Vote for top 50 all-time NBA/ABA players/careers

[schtevie]

He was speaking of the former, and I didn't follow up to ask for elaboration.

For what it's worth though, I don't think he was goofing with me and the two or three other, random people, listening in. He wasn't responding to any pointed questions, just riffing off his impressions of the then contemporary NBA. All very plainly spoken.

[bchaikin]

Whatever the deal was, he was not considered to be all that when he played, at least after 1955; nor was he remembered as all that. He just had very pretty stats?

tell me - for the 6 year stretch of 77-78 to 82-83 george gervin scored more points than any player, won 4 scoring titles, was 3rd and 5th in scoring the other two seasons...

he didn't win a title, was never known for his defense. he wasn't 2nd in any other total stat (like neil johnston was for rebounds), was not the league's best overall shooter those 6 years (like johnston was from 52-53 to 57-58). he was all-nba 1st team 5 times and all-nba 2nd team the other...

was he considered to be all that when he played? is he remembered as all that? or did he just have "very pretty stats"...

[Mike G]

Well, Gervin went to the HOF in 1996, 10 years after retirement. That's several notches down from a "first ballot" inductee. But Johnston languished for 30 years outside the Hall.
In years-after-eligible, the difference is like 5 vs 25 years waiting.

Gervin got MVP votes after 7 of his NBA seasons; he amassed .911 mvp shares (ranking 35th all-time), including twice finishing 2nd ('78 and '79). He was narrowly edged by Bill Walton in 1978: 96 to 80
http://www.basketball-reference.com/awa ... _1978.html

In Neil Johnston's most-prime years, the NBA didn't select an MVP. All but one of these years was before the shot clock, fwiw.

[Mike G]

With 11 voters, a total of 263; so 12 votes have gone uncast.
Unanimous choices, with 11 of 11 votes: Kareem, Bird, Duncan, LeBron, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, and Russell.
With 10 of 11: Wilt, Erving, Garnett, Oscar, Stockton
9 of 11: Kobe, Hakeem, Pippen, West
8 of 11: Malone, Malone and Robinson
7 of 11: Dirk and Dwyane
6 of 11: Baylor
5 of 11: Havlicek and Pettit
4 of 11: Ewing
3 of 11: Cousy, Gilmore, Kidd
2 of 11: Barry, Dwight, Parish, Payton
1 vote: Cowens, Hayes, McGrady, Mikan, Pierce, Schayes, Isiah
9 players with no votes.

25 players have 5 or more votes.

[Mike G]

Surely nobody has the Malones confused. Nevertheless, memory is a funny thing.
Here are career equivalent totals (including playoffs) most similar to Karl Malone's:

Code: Select all

diff   career equiv.     ePts    eReb    eAst    PF     Stl    TO     Blk
.00   Karl Malone       45,381   18243   5929   5235   2343   5072   1283

1.38 Kareem AbdulJabbar 43,879   18926   6059   5448   1754   5243   4781
1.80   Shaquille O'Neal 38,738   16935   3731   5098    892   4124   3325
2.19   Wilt Chamberlain 34,335   21378   5089   2558   2099   5129   4273
2.27   Kevin Garnett    31,433   16966   6015   3801   1988   3518   2233
2.34   Kobe Bryant      40,884    8218   6928   3904   2198   4480    780

2.34   Tim Duncan       33,746   17459   4697   3614   1063   3743   3269
2.48   Michael Jordan   40,034    8302   6570   3327   2892   3473   1052
3.01   Moses Malone     30,687   19310   1961   3766   1297   4812   2068
3.18   Julius Erving    31,815   11035   5620   4039   2746   4756   2434
3.37   Hakeem Olajuwon  30,781   15631   3462   4957   2412   4111   4327

The only category separating Kareem from K Malone is the blocked shots.
Karl scored 50% more points, had 3 times as many assists, almost twice the steals that Moses had.
Moses with the slight edge (6%) in rebounds, and 60% more blocks.

Don't take just my word for it: http://bkref.com/tiny/aEaNk

[jbrocato23]

but he couldn't make the playoffs without Arizin, and only succeeded when he took a backseat in scoring.

this is as silly as someone saying wilt chamberlain wasn't a great player because he didn't win a title until he was 30 years of age. the fact is the stats clearly show he was a dominant player in his era, as johnston was in his era...

I'm not sure this is a fair argument.No one is saying Johnston isn't* a great player, I just happen to doubt that he is a top 25 of all time. And winning a title is not the same as having success. Regardless, Wilt should be punished on an all-time list for failing to get it done until '67. But the difference between Wilt and Johnston (besides huge gaps in numbers/accolades/longevity,etc.) is that Wilt nearly always got his team into the playoffs, but they would usually lose to a team with arguably the best player of all time, who happened to play the same position as Wilt.

The point is, we can't just look at Johnston's basic stats and say he should be a top 25 player. I'm guessing none of us have seen him play. For all we know he played crap defense or turned the ball over constantly. By looking at his failure to even make the playoffs as his team's #1 option, it seems reasonable to conclude that he wasn't THAT good.

