Players in your all-time list that you rank significantly lower than this board?

[Doctor MJ]

Here's the thread in question:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1930602&hilit=stockton+nash

Essentially, Taylor said Stockton was a (relatively) poor performer in elimination games, but he quietly omits the three seasons from 1988-1990, when Stockton was All-NBA all three seasons, meaning it certainly should've been included in his "prime."

Hold on, you're referring to something he wrote up in 2010. I don't think bkref actually had that particular data back to that point in 2010, so do consider that something you've been holding against him as proof of his pre-meditated biasing of his analysis might have just been him working with the data available at the time.

This phenomenon of us getting further-back data as the years go by is weird compared to how we're used to learning about things, but it's been happening for NBA history and it will continue to happen. I mostly think about the dangers involved of not purposefully starting over in your assessment when new and earlier data becomes available, but it also mean that analyses from not that long in the past can end up seeming really confused because of the things not visible then that are visible to us now.

Bbref didn't have points, rebounds, and assists in 2010? And if it didn't, then Taylor didn't have any way to access that info?

Also note, as seen by my comments in the thread, that I had already formed my opinion of his bias for Nash before I came across this omission. I took it as evidence, but didn't feel I needed any more proof.

If you click from that blog post, to the one that preceded, note that Taylor is using the same years he used for Stockton, and in that earlier post, he says:

Below are their full statistics in elimination games, for Malone 91-98 (Basketball-Reference doesn’t have playoff logs before 91)

Re: Already formed opinion that Taylor was biased before...well yeah, that's what I'd expect, because if you didn't already think Taylor was biased, you probably don't assume that him leaving out '88-90 data was about manipulation.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Don’t know if it’s “significant” but certainly at least a a few spots lower than most.

Russell: He’s not in my top 5
Chris Paul: He’s maybe in my top 25, but he seems to get a lot of push for top 20 these days which I just can’t agree with.
Drob: Someone with his size and athleticism should’ve had a much more resilient scoring game. He’s certainly not in my top 20, and I don’t get how anyone can at this point.

I mean there is decent enough evidence that D-Rob might be the 2nd best defender of the post-merger era after Hakeem (would say top 5), while still having like all-star value or so offensively in the PS, despite his drop-off. Is it really that crazy to have him top 20 along with the Barkley's, or Moses Malone's, and whoever else might be around that range? He still ends up having a peak around their level if not better, also having comparable longevity.

[G35]

Not a huge fan of Moses playstyle. I'm probably lower on Stockton as well. I have major issues trying to rank Chuck because he's a tweener that doesn't play defense, which makes building rosters around him problematic IMO. Probably somewhat lower on Russell because I think in his case specifically his impact wouldn't translate well to other eras.

As someone that watched Barkley avidly, I think saying he didn't play defense is overblown.

I would compare Barkley's defense to Shaq's defense. He could be lazy at times and not focused but imo, there has not been time when an opposing player abused them on defense.

Many times the opposing team did not attack them in that way. Shaq may have poor defense but what player(s) were exploiting that? I can't think of the series where Barkley was exploited on defense.

What I mean is like how DRob was not able to stop Hakeem

Kevin Garnett was unable to stop Dirk in 2002

I think that talking about defensive shortcomings and some players get knocked down more than others. Even in this thread.

Stockton had excellent defense, is the all-time leader in steals by an uncatchable margin and that doesn't really matter in the all time rankings.

Barkley is actually a decent shot blocker and at getting steals but that doesn't ever seem to cross the minds of posters.

But then Steve Nash is horrible on defense...Steph Curry's defense is average at best. Dirk's defense was nothing to write about. Karl Malone was a good defender but no one ever seems to mention that.

What it appears to me is that people will label or pigeonhole a player (good or bad) and then create the narrative:

- Curry is the all time great shooter so his defensive shortcomings do not really matter because of gravity
- Nash is a great shooter and facilitator same thing about his defense
- Garnett's defense is so amazing that who cares that his efficiency falls off a cliff and he is not a true #1 option
- David Robinson's offense is not as good in the PS as it is in the RS so he gets a cap on his greatness
- Same thing with Karl Malone, his offense drops in the PS so everything else he's done is marginalized

This is why it is so hard to take the statistical arguments seriously because there is no consistency to it. Jason Kidd leads multiple teams to high defense, even #1 defenses and it doesn't matter. Kevin Garnett leads a team to a #1 defense with an ATG team surrounding him and posters can't praise him enough.

