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]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

Dirk's playoff numbers are 26, 10, 3 on 46%, 38% and 89%. This is through 11 playoff seasons. Let's just say his best run was either the 27, 12 from 06 or what he did this postseason.

Karl Malone's playoff numbers are 25, 10, 3 on 46% (no need to even post his ft or 3 point %, which Dirk obviously kills him in). This is through 19 playoff seasons. He had quite a few playoff seasons that were higher than Dirk's best (stats wise). They both had their first playoff season at the age of 22 and got 11 postseasons at the age of 32. His numbers obviously declined over the next 7 seasons, when he played until he was 40. At some point in time Dirk will age, unless he suddenly retires, and his playoff numbers will also decline. He will not finish with better playoff numbers than Karl Malone. They are basically identical now with Malone having multiple post prime seasons included in his numbers. For example, through his first 11 postseasons Malone's playoff numbers were 27, 12, 3 on 47%.

We are talking about all-time rankings, right? This is the problem when you compare a dude currently playing to a dude who is retired. Do you expect Dirk's playoff numbers to never dip? I expect them to fall as he ages, similar to most orher players. Now on the flip side, the Mavs could win the next 2 titles and then of course the whole convo changes completely. But if we are talking as of today, I still think Dirk is in that 20 and above range and I think it's possible for him to get to that 15-20 range. I just think that top 15 is a hard sucker to crack, and I don't expect him to get there.

Actually, Karl Malone had exactly 2 playoff runs where his PER was higher than Dirk's career playoff average.

Dirk's career playoff PER: 24.7
Malone's high: 25.8 and then 25.0

Dirk has had 5 seasons in which his playoff PER was higher than Malone's highest.

Malone had 9 seasons in which his per was below 20.
Dirk has never had a season in which his playoff per was below 20.9.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Actually, Karl Malone had exactly 2 playoff runs where his PER was higher than Dirk's career playoff average.

Dirk's career playoff PER: 24.7
Malone's high: 25.8 and then 25.0

Dirk has had 5 seasons in which his playoff PER was higher than Malone's highest.

Malone had 9 seasons in which his per was below 20.
Dirk has never had a season in which his playoff per was below 20.9.

PER downplays defense, where Malone was clearly better at than Dirk. He wasn't a great defender, but he did make 4 All-D teams and was a good defender. Even in this past Finals, JVG was calling out how the Heat had success when they got to attack Dirk and make him defend, although the zone makes it easier to hide him on that side of the court.

Considering that the creator freely admits the stat discounts defense, do you still not think it isn't that great of a measure to use to compare players? I don't have much reliance in it, as far as taking it over raw numbers. Not as far as using it to say one player is better than another. Especially not when I look at the career list and see that LeBron is #2, Robinson is #4, Wade is #6 and CP3 is #8. Wilt and Oscar are probably the greatest all-around stat players and they are #5 and #20. Magic and Bird both aren't even in the top 10.

I don't have much reliance in PER.

[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.

[sike]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

And why would you choose Shaq over Hakeem?

Like I've already said, its close in my book. But Shaq at his extended prime was simply an unstoppable physical force. I said this earlier, but on a list like this (25 greatest, etc), Shaq's titles and unparallelled impact on the NBA during his reign set him slightly above The Dream.

I never saw Shaq look as dominant as Hakeem looked in the 95 postseason.

Kobe might have something to do with that. I'm sure given the opportunity Shaq would have put up even more gaudy numbers than he did...but that youngster needed his shots.

[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?

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

I've already explained why I don't rely on PER because it doesn't take into account defensive performance. I don't think it's hard to pull the prime card unless you are saying you don't expect Dirk's playoff numbers to fall as he ages. At the end of the day you are comparing 11 seasons of data to 18. Dirk's playoff numbers will drop.

I prefer raw numbers. You prefer PER. Neither of us have as much reliance in the other guy's numbers so we can agree to disagree. But now that I've explained how I concluded that Malone's playoff numbers are better, since I use the raw numbers, please stop calling me names.

