100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)

[AcrossTheCourt]

Here's my promised Dantley article by the way. I wrote it a while ago after this discussion. He had a fascinating career, like being a rookie of the year traded after his rookie season, and he was apparently hated by many of his teammates and coaches. They didn't like playing with him.

[DickMays]

In my opinion, one should take the best ten consecutive years of a players career to evaluate the all time top players. I think the reasoning should be obvious.

[Mike G]

Because 10 years is the maximum attention span of an average fan?

[Statman]

In my opinion, one should take the best ten consecutive years of a players career to evaluate the all time top players. I think the reasoning should be obvious.

Why do the seasons need to be consecutive?

Now that I've gotten my version of NBA WAR worked out - I plan on doing the entire NBA/ABA(weighted) history, and ranking players based on best season, best 2 seasons combined, best 3, etc - probably all the way until 10 - then career. Do it for regular season, do it for playoffs, and do it for combined regular season & playoffs.

I think seeing the span of rankings (especially for the combined playoff & reg seasons) 1-10 seasons and career will help with ranking players and trying to break close ties.

[Mike G]

Is this 'best 3 year span', etc., supposed to feel good for those who feel such a duration fits their own attention span? Or what?

If we happen to be cursed with an indefinite attention span, how does this better our understanding of a player's career?
Suppose Reggie Miller won a playoff game in his 17th season. Does this somehow "not count", according to someone? Does it "count less" than it would if it happened in his prime? Or contiguous with his best 7 seasons?

Does anyone keep a mental "card" for a player, such that additional games and information just do not fit on the card? Or on the screen?

Super-sized careers are bigger, thus greater. However you proportion longevity, it's still better than a career that ended earlier.

[MW00]

Here's my promised Dantley article by the way. I wrote it a while ago after this discussion. He had a fascinating career, like being a rookie of the year traded after his rookie season, and he was apparently hated by many of his teammates and coaches. They didn't like playing with him.

I seem to recall that Dumars and Salley were upset at the trading of Dantley. That "The Teacher" nickname was a real thing, so whilst there may be teammates who didn't like him (not sure that I've heard of this except maybe Isiah, now on the coaches side there's Layden of course, though Wooten and Phelps both speak very highly of him, but I haven't heard as much from players), there were also those who did.

With regard to with and without Dantley in '89 it should probably be pointed out that Detroit were on a winning streak when Dantley was traded (something like 8 games including a win over the Lakers), so it is certainly worth considering that perhaps the change that improved Detroit in the latter part of the season was not the replacement of Dantley with Aguirre. That might fit more with the offense improving (especially as Aguirre was having a major down year, by the metrics, in Dallas, due to a major slip in ts% and an increase in turnovers). Dantley may have been an imperfect fit, but I think there are other things in play as to why Detroit got better, though it's hard to know exactly what.

Also with regard to Dantley's arrival in Detroit, didn't the Pistons slow down significantly at that point (and Isiah partially as a result of this become a lot less impressive over the years statistically). In this context i.e. from a high paced offensive orientated team with Isiah being a perpetual All-NBA player, to a slower more defensively oriented team with players who needed low usage rates to score reasonably efficiently (Rodman, Salley and, initially, Dumars) playing more minutes, arguably Dantley's impact is in sustaining an offensive rating that perhaps would otherwise have fell several points with Tripucka in his place. Now perhaps you could argue Danley made Isiah worse. That's worth considering (though Isiah's performance didn't really change from '89 to '90).

Just my 2 cents.

[MW00]

Is this 'best 3 year span', etc., supposed to feel good for those who feel such a duration fits their own attention span? Or what?

If we happen to be cursed with an indefinite attention span, how does this better our understanding of a player's career?
Suppose Reggie Miller won a playoff game in his 17th season. Does this somehow "not count", according to someone? Does it "count less" than it would if it happened in his prime? Or contiguous with his best 7 seasons?

Does anyone keep a mental "card" for a player, such that additional games and information just do not fit on the card? Or on the screen?

Super-sized careers are bigger, thus greater. However you proportion longevity, it's still better than a career that ended earlier.

I certainly sympathize for the most part with this view. Being really good for longer than ten years a la Karl Malone, John Stockton, Jabbar, Parish etc should carry significant value, if they were adding significant value to their teams. Then again I would also sympathize with those who critize measures based largely on total number accumulation, on the basis that a 1ppg scorer for 100 years is not the same as having a 50ppg scorer for 2. The further above average you are, the more above average your team gets each minute you're on the floor, the better your championship hopes are.

