[TheAthletic] Top 75 players in NBA history - Number 11: The Dream

Jerry West was a better player than Kobe Bryant. He should have been ranked higher.

 

I agree with you.

So a lot of players get knocked apparently in these rankings because they didn't win titles or multiple titles. Yet Nash, Miller, Malone and Stockton never won anything and they were really high on the list.

So we don't have someone like Jerry West in the top 10 because he only won one title, while competing against dynasties..... and we put Kobe as high as he is because of titles......... but we decide to make excuses for others?

Really seems off base.

In no world was John Stockton a better basketball player than David Robinson.

 

I think Stockton and Malone get ranked so highly mainly because of their respective places on the all-time assists, steals, and scoring lists. But that’s more of a testament to their longevity and durability than to true transcendance.

I don’t recall any year of their careers that they truly dominated the league as individual players the way their contemporaries like Barkley, Hakeem, and even Robinson did at various points.

 

It is not a question of whether the MVP award is flawed or not. MVP accolades are a social construct and opinions, not science. Every year people have their own versions of MVP, who got snubbed etc. I also think comparing players from different eras also makes no sense. For example, how can one honestly say Shaq is better than Wilt when they have not even played against each other at center position? Over time, has the technology and research methods improved player conditioning and athleticism? Has the game not changed? Shouldn't such external factors be considered when comparing players from different eras? If somehow Wilt was reincarnated in today's NBA would his game be different or the same?

We can get into all kinds of hypothetical conversations we want but hypotheticals do not equate to facts. You would choose Bill Russell over Ray Allen and someone else would pick LBJ, Wade, Bosh, Allen over Russell, and contemporaries.

I am not against stating who was a great basketball player. But, I think it is a flawed analysis to compare great players when many other factors are simply not considered.

 

Good for you. Many other people may think otherwise. As I said, it is merely an opinion and nothing else.

 

Fair enough.

I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

 

Malone average 31 ppg in 89-90 and for 4 years straight came in second behind Jordan in PPG from 88-92. John Stockton average around 14 assists per game over a 4 year period. Both dominated during that time and have been durable enough to have the all-time records in those categories of total points and assists.

Longevity definitely should be a strong case for ranking as it's extremely hard to play at a high level into your late 30s and beyond. Think of it this way, who's a better player- someone who averages 30 ppg over a 5 year span with a title but injuries derailed the rest of their career or a player that averaged 24 ppg for their career (27 ppg during the height of it) and played for 17 years with 0 titles?

 

thats why john hollingers formula is the best, he got all his stats from basketball reference. Now do i agree with harden being the 15th best player ever.. NO, BUT HARDEN WILL BE REMMEBED MUCH MORE FONDLHY THAN HE IS NOW

 

I think we're agreed that these rankings are social constructs and opinions rather than objective facts. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting otherwise.

The question you asked about Wilt being reincarnated today is, in my opinion, the wrong one. At least per the model I outlined, that's not the right question to ask when comparing players across eras. Instead, you need to compare how great they were relative to the players in the eras that they played.

 

David Robinson was just a better player than either Karl Malone or John Stockton.

David Robinson's impact on the defensive side was massive, he is one of the top 10-15 best defensive players ever and he could easily be close to the top 5 than 15th. Other than Hakeem Olajuwon, it is hard to name a more impactful defensive player over the last 60 years in the NBA. That is a massive consideration that is over looked. Even Tim Duncan said that David Robinson was a better defender than him.

David Robinson lead the NBA in WS/48 five times in his career.... he lead the league in VORP twice and PER three straight seasons, and that was in an era with Hakeem and Jordan.

Robinson lead the league in player efficiency three straight seasons, and was in the top 5 for 9 seasons.

Robinson won two NBA titles.

Ill take David Robinson over John Stockton or Karl Malone every time career-wise.

 

I don't see how Stockton and Malone are ranked over Harden. I know I am going to get ripped up for this, but I think Harden's value alone is almost equal to both Stockton/Malone. Harden has all of Malone's points and more with Stockton's assists numbers. I know some people think we fan out over James, but he is a pretty damn good player and efficient.

I believe I saw few voters who had Miller over Harden. I was like ... stop. Reggie brought alot to the game, and was an intense competitor, but there's no way anyone would've taken him over say T-Mac, Gervin, Ginobili or VC ... three of which did not make the list, while 3 of the four guys were more less franchise players and MVP caliber for at least 5 seasons. VC (2000-2004); T-Mac (2000-2006); and Gervin (1973-82).


I loved Rodman, too. But, I wouldn't have taken him over say Chris Webber, Pau Gasol, Dwight Howard, Bob Lanier and even our own Yao Ming (or Zo) -- last two being victims of injuries. You could rely on all of those guys to carry a team and that's not something Rodman could do. He was perhaps the greatest rebounder ever, along with possibly being one of the greatest defensive players, but his offense was such negative...that it was almost empty outside of rebounding. Every other player, was easily 20-10 with slight above average to great defense. 3-4 more rebounds a game doesn't make up for a 10-15 ppg difference. That's a whole another player.


