Top 25 Greatest Players Ever

[mac222b]

btw Adrian Dantley was the featured guest at Golden Valley Basketball Camp one year&not only did he make like every shot he put up, but in the picture i have with him there's no way he was 6'5 or whatever they listed him as. i wound up being 6'3 and even as a not fully grown teenager i didnt feel like he dwarfed me. although he was absolutely all muscle. pretty amazing&singular player. 82-83 he put up 30.7,6.4, w/4.8 assists on 58%shooting before getting injured. he had a run of 7 seasons where he put up #'s like this.

[Murphy3]

I don't have much reliance on JVG.

I'll admit that Malone has the edge on defense. However, Dirk has a significant edge offensively and in the clutch in the post season. Yes, Dirk was beaten at times defensively. It happens to everyone. And the majority of JVG's comments concerning Dirk's defense occurred in a situation where Dirk had 2 fouls and couldn't afford a third.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I don't have much reliance on JVG.

I'll admit that Malone has the edge on defense. However, Dirk has a significant edge offensively and in the clutch in the post season. Yes, Dirk was beaten at times defensively. It happens to everyone. And the majority of JVG's comments concerning Dirk's defense occurred in a situation where Dirk had 2 fouls and couldn't afford a third.

Where is Dirk on your list? Top 15? Also, where is LeBron on your list?

[LonghornDub]

I'd like to revise my list:

1. Rudy Fernandez
2-25. Irrelevant

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I'd like to revise my list:

1. Rudy Fernandez
2-25. Irrelevant

I think you should at least give spots 2-10 to Rudy Fernandez as well. Even that might be shortchanging him.

[CadBane]

You're still looking at raw numbers when you look at total win shares! You need to look at WS/48 or at least win shares relative to games played.

Again, I didn't say PER should be the ONLY factor, but it should be a big one. People like Kareem have a lower PER because he played well past his prime. Compare his PRIME PER with other guys, and it ranks high.

Like I said, Dirk had a better PER than PRIME Malone. You're mixing and matching arguments and data without being consistent.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by CadBane

You're still looking at raw numbers when you look at total win shares! You need to look at WS/48 or at least win shares relative to games played.

Again, I didn't say PER should be the ONLY factor, but it should be a big one. People like Kareem have a lower PER because he played well past his prime. Compare his PRIME PER with other guys, and it ranks high.

Like I said, Dirk had a better PER than PRIME Malone. You're mixing and matching arguments and data without being consistent.

Why does Magic have a low PER? He retired when he was 32, basically in his prime. I can't agree that PER should be a big factor when the #2 dude is LeBron, the #4 dude is David Robinson and Magic, who is in the GOAT convo, is #13. The same goes for win shares, where Stockton is #5 on the list. How reliable is a metric where Stockton is #5 and Reggie Miller is #11 (both guys played well past their prime), yet Hakeem is #15, Magic is #19 and Bird is #21?

My argument is consistent. The rankings of those lists don't make any sense when you use them to start comparing players. How else can you explain dudes ranked higher who obviously weren't better players, and weren't putting up better numbers? This is all in response to who has better numbers, Malone or Dirk. No one in league history had better numbers than Wilt. He isn't #1 on the list for PER (#5, behind David Robinson) or win shares (#2, and ironically Karl Malone is #3).

The win shares per 48 list is garbage as well, as far as saying who outperformed who. David Robinson is #2, ahead of Wilt (#3) who did actually play 48 mpg in a season. CP3 is #5, ahead of Magic (#8). Manu is #11, ahead of West, Stockton, Shaq, Oscar Robertson (the other stat machine besides Wilt) and Bird. I don't see how you can rely on a list with results like that.

Last example which really highlights why I don't rely on PER. Dirk's high PER is 28.1, from 05/06. This is from the season where he dropped 27, 9, 3 on 48%, 41% and 91%. Larry Bird has never had a PER that high (high of 27.8, and he only broke 27 once). His PER was never that high even though he compiled these stats in his MVP winning seasons:

83/84 - 24, 10, 7, 49%, 25%, 89% (24.2 PER)
84/85 - 29, 11, 7, 52%, 43%, 89% (26.5 PER)
85/86 - 26, 10, 7, 50%, 42%, 90% (25.6 PER)

Would you really argue that Dirk put up better numbers in 05/06 than Bird put up in either of those seasons, because his PER is higher?

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

Why does Magic have a low PER? He retired when he was 32, basically in his prime. I can't agree that PER should be a big factor when the #2 dude is LeBron, the #4 dude is David Robinson and Magic, who is in the GOAT convo, is #13. The same goes for win shares, where Stockton is #5 on the list. How reliable is a metric where Stockton is #5 and Reggie Miller is #11 (both guys played well past their prime), yet Hakeem is #15, Magic is #19 and Bird is #21?

My argument is consistent. The rankings of those lists don't make any sense when you use them to start comparing players. How else can you explain dudes ranked higher who obviously weren't better players, and weren't putting up better numbers? This is all in response to who has better numbers, Malone or Dirk. No one in league history had better numbers than Wilt. He isn't #1 on the list for PER (#5, behind David Robinson) or win shares (#2, and ironically Karl Malone is #3).

The win shares per 48 list is garbage as well, as far as saying who outperformed who. David Robinson is #2, ahead of Wilt (#3) who did actually play 48 mpg in a season. CP3 is #5, ahead of Magic (#8). Manu is #11, ahead of West, Stockton, Shaq, Oscar Robertson (the other stat machine besides Wilt) and Bird. I don't see how you can rely on a list with results like that.

