Is Pau Gasol a top 50 player all-time?

[G35]

- On one hand, "Kobe is selfish! Kobe shoots too much! Kobe doesn't pass enough! Kobe makes the game too hard!"

- On the other hand, "Pau is a top 50 player. The Lakers had the best front court in the game. Phil Jackson and the triangle made it work."

I think there's a relevant side group here. Stepping away from Pau and whether or not he has a place in the top 50, there is a lot of discussion attempting to denigrate Pau in order to prop up Kobe, which is where there's a bunch of resistance. For me, I can certainly see why someone wouldn't put Pau Top 50. That doesn't mean he wasn't a very good player, of course, and he obviously played a lot better as #2 to Kobe and within the triangle than he was able to as a #1 in Memphis. It worked out for everyone. And it doesn't undercut Kobe to have appropriate talent for a period of dominance. You don't accidentally make 3 trips to the Finals in a row, you do it on a good team. But that was still Kobe's team, and he was clearly the best player on that squad and all that.

So I know the argument will be, "Well two things can be true at the same time, Kobe is selfish and shoots too much and Pau was great."

You're right two things can be true at the same time, Pau was great for the Lakers and he was not a top 50 or 75 player at the same time.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. Didn't get to you earlier reply to me, but we largely agree with the basic premise that Pau fit very well into this context and was a very good #2 to Kobe.

In the 2007-08 season, the Lakers started with Bynum and Odom in the front court and they were playing very well. At one point were the #1 team in the WC. It took Bynum's injury for the Lakers to pull the trigger on trading for Pau.

The Lakers unquestionably won at a notably higher rate with Pau even in 08 than without him. He immediately improved the team. Remember, they were 22-5 with him (67-win pace), and 35-20 without him (52-win pace). In Bynum's 35 games, they were 24-11 (56-win pace), so again, they were doing notably better with Pau.

OTOH, Pau was not necessarily the optimal or only fit for the Lakers, I think many other players could have duplicated Gasol's impact in that time period:

Bosh
Garnett
Duncan
Al Jefferson
Elton Brand
ZBo
Rasheed
Boozer
Al Horford
Aldridge

Doubt it with Bosh, Jefferson, Brand, Z Bo, Sheed, Boozer or Aldridge. Garnett and Duncan were superstars, so that seems evident. They likely would have been a lot better, even with KG and Tim a little older at that point. Al Jefferson was an inefficient post scorer who wasn't a great passer and wasn't a good defender, he would definitely not have been as good as Pau in that system. Z Bo was a good rebounder but nothing like Pau on D or as a passer, and was worse on offense. Sheed wasn't the rebounder or scoring threat. Boozer was a horrific defender, though offensively he might have fit in. Horford was and remains quite good. Aldridge was not good enough on the glass and was a notably less effective scoring threat. Most of those dudes wouldn't have got it done in LA.

Yes, Pau fits beautifully along Kobe and inside of the triangle. He is intelligent, willing passer, understood the concept the triangle was trying to implement.

So there is no argument that Pau was phenomenal.

Now here is the pushback, prepare yourself, its not personal.

You point out that the Lakers had a higher winning percentage with Pau (without Bynum), than with Bynum (without Pau). That is also a fact. Lets put out some more facts:

22-5 with Pau is a 67 win pace, that is ATG right there...so lets dive into that.

Did Kobe and Shaq ever win 67 games? Yes, one time in 2000. But in 2001, they won 56 games. In 2002 the last championship they won 58 games. Does that mean that Pau and Kobe, was better than Kobe and Shaq in those years? Obviously, foolish question. But by the numbers, 2008 Kobe and Pau, were a more effective tandem than Kobe and Shaq in every year except 2000.

Let's do a different comparison. The 2016 Warriors won 73 games with the core of Curry, Klay, Draymond, Bogut. The 2017 Warriors won 67 games with Curry, Klay, Draymond, and Durant...which core was better? I think we know.

So the point is that back in 2008, the Lakers that season were making a jump, it was similar to the 2015 Warriors or 2005 Suns. They were coming into their own. Unfortunately, Bynum got hurt. Pau stepped into a great situation, he was there to keep it rolling. But if Bynum does not get hurt Pau is unnecessary, it is a very similar argument to if the Warriors needed Durant to win a title...some people feel yes, some people say no. The bottom line is the Lakers were good without Pau.

So now onto the most crucial point. I choose my words carefully and I see that some have missed my point. I said that many other players could duplicate the IMPACT of Pau. I did not say they would be a replica of Pau. This goes back to which pair is better, Kobe and Shaq or Kobe and Pau. Shaq could not do what Pau can do, but neither can Pau do what Shaq can do.

So when I mentioned Brand, Aldridge, Horford, Boozer, I am not saying they would be a duplicate of Pau. I am saying they would have similar impact but in different areas:
- Brand would provide better post offense/defense and shotblocking, but his passing would be poorer...against the Celtics I would rather have Brand

- Aldridge I think is a better scorer, similar rebounding, I give Pau a big edge in passing this is a push

- Horford I would rather have Pau also

- Boozer stronger post game, stronger post defense, better rebounder, more consistent offense, Pau is once again a better passer/facilitator

I don't think you are looking at the Lakers in a holistic manner. Its not Pau vs Boozer/Aldridge/Horford/Brand

It's Pau/Odom/Bynum

vs Brand/Odom/Bynum and so on

One of the things you are glossing over that I have repeatedly mentioned is toughness. Almost all of the players I have chosen are tangibly tougher and more resilient than Pau. This is where I think so many of the "pretty basketball" arguments come in to play. Pau is a finesse player, its great when you are passing and moving the ball and everybody gets touches. That's a regular season argument.

