100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)

[D-rell]

http://matthewmurphy1.wordpress.com/201 ... a-players/

[knarsu3]

How are your ratings calculated? Tough to make any sort of comments on these without having some idea of what went into the calculations.

[AcrossTheCourt]

Given how often Wilt is on top, I assume box score stats are hugely important. There's also very little information about basketball back then, so it's hard to use anything else. Turnovers weren't even tracked, which is crazy.

I also saw guys like Adrian Dantley high. Box score stat guys can be really deceiving. We just had a mini-revolution with +/-, where the point was guys can have impact beyond the limited box score and some guys actually have limited impact despite the pretty numbers. I don't know if there's any of that here.

And it's so hard to compare across eras because we have different amounts of information available.

[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.

what specifically are you trying to say about dantley here?...

[D-rell]

How are your ratings calculated? Tough to make any sort of comments on these without having some idea of what went into the calculations.

For player raw ratings, I used what I label an adjusted PER to establish a base for rating each players Offensive Ability. I find the original PER lacking as a defensive metric, so I removed the defensive computations from the formula. I later take that adj PER and multiply it by TS%. I also utilize Offensive/Defensive WS, WS/48 * MVP Shares, All Defensive team selections: (1) = 1st team, (.5) = 2nd team, HOF factor. I researched hundreds of SI, and other periodicals and articles from the NBA's inception to reexamine player performance. For example, although Bob Cousy, has one of the highest DWS for a PG in the 50s, once I received enough sources stating that he was somewhat poor defensively, I deducted enough points from his defensive ability to reflect sub-par ratings in my reference base (compiled from the defensive data of other players).

[Mike G]

This is great to see. There are lots of tools only recently available, which may be incorporated into such lists.
I do these alltime rankings without regard to awards and accolades. Just stats, heavy on playoffs.

Here are some players not in your top 100 but in my top 75. Their shortcomings may include lack of titles or awards:

Code: Select all

46  Pau Gasol
48  Shawn Kemp
53  Reggie Miller
55  Chauncey Billups
58  Manu Ginobili
63  Rasheed Wallace
65  Terry Cummings
68  Larry Nance
69  Vlade Divac
71  Kevin Johnson
74  Walt Bellamy
75  Shawn Marion

Some others that I've got ranked significantly higher (showing your rank, my rank) :

Code: Select all

Chris Webber     86  37
Karl Malone      11   5
Dan Issel        89  47
Vince Carter     92  49
Hakeem Olajuwon  13  7
Paul Pierce      53  30
Bob Lanier       67  38
Tracy McGrady    69  40
Scottie Pippen   34  20
John Stockton    40  24
Robert Parish    57  36
Jack Sikma      100  64
Kevin Garnett    17  11
Clyde Drexler    38  25

Mostly moderns and bigs.

Guys you've got ranked a lot higher:

Code: Select all

Slater Martin    72  459
Bill Sharman     47  180
Willis Reed      36  122
Tiny Archibald   74  236
Connie Hawkins   60  191
Kevin Durant     46  127
Hal Greer        49  131
Gus Johnson      96  252
Spencer Haywood  56  143
Kobe Bryant       7   16
Paul Arizin      48  109
Mel Daniels      64  144
Chris Bosh       63  141
Ed Macauley      68  152
JoJo White       80  178
Sidney Moncrief  77  168
George Yardley   82  169
Lenny Wilkens    61  124
Dennis Rodman    93  188
Dave Bing        88  175
George Gervin    30   59

Forgot to mention, I haven't updated thru this season. But I doubt Kobe or Bosh or Durant will have moved that much higher.
You're clearly including ABA numbers. Are they given just as much weight as NBA? For awards, even?

[Neil Paine]

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.

what specifically are you trying to say about dantley here?...

I don't want to speak for AcrossTheCourt here, but I think he's alluding to the old BackPicks research showing that, despite his rather incredible combination of usage and efficiency, Dantley didn't really seem to make his teams play better. Some of that is certainly defense, where Dantley's rep was never great, but it's also a matter of his teams' offenses playing below what you'd expect from a guy with his numbers.

