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

[schtevie]

Mike, apparently I have not made my point sufficiently clear. There is a hard budget constraint for performance that must be respected in apportioning credits and debits. Period. Whatever a team's rating (be it on offense, defense, or net) the sum of individual contributions must equal this rating. Noting that certain players were ultimately voted into the Hall of Fame doesn't give a free pass to ignore the arithmetic.

And even though we are discussing the pre-modern, statistical world of pre-1974, we can still make some pretty definitive statements about team offense and defense. And this is because we have enough information to estimate possessions with sufficient precision. Consider 1969, the last year of the Russell dynasty. (We could consider any year, and the basic story would be the same.) We see that the Cs scored, 111.0 ppg, compared to the league average of 112.3, making theirs tenth best out of a 14 teams. It terms of points allowed, it was 105.4, second best in the league. But what was their strength on a per possession basis, that is abstracting from pace? This is what we care about.

Well, we don't know super-precisely, because no stats were kept for offensive rebounds or turnovers. However, in the formula for possessions, these two terms are relatively small (compared to field goal attempts and the fraction of free throw attempts representing possessions) and offsetting, such that if we use estimates informed by the not-so-far-off 1973-74 season, we cannot be very far off.

When I do this I calculate the net of (TO - 1.07*OR) to be about 5% of (FGA + 0.4*FTA) for the league average (the ratio equalling 0.049) and the range between best and worst isn't so large, -0.027 to +.025. Call this 0.050 +/- 0.025, and we can apply these factors to the 1969 numbers, confident that we cannot be very far off the true marks.

What we get, first applying 0.050 throughout, is that the league PPP equals 0.946, the Cs offensive PPP equals 0.924 and is still ranked tenth but that the defense rises to first best with a PPP allowed of 0.878. Alternatively, if one takes the correct view that good teams tend to turn the ball over less and get more offensive rebounds, one might prefer to apply the low-range factor of 0.025 (0.050 - 0.025) to the Celtics' 1969 numbers. This has the effect of making its offense that year strictly average (0.947) and its defense a bit worse (0.899) but still ranked number one. In either case, the net rating is about the same, the Celtics were about 0.047 or 0.048 points superior to their competition per 100 possessions.

So, this digression completed, what is the story one wishes to tell? Or more to the point, what is the story that one is able to tell? The 1969 Celtics, in the last year of the Russell dynasty, had four future HORers on its roster. So what? These plus the "role players" yielded a strictly mediocre offense and a pretty darn good, but not historically exceptional defense. And if we believe that Bill Russell was all that and a bag of chips on D (and he played over 42 minutes per game) this simply doesn't leave much, or anything at all, in the way of net positive to apportion to the sum of all players not named Russell. (Indeed it is not implausible, given what we know about the greatest 34 year old defensive players of the xRAPM era, that the total defensive contributions of his supporting cast could have been negative.)

And echoing my previous post, if one accepts the argument that Bill Russell's specialized role on offense (rebounder and facilitator primarily) left him with no particularly net effect, the consequence is that all other players were, on net, strictly average offensively.

[jbrocato23]

Mike,

I'd like to write in Ben Wallace as one of my votes for this round.

[Mike G]

Ben Wallace has one vote, thanks.
As such, he outranks anyone in this round who does not receive a vote; and he'll be included in the next round -- unless he finishes in the top 25 of this round, in which case he is exempted from the next round.
If he doesn't make the cut, you'll be charged with a timeout

[jbrocato23]

Ben Wallace has one vote, thanks.
As such, he outranks anyone in this round who does not receive a vote; and he'll be included in the next round -- unless he finishes in the top 25 of this round, in which case he is exempted from the next round.
If he doesn't make the cut, you'll be charged with a timeout

Fair enough. I may write something up on BW if I get the chance, he's def an odd case.

I'm a little surprised more people aren't participating in this. So far the only people to have voted this round are me and (i assume) you. I'm not sure if it's a lack of interest or just that people are generally unsure of how to rank some of the players at this point, but frankly, only having 15 votes in the first round seems pretty low too. And it seems to be just 4-5 of us actually debating/discussing.

[Bobbofitos]

Ben Wallace has one vote, thanks.
As such, he outranks anyone in this round who does not receive a vote; and he'll be included in the next round -- unless he finishes in the top 25 of this round, in which case he is exempted from the next round.
If he doesn't make the cut, you'll be charged with a timeout

Fair enough. I may write something up on BW if I get the chance, he's def an odd case.