Last example which really highlights why I don't rely on PER. Dirk's high PER is 28.1, from 05/06. This is from the season where he dropped 27, 9, 3 on 48%, 41% and 91%. Larry Bird has never had a PER that high (high of 27.8, and he only broke 27 once). His PER was never that high even though he compiled these stats in his MVP winning seasons:

83/84 - 24, 10, 7, 49%, 25%, 89% (24.2 PER)
84/85 - 29, 11, 7, 52%, 43%, 89% (26.5 PER)
85/86 - 26, 10, 7, 50%, 42%, 90% (25.6 PER)

Would you really argue that Dirk put up better numbers in 05/06 than Bird put up in either of those seasons, because his PER is higher?

Stats like PER and win shares are sorta like QB Rating in football. They're not everything by any means but they're certainly not nothing either. Efficiency is really an entirely different statistical category on its own. Personally, I view both stats essentially as a player's bball IQ rating; who takes the smartest shots, makes fewer mistakes etc... It doesn't necessarily measure a player's overall worth, but it IMO what it does measure how much a player contributes to the game within his own specialized role; how much the player immediately impacts the game. It's why you sometimes see bench players with higher PER's than his team's franchise player. Doesn't make him a better player necessarily, just a smarter one maybe.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Stats like PER and win shares are sorta like QB Rating in football. They're not everything by any means but they're certainly not nothing either. Efficiency is really an entirely different statistical category on its own. Personally, I view both stats essentially as a player's bball IQ rating; who takes the smartest shots, makes fewer mistakes etc... It doesn't necessarily measure a player's overall worth, but it IMO what it does measure how much a player contributes to the game within his own specialized role; how much the player immediately impacts the game. It's why you sometimes see bench players with higher PER's than his team's franchise player. Doesn't make him a better player necessarily, just a smarter one maybe.

Good points. I'm not trying to say the metric has no value or that it should be completely ignored. But I can't use the metric to say Player X had better numbers than Player Y, or that Player X was definately better than Player Y because guys with worse numbers have a higher metric than guys with better numbers (i.e. the Dirk/Bird example), guys who were worse players have a higher metric than guys who were better than them, and PER discounts defense.

Now that win shares per 48, at least the top 20 of that list doesn't have as many ridiculous conclusions.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

Why does Magic have a low PER? He retired when he was 32, basically in his prime. I can't agree that PER should be a big factor when the #2 dude is LeBron, the #4 dude is David Robinson and Magic, who is in the GOAT convo, is #13. The same goes for win shares, where Stockton is #5 on the list. How reliable is a metric where Stockton is #5 and Reggie Miller is #11 (both guys played well past their prime), yet Hakeem is #15, Magic is #19 and Bird is #21?

My argument is consistent. The rankings of those lists don't make any sense when you use them to start comparing players. How else can you explain dudes ranked higher who obviously weren't better players, and weren't putting up better numbers? This is all in response to who has better numbers, Malone or Dirk. No one in league history had better numbers than Wilt. He isn't #1 on the list for PER (#5, behind David Robinson) or win shares (#2, and ironically Karl Malone is #3).

The win shares per 48 list is garbage as well, as far as saying who outperformed who. David Robinson is #2, ahead of Wilt (#3) who did actually play 48 mpg in a season. CP3 is #5, ahead of Magic (#8). Manu is #11, ahead of West, Stockton, Shaq, Oscar Robertson (the other stat machine besides Wilt) and Bird. I don't see how you can rely on a list with results like that.

Last example which really highlights why I don't rely on PER. Dirk's high PER is 28.1, from 05/06. This is from the season where he dropped 27, 9, 3 on 48%, 41% and 91%. Larry Bird has never had a PER that high (high of 27.8, and he only broke 27 once). His PER was never that high even though he compiled these stats in his MVP winning seasons:

83/84 - 24, 10, 7, 49%, 25%, 89% (24.2 PER)
84/85 - 29, 11, 7, 52%, 43%, 89% (26.5 PER)
85/86 - 26, 10, 7, 50%, 42%, 90% (25.6 PER)

Would you really argue that Dirk put up better numbers in 05/06 than Bird put up in either of those seasons, because his PER is higher?

Lets pick the median years, so 85-86.

Bird's raw numbers vs. Dirk's raw numbers, you've stated. But lets look deeper.

1. Dirk had a 59% TS% vs. Bird's 58%. Thus, Dirk was the more efficient scorer. This plays a role in the higher PER. Larry's FG% & 3PT% were slightly higher, BUT, Dirk shot more threes, and he went to the line more (where he shot a higher FT%). That's why he has the higher TS%.


2. Both players had the exact same TRB% (14.2) Raw numbers show Bird as averaging 1 more RPG...BUT that doesn't take pace and rebounding opportunities into account.

3. While Bird had more assists, he also turned it over much more. Dirk had a minute TOV% of 7.9%. Bird's was 12.7%.

4. Dirk had the greater impact on offense. Dirk's ORtg was 123 vs. Bird's 117.

Thus, while the raw numbers show Bird as shooting better, Dirk was actually more efficient. While the raw numbers show Bird as the better rebounder, they were in fact, dead even. While the raw numbers show Bird as having a greater offensive impact, in fact, Dirk did.