From 1980-86, Dantley had an insane run where he had an individual offensive rating of 120.6 (20 points above the NBA average!!!) while consuming 27.3% of possessions while on the court. That kind of production is at borderline Jordan/LeBron levels (albeit with a lower usage rate), so you'd expect teams with a player like that to at least have a good offense, if not a great one. Yet over that same 1980-86 span, Dantley's Jazz teams posted a collective offensive rating 1.6 points BELOW the league average.

How is that possible? Either Dantley's teammates were the worst collection of offensive talent ever assembled, or maybe, just maybe, it's possible that Dantley's incredible combo of efficiency and usage overstated his true offensive impact. Rickey Green was his most common teammate in terms of minutes -- he was hardly a horrible offensive talent (15.3 career PER, +0.2 career OASPM). Darrell Griffith was probably below-average offensively, but not by much. Same with Ben Poquette, Allan Bristow, Thurl Bailey. Yes, he played extensively with Jeff Wilkins and Mark Eaton, a couple of bad offensive players, but that supporting cast would not be horrible enough to lower an offense with a LeBron-esque talent to well-below-average levels.

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. And that, I think, is what specifically AcrossTheCourt was trying to say about Dantley here.

[Neil Paine]

Btw, this was the BackPicks post that really opened a lot of eyes to Dantley's teams' paradoxically poor offensive performances during his prime. It also touches on some of the same issues w/r/t Wilt's impact during his statistically-dominant Warriors years.

[AcrossTheCourt]

Yes, thanks, and also Adrian Dantley changed teams a lot, and they never seemed to miss him. Detroit, for example, traded him to Dallas, and then won the title. Utah was a slightly below average team in 1986 and then traded him in the following season to Detroit for Tripucka and Kent Benson. The next season they were slightly above average. The Jazz were actually happy to kick him out: "The biggest benefit to us in the Adrian Dantley trade was addition by subtraction. We knew we had to get rid of him and we were never so happy to get rid of a guy in the history of the franchise." Addition by subtraction is an important term: it's also known as Braess' paradox. Although Dantley's offensive efficiency is high, he lowers or has no effect on his team's offensive efficiency. Basically, an individual's optimal level and a system-wide optical level are not one and the same. Dantley would, for example, hold the ball in his spot in the midrange area for a while surveying his chances at a high percentage shot and if he didn't like them, he'd just kick the ball out and let the offense suffer with a lot time now bled off the clock.

He has nice stats and all, but the effect on the team isn't a significant net positive.

So defense is partly subjective? Did you add a subjective offensive factor for stuff not found in the box score?

[bchaikin]

neil - you by chance read the comments section of that post? please do, because this:

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.

is not the only conclusion one can draw, if one understands the numbers...

his rather incredible combination of usage and efficiency... From 1980-86, Dantley had an insane run where he had an individual offensive rating of 120.6 (20 points above the NBA average!!!) while consuming 27.3% of possessions while on the court. That kind of production is at borderline Jordan/LeBron levels (albeit with a lower usage rate),

yes - 29.6 pts/g on a 61.6% ScFG%, 2.75 pts/0ptposs, over 7 seasons (79-80 to 85-86) are insanely excellent offensive numbers over a very long period of time...

How is that possible? Either Dantley's teammates were the worst collection of offensive talent ever assembled

those 7 seasons his teammates pts/0ptposs on offense was 1.80 (dantley's was 2.75, with dantley the team was at 1.95), which is less than that of ALL other teams over that 7 year period (range of 1.85 - 2.13 pts/0ptposs)...

that supporting cast would not be horrible enough to lower an offense with a LeBron-esque talent to well-below-average levels.

again - without dantley's numbers, the jazz pts/0ptposs on offense those 7 seasons was worse than all other teams over that 7 year stretch...

Dantley didn't really seem to make his teams play better

with pts/0ptposs on offense worse than the rest of the entire league over a long 7 year period sans dantley, how well do you think they would have played in terms of a W-L record without an offensive player like dantley?...

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

maybe, just maybe, the person who did this study doesn't understand - statistically - the impact of a player like dantley...

Although Dantley's offensive efficiency is high, he lowers or has no effect on his team's offensive efficiency.

let me get this straight - dantley puts up some of the best offensive numbers in terms of points scored and efficiency over a very long 7 year stretch (79-80 to 85-86) the league has ever seen, playing just 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes played but scoring 22% of their total points scored at outrageous offensive efficiency, and you say "...he lowers... his team's offensive efficiency..."?...

you're joking right? based on what statistical evidence?...