I think that post talking about how stats can be created to show a players best parts is true. If you want to create a stat that makes your favorite player look good it can be done.....

[falcolombardi]

Not a huge fan of Moses playstyle. I'm probably lower on Stockton as well. I have major issues trying to rank Chuck because he's a tweener that doesn't play defense, which makes building rosters around him problematic IMO. Probably somewhat lower on Russell because I think in his case specifically his impact wouldn't translate well to other eras.

As someone that watched Barkley avidly, I think saying he didn't play defense is overblown.

I would compare Barkley's defense to Shaq's defense. He could be lazy at times and not focused but imo, there has not been time when an opposing player abused them on defense.

Many times the opposing team did not attack them in that way. Shaq may have poor defense but what player(s) were exploiting that? I can't think of the series where Barkley was exploited on defense.

What I mean is like how DRob was not able to stop Hakeem

Kevin Garnett was unable to stop Dirk in 2002

I think that talking about defensive shortcomings and some players get knocked down more than others. Even in this thread.

Stockton had excellent defense, is the all-time leader in steals by an uncatchable margin and that doesn't really matter in the all time rankings.

Barkley is actually a decent shot blocker and at getting steals but that doesn't ever seem to cross the minds of posters.

But then Steve Nash is horrible on defense...Steph Curry's defense is average at best. Dirk's defense was nothing to write about. Karl Malone was a good defender but no one ever seems to mention that.

What it appears to me is that people will label or pigeonhole a player (good or bad) and then create the narrative:

- Curry is the all time great shooter so his defensive shortcomings do not really matter because of gravity
- Nash is a great shooter and facilitator same thing about his defense
- Garnett's defense is so amazing that who cares that his efficiency falls off a cliff and he is not a true #1 option
- David Robinson's offense is not as good in the PS as it is in the RS so he gets a cap on his greatness
- Same thing with Karl Malone, his offense drops in the PS so everything else he's done is marginalized

This is why it is so hard to take the statistical arguments seriously because there is no consistency to it. Jason Kidd leads multiple teams to high defense, even #1 defenses and it doesn't matter. Kevin Garnett leads a team to a #1 defense with an ATG team surrounding him and posters can't praise him enough.

I think that post talking about how stats can be created to show a players best parts is true. If you want to create a stat that makes your favorite player look good it can be done.....

barkley spent most of his prime playing in mediocre to bad defenses and whatever we have of limited plus minus data (like the rapm project thread posted right now) suggests he was not a good defender

stockton defense is always praised when it cones to evaluating him

kidd defense is universally praised, just look at the best defensive players project on the projects board thread and see how high everyone is on kidd D

garnett weaker playoffs scoring/offense is the universal reason nearly everyone here has duncan well above him

yes, robinson playoffs drop is why people are not as high on him as if he kept his regular season offense in the playoffs, is that supposed to be wrong?

karl malone is a strong defender and passer, everyone knows that and mentions it when he is evaluated

everyone mentions nash defensive shortcomings and agrees he is neutral at best there

nearly everyone agrees curry is not a defensive titan

nobody ever argued shaq was a net negative defender, he is just often compared against all time defensive greats like hakeem or wilt so of course his weaker defense compares to them is adresses

[ceiling raiser]

Not a huge fan of Moses playstyle. I'm probably lower on Stockton as well. I have major issues trying to rank Chuck because he's a tweener that doesn't play defense, which makes building rosters around him problematic IMO. Probably somewhat lower on Russell because I think in his case specifically his impact wouldn't translate well to other eras.

As someone that watched Barkley avidly, I think saying he didn't play defense is overblown.

I would compare Barkley's defense to Shaq's defense. He could be lazy at times and not focused but imo, there has not been time when an opposing player abused them on defense.

Many times the opposing team did not attack them in that way. Shaq may have poor defense but what player(s) were exploiting that? I can't think of the series where Barkley was exploited on defense.

What I mean is like how DRob was not able to stop Hakeem

Kevin Garnett was unable to stop Dirk in 2002

I think that talking about defensive shortcomings and some players get knocked down more than others. Even in this thread.

Stockton had excellent defense, is the all-time leader in steals by an uncatchable margin and that doesn't really matter in the all time rankings.

Barkley is actually a decent shot blocker and at getting steals but that doesn't ever seem to cross the minds of posters.