In the playoffs against teams like those Boston Celtics or the 2004 Pistons where physicality is a factor, Pau is not optimal. I saw Pau get punked by 6'6 Chuck Hayes. I don't know if you remember Chuck Hayes but he was similar to PJ Tucker but more in the post. Pau couldn't do anything against Chuck Hayes, he was flopping, throwing up BS shots because it was too physical and this would happen when Kobe went to the bench and the Lakers needed Pau to be the #1 option. Pau is not built for that.

Pau prefers to facilitate and defer. Pau does not take over and assert his will on the game in the same way a STAR would do. Pau is a super-powered role player. He is an ideal role player who does what is asked. But if you ask him to carry the team for stretches at a time, he cannot do that and that is why I look for other players who could fit that role.....

[Stalwart]

And again, both Jordan and Lebron have bigger cult of personalities. And in the case of Lebrons cult they are the most toxic by far. By far.

Stalwart, I'm going to largely just agree to disagree with you, with an emphasis that you're just really underrating Kobe's cult of personality while being in it...which is interesting.

Of course you are. Why actually respond to the points I made when you can just posture for the realgm regulars.

You guys have not convinced me there is a Kobe stan group warping all of the discussion. However, you have convinced me that there is indeed an Anti-Kobe contigent with an agenda toward Kobe fans. You guys are going out of your way to try and paint Kobe fans as the worst fans in the sport based on literally nothing. Its a cheap narrative you guys are pushing for whatever reason.

But of course we can agree to disagree.

[Doctor MJ]

So, let me elaborate a bit more on Gasol from a player ranking from a different approach. Let's focus on the draft classes around Gasol to get a sense of his generation - that won't tell us if he's Top 50 or not, but such all-time comparisons are always way more complicated.

So, Gasol's in the 2001 draft, so let's look at that draft and the 4 to either side. Here are the players who I think have an argument for a greater career than Gasol:

1997 - Duncan, Billups, McGrady
1998 - Nowitzki, Pierce, Carter
1999 - Ginobili
2000 - <crickets>
2001 - Parker
2002 - Stoudemire
2003 - James, Wade, Bosh, Anthony
2004 - Howard
2005 - Paul

In this 9 year stretch then, I think it's understandable to rank Gasol as low as 16th.

I would rank the following players ahead of him:

Duncan
Nowitzki
Pierce
Ginobili
James
Wade
Paul

So I'd rank him 8th over this duration, and that means there are 8 guys on that I could see disagreements over where I'd be the pro-Gasol guy. Feel free to jump in on any of those 8 guys, or I suppose anyone else.

[dhsilv2]

I think you should take into account the competition faced for all-nba teams. Someone like Pete Maravich had much easier time to get all-nba first teams in the late 1970s (and he still didn't deserve them), while Pau had to battle for these awards with utterly stacked era for forwards - Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Durant... That's why Melo didn't have any all-nba first team selections either. This is why counting accolades can be misleading.

Look, I agree that the competition you face can affect these things, that's why I said First Team selections are not everything. As you point out, Melo also didn't have any All-NBA 1st team selections. Yet Melo is in the Top-75 because he would be a bonafide #1 option for many teams compared to those who are not currently in the Top-75. Lenny Wilkens also doesn't have a 1st team selection but retired 2nd on the All-Time Assists list behind Oscar Robertson and he is still #37 for APG over a career. These guys have something special they can hang their hat on.

You mention Pete Maravich... well, in addition to his 2x All-NBA First Team selections to Pau's 0 times... here's where they stand in the all-time NBA/ABA leaders lists for Points, Assists, Rebounds, Steals and Blocks per game.

Pete Maravich:
PPG: #21 - 24.24
APG: #94 - 5.41
RPG: Not in Top 250
SPG: #125 - 1.36
BPG: Not in Top 250

Pau Gasol:
PPG: #182 - 17.04
APG: Not in Top 250
RPG: #94 - 9.22
SPG: Not in Top 250
BPG: #53 - 1.58

So how do you put Pau over Pete? To still be #21 in PPG among all players, after so many years, it is something special, right?

And if you look at the rank for Pau's numbers per game... #53, #94, #182... are those really special enough to be in the Top 75?

Pau's strength isn't him being some kind of MVP candidate (that's the level of the real all-nba first team player). I rank him highly because he's all-star level for basically 15 years and he was very smart, portable player who can play in multiple roles and systems. The truth is that none of these players were legit MVP-level players either (outside of Walton, who had amazing peak), so why should we look at them strictly as first options?

Well, to answer that question at the end... an All-NBA First Team player need not necessarily be an MVP candidate, it simply means they were considered the best players in their position in that year.

Anyway, I agree with you, Pau had very good longevity... but apparently, those making the list feel that the 75 in it had something more special to hang their hats on. Btw, he's just going to get further and further from the Top 75 as time passes. Luka, Jokic, Jimmy Butler, Klay Thompson probably all have better cases than Pau already. How about guys like Khris Middleton, is his case for Top 75 much weaker than Pau's or close?

Why are you discussing these players if you haven't put in the time to watch pre 80's games on youtube like everyone else? Seriously man, there's hundreds if not thousands of hours of amazing basketball completely free to watch anytime you want!

I have asked a perfectly valid question. Do you have a logical and satisfactory rebuttal to it?

Came in to confirm this would turn into a train wreck of people trying to dismiss Gasol, thinking it would make Kobe look better, when it doesn't. I see I was right.

Would you like a medal?

I mean you're asking why he's better than Pistol Pete but you then discuss per game stats when their era's paces were so drastically different they can't be compared. Gasol was a high quality defender. Pete wasn't, at all! Go back and watch him, not the highlights, and you'll see how little impact he really was having.