[Mike G]

John Stockton and Clyde Drexler faced off in 53 regular season games and another 31 playoff games.
They are the same age, so there's no young/old bias in the numbers they put up in their matchups.
The Jazz won regular season games, 31-22, while Clyde's teams took playoff games, 16-15.
16 of 31 playoff meetings were when Drex was in Houston.

Without the 1984-85 games (5 G, incomplete boxscores), their other 79 games are summarized below.
Is one player clearly better?

Code: Select all

head to head, season and playoffs, raw per 36 minute rates
79 G       mpg   OReb  TReb    Ast   Stl   Blk    TO    Pts   eFG%    TSA    TS%
Drexler   37.6   2.37   6.6    5.5   1.8   .73   2.7   19.6   .487   18.1   .541
Stockton  35.5    .85   3.2   11.4   2.0   .19   3.1   16.6   .550   13.5   .615

http://bkref.com/tiny/27Iv7
Drexler is the highest ranked guy in my list who has gotten no votes here.
I have Stockton ranked #25 (so I voted for him), Drexler 26; next highest rank with zero votes is 12 spots lower.
Stock is also my lowest ranked guy with 10 of 12 votes thus far.

Stockton was the premier point guard of his era, and Drexler was overshadowed by Jordan.
Clyde was 5 times all-NBA (once 1st team), and Stock had 11 (twice 1st team).

[schtevie]

I'll play the same age, same year game. But at different positions, looking at game match-ups? How about considering the lovely +/- data across whole seasons assembled by Jeremias? It isn't the good stuff for the entirety of Drexler's career, but still apples to apples. So for 1991 to 1998, Stockton's rating averages 1.8 points per 100 possessions higher than Drexler (and is higher in every year).

And then the energizer bunny just kept on going. In 2001, when the granular data arrives, Stockton jumps up (at age 38!) from 3.7 to 7.0. And then he retires at age 40 with the 11th highest rating in the league at 4.9! Formidable. Perhaps unsurpassed (in terms of efficiency at retirement)?

[Mike G]

I guess those are the "fake" rapm for 1991-98?

In his final (age 40) season, Stock was under 28 mpg. In 5 of his last 6 years, he was under 30.
Drex averaged 35 minutes for his career and Stock 32. That makes a difference in what a player actually contributes. John was on the bench about 22% more than Drexler was.

Stockton wasn't generally ceding his minutes to anyone 'almost as good'. He just wasn't as good when long minutes were required. That may be part of the reason his playoff numbers (at 35 mpg) weren't so great, even after strength of competition is factored in.

[schtevie]

C'mon, Mike. It is one thing to say that John Stockton wasn't 1.7 points per 100 possessions better than Clyde Drexler over their common playing years (though I would argue that the 2001+ RAPM data, and reasonable priors about life cycle effects, strongly suggests that he was indeed the better player over the common career years.) But if one accepts this premise, the math says that CD having played only 3.4 minutes per game more per year isn't remotely close to closing the efficiency gap, in terms of estimated scoreboard contributions.

Just playing around with some numbers, what I get is if you assume an average pace over the common career years of 1985 to 1998 of about 98 possessions per game, and apply this to both players, Drexler's average, baseline +/- rating would have had to have been about +17 for him to have equaled Stockon's scoreboard contribution.

But that is not all.

First (and the less important point) one cannot say, a priori, that Stockton wouldn't have been able to play more. Because Utah was a very good team, it was possible that he was just getting more garbage time rest.

But second, and this is a very important point, Stockton was and is the epitome of NBA durability. In a nineteen year career, he only missed playing a full season in two, missing but four games once and sixteen in another, for an average of 80.8 games per season (discounting the strike-shortened 1999 season).

By contrast, Clyde Drexler was much more average, averaging 72.4 games per season.

The overall effect of longevity and durability is that Stockton played half again as many games in total than Drexler.

I don't think there is much plausible to dispute about efficiency and certainly not about total contributions.

[Mike G]

yeah, OK
I don't know about your boxscore contributions being equivalent to +17, but Stockton's career is better than Drexler's. I'm just wowed by how nearly unanimous our votes have confirmed Stockton's excellence; and while a couple of votes have gone to Isiah and Payton and Kidd, none have voted for Drexler.

I have them equal on a per minute basis. I have Drexler slightly better in postseasons. I give him credits for his one NBA title. And he is boosted by a versatility index, as he was such a do-everything player.
If Drex had played another 90 games at his career levels, I'd have them dead even.

This only supports Stockton's superiority, but it's a comparison of 6 guards I rank in the 25-45 range:
http://bkref.com/tiny/Qs8RE
Drexler, Iverson, Kidd, Payton, Stockton, Isiah

With playoffs, Drexler closes the gap on Stockton, just a bit.