But then Steve Nash is horrible on defense...Steph Curry's defense is average at best. Dirk's defense was nothing to write about. Karl Malone was a good defender but no one ever seems to mention that.

What it appears to me is that people will label or pigeonhole a player (good or bad) and then create the narrative:

- Curry is the all time great shooter so his defensive shortcomings do not really matter because of gravity
- Nash is a great shooter and facilitator same thing about his defense
- Garnett's defense is so amazing that who cares that his efficiency falls off a cliff and he is not a true #1 option
- David Robinson's offense is not as good in the PS as it is in the RS so he gets a cap on his greatness
- Same thing with Karl Malone, his offense drops in the PS so everything else he's done is marginalized

This is why it is so hard to take the statistical arguments seriously because there is no consistency to it. Jason Kidd leads multiple teams to high defense, even #1 defenses and it doesn't matter. Kevin Garnett leads a team to a #1 defense with an ATG team surrounding him and posters can't praise him enough.

I think that post talking about how stats can be created to show a players best parts is true. If you want to create a stat that makes your favorite player look good it can be done.....

I think there are some things about your post I would disagree with, however I am with you 100% on David Robinson. I think he has as strong a top 15 case as anybody, and it’s bizarre to seem him separated by 20+ spots from Duncan and Hakeem. He was their peer, and wasn’t another Ewing tier center.

[G35]

barkley spent most of his prime playing in mediocre to bad defenses and whatever we have of limited plus minus data (like the rapm project thread posted right now) suggests he was not a good defender

What is KG's reputation on this board? That he is an ATG defender. He is right there with Russell, Hakeem, DRob and is potentially better than all of them in the modern era.

So if we take the 12 years (I think 12 years is a long enough sample size) how did his teams perform defensively:

1996: DRTG -20th (KG's rookie year)
1997: DRTG - 15th
1998: DRTG - 23rd
1999: DRTG - 11th
2000: DRTG - 12th
2001: DRTG - 16th
2002: DRTG - 15th
2003: DRTG - 16th
2004: DRTG - 6th
2005: DRTG - 15th
2006: DRTG - 10th
2007: DRTG - 21st

KG's average DRTG for 12 years was the 15th ranked defense. That is right at the middle of the pack. This is over 12 years...and some years they were a bad defense, three times ranking 20th or worse.

Let's look at Barkley's DRTG for 12 years:

1985: DRTG - 10th (Barkley's rookie year)
1986: DRTG - 11th
1987: DRTG - 12th
1988: DRTG - 19th
1989: DRTG - 24th
1990: DRTG - 16th
1991: DRTG - 16th
1992: DRTG - 18th
1993: DRTG - 9th
1994: DRTG - 16th
1995: DRTG - 19th
1996: DRTG - 23rd

Average DRTG for 12 years was the 16th ranked defense. That is pretty average as well. No discernible difference between the 15th ranked defense over 12 years and the 16th ranked defense over 12 years.

But you know what is a difference? The offense that Barkley gives you over 12 years is much greater than KG's.

Over Barkley's 1st 12 years his teams had an average ORTG of 6 and a couple of #1 overall offensive rankings and before the haters show up talking about the PHX years, in 1989 he led a terrible Sixers team to the 3rd top offense and in 1990 he led them to the 2nd overall offense. This is with terrible support.

With KG, while he had a few good years leading the Wolves offense, overall, most of those teams were mediocre and he had some absolutely terrible teams. The last two years in Minnesota they were ranked 28th and 25th. There is no Barkley offense that would ever rank that poorly.

This is not a suggestion, these are the facts. KG never was able to anchor a defense without top help around him and his offensive impact falls off a cliff without help. Also we saw what happened to KG's offense and defense in 2007, it went missing.

If you look at the accolades for the years before each player got traded. In 1992 the Sixers were a crap team but Barkley still performed at a high level and was selected to the 2nd team All-NBA, behind Chris Mullin and Karl Malone.

KG in 2007 was selected to the 3rd team, behind Lebron and....wait for it...Chris Bosh.

So the numbers and the perception do not add up.....

[Purch]

barkley spent most of his prime playing in mediocre to bad defenses and whatever we have of limited plus minus data (like the rapm project thread posted right now) suggests he was not a good defender

What is KG's reputation on this board? That he is an ATG defender. He is right there with Russell, Hakeem, DRob and is potentially better than all of them in the modern era.

