RealGM Top 100 List #8

[An Unbiased Fan]

Runoff Vote#8: Magic

A few things:

A lot of votes are being made with this logic:

1.Hakeem has elite defense
2.Magic has elite offense
3.Hakeem's offense is better than Magic's defense
4.Therefore, Hakeem is better

But this presupposes that a GOAT level defensive player has the same impact as a GOAT level offensive player. How sure are we about this? Doesn't it seem reasonable that a player can have more impact on the offensive end because he controls the ball?

Good points, I brought this up earlier in the project. A great offensive player is able to impact more possessions per game than a great defensive player, specifically for the reason you named, ball control.

In a comparison between Melo & Big Ben, I would tend to choose Melo as having the bigger impact. Nash vs Bowen, I'm taking Nash. Moses or Deke, I see Moses as having the bigger impact.

Oblviously, Hakeem is no Deke on offense, yet Magic is arguably the GOAT on offense. When i look at their careers, I see Magic with the bigger impact. Hakeem's teams never impressed with their SRS, even his title teams, or the Hakeem/Clyde/Barkley one had mediocre SRS. That's somewhat telling.

This is a million-dollar question of player rankings, but how do you measure the relative value of an offensive superstar's ball control against the a defensive superstar's effect on every opponent possession? Even a player like Magic, who may have initiated a greater portion of his team's offense while on the floor than any other player, was still not involved in every single offensive possession. Plenty of Lakers possessions started and ended with Kareem in the post. Doesn't the presence of a dominant defensive big man affect literally every opposing offensive possession by his deterring effect in the paint, and by gravely endangering every shot taken in the most valuable piece of court real-estate? I think it's arguable that his global effect is actually greater than an offensive star of identical magnitude. Magic is arguably the GOAT on offense, true, although MJ, Lebron, Bird, Shaq, and Kareem all have places in that conversation. Hakeem is also in the non-Russell GOAT conversation on defense, and you could make an argument that he's not in a different tier than Russell. The fact remains, his offense is a lot better than Magic's defense. It's hard for me to look past that.

For me, it depends on the era of the players, and rules of the time. Back in Russell/Wilt's era, I feel Hakeem would yield a massive defensive impact due to the narrow lane, and no 3pt-line to space the floor. A bulk of defensive possessions would have to come to/near the paint area. Even if he wasn't Russell's equal on D, he would still be in the ballpark. Post 3pt-line, the impact of a great defensive anchor has fallen off some, and team defense/schemes really have the biggest impact now.

Conversely, in the post 3pt-line era, we've seen a shift from bigs having the most impact to wings. In large part due to the new spacing on the floor, and the opportunities it opened up for mutil-dimensional wings. The bigs who shined post 3-pt, where largely offensive(Moses, Shaq), while Duncan's fundamental, play the right way style seems to buck the trend. Magic's influence on the court is actually underrated. People see the flashy passes, but miss that the passes were in the player's stride, and right where the recipient wanted it. He truly was a QB on the floor, threading needles to receivers left & right. With players spread out, everything opens up.

[ronnymac2]

Runoff Vote#8: Magic

Good points, I brought this up earlier in the project. A great offensive player is able to impact more possessions per game than a great defensive player, specifically for the reason you named, ball control.

In a comparison between Melo & Big Ben, I would tend to choose Melo as having the bigger impact. Nash vs Bowen, I'm taking Nash. Moses or Deke, I see Moses as having the bigger impact.

Oblviously, Hakeem is no Deke on offense, yet Magic is arguably the GOAT on offense. When i look at their careers, I see Magic with the bigger impact. Hakeem's teams never impressed with their SRS, even his title teams, or the Hakeem/Clyde/Barkley one had mediocre SRS. That's somewhat telling.

This is a million-dollar question of player rankings, but how do you measure the relative value of an offensive superstar's ball control against the a defensive superstar's effect on every opponent possession? Even a player like Magic, who may have initiated a greater portion of his team's offense while on the floor than any other player, was still not involved in every single offensive possession. Plenty of Lakers possessions started and ended with Kareem in the post. Doesn't the presence of a dominant defensive big man affect literally every opposing offensive possession by his deterring effect in the paint, and by gravely endangering every shot taken in the most valuable piece of court real-estate? I think it's arguable that his global effect is actually greater than an offensive star of identical magnitude. Magic is arguably the GOAT on offense, true, although MJ, Lebron, Bird, Shaq, and Kareem all have places in that conversation. Hakeem is also in the non-Russell GOAT conversation on defense, and you could make an argument that he's not in a different tier than Russell. The fact remains, his offense is a lot better than Magic's defense. It's hard for me to look past that.