That's why Dirk had a higher PER, and that's why you can't look solely at Raw numbers. I'd also wager Dirk had a substantially higher +/-.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by CadBane

Lets pick the median years, so 85-86.

Bird's raw numbers vs. Dirk's raw numbers, you've stated. But lets look deeper.

1. Dirk had a 59% TS% vs. Bird's 58%. Thus, Dirk was the more efficient scorer. This plays a role in the higher PER. Larry's FG% & 3PT% were slightly higher, BUT, Dirk shot more threes, and he went to the line more (where he shot a higher FT%). That's why he has the higher TS%.


2. Both players had the exact same TRB% (14.2) Raw numbers show Bird as averaging 1 more RPG...BUT that doesn't take pace and rebounding opportunities into account.

3. While Bird had more assists, he also turned it over much more. Dirk had a minute TOV% of 7.9%. Bird's was 12.7%.

4. Dirk had the greater impact on offense. Dirk's ORtg was 123 vs. Bird's 117.

Thus, while the raw numbers show Bird as shooting better, Dirk was actually more efficient. While the raw numbers show Bird as the better rebounder, they were in fact, dead even. While the raw numbers show Bird as having a greater offensive impact, in fact, Dirk did.

That's why Dirk had a higher PER, and that's why you can't look solely at Raw numbers. I'd also wager Dirk had a substantially higher +/-.

Let me ask you one question before I rebut any of that. How do you explain PER results, such as Magic and Bird not being in the top 10, LeBron being #2, and the ultimate stat machines like Oscar and Wilt (who finished behind Robinson) not being in the top 3? Since you are using this metric to compare players, if I used it I would conclude that:

- David Robinson (#4) was more productive Wilt (#5), Kareem (#12) and Hakeem (#16).
- LeBron James (#2) and Wade (#6) were more productive than Larry Bird (#18).
- Chris Paul (#8) was more productive than Magic (#13), Oscar (#23) and Stockton (#31).

That doesn't make any sense. I have very little reliance in a metric that produces results like that. How do you explain those type of results? Since you are arguing that Dirk had better numbers than Malone based on his PER, are you also arguing that Paul had better numbers than Magic and Oscar since he had a higher PER? Paul's highest PERs are 30 (23, 6, 11, 3, 3 tos on 51%, 36% and 87% in 08/09) and 28.3 (21, 4, 12, 3, 3 tos on 49%, 37% and 86% in 07/08). Magic has never gotten higher than 27, not even when he dropped 23, 8, 13, 2, 4 tos on 51%, 31% and 91% in 88/89. Oscar's high is 27.6, even though he dropped 31, 13, 11 on 48% and 80% (no stats for 3's) in 61/62 (PER of 26 that year). That was the only triple double in league history. It doesn't get more productive than that. Using your method you would conclude that Paul was more productive. That doesn't make any sense.

I think you will find far fewer discrepencies that make no sense using raw numbers than you will using PER or win shares. Just read the names on the list and honestly tell me that order looks right to you, or any other basketball fan. Again, the win shares per 48 list looks legit but still has some wild stuff like Moses Malone and Isiah not in the top 40. I mention them because I believe you agreed with me that they are both ahead of Dirk at this moment.

[Murphy3]

Magic doesn't have a low PER. His PER is more than solid. His PER just isn't as good in the post season as it was in the regular season. Sometimes, his PER was pulled down a bit because of Turnovers..other times, it was because of his shooting percentages. Even when Dirk's FG% has been down in the playoffs, he's more than made up for it with trips to the line. Magic had his moments to where he got to the line alot, but Dirk's averaged about 2 more trips to the line and is a significantly better FT shooter than Magic (even though Johnson was solid at the stripe).

And when it comes to not turning the ball over, there are few better big time scorers in the history of the game than Dirk.

As far as the regular season goes, I would be shocked to find out that there's more than 1-2 other players in the history of the game that aveage 20+ points a game for their career but turn the ball over less than 2 times a game.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Magic doesn't have a low PER. His PER is more than solid. His PER just isn't as good in the post season as it was in the regular season. Sometimes, his PER was pulled down a bit because of Turnovers..other times, it was because of his shooting percentages. Even when Dirk's FG% has been down in the playoffs, he's more than made up for it with trips to the line. Magic had his moments to where he got to the line alot, but Dirk's averaged about 2 more trips to the line and is a significantly better FT shooter than Magic (even though Johnson was solid at the stripe).

And when it comes to not turning the ball over, there are few better big time scorers in the history of the game than Dirk.

As far as the regular season goes, I would be shocked to find out that there's more than 1-2 other players in the history of the game that aveage 20+ points a game for their career but turn the ball over less than 2 times a game.

It's not that his PER is "low", it's that so many folks have a higher PER than him. If we are comparing Malone and Dirk and you are telling me Dirk had better numbers based on his PER, then wouldn't the same logic hold true for other PG's in comparison with Magic? Magic has plenty of seasons where his numbers were better than CP3's yet his PER has never been as high.

The PER metric has too many inconsistencies like that for me to say it's reliable when using it to compare players. For example, David Robinson has a higher PER than Wilt and Kareem!!

[Thespiralgoeson]

If the argument is Dirk vs. Malone, I'll go ahead and skip the extended stats and go straight to the eyeball test. Admittedly, my eyes might be a bit biased, but I gotta go with Dirk. The thing that Dirk has over just about any other power forward in the history of the game is the ability to consistently create his own shot. I can't immediately think of any any other PF ever who could create offense the way Dirk can. Indeed, few players in history of ANY position have been able to score on their own as proficiently and prolifically as Dirk can. It's the reason he's even in the same league as someone like Duncan, and the reason he's better than Garnett (both of whom outstrip Dirk in virtually ever other facet of the game.)