Either way, it seems like as of today we are almost in agreement on where Dirk is ranked, save around 4-5 spots.

I'm saying you can't pull the prime card, because even in his prime, Malone was never on Dirk's level in the playoffs. Looking at raw numbers is extremely myopic. I'm not saying PER & Win Shares are the be all end all, but they certainly hold a lot of weight. Raw numbers are distorted by pace, minutes, etc.

*Edit to add, Malone has the edge defensively, but Dirk's defense is CRIMINALLY underrated. He played fantastic defense in the playoffs. Keep in mind, Dirk post and man defense are very good. In the regular season, he tied KG in PPP on post defense. He was way ahead of Pau, Amare, LA, Scola, West, Bosh, etc.

[sike]

Originally Posted by CadBane

In the regular season, he tied KG in PPP on post defense. He was way ahead of Pau, Amare, LA, Scola, West, Bosh, etc.

+rep for posting a stat that needs to get way more play.

[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.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by CadBane

I'm saying you can't pull the prime card, because even in his prime, Malone was never on Dirk's level in the playoffs. Looking at raw numbers is extremely myopic. I'm not saying PER & Win Shares are the be all end all, but they certainly hold a lot of weight. Raw numbers are distorted by pace, minutes, etc.

You are saying a stat like PER, which doesn't even have Kareem, Magic or Bird in the top 10 but has LeBron at #2 and Robinson at #4, holds a lot of weight when comparing players? I can't put much reliance in a stat that gives David Robinson a better rating than Kareem. Kareem, Magic and Bird aren't even in the top 10 for playoff PER, yet LeBron is #3. This is the metric that we should rely on? And Hollinger states the things that PER is distorted by, and defense does matter in basketball.

As far as win shares, John Stockton is ahead of Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kobe, Magic and Bird on that list. Magic and Bird aren't in the top 10 in that list either. This is the metric that we should rely on?

Now I will admit that the one list that looks even close to what folks might say are the top players is the playoff win shares list:

1. Michael Jordan* 39.76
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 35.56
3. Magic Johnson* 32.63
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.46
5. Shaquille O'Neal 31.08
6. Tim Duncan 28.84
7. Bill Russell* 27.76
8. Kobe Bryant 26.85
9. Jerry West* 26.75
10. Larry Bird* 24.83
11. Scottie Pippen* 23.58
12. Karl Malone* 22.99
13. Hakeem Olajuwon* 22.60
14. Dirk Nowitzki 22.08
15. John Stockton* 21.35
16. Chauncey Billups 20.80
17. Kevin McHale* 20.67
18. Horace Grant 20.00
19. Reggie Miller 19.90
20. Charles Barkley* 19.52
21. John Havlicek* 19.27
22. LeBron James 18.53
23. Robert Horry 18.22
24. David Robinson* 17.52
25. George Mikan* 16.97

That list looks somewhat reasonable, but even it has Moses Malone and Isiah down in the 40-50 range, and that is utterly ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as Pippen and Malone being ahead of Hakeem. If you go through the other lists you will run into a lot of situations where you say "no way in hell was player X better that player Y, i.e. David Robinson being ahead of Kareem".

So I'll say that the PER and win shares lists are distorted by the results that they produce, because I'm 100% positive you wouldn't take Robinson or CP3 over Kareem, Magic and Bird.

[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.

[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.

[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!!

[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.

[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'.

[sike]

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

[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.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

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.

What's really odd to me is that Barkley's defensive rebounding went up in his older years.

Barkley was really at his offensive peak from 22-28. However, during that span, his highest DRB% was only 25.4% (lower than Dirk's best year).

After that:

29: 26.3%
30: 25.6%
31: 26.8%
32: 25%
33: 27.7%
34: 28.8% (career high at 34!)
35: 25.1%

His first 8 years top out at 25.4%, but his last 7 he tops that 5 times! Strange indeed.

(I didn't count his final year where he only played 20 games.)

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by CadBane

What's really odd to me is that Barkley's defensive rebounding went up in his older years.