So if we take the 12 years (I think 12 years is a long enough sample size) how did his teams perform defensively:

1996: DRTG -20th (KG's rookie year)
1997: DRTG - 15th
1998: DRTG - 23rd
1999: DRTG - 11th
2000: DRTG - 12th
2001: DRTG - 16th
2002: DRTG - 15th
2003: DRTG - 16th
2004: DRTG - 6th
2005: DRTG - 15th
2006: DRTG - 10th
2007: DRTG - 21st

KG's average DRTG for 12 years was the 15th ranked defense. That is right at the middle of the pack. This is over 12 years...and some years they were a bad defense, three times ranking 20th or worse.

Let's look at Barkley's DRTG for 12 years:

1985: DRTG - 10th (Barkley's rookie year)
1986: DRTG - 11th
1987: DRTG - 12th
1988: DRTG - 19th
1989: DRTG - 24th
1990: DRTG - 16th
1991: DRTG - 16th
1992: DRTG - 18th
1993: DRTG - 9th
1994: DRTG - 16th
1995: DRTG - 19th
1996: DRTG - 23rd

Average DRTG for 12 years was the 16th ranked defense. That is pretty average as well. No discernible difference between the 15th ranked defense over 12 years and the 16th ranked defense over 12 years.

But you know what is a difference? The offense that Barkley gives you over 12 years is much greater than KG's.

Over Barkley's 1st 12 years his teams had an average ORTG of 6 and a couple of #1 overall offensive rankings and before the haters show up talking about the PHX years, in 1989 he led a terrible Sixers team to the 3rd top offense and in 1990 he led them to the 2nd overall offense. This is with terrible support.

With KG, while he had a few good years leading the Wolves offense, overall, most of those teams were mediocre and he had some absolutely terrible teams. The last two years in Minnesota they were ranked 28th and 25th. There is no Barkley offense that would ever rank that poorly.

This is not a suggestion, these are the facts. KG never was able to anchor a defense without top help around him and his offensive impact falls off a cliff without help. Also we saw what happened to KG's offense and defense in 2007, it went missing.

If you look at the accolades for the years before each player got traded. In 1992 the Sixers were a crap team but Barkley still performed at a high level and was selected to the 2nd team All-NBA, behind Chris Mullin and Karl Malone.

KG in 2007 was selected to the 3rd team, behind Lebron and....wait for it...Chris Bosh.

So the numbers and the perception do not add up.....

The top defense point was really what always left me unconvinced with a lot of the KG arguments back in 2017 on this board. People claim KG was better defensively than guys like Duncan/Hakeem yet I've seen them anchor pretty mediocre defensive supporting cast to top 5 defenses in the league.

Then in 08, he goes under Thibs defensive system and finally produces a top 5 defense. But now we're supposed to belive that was all KG's impact, despite Thibs showing he produces top defenses with much worse players than that 08 celtics squad. It just doesn't make sense to me. If anything Thibs ability to produce a top 3 defense with Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah, indicates that we might be overating KG's defensive impact a bit. Hell even the New York Knicks last season were 3rd in defensive rating, and 1st in points allowed with a mediocre roster. If Thibs had consistently been able to produce top defenses with bad supporting cast, but KG has never been able to produce top defenses prior to 08, why should I give him all the credit for the defense during the Celtics run?


He was a great defensive player absolutely. But it's almost like when the RAPM Stats became popular all other logic just went through the window, and members of the PC board started to treat them like the end all about a players impact.

[Owly]

barkley spent most of his prime playing in mediocre to bad defenses and whatever we have of limited plus minus data (like the rapm project thread posted right now) suggests he was not a good defender

What is KG's reputation on this board? That he is an ATG defender. He is right there with Russell, Hakeem, DRob and is potentially better than all of them in the modern era.

So if we take the 12 years (I think 12 years is a long enough sample size) how did his teams perform defensively:

1996: DRTG -20th (KG's rookie year)
1997: DRTG - 15th
1998: DRTG - 23rd
1999: DRTG - 11th
2000: DRTG - 12th
2001: DRTG - 16th
2002: DRTG - 15th
2003: DRTG - 16th
2004: DRTG - 6th
2005: DRTG - 15th
2006: DRTG - 10th
2007: DRTG - 21st

KG's average DRTG for 12 years was the 15th ranked defense. That is right at the middle of the pack. This is over 12 years...and some years they were a bad defense, three times ranking 20th or worse.