Malone was absolutely phenomenal off the pick-and-roll. Maybe the best pick-and-roll PF ever. Beyond that, however, his offense was a bit limited. It would be interesting to see (and I'm sure someone who was motivated enough could find this out) what percentage of Malone's total points throughout his career came off of P'n'R assists from Stockton. Pretty much anyone will concede that Stockton was one of the greatest P'n'R point guards ever, and Malone had him for his entire career (save for that last year he spent with the Lakers.)

I seriously doubt Malone could've scored at the same rate or efficiency if he'd been stuck with the mediocre guard play that Dirk has had ever since Nash left for Phoenix. Conversely we can only wonder how much better Dirk's numbers would be if he had one of the all-time greats in his backcourt through his whole career. Imagine if Dirk had gotten to play with Stockton, or a young Jason Kidd or even if Nash had re-signed in Dallas. It's impossible to know for sure, but common sense tells me that Dirk's numbers would be even better.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

If the argument is Dirk vs. Malone, I'll go ahead and skip the extended stats and go straight to the eyeball test. Admittedly, my eyes might be a bit biased, but I gotta go with Dirk. The thing that Dirk has over just about any other power forward in the history of the game is the ability to consistently create his own shot. I can't immediately think of any any other PF ever who could create offense the way Dirk can. Indeed, few players in history of ANY position have been able to score on their own as proficiently and prolifically as Dirk can. It's the reason he's even in the same league as someone like Duncan, and the reason he's better than Garnett (both of whom outstrip Dirk in virtually ever other facet of the game.)

Malone was absolutely phenomenal off the pick-and-roll. Maybe the best pick-and-roll PF ever. Beyond that, however, his offense was a bit limited. It would be interesting to see (and I'm sure someone who was motivated enough could find this out) what percentage of Malone's total points throughout his career came off of P'n'R assists from Stockton. Pretty much anyone will concede that Stockton was one of the greatest P'n'R point guards ever, and Malone had him for his entire career (save for that last year he spent with the Lakers.)

I seriously doubt Malone could've scored at the same rate or efficiency if he'd been stuck with the mediocre guard play that Dirk has had ever since Nash left for Phoenix. Conversely we can only wonder how much better Dirk's numbers would be if he had one of the all-time greats in his backcourt through his whole career. Imagine if Dirk had gotten to play with Stockton, or a young Jason Kidd or even if Nash had re-signed in Dallas. It's impossible to know for sure, but common sense tells me that Dirk's numbers would be even better.

This is a very good post. I don't think Malone's offensive game was limited but he did have the advantage of playing with a great PG for his entire career. However, Barkley and McHale were just as good at creating their own shots as Dirk is. Their offensive games were just different. In the case of Barkley, he didn't always have good PG play and he had crazy efficiency. Although I will admit his peak wasn't as long as Dirk's.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

This is a very good post. I don't think Malone's offensive game was limited but he did have the advantage of playing with a great PG for his entire career.

Well, I only mean he was limited comparatively speaking; i.e. compared to Dirk. I think the player in today's NBA whose offensive game reminds me the most of Malone is Amare. Absolutely lethal off the pick and roll, and an excellent mid-range shooter for his position. But Amare (like Malone) isn't going to consistently create something off the dribble and hit an array of pump-fakes, turn-arounds, up-and-unders etc... EDIT: Don't get me wrong, Malone was a far, far better player than Amare. I'm just saying Amare reminds me a bit of Malone.

However, Barkley and McHale were just as good at creating their own shots as Dirk is. Their offensive games were just different.

They were both very, very good, but not quite as good as Dirk (just my opinion of course.) The McHale comparison is an interesting one. Kevin McHale happens to be one of my all-time favorite players, and indeed I think I'm the only one in this thread who even mentioned him, let alone had him in my top 25. Flat-out amazing low-post scorer. However his career numbers/accolades just don't hold up to Dirk's. He only made the All-NBA team once in his entire career (first team in '87). That's a far cry from from Dirk's eleven all-NBA selections, four of them for the first team, not to mention that Dirk has played in an era full of great forwards. Although in fairness, there was no third team when McHale was in his prime. Still, when it comes to individual accomplishments, McHale falls a bit short of the other three guys on the list (Dirk, Malone, and Barkley.)

In the case of Barkley, he didn't always have good PG play and he had crazy efficiency. Although I will admit his peak wasn't as long as Dirk's.

Barkley was truly a unique player. To this day it both amazes and puzzles me how he was able to dominate the game the way he did being so undersized for his position. And yes, crazy efficient. Still, as far as scoring ability goes, I would once again give the edge to Dirk. Barkley, like Malone, was not someone who had a massive arsenal of unguardable shots, or go-to moves. Nor could he score from anywhere on the floor like Dirk does. He wasn't someone whom teams would gear their entire defensive gameplan just to try to slow down, as so many teams have done so (unsuccessfully) against Dirk. Never was this more profound than the 2006 semifinals when the Spurs, one of the most dominant defensive teams in league history, went small for almost the entire series because they were terrified of having a big man stuck guarding Dirk. I don't think any team, let alone a truly great defensive team, threw out their entire defensive philosophy to guard Barkley.