[Neil Paine]

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that it's hard to find numbers that aren't merely tautological. For example: OF COURSE his teammates posted low individual efficiency numbers during the years in question -- we already established that Dantley's efficiency numbers were quite high, and his teams' overall efficiency was below-average. By definition, that means his teammates had very low individual efficiency numbers.

The question is, were they low because Dantley's teammates sucked? Or because Dantley was boosting his own numbers at the expense of his teammates?

I'm not above changing my opinion on this, so I looked at all the guys who played with Dantley on the Jazz during that 1980-86 period. Here they are sorted by (and w/ the overall average weighted by) the geometric mean of their minutes with and w/o AD:

Code: Select all

               |-----w/ Dantley------| |----w/o Dantley------| |----Diff-----|
Player          mp      PER     OWS48   mp      PER     OWS48   PER 	OWS48
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Stockton   3425    15.4    .052    44339   22.3    .151    +6.9    +.098
Mark Eaton      9031    12.5   -.022    16138   10.0    .002    -2.5    +.024
Ron Boone       5015    10.7   -.009    27376   16.2    .066    +5.5    +.075
Karl Malone     2475    13.7   -.046    52377   24.4    .133   +10.7    +.179
Rickey Green   14123    16.8    .070     9148   12.9    .029    -3.9    -.041
Thurl Bailey    6848    14.3    .027    18025   14.3    .030    +0.0    +.002
D. Griffith    13677    15.6    .008     7726   12.8   -.006    -2.8    -.014
Danny Schayes   5489    13.4    .034    16486   13.4    .059    +0.0    +.025
John Drew       3466    19.5    .068    18362   21.0    .105    +1.5    +.037
Brad Davis      3311    13.2    .061    18991   14.9    .096    +1.6    +.035
Ben Poquette    9186    13.4    .055     6577   11.4    .033    -1.9    -.022
Rich Kelley     3730    10.0    .007    13981   16.3    .044    +6.3    +.038
Allan Bristow   4305    15.8    .051     9854   14.1    .051    -1.7    -.000
Fred Roberts    3456    13.2    .050    11247   12.4    .048    -0.8    -.002
Wayne Cooper    1420    12.2    .016    18854   13.5    .024    +1.3    +.009
Bob Hansen      3097     9.8   -.002     8007   10.0    .023    +0.3    +.025
John Gianelli   1568     9.8   -.011    12082   12.0    .041    +2.2    +.052
Mack Calvin      772    14.5    .074    20821   17.5    .100    +3.0    +.025
Pete Maravich    522    12.4   -.046    23794   18.5    .063    +6.1    +.109
Bernard King     419    11.4   -.018    28998   19.3    .082    +7.9    +.100
Billy Paultz     370     5.0   -.084    30022   16.5    .060   +11.4    +.144
Tom Boswell     1816    14.0    .066     5230   13.6    .062    -0.4    -.004
Billy McKinney  1032    11.0    .036     8157   14.0    .066    +3.1    +.029
Bill Robinzine   651    11.3   -.049    10781   15.1    .041    +3.9    +.090
James Hardy     3923    11.7    .023     1456   10.7    .001    -0.9    -.022
Terry Furlow    1718    16.0    .052     3091   16.3    .049    +0.2    -.002
Jeff Wilkins    9482    10.7   -.006      522    6.7   -.021    -3.9    -.014
J. Whitehead     328     6.2   -.067    11500   12.2    .043    +6.0    +.110
Marc Iavaroni    345     9.7    .017     8026    7.8   -.014    -1.8    -.031
John Duren      1514     5.7   -.044     1433    8.2    .001    +2.5    +.045
Mel Bennett      598     9.2   -.024     3127   11.1   -.020    +1.9    +.004
Jeff Judkins     666    11.1    .038     2755   13.4    .056    +2.3    +.018
Carey Scurry    1168    11.9   -.015     1208   16.3    .032    +4.4    +.047
F. Williams      210     5.9   -.075     6396   18.3    .065   +12.3    +.141
Carl Nicks      1938    10.9   -.020      641    9.2   -.052    -1.7    -.032
Pace Mannion     877    11.2    .002     1248    8.2   -.023    -3.0    -.025
Steve Hayes      397     5.1   -.031     1899    9.1    .024    +4.0    +.055
John Brown        24    -0.5   -.279    10084   11.8    .045   +12.3    +.324
Robert Smith      73     9.6    .046     3045   11.0    .045    +1.5    -.001
Jerry Eaves     2622    12.1    .025       63   -0.4   -.090   -12.5    -.115
Jeff Cook         17     6.8   -.122     9680   10.9    .025    +4.1    +.146
J.J. Anderson   1922    12.3    .007       48    3.9   -.146    -8.4    -.152
Bobby Cattage    337    10.5    .010      185    9.8   -.016    -0.7    -.027
Kenny Natt       223     8.7   -.027      165    5.4   -.090    -3.3    -.063
Andre Wakefield   47    -2.0   -.191      586    4.9   -.100    +6.9    +.092
Sam Worthen       22     1.9   -.074      945    8.9   -.018    +6.9    +.056
Dick Miller       19     1.4   -.188       34    4.4   -.138    +3.0    +.050
Duck Williams   1794     8.6   -.025        0    0.0    .000    -8.6    +.025
Paul Dawkins     776    11.0   -.031        0    0.0    .000   -11.0    +.031
Rickey Williams  346     9.6   -.059        0    0.0    .000    -9.6    +.059
Howard Wood      342    12.0    .032        0    0.0    .000   -12.0    -.032
Brett Vroman      93    11.8   -.018        0    0.0    .000   -11.8    +.018
Greg Deane        48     4.5   -.059        0    0.0    .000    -4.5    +.059
Carl Kilpatrick    6    22.7    .154        0    0.0    .000   -22.7    -.154
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average                                                +1.9    +.037