Let's look at Barkley's DRTG for 12 years:

1985: DRTG - 10th (Barkley's rookie year)
1986: DRTG - 11th
1987: DRTG - 12th
1988: DRTG - 19th
1989: DRTG - 24th
1990: DRTG - 16th
1991: DRTG - 16th
1992: DRTG - 18th
1993: DRTG - 9th
1994: DRTG - 16th
1995: DRTG - 19th
1996: DRTG - 23rd

Average DRTG for 12 years was the 16th ranked defense. That is pretty average as well. No discernible difference between the 15th ranked defense over 12 years and the 16th ranked defense over 12 years.

But you know what is a difference? The offense that Barkley gives you over 12 years is much greater than KG's.

Over Barkley's 1st 12 years his teams had an average ORTG of 6 and a couple of #1 overall offensive rankings and before the haters show up talking about the PHX years, in 1989 he led a terrible Sixers team to the 3rd top offense and in 1990 he led them to the 2nd overall offense. This is with terrible support.

With KG, while he had a few good years leading the Wolves offense, overall, most of those teams were mediocre and he had some absolutely terrible teams. The last two years in Minnesota they were ranked 28th and 25th. There is no Barkley offense that would ever rank that poorly.

This is not a suggestion, these are the facts. KG never was able to anchor a defense without top help around him and his offensive impact falls off a cliff without help. Also we saw what happened to KG's offense and defense in 2007, it went missing.

If you look at the accolades for the years before each player got traded. In 1992 the Sixers were a crap team but Barkley still performed at a high level and was selected to the 2nd team All-NBA, behind Chris Mullin and Karl Malone.

KG in 2007 was selected to the 3rd team, behind Lebron and....wait for it...Chris Bosh.

So the numbers and the perception do not add up.....

The thing is this is looking at team performance as a proxy for individual performance and in these cases we have much better data for that.

It's correct to say Barkley had large offensive impact in '89 (a huge +10.6 per 48 offensive on-off) and indeed in '90. Less so to say that Hawkins, Cheeks, Gminski (even Anderson, the other high minute player shows solid production offensively and receives very bullish reviews from that off-season's Barry Report [AA grades in scoring and in shooting]) are "terrible" support.

Less true also to say

Also we saw what happened to KG's offense and defense in 2007, it went missing.

The evidence (e.g. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/garneke01.html, https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/1244/onoff#tab-team_efficiency, https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2007-rapm [PI here so strong priors may do some lifting, no NPI that year from this source]) suggest that this team had genuinely terrible support and that the team was poor because they could stay close to circa average with KG [and to be honest some none too appetizing first string lineup "casts"] but fell apart with Garnett off the floor.

Fwiw, 76ers approximate (because we have minutes not plays, so we can only estimate these ratings based on a constant pace) defensive rating with Barkley on the floor in '92 would have been 111.9675258 (this number my check on the 112 given to 1dp, to make sure I'd correctly understood the numbers) which would have placed 2nd worst clearly behind irl 26th Mavericks but ahead of irl 27th Timberwolves. Which isn't to say Barkley wasn't still net good. But a Barkley team very much could rate poorly on D in this instance if they hadn't been better in this respect with him off the floor.

I'm not here to support claims I wouldn't make but generalizing from team to player and ignoring player level "impact"-style data seems either misguided or ... worse.

[G35]

I'm not here to support claims I wouldn't make but generalizing from team to player and ignoring player level "impact"-style data seems either misguided or ... worse.

I agree, my main pushback is against the generalization that Barkley is somehow "terrible" on defense. No he is not. He was not good, likely average at best, but he was not bad. Let's look at others and how they compare:

Career ORTG/DRTG

Garnett: 110/99
Barkley: 119/105
Nowitzki: 116/104
K.Malone: 113/101
Pau Gasol: 113/104
Chris Bosh: 113/105

My ending point was that you can create or cherry pick a stat to support your favorite player. But many narratives about players are created but the reality is not supported by that.....

[penbeast0]

I agree, my main pushback is against the generalization that Barkley is somehow "terrible" on defense. No he is not. He was not good, likely average at best, but he was not bad. Let's look at others and how they compare:

Career ORTG/DRTG

Garnett: 110/99
Barkley: 119/105
Nowitzki: 116/104
K.Malone: 113/101
Pau Gasol: 113/104
Chris Bosh: 113/105

My ending point was that you can create or cherry pick a stat to support your favorite player. But many narratives about players are created but the reality is not supported by that.....