It's hard to discuss historical players if you haven't watched at least a little of them. And it's even worse if you're using stats but don't know how to compare stats between eras. I mean PER, not a great stat, but when we compare Pete to Gasol, we see peak Pete was 20.5. Gasol has 11 seasons over 20.5. Think about that for a second. Even if PER is poor, that's a pretty dramatic gap here. BPM peaked for Gasol at 5.5, now we don't have BPM for all of Pete's years but we do have his best PER year and a BPM going with it of 2.5. That's a night and day gap here.

And we can go to similar discussions with other players here. Pete is an exceptionally bad call to rank over Gasol. Unless you rank player by highlight plays, cause he was way more fun to watch than Gasol.

[An Unbiased Fan]

In '10-11, Gasol had nearly as high a PER as Kobe, better WS & VORP, and considerably better +/-.

What objective thing would you point to make Kobe not just your choice for MVP, but such a big gap that you consider it appropriate to laugh at someone who disagrees with you?

Because it's revisionist history. We've both posted here since well before the 2011 season, so when did Pau become arguably the Laker's MVP that season? Kobe was #4 in MVP voting in 2011, while Pau didn't get a single vote. Pau was a great player and Laker fans loved him here. The thing you and others are doing is to diminish any opinion you disagree with. In the 2011 POY you didn't mention Pau at all, and gave Kobe a honorable mention

[Doctor MJ]

Listen, to be clear on my part:

I'm certainly not trying to say that only people with a pro-Kobe agenda say negative things about Gasol - but in terms of whether there's a trend of people who passionately argue pro-Kobe jumping in this thread and making anti-Gasol statements - yes, that's clearly happening. Both you and An Unbiased Fan are very much known for your pro-Kobe stances, and you both quickly jumped into this thread knocking Gasol, and after that we quickly get a number of other posters whose profile make clear they are Laker fans who not only are low on Gasol, but don't seem to be have a real grasp of Gasol's career arc.

So I went back and read Unbiased Fan and I's intially reaponses in this thread. And its just like I said youbguys are projecting. Unbiased Fan said Gasol was a great player but he didn't make the top 75 and is not a top 50 player. Where is he "knocking" Gasol as opposed to giving his straight forward and widely shared opinion? I went a little further and noted how overrated Pau has become. Is that knocking him or bashing when its the truth?

Imagine if Kobe fans kept making threads and posts claiming Kobe was the GOAT. Heck, imagine even if they just said he was top 5. Wouldn't that kind of force you to "knock" Kobe? Would it be fair to then call you a Kobe hater or accuse you of having an agenda because you said "great player but not top 5"? Thats what's going on here with Gasol. There is no legitimately credible argument, that I can see, for Pau being in the top 50. He's not on a different level than your CWebb's and Chris Bosh's. So when you guys push these arguments it kind of forces others to criticize Pau more than they otherwise would.

You want to see me sing Gasol's praises then just switch the conversation. Instead of debating the top 50 lets talk about the top 75-100. Or lets talk about the best Robins in NBA history. Gasol's name will come up. Or the best international players. Or lets talk about what a great and unique fit he was next to Kobe and in the triangle. Those type of conversations would allow others to praise Gasol rather than be critical.

So, it's just obviously a thing, and a thing worth commenting on. Gasol is going to have his jersey retired by the Lakers because he did amazing stuff for the Lakers, and yet the first thought of many Laker fans seems to be negative. That just kinda stinks, particularly since he's always had a reputation as a really good guy.

In fairness, part of the reason this is easy to spot is because it's a common thing. I mean, over in Chicago, it's not just the fans but Jordan himself who poke and poke at Pippen. Why? Because of the zero-sum thinking that people tend to have when allocating credit for team success. The more issues you see with my teammate, the better I appear to be.

So we should all take care not to judge those who fall prey to this too harshly - as I've said, it can and probably does happen to all of us - but it's definitely a thing, and I meant what I said that I think it's stronger relating to Kobe's supporters than pretty much anyone else in the last 20 years - can't think of anyone outside of religion & politics that's stronger.

And it's not a particularly "Kobe" thing for inexplicable reasons.
More than anything else, it's happening because of how huge and massively admired of an icon Kobe is that conversations that are not supposed to be about him, end up being steered by his aether.

Again, its you guys bringing up Kobe. Unbiased Fan nor myself mentioned Kobe at all.

You say fans bash Gasol and Pippen because they love Jordan and Kobe so much. That's nonesense. What happens is other fans of other players spend a great deal of typing pumping up both Gasol and Pippen into something more than they actually were as a means to diminsh Kobe abd Jordan. The agenda is coming from the other side my friend.

The only reason Gasol enjoys the reputation as a top 50 player within some circles is a byproduct of the anti-Kobe narratives. Narratives like Gasol should have won FMVP. Or that Gasol saved Kobe. Or that Kobe never won without a dominant big man. And now we can add Gasol was the 2011 MVP to pile. After years of these type of narratives it gives less informed posters the impression that Gasol must have a been superstar or something. That's literally the only reason he has that repuation in some circles as his career, his numbers, nor the eye test warrant such a high ranking.

And its the same thing with Pippen. When people put Pippen in the top 30 and what not it leaves honest and reasonable fans no choice but to be critical.

And again, both Jordan and Lebron have bigger cult of personalities. And in the case of Lebrons cult they are the most toxic by far. By far.

Okay, I suppose I will respond a bit more here.

To your points:

1. You keep saying how you and AUF didn't bring up Kobe...but I didn't say you did. I said that you were known for your Kobe-oriented perspective, and then pointed out the tendency of other Laker fans to jump in this thread and say negative things about Gasol's career that weren't even necessarily true, which leads to the conclusion that your Kobe-orientation is affecting your perspective even when you're not explicitly talking about Kobe.

2. What makes that so ripe for an "agree to disagree" statement with you is that I'm literally talking about what's going on in your head, and you're saying in essence "You don't know what's going on in my head!", which is a pretty understandable response that I can't expect to have more meaningful debate with you about.