For me, it depends on the era of the players, and rules of the time. Back in Russell/Wilt's era, I feel Hakeem would yield a massive defensive impact due to the narrow lane, and no 3pt-line to space the floor. A bulk of defensive possessions would have to come to/near the paint area. Even if he wasn't Russell's equal on D, he would still be in the ballpark. Post 3pt-line, the impact of a great defensive anchor has fallen off some, and team defense/schemes really have the biggest impact now.

Conversely, in the post 3pt-line era, we've seen a shift from bigs having the most impact to wings. In large part due to the new spacing on the floor, and the opportunities it opened up for mutil-dimensional wings. The bigs who shined post 3-pt, where largely offensive(Moses, Shaq), while Duncan's fundamental, play the right way style seems to buck the trend. Magic's influence on the court is actually underrated. People see the flashy passes, but miss that the passes were in the player's stride, and right where the recipient wanted it. He truly was a QB on the floor, threading needles to receivers left & right. With players spread out, everything opens up.

Teams weren't using 3-point spacing from 1986-1990 like they are now though.

[90sAllDecade]

More quotes from Olajuwon's autobiography "Living the Dream"

Hakeem vs Ewing and the 94 NBA Finals

The Knicks’ center Patrick Ewing is an intimidator. On the court in pre-game warm-ups before game three he looked mean, aggressive, and anxious to get things going. He was stalking the game like a wounded tiger.

I felt very calm. Even though it was a big game I was extremely relaxed. I had gotten my rest, eaten my pre game pasta, gotten some sleep, and when I came to the floor I found I had a lot of energy. It’s a mystery; some days you have it and some days you don’t. Some days you look for that spark and you can’t find it; you do everything right but it’s not there. But that day in warm-ups I was active and flexible and loose. I felt the power. I knew it was there. That day I felt so confident, and the confidence gave me calmness. I didn’t show it, I didn’t do some super slam through the net, I just jumped happily by myself. Only once I took a layup and went way, way above the rim and let the ball fall straight down through the hoop. I felt so light. The more I warmed up, the more I felt charged, on a higher level.

I saw Patrick and I accepted the challenge. This was going to be a battle and I was not about to wait for his attack. I attacked him.

Someone on my team shot the ball and when Patrick went for the rebound it went over his heard and came right into my hand. He turned around. We had an even start.
I squared up on him and began driving right. The key to blocking that move is to cut me off; Patrick has to cut me off or I am going straight to the basket. But that was a set up. I wanted him to cut me off and think he had shut me down. As soon as he moved to his left I spun around him, a reverse pivot before he could react. That’s when I use my quickness and speed. I was by him in a flash. Anyone coming from the weak side had no chance because by the time they could get there I’d already be coming down. I went in untouched and slammed the ball home.
The crowd, even the Madison Square Garden crowd, went absolutely wild.
It was one of my best dunks ever. A highlight-reel dunk. It was spectacular and I felt so good running down the court. You know the feeling, when you’re out there, when you’ve done something out of the ordinary. I played it down but I felt good! As I ran past the Rocket bench my teammates were up and shouting, “Major-League! Major-League move!”

This was the dream match-up I had thought about since I first saw Patrick play in college, when he was at Georgetown and I was at the University of Houston. This was going to be the most difficult task and I wanted to enjoy it and be competitive and respond. Whether we were losing or winning I was going to challenge every one of Patrick’s shots. Always challenging, always a battle.

For my entire career the Rockets played New York only two games each year, one in Houston and one in the Garden. Now that we had time to play each other on a consistent basis, we really got to know one another’s games and feel comfortable on the floor.

Patrick and I became familiar with each other’s moves. Every center has a hook shot that’s his trademark. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s hook began in his legs; when he took his giant step he went away from you and when he rose up there was nothing you could do about it. Patrick has a running hook shot. He puts his head down, dribbles to his left, rams his shoulder into you, and shoots. He is so quick and strong that he can go right over or through most centers in the league. It has been effective for him all season long.