However, what Sir Charles did have over Dirk was rebounding and passing skills that put Dirk's to shame. Again, his rebounding was truly amazing considering how small he was. And his passing skills were phenomenal too. Easily as good as Kevin Garnett's or Chris Webber's.

It's a tough call for me on Dirk vs. Malone/Barkley, but in the end Dirk gets my vote simply based on my own opinions of how he impacts the game, and moreover the nature of the game itself (same with the Hakeem/Shaq argument.) Totally subjective, and an argument for either of the two, or both, over Dirk would be perfectly valid. Objectively though, McHale has to be a little bit lower on the list than any of the other three. And that's tough for me to say because I've always loved his game, but any way you slice it his accomplishments just don't quite measure up to the others'.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Well, I only mean he was limited comparatively speaking; i.e. compared to Dirk. I think the player in today's NBA whose offensive game reminds me the most of Malone is Amare. Absolutely lethal off the pick and roll, and an excellent mid-range shooter for his position. But Amare (like Malone) isn't going to consistently create something off the dribble and hit an array of pump-fakes, turn-arounds, up-and-unders etc... EDIT: Don't get me wrong, Malone was a far, far better player than Amare. I'm just saying Amare reminds me a bit of Malone.



They were both very, very good, but not quite as good as Dirk (just my opinion of course.) The McHale comparison is an interesting one. Kevin McHale happens to be one of my all-time favorite players, and indeed I think I'm the only one in this thread who even mentioned him, let alone had him in my top 25. Flat-out amazing low-post scorer. However his career numbers/accolades just don't hold up to Dirk's. He only made the All-NBA team once in his entire career (first team in '87). That's a far cry from from Dirk's eleven all-NBA selections, four of them for the first team, not to mention that Dirk has played in an era full of great forwards. Although in fairness, there was no third team when McHale was in his prime. Still, when it comes to individual accomplishments, McHale falls a bit short of the other three guys on the list (Dirk, Malone, and Barkley.)



Barkley was truly a unique player. To this day it both amazes and puzzles me how he was able to dominate the game the way he did being so undersized for his position. And yes, crazy efficient. Still, as far as scoring ability goes, I would once again give the edge to Dirk. Barkley, like Malone, was not someone who had a massive arsenal of unguardable shots, or go-to moves. Nor could he score from anywhere on the floor like Dirk does. He wasn't someone whom teams would gear their entire defensive gameplan just to try to slow down, as so many teams have done so (unsuccessfully) against Dirk. Never was this more profound than the 2006 semifinals when the Spurs, one of the most dominant defensive teams in league history, went small for almost the entire series because they were terrified of having a big man stuck guarding Dirk. I don't think any team, let alone a truly great defensive team, threw out their entire defensive philosophy to guard Barkley.

However, what Sir Charles did have over Dirk was rebounding and passing skills that put Dirk's to shame. Again, his rebounding was truly amazing considering how small he was. And his passing skills were phenomenal too. Easily as good as Kevin Garnett's or Chris Webber's.

It's a tough call for me on Dirk vs. Malone/Barkley, but in the end Dirk gets my vote simply based on my own opinions of how he impacts the game, and moreover the nature of the game itself (same with the Hakeem/Shaq argument.) Totally subjective, and an argument for either of the two, or both, over Dirk would be perfectly valid. Objectively though, McHale has to be a little bit lower on the list than any of the other three. And that's tough for me to say because I've always loved his game, but any way you slice it his accomplishments just don't quite measure up to the others'.

Nice post, but just to clarify, Barkley was a much better offensive rebounder than Dirk, but he was only a slightly better defensive rebounder. People forget just how dominant a defensive rebounder Dirk was in his prime.

For their careers, Dirk has a 22% DRB% vs. Barkley's 23.7% (although oddly enough, Barkley's DRB is inflated by his later years where his went up, whereas in Dirk's later years they went down!)

In the playoffs Barkley was at 25.3% vs. Dirk's 24.8%.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by CadBane

Nice post, but just to clarify, Barkley was a much better offensive rebounder than Dirk, but he was only a slightly better defensive rebounder. People forget just how dominant a defensive rebounder Dirk was in his prime.

For their careers, Dirk has a 22% DRB% vs. Barkley's 23.7% (although oddly enough, Barkley's DRB is inflated by his later years where his went up, whereas in Dirk's later years they went down!)

In the playoffs Barkley was at 25.3% vs. Dirk's 24.8%.

Nice stat-grab. That is quite odd that their numbers went in those directions. Dirk was obviously never a very good offensive rebounder because he played much further from the basket than most big men do. You'd think his offensive rebounding numbers would've gone up a bit as he's played much closer to the basket in recent years, but no.

[Murphy3]

One thing that probably throws you off is just looking at the raw numbers. Yes, Johnson might have averaged a higher number of assists, but his assist percentage was less than Paul's. But the big thing is turnover percentage. There was a year in which Magic had TOV% (turnover percentage) of almost 25%. That is absolutely horrible. For his career, his TOV% was 19.4. Chris Paul is at 13.3 for his career. That's a rather large difference, and it's safe to say that this is why many of Magic's numbers are better than Paul's but Paul's PER is higher than Magic's.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

One thing that probably throws you off is just looking at the raw numbers. Yes, Johnson might have averaged a higher number of assists, but his assist percentage was less than Paul's. But the big thing is turnover percentage. There was a year in which Magic had TOV% (turnover percentage) of almost 25%. That is absolutely horrible. For his career, his TOV% was 19.4. Chris Paul is at 13.3 for his career. That's a rather large difference, and it's safe to say that this is why many of Magic's numbers are better than Paul's but Paul's PER is higher than Magic's.