3. You use the word "projecting" when talking about what I and others are doing here, and that's an intriguing word worth chewing on. To me this word means that someone is putting in someone else's mind what is in their own mind, which isn't necessarily a wrong description for what I'm doing, but there's more to the pragmatic understanding of the term than that.

When we talk about "projecting" as a negative thing, we're often talking about it as an ego-defense mechanism wherein one attributes one's own insecurities on to other people.

You're trying to map that saying that folks who have an Anti-Kobe perspective shaping everything they see are assuming that others have a Pro-Kobe perspective shaping how they see everything.

I would object to the notion that there's a symmetry there. I think in sports there's typically a much stronger pull on the Pro side than on the Con side. This is different from something like politics where it's often the Anti mentality that isn't just stronger, but is used as the basis for developing your own cult of personality.

4. I would note that the actual metaphor of "projecting" applies to any use of empathy/sympathy/"theory of mind", which is something we all do all the time. You can be wrong when you do it, but that doesn't mean any of us should (or even can) stop doing it. It's likely why we have such big cortically-dominated brains in the first place after all.

And while you can say "Okay, but you're wrong here", that doesn't mean I am wrong, only that we've likely reached a dead end where it makes sense to find some polite way to move on from the interaction.

5. To the point of "Can't I just say my opinion on Player X without you bringing up my feelings about Player Y?". This is an understandable wish, and it's not doubt irritating to encounter a chorus of voices who won't stop bringing up what we know about what we know about your other opinions.

I'd just note that I didn't start going in this direction in this thread until I saw an eye-opening trend of folks all of similar background all going in the same direction, and I do think when one notices this, it's not just okay, but informative to point this out to people who may not see the trend.

6. Jordan/Pippen. It's not surprising you see Jordan/Pippen so similarly to Kobe/Pau, as the same way of thinking will lead you to similar conclusions. Your consistency here makes it all the more reasonable to just agree to disagree.

[Doctor MJ]

In '10-11, Gasol had nearly as high a PER as Kobe, better WS & VORP, and considerably better +/-.

What objective thing would you point to make Kobe not just your choice for MVP, but such a big gap that you consider it appropriate to laugh at someone who disagrees with you?

Because it's revisionist history. We've both posted here since well before the 2011 season, so when did Pau become arguably the Laker's MVP that season? Kobe was #4 in MVP voting in 2011, while Pau didn't get a single vote. Pau was a great player and Laker fans loved him here. The thing you and others are doing is to diminish any opinion you disagree with. In the 2011 POY you didn't mention Pau at all, and gave Kobe a honorable mention

The term "revisionist history" is typically used to describe people alive after those involved in the historical moment are dead, in this case though you're literally applying it to me in a comparison with my former self, which is more typically called "thinking more and changing your mind".

Of course, I didn't actually say Pau was the 2011 Laker MVP here, only that he had arguments for it, and if you'll recall back then, I wasn't exactly effusive about Kobe's performance that year.

[dhsilv2]

In '10-11, Gasol had nearly as high a PER as Kobe, better WS & VORP, and considerably better +/-.

What objective thing would you point to make Kobe not just your choice for MVP, but such a big gap that you consider it appropriate to laugh at someone who disagrees with you?

Because it's revisionist history. We've both posted here since well before the 2011 season, so when did Pau become arguably the Laker's MVP that season? Kobe was #4 in MVP voting in 2011, while Pau didn't get a single vote. Pau was a great player and Laker fans loved him here. The thing you and others are doing is to diminish any opinion you disagree with. In the 2011 POY you didn't mention Pau at all, and gave Kobe a honorable mention

Do you believe that people are always right in the heat of the moment vs looking back and taking their time to research and make a more level headed decision? It would seem that revisionist looks can without question be better if done so based on a deeper dive.

[An Unbiased Fan]

To your points:

1. You keep saying how you and AUF didn't bring up Kobe...but I didn't say you did. I said that you were known for your Kobe-oriented perspective, and then pointed out the tendency of other Laker fans to jump in this thread and say negative things about Gasol's career that weren't even necessarily true, which leads to the conclusion that your Kobe-orientation is affecting your perspective even when you're not explicitly talking about Kobe.

This is a myth though. The opinion of Kobe's career outside of the PC board, is what I and most Laker fans share. It's only been on the PC board that you get labelled a "Kobe fan" for expressing it. This thread is exhibit A, because again simply answering the thread topic and saying no Pau isn't quite Top 50...is somehow "propping up Kobe". That's why I asked who really has the bias, because it seems clear it's those who simply view any possible opinion that doesn't fit their narrative as being an agenda. Even though no list has him Top 50 anywhere nor was he included in the Top 75 list.

If someone says they think Kobe is a great defender in a thread then they get labeled a Kobe fan. Or a Top 10 player then you must be a Kobe fan. I grew up watching Magic and the showtime Lakers, he's was my favorite player. And I've probably spent more time arguing in favor for Dirk and DRob than any two players. But god help anyone who's ever said positive things about Kobe. Reminds me of the Tom Brady thing in the NFL with fans

[An Unbiased Fan]

In '10-11, Gasol had nearly as high a PER as Kobe, better WS & VORP, and considerably better +/-.

What objective thing would you point to make Kobe not just your choice for MVP, but such a big gap that you consider it appropriate to laugh at someone who disagrees with you?

Because it's revisionist history. We've both posted here since well before the 2011 season, so when did Pau become arguably the Laker's MVP that season? Kobe was #4 in MVP voting in 2011, while Pau didn't get a single vote. Pau was a great player and Laker fans loved him here. The thing you and others are doing is to diminish any opinion you disagree with. In the 2011 POY you didn't mention Pau at all, and gave Kobe a honorable mention

The term "revisionist history" is typically used to describe people alive after those involved in the historical moment are dead, in this case though you're literally applying it to me in a comparison with my former self, which is more typically called "thinking more and changing your mind".