Barkley was really at his offensive peak from 22-28. However, during that span, his highest DRB% was only 25.4% (lower than Dirk's best year).

After that:

29: 26.3%
30: 25.6%
31: 26.8%
32: 25%
33: 27.7%
34: 28.8% (career high at 34!)
35: 25.1%

His first 8 years top out at 25.4%, but his last 7 he tops that 5 times! Strange indeed.

(I didn't count his final year where he only played 20 games.)

Maybe Hakeem was boxing out for him on every play? Who knows.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by CadBane

What's really odd to me is that Barkley's defensive rebounding went up in his older years.

Barkley was really at his offensive peak from 22-28. However, during that span, his highest DRB% was only 25.4% (lower than Dirk's best year).

After that:

29: 26.3%
30: 25.6%
31: 26.8%
32: 25%
33: 27.7%
34: 28.8% (career high at 34!)
35: 25.1%

His first 8 years top out at 25.4%, but his last 7 he tops that 5 times! Strange indeed.

(I didn't count his final year where he only played 20 games.)

Some stats are greatly affected by the personnel on the floor, and rebounding is definitely one of them...

Take Dirk, for example - sure his boards have naturally declined with age, but adding ace rebounders like Kidd and Marion around him have undoubtedly reduced the amount of rebounds he NEEDS to grab.

I don't have the time to comb through Barkley's squads, but I wonder if a change of personnel forced him to grab more boards, opposite of Dirk? That might be one way to explain the anomaly...

[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.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by CadBane

What's really odd to me is that Barkley's defensive rebounding went up in his older years.

Barkley was really at his offensive peak from 22-28. However, during that span, his highest DRB% was only 25.4% (lower than Dirk's best year).

After that:

29: 26.3%
30: 25.6%
31: 26.8%
32: 25%
33: 27.7%
34: 28.8% (career high at 34!)
35: 25.1%

His first 8 years top out at 25.4%, but his last 7 he tops that 5 times! Strange indeed.

(I didn't count his final year where he only played 20 games.)

Can you give me a little more info on DRB%, exactly what it tells you and why it should be used over a raw number like rpg? I ask because going by the raw numbers, Barkley avg 7.7 drpg for his career. Dirk's career avg for total rebounds is 8.4.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

Can you give me a little more info on DRB%, exactly what it tells you and why it should be used over a raw number like rpg? I ask because going by the raw numbers, Barkley avg 7.7 drpg for his career. Dirk's career avg for total rebounds is 8.4.

Why are you stating Dirk's total RPG? That's irrelevant.

His defensive RPG career is 7.2.....that's 0.5 behind Barkley...which is right in line with their respective DRB%.

Defensive Rebound Percentage (available since the 1970-71 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * (DRB * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm DRB + Opp ORB)). Defensive rebound percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available defensive rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor.

[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.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by CadBane

Why are you stating Dirk's total RPG? That's irrelevant.

His defensive RPG career is 7.2.....that's 0.5 behind Barkley...which is right in line with their respective DRB%.

Defensive Rebound Percentage (available since the 1970-71 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * (DRB * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm DRB + Opp ORB)). Defensive rebound percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available defensive rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor.

The raw stat is not irrelevant.

I just looked at the career list for this metric. Marcus Camby is #5 and Carlos Boozer is #6 on the career list. Would you argue that they are the 5th and 6th best defensive rebounders since 1971?

In the 78/79 season Moses Malone grabbed 12 drp a night. His % that season was 21.9. That's below Dirks career % of 22 and Dirk has topped 21.9 nine times. Would you argue that Dirk had a better rebounding season than Moses Malones 78/79 season 9 times? Moses is #36 on this list, and I guarantee you there weren't 35 better defensive rebounders than Moses Malone.

The conclusions for some of this metrics, which is really just another way of crunching numbers to make an ESTIMATE, are not reasonable at all when you use them to start comparing who was better at what. I'm all for using metrics to add more analysis but the conclusions have to CONSISTENTLY make sense.How do you explain some of these inconsistencies?

[Scoobay]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

The raw stat is not irrelevant.