But when Patrick takes his hook he takes baby steps, he’s not covering ground. I found Patrick’s move could be taken away if I stayed in his way, stuck my chest out and challenged him. He would bounce off me to one side or the other, and because he was not covering ground I could catch up with him. He could be stopped.

Early in the series I would look for that move. I waited for it, and every time he shot his hook I would challenge it. As the series went on he knew I knew that move and he used it less and less. But when Patrick was frustrated and struggling, when he just wanted a basket, he would go to it.

On Patrick’s turnaround jump shot I played right up in his face. If he jumped low he would get it blocked, so he had to jump high every time and it was a tough shot to make. I didn’t mind him taking that because I knew he wouldn’t make too many of them.

But Partick is a smart player. He found one weak point in our defense and he milked it. He and Knicks guards John Starks and Derek Harper began really working the pick and roll.

Starks or Harper would bring the ball to the top of the key or slightly to the side. Ewing would come by and pick off their man and then explode to the basket, and I had to make a decision. Either I stayed with Ewing or I went out and helped with the guard. If I went out and helped, Ewing spotted up in the corner for an open jump shot and when the guard passed him the ball I had not time to get there. If I stayed with Ewing, Starks or Harper went directly for a layup. I’d rather give up a jump shot than a lay-up, so Ewing was always open in the corner and hit it. They were very smart; they used that play over and over again. With me challenging Patrick’s inside game, that jump shot was how he got most of his points. Every once in a while he would power inside and make a tough shot, but he was not going to win this series like that. Reporters criticized him for taking outside shots and not working inside, but that was his best shot in the series and he was smart enough to recognize it and maximize it.

Spoiler:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeN34AZExv4[/youtube]

On Starks:

When the game is on the line and the ball is in your hands, you have three choices: You can win it, you can tie it, or you can lose it. John Starks was going to kill us with a three. He had already hit five of eight three pointers that night. He didn't want to tie the series, he was going to end the series. He was going for the most dangerous. He had no conscience.

The biggest mistake the Knicks made was letting Patrick set the pick, trying to free Starks for his jump shot. I was guarding Patrick and that brought me close to the ball. If Knicks power forward Charles Oakley had set the pick, our power forward Otis Thorpe would have been there instead of me. I understood the Knicks’ thinking: they wanted to get Ewing close to the ball for the pick and roll, their most effective play.

We were prepared. In our huddle, Rockets coach Rudy Tomjanovich had said, “Switch everything! Switch everything!” I was going to take the shooter, and the team would rotate to cover Ewing.
But when Ewing started to set the pick I switched only halfway, I didn't go all the way to Starks. If they gave the ball back to Ewing I wanted to be close by.
The distance I gave Starks looked like it was too much for me to make up. The Knicks’ Pat Riley, an excellent coach, had called the right play and they had executed it perfectly. Starks got separation. He looked wide open.

But he wasn't wide open, he was still within my range as a shot blocker. I knew I could recover. I wanted to be close to Ewing – I didn't want Patrick to beat us – but one step and a leap straight up and I had Starks.

Still, Starks is the kind of player who can adjust. If the ball was still in his hands and I leaned and he saw me coming, he would give it to Ewing. I would be out of the picture and Patrick would have the championship on his fingertips. Also, with the amount of space I had given Starks, I couldn't meet the ball in his hand. I had to hit it at an angle after he released it. I had to meet the ball in flight.

I made sure Starks was taking the shot before I leaped, but as I was flying toward him I slipped. I was out of control. He had me stretched out completely.

I deflected the ball! It took everything – luck, experience as a shot blocker, destiny – for me to make that play. The ball never got to the rim. The game was over. The series was tied 3-3. Houston went wild.

Spoiler:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzUv5_YFhPI[/youtube]

[penbeast0]

CALLING THIS ONE FOR . . . . EARVIN "MAGIC" JOHNSON

[MacGill]

Runoff Vote#8: Magic

Did you not already vote Magic? If so, you don't need to re-vote.