Of course, I didn't actually say Pau was the 2011 Laker MVP here, only that he had arguments for it, and if you'll recall back then, I wasn't exactly effusive about Kobe's performance that year.

You did give Kobe an honorable mention though in 2011. My larger point is back in 2011, no one was thinking that Pau was the Laker's MVP or making that argument. Including you.

If you feel Pau is Top 50, then I say make the argument. I just take issue with the notion that those who don't agree are Kobe fans. Manu isn't in my Top 50 either, and I wouldn't think people were just putting him down to prop Duncan

[LAL1947]

Guys, please edit posts you are quoting to remove prior quotes... or only quote the bits you are replying to from really long posts... so we don't have humongous quote chains? Please? Thanks!

I mean you're asking why he's better than Pistol Pete but you then discuss per game stats when their era's paces were so drastically different they can't be compared. Gasol was a high quality defender. Pete wasn't, at all! Go back and watch him, not the highlights, and you'll see how little impact he really was having.

Pau Gasol is a high quality defender... wot?

IMO, he could protect the rim some and was intelligent enough to anticipate and alter shot attempts. He was lacking in lateral movement though, so couldn't defend space well or the P&R, and rarely provided good help defense. He had GREAT defenders around him in LAL (and even in CHI and SAS?) which make him look better than he would have looked if he was was on a weak defensive team.

Pau was also not the "high quality" rebounder that his 9-10 RPG suggests. Most of those were uncontested rebounds obtained because he was positioned in the paint (being the big) and because of his height. How often did you see Pau aggressively go after and get rebounds or box out others to gain position? So I'd go with good rebounder, but not high quality.

It's hard to discuss historical players if you haven't watched at least a little of them. And it's even worse if you're using stats but don't know how to compare stats between eras. I mean PER, not a great stat, but when we compare Pete to Gasol, we see peak Pete was 20.5. Gasol has 11 seasons over 20.5. Think about that for a second. Even if PER is poor, that's a pretty dramatic gap here. BPM peaked for Gasol at 5.5, now we don't have BPM for all of Pete's years but we do have his best PER year and a BPM going with it of 2.5. That's a night and day gap here.

The reason I stuck with points, assists, rebounds, steals and blocks in this example is because Pete Maravich played prior to the introduction of the 3-point line. Correct me if I'm wrong here but Player Efficiency Ratings will be skewed before and after the 3-point line, depending on what the player was good at. Pete was a decent shooter from range... so who is to say what his PER could have been with the 3-point game, right? It is also hard to compare impact/efficiency between eras too, since there have been other rule changes too.

And we can go to similar discussions with other players here. Pete is an exceptionally bad call to rank over Gasol. Unless you rank player by highlight plays, cause he was way more fun to watch than Gasol.

Okay, so let's say that Pete should not be over Pau. Pete is #54 in the list of 75... but it doesn't mean that Pau goes straight to #54. No, it may also be true that Pete was a bad call over those who are #55 to #75 too. So Pau still has to go through all of the guys between #55 and #75 to make it to #54.

Also, don't forget the other guys who have more claim than Pau to be in the Top 75 but aren't on there too: Ginobili, Parker, Dwight, Klay, Butler, Jokic are a few I can name off the top of my head. How about Marc Gasol? So you have to find more guys to remove off the current list of 75 to get Pau in there.

[An Unbiased Fan]

In '10-11, Gasol had nearly as high a PER as Kobe, better WS & VORP, and considerably better +/-.

What objective thing would you point to make Kobe not just your choice for MVP, but such a big gap that you consider it appropriate to laugh at someone who disagrees with you?

Because it's revisionist history. We've both posted here since well before the 2011 season, so when did Pau become arguably the Laker's MVP that season? Kobe was #4 in MVP voting in 2011, while Pau didn't get a single vote. Pau was a great player and Laker fans loved him here. The thing you and others are doing is to diminish any opinion you disagree with. In the 2011 POY you didn't mention Pau at all, and gave Kobe a honorable mention

Do you believe that people are always right in the heat of the moment vs looking back and taking their time to research and make a more level headed decision? It would seem that revisionist looks can without question be better if done so based on a deeper dive.

I think in 2011 we spend ALOT of time analyzing and reflecting on the season. Sure, opinions can change over time, with all of us that happens. A player like Russell I've gone back and forth with over the years. But one would need a compelling argument for Pau to be an arguably MVP for the 2011 Lakers. Again Kobe was #4 in voting, Pau wasn't on anyone's radar. The player who led the Lakers 12-1 March push to a higher seed was Kobe who got PoM. Sadly Pau's GF went crazy on him late in the season and we all saw what happened.

[Doctor MJ]

To your points:

1. You keep saying how you and AUF didn't bring up Kobe...but I didn't say you did. I said that you were known for your Kobe-oriented perspective, and then pointed out the tendency of other Laker fans to jump in this thread and say negative things about Gasol's career that weren't even necessarily true, which leads to the conclusion that your Kobe-orientation is affecting your perspective even when you're not explicitly talking about Kobe.

This is a myth though. The opinion of Kobe's career outside of the PC board, is what I and most Laker fans share. It's only been on the PC board that you get labelled a "Kobe fan" for expressing it. This thread is exhibit A, because again simply answering the thread topic and saying no Pau isn't quite Top 50...is somehow "propping up Kobe". That's why I asked who really has the bias, because it seems clear it's those who simply view any possible opinion that doesn't fit their narrative as being an agenda. Even though no list has him Top 50 anywhere nor was he included in the Top 75 list.