I'm a little surprised more people aren't participating in this. So far the only people to have voted this round are me and (i assume) you. I'm not sure if it's a lack of interest or just that people are generally unsure of how to rank some of the players at this point, but frankly, only having 15 votes in the first round seems pretty low too. And it seems to be just 4-5 of us actually debating/discussing.

It's because this format is bizarre. We vote 25 times? I voted in the first go-round, but I'm not sure I added up to 25. It was just a mess of clicking buttons.

[Bobbofitos]

I'll write in Ben Wallace, too.

[Mike G]

Bobbo, I think you have 5 more votes, since there are 69 total. With the Wallace write-in, you'd have 4 more. But it doesn't matter how many votes you submit.

The idea is that a large number of historic players have to be given an opportunity to be voted to the level where people want them. So we have to deal with long lists of nominees.

We could vote for just 10 of 50, and then we'd see the same 'other' 40 nominees again and again.
We could vote for 10 to 'exclude', but then we'd be doing very little to re-sort the names.

I suggest going thru the list and checking off your most obvious ones.
Go thru it a 2nd time and fill out your ballot as much as you like.

As long as everyone is voting 25 times, the vote count should appear as a multiple of 25.
If you vote too many times, a message box will tell you that, and you'd have to uncheck someone to vote for someone else.
Even doing 25 votes at a time, it will be a while to reach 100. But what else have we to do that's better than debating Nance vs Wilkins, etc.?

Hopefully people will notice that the poll has changed, that there's ongoing debate, that it changes on Tuesdays...
We won't get much response here unless people think it's fun. So far, the debates have been pretty good, I think. Enlightening, even -- in facts and conjectures and how others think.

[fpliii]

Hello, I'd like to write in the following three in addition to my votes:

• Ben Wallace
• Nate Thurmond
• Dikembe Mutombo

I might remove one other player to clear room for Willis Reed, George Gervin, or Bob McAdoo, but I'm not sure who yet (or whether I definitely will do so).

EDIT: Removed Manu, I will replace him with McAdoo. I still have to decide on the other two.

[schtevie]

fpliii anticipates what I was going to add. As goes Ben, so goes Dikembe. Any poll list of all-time NBA greats must include Mutombo. If you look at his post-rookie season, fake xRAPM numbers, his average rank was 3.875!

What other defensive superstars might be similarly disrespected here?

[Mike G]

The list I'm working from includes 685 players, and your write-ins could be anyone. Nate is #97 on my list, Deke is 102, Ben is 143 -- he had 7 seasons at over 2400 minutes, which you might call "full time player" status. Others have had twice as much prime time.

Some all-D Team leaders not yet seen in the selections: Bobby Jones (11), DJ (9) ...
8 - Bowen, M Cooper, Rodman, Van Lier
6 - Blaylock, Buse, DeBusschere, Mutombo, A Robertson, Sloan, B Wallace
5 - Chaney, Cheeks, Dumars, Eaton, Moncrief, Roundfield, P Silas, Thurmond (since 1969)

Some of these were also brilliant on offense, and some were a drag. You see here players near the top and the bottom in shooting%. Rodman was at both ends of that spectrum.

[Need To Argue]

I am participating because I love this stuff. I may disagree with how we value a player, but I am definitely into this. Guys in my top twenty-five haven't made the first seventy-five choices. Guys like Unseld, Reed and Thurmond get underrated too easily. How is Dwight already an option? How is Shaq unanimous and Mikan ignored when they are the same player? Bob Pettit is not second string either. Fun stuff though

[Mike G]

Welcome aboard, NtA. We're all here voluntarily.
Dwight and Willis have just about the same size career right now. In regular seasons, DW has played 47 more games, has 2000 more minutes, 550 more points, 600 more rebounds.
http://bkref.com/tiny/6jkid

Most of the 'advanced' numbers on that page are just for Willis Reed's last few games, in 1973-74.

Reed was in 17 more playoff games, 270 more minutes, 157 more points, etc.
Some of their totals and rates are amazingly similar. Hopefully Dwight's career does not wind down quite so abruptly.

Mikan dominated, but not as long as Shaq did. That's the big distinction that's hard to overlook.
At age 29, Shaq was just about midway in his career, and George was hanging up the shoes.