For Dream, it's weird, because he arguably had the best offensive repertoire of any other center and was the most versatile on defense (no questions asked). Yet, on some great center list, he is out of the top 5. I know it's based on accomplishment from that point and this is a reputation based list. Where Dream is going to have the advantages of players from bigger markets and better franchises. I might be biased to present, but looking at existing game footage. I don't see any aspect of the game, where a Goat, like Bill Russell is better than Olajuwon. I know someone will mention 11 titles or feel he was a better floor general than Dream, though abilities on offense and defense are not even close. Olajuwon dominated almost every aspect of his game, except maybe passing (but how many big men have that). He's a better shooter, better post player, FT shooter, defend multiple positions, and defend the perimeter off switches. The last one being something centers for the most part didn't have to do in the past, so I don't know how that would translate in today's game where even most bigs are pretty adept shooters, and even great 3 point shooters by historical center standards.

 

People often mock David Robinson for the 95 Playoffs against Olajuwon and his lack of playoff success.


After David Robinson, another overlooked big was Patrick Ewing.

 

Yes agree, it can be measured, even subjectively, how great certain players were in their own era. But, all I am saying is comparing players across eras by skipping many other external factors/data relevant to that particular era and any advancement later makes an unfair comparison. You can say Wilt was the best Center in his era and Shaq was best in his, but then when one starts comparing Wilt to Shaq or worse Wilt to Kobe who did not even play the same position, that gets complicated and extremely subjective regardless of how dominant and well they played in their respective eras.

 

Malone and Stockton put up great numbers, but they were almost a perennial first exit, during that time period. They also had home court in a few of those series.

I know Stockton had assist record and steals, as well. Though, the 10 guys behind them were actual MVPs/MVP candidates.
Stockton - 4 top 10 finishes in the MVP voting / 0 top 5.


15 guys behind him -- Isiah, Barry, Wade, Havlicek, CP3, Pettit, Pippen, Harden, Kawhi, Mikan, Kidd, Ewing, Nash, Cousy, and AI.

The next row of guys -- Hayes, Gervin, Drexler, Reed, and Frazier.

I don't see how Stockton makes it into the top 5 of this list alone. Most of this list is filled with guys who actually carried a team. Some of them won championships. Havlicek had 8 with competitive numbers, Pippen had 6, Wade has 3, and both Isiah and Frazier two.

Westbrook and Miller are both a bit too high.

This list is kinda broken.

 

I appreciate you pointing out the formula and respect yourself and others as posters. My post is focused on Hollinger and his formula, so I hope you won't take it as directed at your post. Just trying to make people think about the critieria being used for these rankings.

Also I agree, because of personal feelings or in this case a formula a lot of the times Harden gets his rating misplaced but will be remembered well overtime. But I'll focus on Hakeem for now

While I do respect people who create a standard criteria for ranking players, Hollinger's formula is heavily weighted for accolades which is flawed imo, which I mentioned earlier. These are subjective arbitrary weightings of the Author's discrection.

Look below how accolade heavy he is, 50 points for MVP which along with win shares is more of a team based award and metric. David Robinson got 50 MVP points vs Hakeem 10 pts for finals MVP in 95. Steve Nash got 100 points for it while Kobe got 50 for career MVPs. Moses Malone got 150 points while Duncan got 100, was Moses better than Duncan to justify those point totals? Objectively can one see the flaw in using accolades?

This doesn't even include reputation based accolades that players shouldn't have gotten, see Kobe's defense and awards late in his career.

Four of the six metrics listed are accolade based, not including winshares which is a team based metrics that he is using to rank individual players.

Edited for size of article

https://theathletic.com/3134630/202...ts-a-new-way-to-historically-compare-players/

"Here’s the system:

MVP vote shares: 50 points for each 1.0

All-NBA — First Team: 10 points each; Second Team: 3 points each; Third Team: 1 point each; First Team All-ABA: 5 points each

Finals MVP: 10 points each

All-Star team selections: 1 point each

Career Win Shares above 100: 1 point

Career BPM above 2.0: 7.5 points per point
We have a contribution from the advanced stats, somewhat. Basketball-reference only has box plus/minus (BPM) dating back to 1974 and uses some tricks to fill in gaps for everything before 1985, so it’s more valuable for modern players than for old-timers. I included it here to help weigh the modern players. I think it’s hard for us to answer the question “How great is Paul George?” while he’s still playing, and this helps provide a historical guide.

The limitation here is that I had to make crude estimates for pre-1974 players, generally giving them the benefit of the doubt and rating them comparable to historical peers from later eras. Because of this, I had to make BPM’s contribution relatively minor. Doubling my estimate for Elgin Baylor, for instance, would only move him up three spots in the GOAT Points standings."

What it can do, at least, is set the stage for the discussion. Maybe I weighted some stuff too highly and other things not high enough. Surely there are ways this can be improved in the coming years, especially if we get more historical advanced stats.

 

No points for DPOY or All-Defensive teams? Seems like a hole, though it would only work while those accolades were given out. I think Hakeem would have rated higher with defense taken into account more.

 

I agree, Hollinger could easily take his own top defensive player all time list in the weighting and it would skew guys like Hakeem much higher.

Can't blame him, but I suspect he watered down what could have been a heavy advanced stats analysis for mainstream readers. Not saying all of them are accurate or without flaws, but this is the same guy who invented many advanced stats and metric formulas. MVP = 50pts is extra basic.

Most casual fans don't look at defense, advanced stats or holistic views of a player, no judgement I was one for many years growing up. Things like the coach, team support/competition or league rule changes aren't even thought of. Rings, accolades and offense are easier to identify from a casual perspective.