Is a fairer solution something along the lines of wins above (or performance above) all star measures. Something that you can accumulate by playing longer but requiring the maintainance of elite performance. You could have several thresholds e.g. performance above ... : all-star, star, superstar . Not subtracting for being below, but only counting high added value.

[D-rell]

I've now updated through the 2012-13 season (and postseason), and compared my current player rankings with those of the OP -- D-rell
Players who were active last year.
In 3 groupings: Those more favored by D-rell; those ranked higher by me; and more that are in my top 100 and not in D-rell's

Code: Select all

D-r  mg              D-r  mg                 mg
63  105   Bosh        9    8   Lebron        43   Gasol
46   75   Durant     23   19   Nowitzki      
43   62   Paul       95   86   Amare         54   Ginobili
_7   12   Kobe       91   78   Carmelo       57   Billups
54   64   Allen      37   28   Kidd          70   Boozer
51   58   Nash       17   11   Garnett       72   Marion 
78   85   Hill       73   59   Parker        82   Odom
_5    6   Duncan     53   30   Pierce        87   Brand
25   24   Wade       69   40   McGrady         
39   49   Howard     92   48   Carter          

They're ordered by the difference of the square roots of the ranks.

I'd like to compare Bosh and Gasol (the elder). Here's a quick and dirty:
http://bkref.com/tiny/w4MHR
Gasol looks better in more categories; both PER and WS/48 prefer him; and he's played 16% more minutes.
In playoffs, Gasol's edge is even greater, and in 66% more minutes!

EDIT: Didn't see Dwight Howard at first; he's now inserted, out of order, in the leftmost list.

I agree, as far as raw potential Pau Gasol is ranked higher than Bosh (102th, 113th), unfortunately neither has cracked the top 100 all-time in raw ability. However Gasol is likely to climb into the top ranks at the conclusion of this season if he stays healthy. At the conclusion of '12-'13 Season Gasol, from variety of metrics, peer review & expert opinion (awards and etc.), had a CPE of 3.58 (111th) compared to Bosh's CPE of 3.39 (113th). Of course, Bosh being on a championship team could see an increase in Playoff WS/48 and an NBA title which could likely boost his CPE within the top 100. Pau Gasol > Chris Bosh.

[bchaikin]

I also saw guys like Adrian Dantley high. Box score stat guys can be really deceiving... some guys actually have limited impact despite the pretty numbers...

despite his rather incredible combination of usage and efficiency, Dantley didn't really seem to make his teams play better.

it's possible that Dantley's incredible combo of efficiency and usage overstated his true offensive impact.

The only conclusion you can draw is that Dantley's offensive impact was not as great as his combination of efficiency and usage would have you believe.

Although Dantley's offensive efficiency is high, he lowers or has no effect on his team's offensive efficiency... He has nice stats and all, but the effect on the team isn't a significant net positive...

I'm not saying Dantley is definitely a negative player, but I really don't think he has much of a positive impact... He was an empty stats, isolation scorer...

you don't even need advanced metrics to claim that Dantley wasn't "helping" his teams (simple win total suffices for this exercise)...

for all the dantley bashers, there are very few players whose offensive stats compare to those of his. here are the stats of adrian dantley and kevin durant ages 23-25:

--G--min/g-ScFG%-eFG%-pts/g-pts/40-offreb/40-to/40-ast/40--player
190----38---.618---.554---28.8---30.0------0.6------3.7----4.5----durant
229----41---.614---.568---29.7---29.3------2.6------3.5----3.6----dantley

two stat lines of two great offensive players at a similar age range don't get much closer than this...

so do all the negative things said about dantley also pertain to durant? if so/not, why?...

[Bobbofitos]

bchai,

that's an argument that has been hashed out a multitude of times. I suggest re-reading the Dantley threads.

[bchaikin]

that's an argument that has been hashed out a multitude of times. I suggest re-reading the Dantley threads.

prior to posting i searched on "dantley durant" and did not find any discussion about comparing these two specifically, not once least of all a multitude of times. just lots of all-time lists...

i suggest if you care to comment to do so. it not there are probably others who will, and then you needn't be a part of the discussion, especially if hashing is involved...

[Bobbofitos]

that's an argument that has been hashed out a multitude of times. I suggest re-reading the Dantley threads.

prior to posting i searched on "dantley durant" and did not find any discussion about comparing these two specifically, not once least of all a multitude of times. just lots of all-time lists...

i suggest if you care to comment to do so. it not there are probably others who will, and then you needn't be a part of the discussion, especially if hashing is involved...