If someone says they think Kobe is a great defender in a thread then they get labeled a Kobe fan. Or a Top 10 player then you must be a Kobe fan. I grew up watching Magic and the showtime Lakers, he's was my favorite player. And I've probably spent more time arguing in favor for Dirk and DRob than any two players. But god help anyone who's ever said positive things about Kobe. Reminds me of the Tom Brady thing in the NFL with fans

Nah man, you're labeled a Kobe fan because your bias toward Kobe is overwhelming.

I mean dude, you recently brought up the '07-08 RPOY claiming that the anti-Kobe contingent there purposefully left him off the ballot to steer the award to another player, when it was literally the opposite of what happened. You see things through Kobe-colored glasses, and you always have. Doesn't make you a bad person, but you can't expect folks not to notice the patterns.

And to be clear: None of that has anything to do with where Kobe is ranked by other people. What I'm saying about you isn't about where you rank Kobe, but about your posting focus and the way it colors your perspective of others.

And to be fair to you and others here: That perspective coloring is likely shaped by the intensity of your engagement. There are plenty of people who rate Kobe highly but aren't hard-core internet fans on the matter. But you are, as are most all of us here, we debate, we get polarized, and we tend to see things through skewed perspectives. None of us are immune to it...but that doesn't mean it should simply be ignored when it becomes a trend worth talking about.

Re: Reminds of Brady. Well that makes sense because both players are so, so popular and both have to many titles.

As I say that though, the PC Board folks you're talking about are a particular distinct bunch. Realistically, anywhere where the folks tend to be (perhaps overly) serious with stats, Kobe is going to rank lower than elsewhere. If you're aware of a similar trend with Brady - that it's a similar hard-core analytically minded community that tends to, in your assessment, underrate him.

[Doctor MJ]

Because it's revisionist history. We've both posted here since well before the 2011 season, so when did Pau become arguably the Laker's MVP that season? Kobe was #4 in MVP voting in 2011, while Pau didn't get a single vote. Pau was a great player and Laker fans loved him here. The thing you and others are doing is to diminish any opinion you disagree with. In the 2011 POY you didn't mention Pau at all, and gave Kobe a honorable mention

The term "revisionist history" is typically used to describe people alive after those involved in the historical moment are dead, in this case though you're literally applying it to me in a comparison with my former self, which is more typically called "thinking more and changing your mind".

Of course, I didn't actually say Pau was the 2011 Laker MVP here, only that he had arguments for it, and if you'll recall back then, I wasn't exactly effusive about Kobe's performance that year.

You did give Kobe an honorable mention though in 2011. My larger point is back in 2011, no one was thinking that Pau was the Laker's MVP or making that argument. Including you.

If you feel Pau is Top 50, then I say make the argument. I just take issue with the notion that those who don't agree are Kobe fans. Manu isn't in my Top 50 either, and I wouldn't think people were just putting him down to prop Duncan

Just because I sided with Kobe doesn't mean I wasn't considering Pau.

Re: just take issue with those who don't agree are Kobe fans. I'm with you there, which is why all of my focus have been focusing on the people who ARE clearly Kobe/Laker fans.

[70sFan]

You mention Pete Maravich... well, in addition to his 2x All-NBA First Team selections to Pau's 0 times... here's where they stand in the all-time NBA/ABA leaders lists for Points, Assists, Rebounds, Steals and Blocks per game.

Pete Maravich:
PPG: #21 - 24.24
APG: #94 - 5.41
RPG: Not in Top 250
SPG: #125 - 1.36
BPG: Not in Top 250

Pau Gasol:
PPG: #182 - 17.04
APG: Not in Top 250
RPG: #94 - 9.22
SPG: Not in Top 250
BPG: #53 - 1.58

Why do you use per game numbers? Gasol had much longer career than Pete, so of course his per game numbers wouldn't be nearly as impressive as his prime numbers. Pete played only 10 seasons in the NBA with only one past prime season, so of course his per game numbers would be high, as he was a gunner for his whole career.

So if someone asks why Pete is #54 on the list, well... to still be #21 in PPG among all players after so many years, it is something special, right? If you look at the rank for Pau's numbers per game... #53, #94, #182... are those really special enough to be in the Top 75?

So you focus on ppg, without taking into account how valuable Maravich scoring actually was. Let's compare their offensive success as the first options:

2003 Grizzlies: +0.3 rORtg
2004 Grizzlies: +1.9 rORtg
2005 Grizzlies: -0.6 rORtg
2006 Grizzlies: -0.3 rORtg
2007 Grizzlies: +0.4 rORtg

Average: +0.3 rORtg

1975 Jazz: -5.2 rORtg
1976 Jazz: -1.7 rORtg
1977 Jazz: -2.5 rORtg
1978 Jazz: -2.0 rORtg

Average: -2.9

So Maravich supposed better ability as the first option led Jazz to horrible offensive success. I know that team offense isn't only about star offense, but Gasol didn't have any notable help on his teams either.

The next thing is scoring efficiency. Everyone can score a lot of points without being efficient. Let's compare their scoring efficiency for careers:

Pau: 56.5 TS%, 106 TS+
Pete: 50.0 TS%, 99 TS+

Eras were different, that's why I included adjusted numbers. Pau was always very efficient scorer, peaking at 113 TS+ in 2009. Pete's absolute best season in 104 TS+ in 1976 which is good, but it was a massive outlier for him. In his highest scoring season (1977), Pete posted 96 TS+, which means that he was far less efficient than league average player while shooting 28 times per game.

You look at Maravich scoring average as something positive and worth celebrating, I see it as concerning. Pete was very talented, but he was never effective basketball player in the NBA. He's the least deserved player from top 75 list.

To answer that question at the end... an All-NBA First Team player need not necessarily be an MVP candidate, it simply means they were considered the best players in their position in that year.

Usually, when you are the best player in the league at your position, you fight for MVPs.