I have Barkley as a bad defender mainly on eye test, not stats. More than any other big in my memory, he had the most "Shaqtin the Fool" moments where he got his back turned to his man who snuck in for an open dunk/layup. He also was lazy fighting through picks when I saw him, and generally didn't work hard on that end with the exception of holding position in the post where his lower body strength made him difficult to move. He gambled a bit for blocks and steals, but I don't remember him getting burned that way an unusual amount.

[G35]

I agree, my main pushback is against the generalization that Barkley is somehow "terrible" on defense. No he is not. He was not good, likely average at best, but he was not bad. Let's look at others and how they compare:

Career ORTG/DRTG

Garnett: 110/99
Barkley: 119/105
Nowitzki: 116/104
K.Malone: 113/101
Pau Gasol: 113/104
Chris Bosh: 113/105

My ending point was that you can create or cherry pick a stat to support your favorite player. But many narratives about players are created but the reality is not supported by that.....

I have Barkley as a bad defender mainly on eye test, not stats. More than any other big in my memory, he had the most "Shaqtin the Fool" moments where he got his back turned to his man who snuck in for an open dunk/layup. He also was lazy fighting through picks when I saw him, and generally didn't work hard on that end with the exception of holding position in the post where his lower body strength made him difficult to move. He gambled a bit for blocks and steals, but I don't remember him getting burned that way an unusual amount.

I agree, Barkley made some dumb defensive mistakes at some critical moments that might have cost him a ring. Just off the top of my head, in the 93 Finals he jumped out on Scottie and that opened up the Suns defense and eventually led to Paxson's open 3. Also, he did something similar against Utah where he didn't rotate out on Stockton...Karl Malone had the worst holding illegal screen ever, but they aren't calling that.

Barkley has some bonehead moments on defense and part of him getting steals was he did a lot of anticipating passes. Sometimes he got the steal and sometimes he got burned. You could use Barkley's anticipation against him.....

[migya]

Not a huge fan of Moses playstyle. I'm probably lower on Stockton as well. I have major issues trying to rank Chuck because he's a tweener that doesn't play defense, which makes building rosters around him problematic IMO. Probably somewhat lower on Russell because I think in his case specifically his impact wouldn't translate well to other eras.

As someone that watched Barkley avidly, I think saying he didn't play defense is overblown.

I would compare Barkley's defense to Shaq's defense. He could be lazy at times and not focused but imo, there has not been time when an opposing player abused them on defense.

Many times the opposing team did not attack them in that way. Shaq may have poor defense but what player(s) were exploiting that? I can't think of the series where Barkley was exploited on defense.

What I mean is like how DRob was not able to stop Hakeem

Kevin Garnett was unable to stop Dirk in 2002

I think that talking about defensive shortcomings and some players get knocked down more than others. Even in this thread.

Stockton had excellent defense, is the all-time leader in steals by an uncatchable margin and that doesn't really matter in the all time rankings.

Barkley is actually a decent shot blocker and at getting steals but that doesn't ever seem to cross the minds of posters.

But then Steve Nash is horrible on defense...Steph Curry's defense is average at best. Dirk's defense was nothing to write about. Karl Malone was a good defender but no one ever seems to mention that.

What it appears to me is that people will label or pigeonhole a player (good or bad) and then create the narrative:

- Curry is the all time great shooter so his defensive shortcomings do not really matter because of gravity
- Nash is a great shooter and facilitator same thing about his defense
- Garnett's defense is so amazing that who cares that his efficiency falls off a cliff and he is not a true #1 option
- David Robinson's offense is not as good in the PS as it is in the RS so he gets a cap on his greatness
- Same thing with Karl Malone, his offense drops in the PS so everything else he's done is marginalized

This is why it is so hard to take the statistical arguments seriously because there is no consistency to it. Jason Kidd leads multiple teams to high defense, even #1 defenses and it doesn't matter. Kevin Garnett leads a team to a #1 defense with an ATG team surrounding him and posters can't praise him enough.

I think that post talking about how stats can be created to show a players best parts is true. If you want to create a stat that makes your favorite player look good it can be done.....

Totally right. That's the fashion of thinking for many but it's not right.

[capfan33]

Not a huge fan of Moses playstyle. I'm probably lower on Stockton as well. I have major issues trying to rank Chuck because he's a tweener that doesn't play defense, which makes building rosters around him problematic IMO. Probably somewhat lower on Russell because I think in his case specifically his impact wouldn't translate well to other eras.