It was this very thread where Neil Paine wrote extensively about Dantley...

I think the reason Durant and Dantley have never been compared is that Durant is leading a contender/possibly best team in the league, whereas Dantley ~never played for good teams. Durant's impact is more obvious.

They also have a playing style that is not similar at all; even if some box score stats are similar, the way these are achieved are not.

[Mike G]

Taking the 5 best seasons for each player, notice that Durant has higher Usg%, while Dantley may have higher ORtg.
If we multiply these numbers -- usage * efficiency -- their seasons rank like this:

Code: Select all

O*U    Player   Season  Usg%   ORtg
39.6   Durant    2014   31.9   124
37.8   Durant    2010   32.0   118
36.4   Durant    2013   29.8   122
36.3   Dantley   1986   30.0   121
35.7   Durant    2012   31.3   114
35.5   Dantley   1984   28.2   126
35.2   Durant    2011   30.6   115
33.8   Dantley   1982   27.9   121
33.5   Dantley   1981   28.4   118
33.1   Dantley   1980   27.8   119

We might also consider standardizing their ORtg relative to that of the league in each season in the sample.
Rather than Usg*ORtg/100, take Usg*ORtg/LeagueORtg

Code: Select all

k2     Player  Season  USG%   ORtg  LgOR
37.4   Durant   2014   31.9   124   105.7
35.1   Durant   2010   32.0   118   107.6
34.4   Durant   2013   29.8   122   105.8
34.1   Durant   2012   31.3   114   104.6
33.9   Dantley  1986   30.0   121   107.2
33.0   Dantley  1984   28.2   126   107.6
32.8   Durant   2011   30.6   115   107.3
31.8   Dantley  1981   28.4   118   105.5
31.6   Dantley  1982   27.9   121   106.9
31.4   Dantley  1980   27.8   119   105.3

That didn't help AD's case.
Suppose we think ORtg is more important than Usg%. We can change it to Usg*(ORtg/LgO)^2

Code: Select all

k3     Player   Season  Usg%   ORtg  LgOR
43.9   Durant    2014   31.9   124   105.7
39.6   Durant    2013   29.8   122   105.8
38.7   Dantley   1984   28.2   126   107.6
38.5   Durant    2010   32.0   118   107.6
38.2   Dantley   1986   30.0   121   107.2
37.2   Durant    2012   31.3   114   104.6
35.7   Dantley   1982   27.9   121   106.9
35.5   Dantley   1981   28.4   118   105.5
35.5   Dantley   1980   27.8   119   105.3
35.1   Durant    2011   30.6   115   107.3

This year, Durant has fairly transcended the comparison. He could of course relax a bit in the 2nd half.

[bchaikin]

It was this very thread where Neil Paine wrote extensively about Dantley...

correct - and did he or did he not say: I'm not above changing my opinion on this... So I'm beginning to re- re-think my position on Dantley...

I think the reason Durant and Dantley have never been compared...

so i'm guessing here by multitude you really meant zero, huh?...

is that Durant is leading a contender/possibly best team in the league, whereas Dantley ~never played for good teams.

in 86-87 and 87-88 dantley was the leading per game scorer on detroit pistons teams that won 50+ games each year. so much for ~never...

in 08-09 durant was the leading scorer (25.3 pts/g) on a 23-59 okc team. was he not very good then only because the team wasn't very good?...

Durant's impact is more obvious.

based on what?...

i say he is clearly a better defender than dantley was, but that their offensive impact was virtually the same in this age range...

They also have a playing style that is not similar at all;

and the relevance of this is?...

even if some box score stats are similar, the way these are achieved are not.

and the relevance of this is?

are you of the opinion that you can't have a great player on a losing team? what do you think anthony davis is doing this season for the 18-25 new orleans pelicans? how good is he?

[Bobbofitos]

of course you can be a great player on a not great team. KG comes to mind through his timerpup years. Not sure what that has to do with anything; you asked why they (Durant and Dantley) have never been compared, and that's the simplest explanation.

the reason playing style matters is that generally what allows for comparisons. yes, you can do things like versatility indexes ala Mike w/ career totals, (and those, especially single season comparisons, are interesting) but that doesn't necessarily tell the story. For Durant, he's on another level as far as outside shooting. Dantley was never considered a sharp shooter, at least in the new age vein. it would be great to have heat maps like we do now for older players; I very much doubt they'd look alike.

Shaq scored a lot of points. He also was very efficient. Do you think a Shaq/KD comparison is relevant or even noteworthy? I don't. Neither should Dantley.