1983 Moses Malone vs 2005 Steve Nash

[Matt15]

Who was the better player?

[No-more-rings]

I would think 83 Moses. He wasn't quite the force on offense that Nash was but there's good reason to believe Moses was a good defender that year something you can't say about a single season of Nash's career.

[coastalmarker99]

What Moses did to Kareem in the 1983 finals was unbelievable as he just completely dominated him.

Fun fact in those finals Malone had 27 offensive rebounds while Kareem had a total of 30 rebounds.

Kareem to his credit even won FMVP just two years later against a hall of fame frontline.


So it just makes Moses' performance in those finals look even more impressive than it already is.

[migya]

Moses by a mile.

[70sFan]

Most people will probably take Nash, but I am inclined to pick Moses. He was such a unique offensive player that you didn't need to build anything for him, but literally around him. He wasn't ball-dominant and he created additional possessions better than anyone. He could also carry a huge offensive load when needed, proved by 1982 season.

He wasn't elite defender, but at his peak he was very solid. That combined with his postseason run, unique offensive impact and +/- numbers we have for him gives him small edge to me.

[falcolombardi]

Most people will probably take Nash, but I am inclined to pick Moses. He was such a unique offensive player that you didn't need to build anything for him, but literally around him. He wasn't ball-dominant and he created additional possessions better than anyone. He could also carry a huge offensive load when needed, proved by 1982 season.

He wasn't elite defender, but at his peak he was very solid. That combined with his postseason run, unique offensive impact and +/- numbers we have for him gives him small edge to me.

we have plus-minus for moses?

[Owly]

Most people will probably take Nash, but I am inclined to pick Moses. He was such a unique offensive player that you didn't need to build anything for him, but literally around him. He wasn't ball-dominant and he created additional possessions better than anyone. He could also carry a huge offensive load when needed, proved by 1982 season.

He wasn't elite defender, but at his peak he was very solid. That combined with his postseason run, unique offensive impact and +/- numbers we have for him gives him small edge to me.

we have plus-minus for moses?

For 76ers back to '77. "Raw plus/minus for 93-94, 94-95, 95-96 seasons" in statistical analysis boards here. +/- from Harvey Pollack via Fpliii. It's +/- so can convert to on-off on a per minute and per 48 basis which has been done (can't do possessions). Also has offense/defense splits (via points scored on and points conceded on). Same sources as 94-96 plus minus data.

[70sFan]

Most people will probably take Nash, but I am inclined to pick Moses. He was such a unique offensive player that you didn't need to build anything for him, but literally around him. He wasn't ball-dominant and he created additional possessions better than anyone. He could also carry a huge offensive load when needed, proved by 1982 season.

He wasn't elite defender, but at his peak he was very solid. That combined with his postseason run, unique offensive impact and +/- numbers we have for him gives him small edge to me.

we have plus-minus for moses?

As Owly mentioned, we have Harvey Pollack's +/- collection coming up to 1977.

1982-83 Moses Malone

+15.6 On/Off
+8.1 Net ORtg
-7.5 Net DRtg

[Stalwart]

It clearly Moses. Cmon guys stop it.

[tsherkin]

Tough call for me. Nash obviously was the headliner for an offense which changed the game.

Moses was part of a title team that was 5th on either end of the court. He wasn't a huge part of the defense, but he certainly hit the boards well (at either end). He was quite efficient, and his patented "throw it off the rim/glass and go get it" routine worked out pretty well, particularly since he was Shaq-like at drawing fouls and a good FT shooter for a power big.

109 TS+ player in 83. +4.0 OBPM (b-ref), +1.6 OBPM (BackPicks), +3.4 BPM, +4.6 AuPM, +1.6 ScoreVal, -1.0 PlayVal, 33.6 Load, 1.0 Box Creation, 1.6 Passer Rating

2.8 to Nash's 8.8 in Prime WOWYR

In his way portable, if only because he could generate his offense from the misses of others. Not a particularly good creator, nor a high-end defender, but not a bad defender. The defense actually improved when he hit Philly and while the offense was a little lower in raw output per 100 possessions, it was actually notably better relative to league average in 83 with Moses. They won 7 more games and nearly swept the playoffs, so I mean, the team hummed along. You can easily see how Moses' faculty for drawing free throws and his offensive rebounding helped their offense. Aside from Bobby Jones, no one else on the team was stunning with their draw rate, and they weren't stunning on the offensive glass besides Moses (though Doctor J was pretty good for a wing). They were, naturally, 1st in FTr, FT/FGA and ORB%, which helped a lot.

Now Nash.

114 TS+ player in 05, +5.5 OBPM (b-ref), +4.6 oBPM (BackPicks), +4.6 BPM, +4.7 AuPM, +0.4 ScoreVal. +2.5 PlayVal, 46.6 Load, Box Creation 12.9, Passer Rating 9.6

A lot of these numbers correlate with basic observations: he didn't score as much as Moses, so he wasn't putting his pressure on that way. He was a volume playmaker and very much better at it than Moses. You can see BackPicks' BPM and b-ref's BPM both favor Nash, but AuPM has them basically the same. This comes down to efficient volume scoring with weak passing versus extreme playmaking with spacing value but relatively low scoring (minding that Nash was a 23.9 ppg scorer that postseason). There are some old narratives in place here.