Even with the turnovers, would you argue that Magic NEVER had a more productive season than Chris Paul's best 2 seasons? If you are arguing that one player was more productive than another based on PER then that's basically what you would say with a consistent argument, right? Or that David Robinson was more productive than Wilt and Kareem.

If someone says "Dirk is more productive than Malone or had better numbers, based on his PER" then that means Paul was more productive than Magic or Robinson more productive than Kareem. Those conclusions aren't accurate. I'm not saying ignore PER completely, but some of the crazy conclusions and the fact that it slights defensive impact lead me to not rely on it so much. If you are talking about comparing players based on their PER then I don't see how anyone could go down the list and honestly say they agree with those rankings. I mean, LeBron, Wade, CP3 and Dirk have a higher PER than Hakeem, Kobe, Bird, Oscar Robertson and Moses Malone.

[sike]

There is some good stuff happening in this thread...I'm enjoying it.

[Thespiralgoeson]

He doesn't quite crack the top 25 but I think Bob McAdoo should get an honorable mention. He was the MVP in '74 and his numbers were pretty sick when he was in his prime (three-time scoring champ.) He loses points because his production dropped off dramatically in his late 20's, mostly due to injuries. Still, I might take him over a few of the other names that have been tossed around in this thread (Reggie Miller for one.)

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

He doesn't quite crack the top 25 but I think Bob McAdoo should get an honorable mention. He was the MVP in '74 and his numbers were pretty sick when he was in his prime (three-time scoring champ.) He loses points because his production dropped off dramatically in his late 20's, mostly due to injuries. Still, I might take him over a few of the other names that have been tossed around in this thread (Reggie Miller for one.)

McAdoo is a little bit of a "hollow stats" guy IMO. But I take him over Reggie for sure.

[Murphy3]

I'll be honest, the only way in which Dirk is ranked higher than Malone or Barkley is based upon the playoffs. In the NBA, that is how you're measured. Dirk's playoff numbers are among the greatest in the history of the game. Dirk's numbers in the clutch in the playoffs are through the roof as well. If this argument were based solely on the regular season, Dirk would probably finish behind Malone and Barkley. However, when you factor in the playoffs, Dirk firmly jumps ahead of Malone and edges out Barkley in my opinion.

[Murphy3]

When looking at PER for guys that played especially in the 50's and 60's and even into the early 70's, you have to understand that some of the data is incomplete. We don't have solid numbers for every statistical category dating back 40-50 years ago. So, that could help some players and hurt others.

Some opinions of mine..

1. If you were a good big man in the 50-60's, you probably put up insane numbers that would not hold up in the game today.
2. In the 80's, scoring was typically much higher as was rebounding. Realize that the game was more up tempo and scoring, shooting percentages, assists, total rebounds and even turnovers are all inflated with compared to the era that we're currently in. A 25 point scorer today would probably project to closer to 28 points back in the 80's.
3. Guards in today's game have the luxury of ridiculous advantages on the offensive side of the ball when it comes to officiating.
4. It was not uncommon for ABA teams to AVERAGE more than 120 points a game. That happened a handful of times during it's short existence. 115 points a game was not remotely rare at all. Some years, it was common. Again, you have to factor in what type of impact that would have had on a player's performance.
5. Again, the NBA was a much faster paced league back in the day of Magic and Bird. Offensive numbers are rather inflated in my opinion. There were times in which the game resembled what we see during All-Star weekend more than what we saw back in the early 90's..

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

When looking at PER for guys that played especially in the 50's and 60's and even into the early 70's, you have to understand that some of the data is incomplete. We don't have solid numbers for every statistical category dating back 40-50 years ago. So, that could help some players and hurt others.

Some opinions of mine..

1. If you were a good big man in the 50-60's, you probably put up insane numbers that would not hold up in the game today.
2. In the 80's, scoring was typically much higher as was rebounding. Realize that the game was more up tempo and scoring, shooting percentages, assists, total rebounds and even turnovers are all inflated with compared to the era that we're currently in. A 25 point scorer today would probably project to closer to 28 points back in the 80's.
3. Guards in today's game have the luxury of ridiculous advantages on the offensive side of the ball when it comes to officiating.
4. It was not uncommon for ABA teams to AVERAGE more than 120 points a game. That happened a handful of times during it's short existence. 115 points a game was not remotely rare at all. Some years, it was common. Again, you have to factor in what type of impact that would have had on a player's performance.
5. Again, the NBA was a much faster paced league back in the day of Magic and Bird. Offensive numbers are rather inflated in my opinion. There were times in which the game resembled what we see during All-Star weekend more than what we saw back in the early 90's..

So it sounds like you are saying we shouldn't use things like PER to compare players from different era's? I've always thought that it's very difficult to compare players from different times due to rule changes, the game just being different and some of the things that you just mentioned.

But just going through the list, the conclusions don't look accurate (as far as comparing players).

[CadBane]

But Boozer and Camby haven't played until age 39! MM's defensive rebounding plummeted late in his career. It is what it is. You do realize in RAW stats, Malone's career DRPG is LOWER than 36th all-time.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by CadBane

But Boozer and Camby haven't played until age 39! MM's defensive rebounding plummeted late in his career. It is what it is. You do realize in RAW stats, Malone's career DRPG is LOWER than 36th all-time.