[jbrocato23]

fpliii anticipates what I was going to add. As goes Ben, so goes Dikembe. Any poll list of all-time NBA greats must include Mutombo. If you look at his post-rookie season, fake xRAPM numbers, his average rank was 3.875!

What other defensive superstars might be similarly disrespected here?

I very nearly wrote in Dikembe as well. Also, I forgot about Rodman, I might have considered him, but he is prob just outside my top 50. @schtevie: I agree with your opinion that defense is hugely underrated in popular player evaluation, but I also think xRAPM pretty clearly overrates big players on defense, especially ones who block shots. And I'm very sure this is a result of J.E.'s box score metric that he uses as (part of) the prior. Some examples: Kevin Durant is a +2.3 on D this year and Kevin Love is a +2.1. Ben Wallace as +9.8 (!!) in 2004. And perhaps the most alarming, Shawn Bradley at +7.5 in '01. In my opinion VERY FEW if any have ever reached +7 in a single season on defense. +4 seems to me to be an extremely elite number for defense and yet there seem to be quite a few every year according to xRAPM. If you look at the prior informed RAPM numbers without any box score prior, or if you look at, say IPV, another RAPM based model, the very best defensive players usually hover around the +4 mark or a bit better.

All that said, defensive specialists are certainly underrated and, imo, deserve more mention/credit. Most fans will consider a high positive offense/slight negative defense player a superstar but a slight negative offense/high positive defense player an expendable role player.

[bchaikin]

Mikan dominated, but not as long as Shaq did. That's the big distinction that's hard to overlook. At age 29, Shaq was just about midway in his career, and George was hanging up the shoes.

mikan's last season in the nba (55-56) he started at the age of 31 (i am using 11/1 as the date of a start of a season). that year only 9 of the 92 players in the league entered the season age 31 or older (that's less than 1 out of every 10 players)...

shaq was age 31 at the start of the 03-04 season (on 11/1). that year 90 of the 442 players in the league started the season age 31 or older (that's 1 out of every 5 players)...

from 51-52 to 55-56, mikan was the ages of 27-31 (at the start of the seasons). those 5 seasons only 13% of all players in the league started a season age 30 or older, i.e. just 1 out of every 7-8 players...

from 99-00 to 03-04, when shaq was the ages of 27-31 (at the start of the seasons), 30% of all players in the league started a season age 30 or older. that's almost 1 out of every 3 players...

from 46-47 to 55-56 (10 years) when mikan (ages 22-31) played in the baa, nbl, and nba, he scored 22% more points than any other single player, and 803 different players played in the 3 leagues during that time. this not to mention he did not play in one of those years (54-55). his teams won 7 titles (4 nba titles)...

from 94-95 to 03-04, shaq scored the 2nd most total points (karl malone had the most) of all 1052 players that played in the league during that time. his teams won 3 titles...

the bottom line is that from 51-52 to 59-60 only 15% of all minutes played in the regular season were played by players in their 30s (at the start of a season). but from 91-92 to 99-00 over 28% was played by players age 30+...

so if you are going to use longevity as one criteria in a poll for the greatest nba players across eras, you are already skewing your results to more recent players...

[jbrocato23]

from 46-47 to 55-56 (10 years) when mikan (ages 22-31) played in the baa, nbl, and nba, he scored 22% more points than any other single player, and 803 different players played in the 3 leagues during that time. this not to mention he did not play in one of those years (54-55). his teams won 7 titles (4 nba titles)...

from 94-95 to 03-04, shaq scored the 2nd most total points (karl malone had the most) of all 1052 players that played in the league during that time. his teams won 3 titles...

the bottom line is that from 51-52 to 59-60 only 15% of all minutes played in the regular season were played by players in their 30s (at the start of a season). but from 91-92 to 99-00 over 28% was played by players age 30+...

so if you are going to use longevity as one criteria in a poll for the greatest nba players across eras, you are already skewing your results to more recent players...

It all depends on what you consider "greatest" to mean. Is there any doubt Shaq would have absolutely dominated in Mikan's place, in an era where black players were as scarce as people over 6'8" in the league(s)? Or that in their team matchups, is there any doubt that Shaq would embarrass Mikan? Yes, I understand Mikan was the best of his era, and that he is immensely important and influential to the evolution of the game. But at some point you have to consider portability, and Mikan would probably only dominate in his specific era while Shaq would be dominant in literally every era.