[ElGee]

Spoiler:

A few things:

A lot of votes are being made with this logic:

1.Hakeem has elite defense
2.Magic has elite offense
3.Hakeem's offense is better than Magic's defense
4.Therefore, Hakeem is better

But this presupposes that a GOAT level defensive player has the same impact as a GOAT level offensive player. How sure are we about this? Doesn't it seem reasonable that a player can have more impact on the offensive end because he controls the ball?

Good points, I brought this up earlier in the project. A great offensive player is able to impact more possessions per game than a great defensive player, specifically for the reason you named, ball control.

In a comparison between Melo & Big Ben, I would tend to choose Melo as having the bigger impact. Nash vs Bowen, I'm taking Nash. Moses or Deke, I see Moses as having the bigger impact.

Oblviously, Hakeem is no Deke on offense, yet Magic is arguably the GOAT on offense. When i look at their careers, I see Magic with the bigger impact. Hakeem's teams never impressed with their SRS, even his title teams, or the Hakeem/Clyde/Barkley one had mediocre SRS. That's somewhat telling.

This is a million-dollar question of player rankings, but how do you measure the relative value of an offensive superstar's ball control against the a defensive superstar's effect on every opponent possession? Even a player like Magic, who may have initiated a greater portion of his team's offense while on the floor than any other player, was still not involved in every single offensive possession. Plenty of Lakers possessions started and ended with Kareem in the post. Doesn't the presence of a dominant defensive big man affect literally every opposing offensive possession by his deterring effect in the paint, and by gravely endangering every shot taken in the most valuable piece of court real-estate? I think it's arguable that his global effect is actually greater than an offensive star of identical magnitude. Magic is arguably the GOAT on offense, true, although MJ, Lebron, Bird, Shaq, and Kareem all have places in that conversation. Hakeem is also in the non-Russell GOAT conversation on defense, and you could make an argument that he's not in a different tier than Russell. The fact remains, his offense is a lot better than Magic's defense. It's hard for me to look past that.

I've written about this in detail and published many findings on my blog -- evidence really supports the logic that offensive players have more impact based on dictating where the ball is instead of reacting. I have a stat called "defensive usage," which tracks the number of possessions that end with a turnover you force or a shot you contest. Bigs, due to rim protection, lead the way (and can have numbers in the low 30% range) while guards are typically in the low teens. The flip side of that, offensively, sees the highest load players involved in up to 60% of possessions (including creation). Concurrently, RAPM finds more variance in offensive impact than in defense, suggesting that it's harder to move the needle on defense than offense.

So that's not a "proof," but it's echoing the logic of the story. The point that I've bolded in the quote above is 100% correct about defense...and offense. The issue is with what degree the other players can affect the play on average. On offense, being a threat to shoot changes help defense. On defense, off-ball denial or blowing up the PnR changes where an offense goes even before the shot is taken. The reason the logic (and numbers) say offense, in general, is > defense for individuals can be seen by actually measuring the impact of these scenarios:

The best rim protectors don't function like a hockey goalie, shoeing away most shots at the rim. Instead, they lower the efficacy of scoring (via blocks, challenges, or their mere presence) in the easiest place to score. Only many, many shots are taken in other areas on the court (65% this year, which doesn't even account for transition layups). Among all NBA teams, the Pacers were best at 51% defending the rim, while Minnesota was last at 63%. The presence of a big doesn't make everything fall apart.

Beyond rim protectors, great help or great ball-denial has a small positive impact on a play (teams can pivot to another attack), whereas dictating shots on offense is something that has enormous impact on net efficacy. That said, I don't want to make it sound like these things can't be close, peak to peak. Consider a player who can both protect the rim (high defensive usage) and severely limit the efficacy of the opponent's best player. If you think the opponent can do great stuff individually, logically a defender who can severely minimize his impact will himself being having great impact. (Thus, one of the great differentiators is that every night, the great offensive player always has high usage, whereas the great defensive player only guards that usage when it's positionally feasible.)

Where I also think it's very hard to say that it's a wash is in the rules. The screen rules are slanted toward the offense, as well as contact, and the ability to navigate around screens and move unimpeded will (almost) always allow the offensive player to impart his huge impact on the game while the best defenders can merely minimize it. This can be seen, again, in +/- family numbers where we see the top "changers" of Offensive Rating to be greater than that of Defensive Rating, although I haven't done a recent examination of that data so don't quote me on it.