Camby has played 14 seasons, which is basically a full career and then some. Do you think he is the 5th best defensive rebounder since 70-71, since the metric has him 5th on the list?

Hakeem Olajuwon has grabbed at least 9 drp's per game 5 times, and his highest DRB% was 28.3%, which he hit twice. Camby has grabbed at least 9 drb's per game only 3 times, yet his highest DRB% is 33.3% and he has topped 30% 8 times. So per this metric, Olajuwon never had a drp season better than 8 of Camby's 14 top seasons, even though all of his raw numbers are better? That conclusion makes sense to you?

What it is is quite a few conclusions that make no sense. That is if you are using the metric to compare players. The lists have tons of inconsistencies on there is all I'm saying. I'm not saying ignore them completely. But these inconsistencies and the fact that one ignores defense makes me not put that much weight into them.

[Scoobay]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

Camby has played 14 seasons, which is basically a full career and then some. Do you think he is the 5th best defensive rebounder since 70-71, since the metric has him 5th on the list?

Hakeem Olajuwon has grabbed at least 9 drp's per game 5 times, and his highest DRB% was 28.3%, which he hit twice. Camby has grabbed at least 9 drb's per game only 3 times, yet his highest DRB% is 33.3% and he has topped 30% 8 times. So per this metric, Olajuwon never had a drp season better than 8 of Camby's 14 top seasons, even though all of his raw numbers are better? That conclusion makes sense to you?

What it is is quite a few conclusions that make no sense. That is if you are using the metric to compare players. The lists have tons of inconsistencies on there is all I'm saying. I'm not saying ignore them completely. But these inconsistencies and the fact that one ignores defense makes me not put that much weight into them.

just a question - comparing Hakeem and Camby who is a better defensive rebounder?
Your tone implies the former and in such a way that there's no question about it. or perhaps i'm misunderstanding what you've implied. thanks.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Scoobay

just a question - comparing Hakeem and Camby who is a better defensive rebounder?
Your tone implies the former and in such a way that there's no question about it. or perhaps i'm misunderstanding what you've implied. thanks.

Maybe I need to explain myself better (response to you and Murphy3. No, I do not think Marcus Camby is the 5th best defensive rebounder in league history since 70-71. Just like I don't think there were 12 players better than Magic, Bird, Hakeem and Oscar, since neither is in the top 12 in PER, which has LeBron #2 and I think it's fair to say no one thinks he is a top 3 player all-time. These lists have too many of these inconsistencies for me to rely on them above raw numbers. The fact that PER has David Robinson above Wilt, Duncan, Kareem and Hakeem should make everyone toss it out the window (as far as using it to rank players).

And my argument isn't necessarily that Hakeem is a better defensive rebounder than Camby, even though I think he was. My argument is look at how the metric is created and the results that it produces. Using the Hakeem/Camby example, Hakeem has multiple seasons where he grabbed more drb's than Camby or was in the same range, yet he has never hit 30% even though Camby hit that mark 8 times. My argument is....are you really saying Hakeem NEVER had a defensive rebounding season as good as Camby's top 8 seasons? Not once can you say he was a better defensive rebounder than Camby at his peak? Not even the 89/90 season, where he grabbed 10.4 drp's per night and led the LEAGUE in defensive rebounds by a wide margin (850 to 680 for David Robinson, who did play a full 82 games)? That lone season was never better than over half of Camby's? That's not an accurate conclusion.

These advanced metrics are another way to analyze the data, based on different estimates. But the conclusions don't always make sense. It doesn't make much sense to say Hakeem never had a better defensive rebounding season than 8 of Camby's seasons, not even when he led the entire NBA in defensive boards.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

Camby has played 14 seasons, which is basically a full career and then some. Do you think he is the 5th best defensive rebounder since 70-71, since the metric has him 5th on the list?

Hakeem Olajuwon has grabbed at least 9 drp's per game 5 times, and his highest DRB% was 28.3%, which he hit twice. Camby has grabbed at least 9 drb's per game only 3 times, yet his highest DRB% is 33.3% and he has topped 30% 8 times. So per this metric, Olajuwon never had a drp season better than 8 of Camby's 14 top seasons, even though all of his raw numbers are better? That conclusion makes sense to you?

Actually, yes, it does make sense to me. I'd have to look at all of the numbers such as attempts per game, DRB numbers and yada yada..but yeah, those stats could very easily make perfect sense.

And looking at the numbers, I just don't see why you'd have a problem with Camby and Moses Malone. Marcus Camby is one of the best defensive rebounders in the history of the game. Of course, some of that has to do with the fact that he's playing in a league without alot of dominant centers.

[irishock]

IMO if Stockton makes top 25 then J-Kidd should be up there as well. He has the championship ring as an advantage plus led 2 scrubbed up Nets teams to consecutive Finals appearances and is probably the best rebounding PG ever not named Magic (who is ridiculously tall for a PG,and Big O played in the no-defense no-rebounding era)
Plus Stockton had one of the greatest offensive players ever in Karl beside him.