I just looked at the career list for this metric. Marcus Camby is #5 and Carlos Boozer is #6 on the career list. Would you argue that they are the 5th and 6th best defensive rebounders since 1971?

In the 78/79 season Moses Malone grabbed 12 drp a night. His % that season was 21.9. That's below Dirks career % of 22 and Dirk has topped 21.9 nine times. Would you argue that Dirk had a better rebounding season than Moses Malones 78/79 season 9 times? Moses is #36 on this list, and I guarantee you there weren't 35 better defensive rebounders than Moses Malone.

The conclusions for some of this metrics, which is really just another way of crunching numbers to make an ESTIMATE, are not reasonable at all when you use them to start comparing who was better at what. I'm all for using metrics to add more analysis but the conclusions have to CONSISTENTLY make sense.How do you explain some of these inconsistencies?

doesn't defensive rebound rate take into account the pace of the game - if you've got games with a ton of shots going up,there's going to be more rebounds. so in that case raw numbers may not give you as much info.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Scoobay

doesn't defensive rebound rate take into account the pace of the game - if you've got games with a ton of shots going up,there's going to be more rebounds. so in that case raw numbers may not give you as much info.

Going by the description the estimate, and I stress estimate, takes the pace of the game into account. But my question is if you are using this metric to compare players and say stuff like "Dirk and Barkley were on the same level as defensive rebounders, and look at this metric as support", then don't you expect the conclusions that the metric spits out to make sense? Going down the list the conclusions don't make sense when you start comparing players. If you are saying Dirk and Barkley are on the same level based on the metric, then your conclusion would also make you say Moses Malone was only the 36th best defensive rebounder, and that Dirk had a better drb season than Moses's best drb season 9 times. Sometimes stats lie. When you use them for analysis the conclusions have to consistently make sense.

It's the same for PER, which says that David Robinson was more productive than Wilt and Kareem.

I'm interested to see how CadBane accounts for these inconsistencies. I've explained why I don't put much faith in some of these metrics. I would like to hear why some put a lot of reliance into them when some of the conclusions are clearly wrong (just from the state of using them to compare individual players).

[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..

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

Going by the description the estimate, and I stress estimate, takes the pace of the game into account. But my question is if you are using this metric to compare players and say stuff like "Dirk and Barkley were on the same level as defensive rebounders, and look at this metric as support", then don't you expect the conclusions that the metric spits out to make sense? Going down the list the conclusions don't make sense when you start comparing players. If you are saying Dirk and Barkley are on the same level based on the metric, then your conclusion would also make you say Moses Malone was only the 36th best defensive rebounder, and that Dirk had a better drb season than Moses's best drb season 9 times. Sometimes stats lie. When you use them for analysis the conclusions have to consistently make sense.

It's the same for PER, which says that David Robinson was more productive than Wilt and Kareem.

I'm interested to see how CadBane accounts for these inconsistencies. I've explained why I don't put much faith in some of these metrics. I would like to hear why some put a lot of reliance into them when some of the conclusions are clearly wrong (just from the state of using them to compare individual players).

There ISN'T an inconsistency. For starters, you are BLATANTLY lying about what I said. Don't put fucking quotations around something I never said. I never said Barkley and Dirk were equal defensive rebounders, I said Barkley was a SLIGHTLY BETTER defensive rebounder...the metric AND raw stats conclude that.

Dirk's career DRB% is 22%. Barkley's is 23.7%.

Dirk's career DRPG is 7.1. Barkley's is 7.7.

Thus, Barkley's 1.3% edge = .6 in raw stats. How is that inconsistent?

As for Moses Malone, he only averaged 7.1 DRPG for his career (NBA)...the SAME number as Dirk! You love raw numbers so much, yet according to raw numbers, Dirk & Moses were equal rebounders.

Moses also has a BETTER DRB% than Dirk! 23.3% to 22%! So what exactly are you arguing? In fact, it's the METRIC stat that shows Moses as a better rebounder than Dirk and your RAW stats that show them as equal.

Man o man you are coming off foolish here.