On average, they played better without Dantley, but that number is also heavily skewed by Stockton and Malone, who blow everything up with their massive career minute totals. If you throw them out, the averages are still +1.0 PER and +.023 OWS48 without AD, but it also bears mentioning that the majority of the guys who played the most w/ AD out of that group played better on offense with him than without him:

Code: Select all

               |-----w/ Dantley------| |----w/o Dantley------| |----Diff-----|
Player          mp      PER     OWS48   mp      PER     OWS48   PER     OWS48
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rickey Green    14123   16.8    .070    9148   12.9    .029    -3.9    -.041
D. Griffith     13677   15.6    .008    7726   12.8   -.006    -2.8    -.014
Jeff Wilkins     9482   10.7   -.006     522    6.7   -.021    -3.9    -.014
Ben Poquette     9186   13.4    .055    6577   11.4    .033    -1.9    -.022
Mark Eaton       9031   12.5   -.022   16138   10.0    .002    -2.5    +.024
Thurl Bailey     6848   14.3    .027   18025   14.3    .030    +0.0    +.002
Danny Schayes    5489   13.4    .034   16486   13.4    .059    +0.0    +.025
Ron Boone        5015   10.7   -.009   27376   16.2    .066    +5.5    +.075
Allan Bristow    4305   15.8    .051    9854   14.1    .051    -1.7    -.000
James Hardy      3923   11.7    .023    1456   10.7    .001    -0.9    -.022

So I'm beginning to re- re-think my position on Dantley. It's more complicated than either "Dantley's stats were great, therefore his teammates must suck!", or "Dantley made his teammates play worse!" Neither one of those extremes are actually true.

[AcrossTheCourt]

Isn't age a major issue? Of course, if you play with young Stockton/Malone and then leave the team they'll "somehow" look a lot better without you. This also reminds me of the Carmelo debate when people looked at how guys played with and without Carmelo.

I'm not saying Dantley is definitely a negative player, but I really don't think he has much of a positive impact.

Part of the issue here is that we have an inclination to rewrite history based on stats. Dantley was not a respected player in his time and kept getting traded for a reason. He was an empty stats, isolation scorer, and people didn't seem to want to play with him. But years after people forgot about this and a new generation comes up, we go back and see these crazy efficient scoring seasons and assume this guy was a huge offensive force. Yet we should investigate the criticisms made about the player first to see what was really going on. It's like the Wilt/Russell debate. For a while, guys like Hollinger thought Russell was overrated because he didn't score well, but once people looked at the Celtics' defensive efficiency and how it matched up with Russell's career they began to consider Russell as an amazing defensive force.