Anyways,
1. "Push-Off" Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Wilt
8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Russell
11. Moses
12. Oscar
13. Dirk
14. West
15. Karl Malone
16. Julius
17. David Robinson
18. Charles Barkley
19. KG
20. Rick Barry
21. Patrick Ewing
22. Jason Kidd
23. Bob Petit
24. Stockton
25. Isiah

[dongtouch]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=duncati01

Not sure if you used this before. This is a comparison of each game two players went head-to-head. Example above is Dirk vs Duncan. I didn't realize how close they were in wins/losses, even in playoffs, despite the fact that the Spurs won more series.

[klacc]

I just don't think Pippen should be on anyones top 25. He was who he was because he was able to play with Jordan. Once Jordan retired Pippen was nothing.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by klacc

I just don't think Pippen should be on anyones top 25. He was who he was because he was able to play with Jordan. Once Jordan retired Pippen was nothing.

The Bulls won 55 games and lost in the 2nd Round to the Knicks in 7 games during the 93-94 season that Jordan missed.

That's a typical Mavs season in the Dirk era - not too shabby for a Robin-led team. Pippen deserves some credit there.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by klacc

I just don't think Pippen should be on anyones top 25. He was who he was because he was able to play with Jordan. Once Jordan retired Pippen was nothing.

Take Pippen away from MJ, Jordan is nothing but Dominique Wilkins. Pippen defended the best offensive player, he gave MJ the legs to get on Sportcenter for the final shot.

Pippen was all defense first team, in his first 3 years without MJ. He's top 25.

[jay3189]

Originally Posted by klacc

I just don't think Pippen should be on anyones top 25. He was who he was because he was able to play with Jordan. Once Jordan retired Pippen was nothing.

Wow. U remind of me of Skip Bayless when you said that. Having Michael Jordan on your team sure does help. U probably forgot when Jordan retired before the 1993-1994 season, that season Scottie Pippen statistically arguably had his best season as a player. The Bulls were a 3 seed in the East, they swept the Cavs in the 1st round, and lost to a damn good Knicks team in 7, he helped take the Blazers to the West Finals in 2000, Scottie is arguably the greatest one on one defensive player EVER, and last time I checked, Michael had 0 rings until Scottie came to Chi-town. Overall as a player, Michael Jordan hands down is a better player than Scottie Pippen, but to say Scottie don't deserve to be listed on top 25 players of all time is funny, even if u wanted to say there are other players u feel are better, I will respect that more, but don't make it seem its a joke to mention Scottie in the top 25 of all time

[spreedom]

I think Pippen is borderline top 15 material. EASILY the best second-best player ever. And that is by no means any kind of backhanded compliment. Anyone who says "He wasn't any good without Jordan" should really take some time to study those great Bulls teams... if you do, you'll see that Pippen was as destructively versatile defensively as Michael was offensively.

As much as people love to call LeBron "capable of defending four positions" -- Pippen was the mold for that kind of player, and if you watched any sample of 2-3 Bulls games from the 90s, you will legitimately see Pippen matched up against every position from 1-4. Not just occasionally switching defensively onto a much bigger or smaller guy, but actually matched up with the guys for extended stretches. Seriously, Pippen in his prime could guard literally any player in the NBA today. From Chris Paul to Dwight Howard, Pippen could guard any of these guys. Maybe not shut every last one of them down, but he would be able to make anybody today work hard as hell to get their contributions in. And along with that, he's also going to give you 18-20ppg with 6 boards and 6 assists on 50% shooting.

Honestly, I kind of have a hard time imagining Pippen NOT being in the discussion for the best player in the league today if he was in his prime. Unless you have a thing against fantastic stat lines and all of the small things.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by spreedom

I think Pippen is borderline top 15 material. EASILY the best second-best player ever. And that is by no means any kind of backhanded compliment. Anyone who says "He wasn't any good without Jordan" should really take some time to study those great Bulls teams... if you do, you'll see that Pippen was as destructively versatile defensively as Michael was offensively.

As much as people love to call LeBron "capable of defending four positions" -- Pippen was the mold for that kind of player, and if you watched any sample of 2-3 Bulls games from the 90s, you will legitimately see Pippen matched up against every position from 1-4. Not just occasionally switching defensively onto a much bigger or smaller guy, but actually matched up with the guys for extended stretches. Seriously, Pippen in his prime could guard literally any player in the NBA today. From Chris Paul to Dwight Howard, Pippen could guard any of these guys. Maybe not shut every last one of them down, but he would be able to make anybody today work hard as hell to get their contributions in. And along with that, he's also going to give you 18-20ppg with 6 boards and 6 assists on 50% shooting.

Honestly, I kind of have a hard time imagining Pippen NOT being in the discussion for the best player in the league today if he was in his prime. Unless you have a thing against fantastic stat lines and all of the small things.

I think you're taking it too far with Top 15, and best in the league today...but I 100% agree with everything else. Pippen is the epitome of a Robin. A lockdown stud on D, a very good scorer and passer.

[Thespiralgoeson]

*Bump*

Now that Lebron finally has a ring, I think his name certainly has to be several notches higher on the list. Love him or hate him, he's without question the best player in the world.

My revised list:

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Shaq
6. Wilt
7. Hakeem
8. Kobe
9. Russell
10. Duncan
11. Lebron
12. West
13. Baylor
14. Dr. J
15. Moses Malone
16. Big O
17. Dirk
18. The Mailman
19. Sir Charles
21. Wade
22. Admiral
23. McHale
T- Stockton & Kidd

Honestly, it's tough to keep him out of the top 10 at this point. 3 MVP's in four years is just plain sick. When it's said and done, he'll definitely be top 10. Maybe top 5.