In think this is a fairly interesting conversation. It's worth noting that Philly had won 59, 62 and 58 games the three previous seasons and had been to the Finals in 80, the ECFs in 81 and the Finals in 82. They didn't really outperform themselves in the 83 regular season compared to those years and didn't even set their top SRS mark during that stretch. They did win +3 games over 81 and they obviously had an incredible postseason. It is worth noting that Moses' postseason OBPM (b-ref) was +6.8, with a DBPM of -0.4 and .260 WS/48. His efficacy in that run was pretty significant. It was far and away his best postseason longer than a 3-game series, and his best WS/48 in the playoffs (and also that .260 led the playoffs in WS/48). You have to look at his age-19 ABA postseason to find another playoffs where he was >= .183 WS/48 until his 89 season with Atlanta at .208.

To put that into perspective, Nash's 05 postseason was a +5.9 OBPM (b-ref), -1.2 DBPM, and .164 WS/48.

So I think what we're seeing sort of jives with a basic underlying thread: they exerted similar impact on the regular season. Moses came to a team that was already dominant; there are diminishing returns past a given point as you stack talent and it's not like he was a major spacer or a good passer or anything like that. But he lit up like a Christmas tree for the best postseason of his life in this specific season. Would I build around Moses vs. Nash? No, I wouldn't. Did he absolutely crush playoff competition in 1983 specifically to a degree which was more impressive than what Nash achieved in 05? Yeah, he did.

There are a few posts in here which are frustrating. "It's clearly Moses" or "It's Moses by a mile." It's not. These two guys had very good regular seasons, but also different team contexts and roles. Moses slotted into an already dominant team and didn't disrupt them, then used that to his advantage in the playoffs. This was a lot like KD dominating for the Warriors, but without the "bailing to a team he couldn't beat" drum which so many love to beat. It's a little different than what was going on in Phoenix. Philly was 5th and 7th on O and D in 1982 and was a 58-win team that exited the EC, remember. Phoenix in 2004 was a 29-win team that had just authored a mid-season trade of Stephon Marbury to the Knicks and was hoping for a turn-around. So the contexts of their performances and how they happened were not quite the same.

Ultimately, it's a very interesting discussion, though. This was the apex of Malone's career and he did not disappoint. I can see arguments both ways here.

[Owly]

... In his way portable, if only because he could generate his offense from the misses of others....

Tentative thoughts on offensive portability. Could be wrong.

Insofar as portable relates to scaling to good teams I'm not entirely sure on offense off the offensive glass is so portable. I get that not needing plays called is good if playing with stars but at the same time shooting efficiency is pretty important to winning so the value of a specific level of offensive rebounding (and scoring off it) skill will trend down on better teams. There are possible mitigations (good teams turn over less so put up more shots, teams are efficient by the 3 but still miss a lot in raw terms) but crude as fg% is it was the old fashioned box stat that correlated best with winning.

Fwiw, despite this and the passing issues, his Houston teams had a couple of really good offenses though so ...

[tsherkin]

... In his way portable, if only because he could generate his offense from the misses of others....

Tentative thoughts on offensive portability. Could be wrong.

Insofar as portable relates to scaling to good teams I'm not entirely sure on offense off the offensive glass is so portable. I get that not needing plays called is good if playing with stars but at the same time shooting efficiency is pretty important to winning so the value of a specific level of offensive rebounding (and scoring off it) skill will trend down on better teams. There are possible mitigations (good teams turn over less so put up more shots, teams are efficient by the 3 but still miss a lot in raw terms) but crude as fg% is it was the old fashioned box stat that correlated best with winning.

He wasnt a low-FG% player though. Low/mid 50s is pretty good, and of course that draw rate. And he was a 75-ish percent FT shooter, too so the FTM/FGA was nice.

[Owly]

... In his way portable, if only because he could generate his offense from the misses of others....

Tentative thoughts on offensive portability. Could be wrong.

Insofar as portable relates to scaling to good teams I'm not entirely sure on offense off the offensive glass is so portable. I get that not needing plays called is good if playing with stars but at the same time shooting efficiency is pretty important to winning so the value of a specific level of offensive rebounding (and scoring off it) skill will trend down on better teams. There are possible mitigations (good teams turn over less so put up more shots, teams are efficient by the 3 but still miss a lot in raw terms) but crude as fg% is it was the old fashioned box stat that correlated best with winning.

He wasnt a low-FG% player though. Low/mid 50s is pretty good, and of course that draw rate. And he was a 75-ish percent FT shooter, too so the FTM/FGA was nice.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, certainly my intended message didn't get through in this instance.

This is about (in its simplest form):
- a good team will tend to shoot for a high %
- shooting for a high % means less available offensive rebounds
- less available offensive rebounds means a given level of offfensive rebounding becomes less valuable on this team than most weaker teams.

You're right Moses wasn't a bad shooter though honestly I was surprised at how high his best TS Add was (as you say, good from the field plus elite foul draw plus good for a big FT%).

[tsherkin]

This is about (in its simplest form):
- a good team will tend to shoot for a high %
- shooting for a high % means less available offensive rebounds
- less available offensive rebounds means a given level of offfensive rebounding becomes less valuable on this team than most weaker teams.

You're right Moses wasn't a bad shooter though honestly I was surprised at how high his best TS Add was (as you say, good from the field plus elite foul draw plus good for a big FT%).

Right, I get you in the sense that a good team will make more shots and so available ORB will drop. But he also used ORBs off of his own misses, and generally speaking, there wasn't anyone else even close to his overall ORB profile, so he was able to leverage at least that to effect. I see what you're saying re: that and portability, though, makes sense.

[JordansBulls]

Moses pretty handily for me as you felt that he could beat you while with Nash you never got the idea he could beat you.