Anyway, I agree with you, Pau had very good longevity... but apparently, those making the list feel that to be in the Top 75, players needed something more special than longevity to hang their hats on.

Then why did they include Robert Parish on their list? Parish wasn't better basketball player than Gasol. Why did they include Elvin Hayes? Lenny Wilkens? These guys are longevity guys, they weren't better than Gasol.

I can tell you something - voting panel had no criteria to make this list. They took the previous top 50 list, added a few old timers and the most recent superstars. I can assure you that nobody thought "let's compare Pau Gasol to Robert Parish, that's an interesting comparison".

Btw, he's just going to get further and further from the Top 75 as time passes. Jokic, Butler, Dwight, Ginobili, Parker and Klay all have better cases than Pau already.

Sure thing, but we're not talking about projections here. I fail to see what makes Parker a better candidate than Pau, but I won't start your another rant about how utterly stacked Spurs were.

How about guys like Khris Middleton, is his case for Top 75 much weaker than Pau's or close to Pau's? Note: I'm not saying it's better.

Yes, it's much weaker.

[An Unbiased Fan]

To your points:

1. You keep saying how you and AUF didn't bring up Kobe...but I didn't say you did. I said that you were known for your Kobe-oriented perspective, and then pointed out the tendency of other Laker fans to jump in this thread and say negative things about Gasol's career that weren't even necessarily true, which leads to the conclusion that your Kobe-orientation is affecting your perspective even when you're not explicitly talking about Kobe.

This is a myth though. The opinion of Kobe's career outside of the PC board, is what I and most Laker fans share. It's only been on the PC board that you get labelled a "Kobe fan" for expressing it. This thread is exhibit A, because again simply answering the thread topic and saying no Pau isn't quite Top 50...is somehow "propping up Kobe". That's why I asked who really has the bias, because it seems clear it's those who simply view any possible opinion that doesn't fit their narrative as being an agenda. Even though no list has him Top 50 anywhere nor was he included in the Top 75 list.

If someone says they think Kobe is a great defender in a thread then they get labeled a Kobe fan. Or a Top 10 player then you must be a Kobe fan. I grew up watching Magic and the showtime Lakers, he's was my favorite player. And I've probably spent more time arguing in favor for Dirk and DRob than any two players. But god help anyone who's ever said positive things about Kobe. Reminds me of the Tom Brady thing in the NFL with fans

Nah man, you're labeled a Kobe fan because your bias toward Kobe is overwhelming.

I mean dude, you recently brought up the '07-08 RPOY claiming that the anti-Kobe contingent there purposefully left him off the ballot to steer the award to another player, when it was literally the opposite of what happened. You see things through Kobe-colored glasses, and you always have. Doesn't make you a bad person, but you can't expect folks not to notice the patterns.

And to be clear: None of that has anything to do with where Kobe is ranked by other people. What I'm saying about you isn't about where you rank Kobe, but about your posting focus and the way it colors your perspective of others.

And to be fair to you and others here: That perspective coloring is likely shaped by the intensity of your engagement. There are plenty of people who rate Kobe highly but aren't hard-core internet fans on the matter. But you are, as are most all of us here, we debate, we get polarized, and we tend to see things through skewed perspectives. None of us are immune to it...but that doesn't mean it should simply be ignored when it becomes a trend worth talking about.

Re: Reminds of Brady. Well that makes sense because both players are so, so popular and both have to many titles.

As I say that though, the PC Board folks you're talking about are a particular distinct bunch. Realistically, anywhere where the folks tend to be (perhaps overly) serious with stats, Kobe is going to rank lower than elsewhere. If you're aware of a similar trend with Brady - that it's a similar hard-core analytically minded community that tends to, in your assessment, underrate him.

You mean the thread where I corrected and said it was the 2006 RPOY? A very random comment to bring up.

I mean you've clearly had an anti-Kobe bias since forever on Realgm. But I don't go places calling you a Kobe hater" because this is a discussion forum, and I what would be the point. My opinion stands out on the PC board because 1) I don't think +/- stats are correlative to player impact, 2) I feel Kobe deserved his All-defensive teams, 3) I feel Kobe is a Top 10 player all-time. Some here may disagree with any of those three areas, but I don't think that makes me a "Kobe fan". I'm a Laker fan and like both Kobe & Pau, and Fisher, and even guys like Sasha. I also like a lot of other players past & present and grew up watching Showtime. I don't see the agenda in having the same viewpoint that most people outside of Realgm share.

We can argue which is the right viewpoint, but like in some of the projects, people should argue the points, not perceived biases.

[LAL1947]

Btw, for anyone who is claiming that Pau Gasol was a high quality defender... I won't say negative stuff myself because I'll be accused of Kobe-bias... when I'm actually trying to ensure that Odom and Artest get their just credit.

Instead... let me provide you with some quotes made by Spurs fans on a Spurs forum in 2008. I've included the source so you can check yourself... and included some italicized comments where needed for context. Makes for some interesting reading, doesn't it?

Source

Pau Gasol has to be the worst defender in the NBA
my
god
Just pitiful

if you were to come up with an all-worst defensive team, it would have to be:

PG Nash
SG Redd (who gets my vote as worst defender of the bunch)
SF Szczerbiak
PF Gasol
C Stoudemire (worst post defender in the league)

Dirk will go for 40 on Gasol.

I knew he wasn't great, but I'm stunned at how an all star player of his size just stands there as LaMarcus Aldridge punks him over and over.

gasol is charmin soft.

He is Dirk's twin brother.
(the post means Pau is as bad as Dirk on defense)

I don't think Dirk is as bad of a defender as people say. He's not great, but he's not as bad as Gasol.

Dirk on occasion manages not to embarrass himself. Of course, the Mavs usually hide him.
(this post was made by a Mavs fan btw... including it since some people are now trying to push a narrative that Dirk was an above average defender.)