I decided to look at how his teams did when he was in the game versus when he was out of the game:

1983 (PER of 24.4, 66.6 TS%, missed 60 games):
Without Dantley:
-3.7 point diff, -3.7 SRS
With Dantley:
-5.7 point diff, -5.7 SRS

(Yes, the SOS was 0 for both, and yes, I checked it.)

1985 (PER of 22, 61 TS%, missed 27 games):
Without Dantley:
-3.2 point diff, -3.1 SRS
With Dantley:
1.4 point diff, 1.0 SRS

1988 (PER of 19.9, 62 TS%, missed 13 games):
Without Dantley:
6.8 point diff, 7.4 SRS, 108.6 off eff, 101.5 def eff
With Dantley:
4.9 point diff, 5.1 SRS, 107.9 off eff, 106.0 def eff

I'd like to look at these seasons closer to see if anyone was injured for key stretches, but that's only one out of three seasons where the team got worse without Dantley. Only 1988 had full gamelogs for computing off/def efficiency. For that season, the offense barely got worse while the defense improved by a huge amount. But the 1983 numbers are incriminating. How does such a terrible team get worse when their 66 TS% star doesn't play?

I'll look at how his teams did before/after the trade later.

[jbrocato23]

One interesting but obviously not conclusive part of the Dantley story:

32-13 (.711) '89 Pistons replace Dantley (.613 TS% 23% USG) with Aguirre (.551 TS% 23% USG) via trade.

End the regular season 31-6 (.838), win the title losing only 2 games (both to Jordan's Bulls) in the playoffs, so 47-8 (.855) with Aguirre.

It's worth noting that Dumars missed 13 games with Dantley still on the team and none with Aguirre.

The previous two seasons Detroit won 54 (and lost in the finals to Magic's Lakers), and 52 (and lost in the ECF to Bird's Celtics) with Dantley and substantially the same roster. The following season they win 59 games and another title.

Obviously lots of explanations possible here, but interesting nonetheless.

[Mike G]

As in my previous post, I'm making reference to this list:

Top 100 NBA players Career Portfolio EVAL (CPE)

a.) Ranking system that multiplies player raw ratings by a career % factor (inclduing AWARDS shares, AS appearances, HOF factor, ect.) to measure career results with raw potential.

It appears about 2/3 of the way down in the OP's link.

A number of players whose rankings are not notably different from mine :

Code: Select all

Michael Jordan     1   1       Dave Cowens      41   45
Kareem AbdulJabbar 2   2       George Mikan     42   42
Wilt Chamberlain   3   3       Walt Frazier     45   50
Shaquille O'Neal   4   4       Bob McAdoo       55   56
LeBron James       9   10      Alonzo Mourning  62   60
Larry Bird        10   9       Neil Johnston    65   70
Julius Erving     12   13      Jerry Lucas      66   72
David Robinson    16   15      Tony Parker      73   73
Bob Pettit        20   21      Grant Hill       78   80
Dwyane Wade       25   27      Adrian Dantley   81   85
Patrick Ewing     26   23      Wes Unseld       84   81
Artis Gilmore     31   34      Dennis Johnson   90   96
Elvin Hayes       32   32      Carmelo Anthony  91   98
Dolph Schayes     33   31      Amare Stoudamire 95   84

Players from all eras are represented, as are all positions.
Once I've updated, LeBron may well have passed Bird, or more.

[Mike G]

The 1983 Jazz were 9-14 (.391) when Dantley went down for the season; finishing 30-52, they were 21-38 (.356) without him. Just a couple of wins less than that .391 pace.

Dean Oliver used to say certain players will drag a team toward mediocrity. If it's a lousy team, that's good. If it's a team full of good players, it's not good.

It's worth noting that Dumars missed 13 games with Dantley still on the team and none with Aguirre.

The 1989 Pistons were 54-15 (.783) with Dumars in the regular season, and 9-4 (.692) without him.