case in this discussion. One dimensional scoring isn't enough to reach these heights. Nique in particular is a strange mention - his scoring ability isn't even among very best, he's high volume scorer on mediocre efficiency who got worse in the playoffs. He had some strengths (offensive rebounding, low turnover numbers) but it's not a factor in a discussion about GOAT offensive players.

I think that you put way too big focus on volume scoring ability.

Moses isn't at the level of Olajuwon, at the very least that is an error in your list.

Moses is significantly better off-ball player than Hakeem and his scoring ability is on similar level (lesser shooter, but much more dominant inside pressence).

He also anchored some mediocre Rockets teams to strong offensive results, which Olajuwon could never accomplish. It's because Moses gave you the same strengths Hakeem did, but also took away less from his teammates.

[70sFan]

I think the spacing Hakeem had allowed him to use his GOAT big man coordination and footwork to be the primary attack on his team.

I don't think there is a big difference between Moses and Hakeem in terms of isolation scoring. Granted, from my tracking data Hakeem was a bit more efficient in the post and had higher isolation volume, but these differences aren't massive and Moses was capable of doing things Hakeem did. I mean, Hakeem's repertoire is a carbon copy of Moses moves - they looked more refined, but Olajuwon wasn't actually that much different. What's interesting that the Hakeem signature shot - fadeaway from the block - was actually a deadlier weapon in Moses hands:

Hakeem took 6.8 fadeaways from the block per game and made 43.8% of them.
Moses took 3.3 fadeaways from the post per game and made 47.9% of them.

I don't think Moses makes sense as a primary attack in really any era. With Moses, you use other guys to generate the attack, and then rely on him to earn the secondary possession through his rebound, which he'll then use for a quick score.

I think you underestimate Moses self-creation ability. In my tracked sample, Moses took 50% of his shots from the low post and that doesn't include some of his isolations from the high post and perimeter attacks. Hakeem, in comparison, took around 59% of his shots from the low block. The difference is visible, but it's not that big. It has to be remembered that the majority of my sampled games comes from his first Philly season when he was surrounded by other strong scorers. I'd bet that his stats would look even closer if I only include his Rockets games.