Portland is too athletic for us to handle with Gasol manning the paint. He is just getting slaughtered out there.
(this one post was made by a Lakers fan)

[70sFan]

About Gasol's defense - I'd say we should find a sweet spot for these hot takes. Gasol wasn't a good defender early in his career and he kept improving, but the biggest difference for him was Phil as a coach. Lakers were full of strong defenders, so his weaknesses were hidden and his strengths helped Lakers on the board and as a rim protector.

Gasol at his worst was weak defender, at his best in LA he was a clear positive, but never elite defender.

[dhsilv2]

Guys, please edit posts you are quoting to remove prior quotes... or only quote the bits you are replying to from really long posts... so we don't have humongous quote chains? Please? Thanks!

I mean you're asking why he's better than Pistol Pete but you then discuss per game stats when their era's paces were so drastically different they can't be compared. Gasol was a high quality defender. Pete wasn't, at all! Go back and watch him, not the highlights, and you'll see how little impact he really was having.

Pau Gasol is a high quality defender... wot?

IMO, he could protect the rim some and was intelligent enough to anticipate and alter shot attempts. He was lacking in lateral movement though, so couldn't defend space well or the P&R, and rarely provided good help defense. He had GREAT defenders around him in LAL (and even in CHI and SAS?) which make him look better than he would have looked if he was was on a weak defensive team.

Pau was also not the "high quality" rebounder that his 9-10 RPG suggests. Most of those were uncontested rebounds obtained because he was positioned in the paint (being the big) and because of his height. How often did you see Pau aggressively go after and get rebounds or box out others to gain position? So I'd go with good rebounder, but not high quality.

It's hard to discuss historical players if you haven't watched at least a little of them. And it's even worse if you're using stats but don't know how to compare stats between eras. I mean PER, not a great stat, but when we compare Pete to Gasol, we see peak Pete was 20.5. Gasol has 11 seasons over 20.5. Think about that for a second. Even if PER is poor, that's a pretty dramatic gap here. BPM peaked for Gasol at 5.5, now we don't have BPM for all of Pete's years but we do have his best PER year and a BPM going with it of 2.5. That's a night and day gap here.

The reason I stuck with points, assists, rebounds, steals and blocks in this example is because Pete Maravich played prior to the introduction of the 3-point line. Correct me if I'm wrong here but Player Efficiency Ratings will be skewed before and after the 3-point line, depending on what the player was good at. Pete was a decent shooter from range... so who is to say what his PER could have been with the 3-point game, right? It is also hard to compare impact/efficiency between eras too, since there have been other rule changes too.

And we can go to similar discussions with other players here. Pete is an exceptionally bad call to rank over Gasol. Unless you rank player by highlight plays, cause he was way more fun to watch than Gasol.

Okay, so let's say that Pete should not be over Pau. Pete is #54 in the list of 75... but it doesn't mean that Pau goes straight to #54. No, it may also be true that Pete was a bad call over those who are #55 to #75 too. So Pau still has to go through all of the guys between #55 and #75 to make it to #54.

Also, don't forget the other guys who have more claim than Pau to be in the Top 75 but aren't on there too: Ginobili, Parker, Dwight, Klay, Butler, Jokic are a few I can name off the top of my head. How about Marc Gasol? So you have to find more guys to remove off the current list of 75 to get Pau in there.

Please don't cut up your responses, it makes it hard as hell to respond! Just hit reply and make a list, thanks!

Gasol was relatively mobile, certainly not elite. He had great hands, good timing, and didn't foul too much. He rotated well and used his size better than most. I didn't say he was all nba defensive team level or something like that. He was a huge plus on defense.

Go look at say RPM and look at the DRPM. Gasol is the classic undervalued player. A guy great at nothing but a big plus at everything. He's a +1 offensive and defensive guy, often +1.5 or more. Those types of players are criminally under valued because fans can't understand the difference in average and really good. They understand great and bad, sometimes average. We see this constantly on this forum were people can't understand a legit TERRIBLE teammate who gets minutes vs an average or just a bit below average. As a laker's fan imagine smush parker vs derek fisher. One is bad and one is pretty ok. Most fans see them as equal (not laker fans but if they were on the hawks this year or something, a team you don't follow, you'd just not think about how different they are).

Moving on to pete - PER is set to a league average of 15 each year. It judges the player for who they were within the rules of the time. So if he is or isn't a good 3 point shooter I guess is something to think about in an alternate universe, but it doesn't really matter if we're to judge them vs their peers. The rules constantly change and that's why PER just says how far above or below average were you against your peers. Pete in PER was barely an allstar for about 3-4 years and wasn't much more than that (20 PER is generally an allstar who isn't an all nba player). PER also misses defense where pete wasn't strong.

You're right there are more players than Pete, but 70's fan covered a number of the others very well. You can find me and 70's fan debating and disagreeing all over this board. We do NOT agree consistently on a lot, but I agree with him 100% on what he posted about the rest of that list. Again, as you've said you haven't watched these guys play, and while I haven't watched as much as he has or even close, I've watched a LOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT of old youtube NBA games. Gasol is getting under valued because of stupid crap like all nba and allstar appearances where he was under represented.

Also can we freaking STOP putting Klay in the top 75 discussion already? Seriously!

[LAL1947]

About Gasol's defense - I'd say we should find a sweet spot for these hot takes. Gasol wasn't a good defender early in his career and he kept improving, but the biggest difference for him was Phil as a coach. Lakers were full of strong defenders, so his weaknesses were hidden and his strengths helped Lakers on the board and as a rim protector.

Gasol at his worst was weak defender, at his best in LA he was a clear positive, but never elite defender.

Nice job with the damage control, hehe.

Btw, those aren't "hot takes". Those are Spurs fans making posts in a thread as they watch the Lakers vs Portland game.