[rlee]

"John Stockton and Clyde Drexler faced off in 53 regular season games and another 31 playoff games.
They are the same age, so there's no young/old bias in the numbers they put up in their matchups.
The Jazz won regular season games, 31-22, while Clyde's teams took playoff games, 16-15.
16 of 31 playoff meetings were when Drex was in Houston."

I should know this: when they faced each other in these matchups, did they have teammates or did the NBA make a special arrangement for them to play one-on-one?

[Mike G]

Since they were in the same 79 games, there's no need to look up different game pace, rebound availability, or other factors that vary from team to team, year to year. They'd be the same over whatever span of seasons.

A sample of 79 games is also basically a full season-worth of games. And each guy is going against a better than average team, in most cases.
The fact that there are a disproportionate number of playoff games also heightens the competitiveness factor.
We don't know how often they were guarding one another, but for sure they were their teams' best G when they played.

[jbrocato23]

Did someone just go in and take their vote off everyone but their 5 favorite players? Did you get the original count when 12 people had voted, Mike? This is the kind of abuse that anonymous voting in this manner can have - at this point someone can just go in and basically highlight his opinion of the top 5 and we live with it. That's why I think we should resolve (at the very least) the top 10 or 20 one by one in order where each person gets a vote after debate and the vote is cast in the replies rather than anonymously. Or if we want to stick with anonymous votes, we shouldn't be able to see each other's votes.

[bchaikin]

I'm not sure this is a fair argument.

of course it is - on the one hand you are saying neil johnston should not even be considered as an all-time great (top 25) because his team did not get to the playoffs much, this despite his numerous individual accolades (multiple all-nba 1st team nominations, great scoring and great shooting for the time), and then try to "downplay" his nba title by saying he needed another star (arizin) on the team, and say...

and only succeeded when he took a backseat in scoring.

yet chamberlain doesn't win a title until age 30 and also with better teammates, and when he also takes a backseat in scoring, but he gets an excuse because of russell? what sense does that make?...

And winning a title is not the same as having success.

let me get this straight - in one breath you say this, yet in the very next breath say...

but they would usually lose to a team with arguably the best player of all time

russell's stats are dwarfed by those of chamberlain, chamberlain was all-nba 1st team 7 times, russell just 3 times. yet you are calling russell the greatest of all time? why - if "winning a title is not the same as success?"...

The point is, we can't just look at Johnston's basic stats and say he should be a top 25 player.

of course we can - this is a stats analysis group, is it not?...

But the difference between Wilt and Johnston (besides huge gaps in numbers/accolades/longevity,etc.)

yes, when you compare anyone to wilt the gap is going to look big - he is not just a top 25 player, but a top 3-4 player in league history...

but how about comparing neil johnston to bob pettit, a player included in this top 25 voting list, and a player whom many would consider as top 25 in league history...

from 58-59 to 63-64 (six years), pettit's best scoring seasons, he scored 28.4 pts/g when the league average team scored 114.6 pts/g. so pettit was scoring 25% of all points in a game during his peak years, and scored the 2nd most total points in the league during that time (next to wilt)...

from 52-53 to 57-58 (six years), neil johnston was scoring 22.3 pts/g when the league average team scored 92.8 pts/g. that's 24% of all points in a game in his peak years (best of any player at that time), and he did in fact score the most points of all nba players these 6 years...

pettit was 3rd in total rebounds in his 6 year stretch, 2nd in FTA, and among the top 10 in overall shooting. johnston was 2nd in total rebounds in his 6 year stretch, 1st in FTAs, and was the best in overall shooting...

so while johnston may not stack up to chamberlain (few do), he most certainly equates statistically to - if not better than - pettit, when looking at peak value...

No one is saying Johnston isn't* a great player

in the summer of 1958, when basketball fans were sitting around debating who were the all-time greats of the nba (all 9 years of it), johnston was 4th in total points scored, 4th in total rebounds, and 3rd in FTM (playing 2 seasons less than dolph schayes), and those that saw him play routinely named him to the all-nba team...

at that time he was considered one of the league's all-time greats. if during your career you are considered an all-time great, then you should certainly, at least, be in the discussion for top 25 in league history...

I just happen to doubt that he is a top 25 of all time.

i'm not saying that he is top 25, but i am saying he absolutely deserves consideration - at least for peak value - considering that during his playing days he was one of the very best...

I'm guessing none of us have seen him play.

that's why the stats are key...

For all we know he played crap defense or turned the ball over constantly.

again a poor attempt to "downplay" his excellent stats - and those individuals who did see him play at the time that voted him to the all-nba team - repeatedly...

for the 6 year stretch (52-53 to 57-58) where he played 92% of his career minutes, he lead the league in minutes played, points scored, FGM, overall shooting, and was 2nd in FTM and rebounds. that's dominant...

...it seems reasonable to conclude that he wasn't THAT good.

are there any other players that made all-nba 1st team fours years in a row that you also insist aren't THAT good? or just neil johnston?...