As someone that watched Barkley avidly, I think saying he didn't play defense is overblown.

I would compare Barkley's defense to Shaq's defense. He could be lazy at times and not focused but imo, there has not been time when an opposing player abused them on defense.

Many times the opposing team did not attack them in that way. Shaq may have poor defense but what player(s) were exploiting that? I can't think of the series where Barkley was exploited on defense.

What I mean is like how DRob was not able to stop Hakeem

Kevin Garnett was unable to stop Dirk in 2002

I think that talking about defensive shortcomings and some players get knocked down more than others. Even in this thread.

Stockton had excellent defense, is the all-time leader in steals by an uncatchable margin and that doesn't really matter in the all time rankings.

Barkley is actually a decent shot blocker and at getting steals but that doesn't ever seem to cross the minds of posters.

But then Steve Nash is horrible on defense...Steph Curry's defense is average at best. Dirk's defense was nothing to write about. Karl Malone was a good defender but no one ever seems to mention that.

What it appears to me is that people will label or pigeonhole a player (good or bad) and then create the narrative:

- Curry is the all time great shooter so his defensive shortcomings do not really matter because of gravity
- Nash is a great shooter and facilitator same thing about his defense
- Garnett's defense is so amazing that who cares that his efficiency falls off a cliff and he is not a true #1 option
- David Robinson's offense is not as good in the PS as it is in the RS so he gets a cap on his greatness
- Same thing with Karl Malone, his offense drops in the PS so everything else he's done is marginalized

This is why it is so hard to take the statistical arguments seriously because there is no consistency to it. Jason Kidd leads multiple teams to high defense, even #1 defenses and it doesn't matter. Kevin Garnett leads a team to a #1 defense with an ATG team surrounding him and posters can't praise him enough.

I think that post talking about how stats can be created to show a players best parts is true. If you want to create a stat that makes your favorite player look good it can be done....

Generally a good post, but I do think Shaq was abused at times on defense, specifically in the pick and roll during the Kings series in 2002 which is one of the big reasons why the series was so close in the 1st place. And in this era it would be even worse. I would also say Barkley's lack of defense at times was more problematic due to him playing the 4, his defensive shortcomings for me are more significant due to the position he played.

Also, plenty of people praise Jason Kidd's defense, I think he's easily one of the best guard defenders ever if not the best, the RealGM project on best defenders by position reflects that. And Malone, while a good defender wasn't really a needle mover in that regard.

Also, I don't think that people outright dismiss Curry's defense because of his offense, it's more of a holistic thing. Also, Curry has generally been fine throughout his career on defense, he just plays with great defenders around him which makes him the easiest person to target. The Garnett thing about not being a true #1 deserves another post on it's own which I might make.

Also, offensive resiliency should matter a lot, if you can't translate your impact to the postseason what exactly is the point? Especially if you're an offensively oriented player like Malone. Your last sentence is spot on.

[scrabbarista]

Hold on, you're referring to something he wrote up in 2010. I don't think bkref actually had that particular data back to that point in 2010, so do consider that something you've been holding against him as proof of his pre-meditated biasing of his analysis might have just been him working with the data available at the time.

This phenomenon of us getting further-back data as the years go by is weird compared to how we're used to learning about things, but it's been happening for NBA history and it will continue to happen. I mostly think about the dangers involved of not purposefully starting over in your assessment when new and earlier data becomes available, but it also mean that analyses from not that long in the past can end up seeming really confused because of the things not visible then that are visible to us now.

Bbref didn't have points, rebounds, and assists in 2010? And if it didn't, then Taylor didn't have any way to access that info?

Also note, as seen by my comments in the thread, that I had already formed my opinion of his bias for Nash before I came across this omission. I took it as evidence, but didn't feel I needed any more proof.

If you click from that blog post, to the one that preceded, note that Taylor is using the same years he used for Stockton, and in that earlier post, he says:

Below are their full statistics in elimination games, for Malone 91-98 (Basketball-Reference doesn’t have playoff logs before 91)

Re: Already formed opinion that Taylor was biased before...well yeah, that's what I'd expect, because if you didn't already think Taylor was biased, you probably don't assume that him leaving out '88-90 data was about manipulation.

Odd he doesn't mention bbref's lack of info in the Stockton article, creating the impression that the whole picture is being painted.