Bleacher Report - Articles by Karl

The Five: Re-opening the G.O.A.T. Discussion

Karl — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:45:14 -0400

There are five players in NBA history who have a legitimate claim on the title of greatest of all time (G.O.A.T.), though for many fans it’s sacrilege to suggest that it could be anyone other than Michael Jordan (I can hear them screaming right now, and I expect their inflammatory comments on this thread).

These folks remind me of people who glare at you with a hint of intended violence as they assert that America is the greatest country on earth (I don’t say that it isn’t), but who have never been to another country, and don’t care in the least if the U.S. is not No. 1 in the world in any of the criteria in which the greatest country might reasonably be expected to be the leader.

(The U.S. is not No. 1 in per capita income, life expectancy, education, [low] infant mortality rate, or self-reported happiness. We are, however, No. 1 among industrialized nations in self-satisfaction, putting people in jail, and military spending.)

A case can be made for America as the greatest (as for Michael as G.O.A.T.), but “greatest” is a comparative attribute—you need data about the contenders. If not, you’re talking about a religious belief, not an informed judgment.

What I want to do here is not to make a definitive claim about whom I consider the G.O.A.T., but just to open up a discussion that for too many seems to be closed.

THE FIVE, in alphabetical order: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, and Bill Russell.

Each of these players ranks highest in at least one of the criteria that need to be considered: greatest body of work over the course of a long career, most dominating in peak years, greatest winner, greatest modern champion, and greatest champion.

Ultimately, the claim to THE greatest depends on the relative weights assigned to the criteria.

But before I go into all that, I’ll quickly run through some of the other names that people are likely to say should also be considered.

Kobe Bryant: He is the second greatest two-guard in NBA history, and in my book he hovers somewhere around 10th all-time. He is not, however, even in the top five in any of the key categories.

Bryant’s case gives me an opportunity, however, to reflect on why I think it is that people value Jordan and Bryant so much to the exclusion of other worthy candidates.

People love two-guards. Ironically, the two-guard position on average is probably the least impact position in the NBA. Except for the rare exceptions, it is basically an individual matchup, score, and defend position.

The two-guard does not run the offense like the point guard, and he does not rebound and defend the paint like a big man. For that reason, a two-guard like Jordan or Bryant who rises to the highest level seems all the more impressive to fans.

Furthermore, people like to imagine themselves making moves from the wing much more than they like to imagine themselves setting picks and boxing out down low with all the other big bodies.

The two is a more elegant position. Still, unless Kobe wins a couple more championships, he doesn’t belong in a discussion of the very highest stratosphere of NBA greatness.

Oscar Robertson: Yes, the Big O was an amazing stat machine. By my formula, he is second all-time in overall statistical production. But O was not a great winner.

I’m not just talking about the fact that he could not get his Cincinnati Royals past the Russell and Chamberlain teams in the 60's (in spite of the fact that he had the great Jerry Lucas as a teammate).

I’m talking about the fact that Robertson’s teams, for his career, managed just a .590 winning percentage, and .535 in post-seasons. For comparison, none of THE FIVE falls below .625 for regular seasons (and that’s Jordan, folks), or below .550 post-seasons (Chamberlain).

Robertson may be the greatest example of big numbers that don’t produce big wins in NBA history.

Jerry West: The icon, yes, but forget it. He’s not even close in any of the key categories.

Shaq: Again, he’s not in the top five in any key category, so how could he be No. 1 overall?

George Mikan: Technically, no one was more dominating than Mikan, ever. He played essentially six seasons (not counting an aborted comeback attempt a couple of years later), and carried the Minneapolis Lakers to five championships.

His percentage of his team’s production in the championship years was 34.1 percent (for comparison, Wilt’s was 29.7, Michael’s 25.3). BUT, six seasons do not constitute a full career, nor qualify Mikan for G.O.A.T. in my book.

Furthermore, though I don’t buy the time machine question in the case of Chamberlain and Russell (would they fare as well in today’s game?—Chamberlain would absolutely punish today’s centers, and Russell fought Chamberlain tooth-and-nail), it’s a legitimate consideration in Mikan’s case.

At 6’10”, he certainly couldn’t dominate today at center, and we’ll never know if with modern training methods he could have stepped up his speed, strength, and agility to compete with today’s power forwards, but certainly as he was he’d have been outmatched.

OK, let’s move on to the real contenders.

Greatest body of work over the course of a whole career: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

This one’s not even close. Kareem basically had two full careers, the 70's and the 80's. In the 70's, he was by far the most dominating player in the game, and in fact was the third most dominating player (in peak years) ever (after Mikan and Chamberlain).

In Kareem’s “second career” of the 80s, he dropped to probably the fifth or sixth best player in the league and the second best on his team, but he helped the Lakers win five championships.

Kareem scored more points than anyone ever, but more importantly he totaled far more “win-shares” than anyone ever (win-shares measure a player’s contribution to his team’s success—it’s the player’s percentage of his team’s statistical production, multiplied times wins): 264.73 win-shares for Kareem to a distant 226.15 by Chamberlain.

Michael ended up with 194.01 win-shares for his career. Kareem is the Hank Aaron of NBA history. Aaron became the all-time home run leader without ever hitting more than 47 home runs in a single season, but just by being really, really good for a really long time.

We need to respect durability and sustained excellence. In the NBA, there has never been another player with Kareem’s height who had that kind of agility and grace, wiry strength, shooting accuracy (the incredible sky hook!), skillful passing, and very high level of intelligence, competing to the age of 41. Amazing.

Most dominating in peak years: OK, this one is not close either, and it’s not Jordan. Michael fans, you have a great case for Michael as G.O.A.T., but you lose all credibility if you think that Michael was as dominating as Wilt.

Chamberlain was a freak of nature—a 7’1”, 275-lb. behemoth who was once a track star. He was stronger than anyone else in his day (and most anyone in ours), he could jump higher (one of his track events had been high jump), and he was even faster than 99 percent of his opponents (until late career knee injuries slowed him down).

He was a scoring, rebounding, and shot blocking nightmare for other teams, and it’s a wonder (and the glory of the game) that the Celtics as a team found a way to get past him almost every time they faced him in the post-season (though not every time—don’t disregard Chamberlain’s championships in 1967 and 1972).

That’s basketball—ultimately, it’s a team game, but Wilt very much deserves consideration as G.O.A.T. because he was by far the single most dominating INDIVIDUAL force in history.

Greatest winner: Yes, I know Russell’s Celtics won 11 championships in 13 seasons, but Magic is the greatest winner in NBA history.

Only K.C. Jones and Tommy Heinsohn won a higher percentage of regular season games, and they of course were role players, while Magic was the driving force of the Lakers’ success.

His Lakers teams had an incredible .718 winning percentage over his whole career there (Russell’s Celtics: .705). Magic is also the all-time leader in post-season win-shares at 32.37, ahead of Michael’s 31.46 (remember, fans, Michael had some lean years at first, while Magic had no lean years—he only knew winning).

But these are numbers; consider their significance. Magic is the greatest conductor (like the conductor of a symphony orchestra) of his teammates’ winning performances in the history of the game. No one has ever made his teammates better, or more effective as a unit.

But the comparison between Magic and a conductor of a symphony orchestra doesn’t quite hold unless we imagine a conductor who, at the really hard notes that his musicians can’t quite master, jumps down from his podium and grabs a violin, an oboe or clarinet, whatever is needed, and sees his orchestra through the tough parts himself.

I’m thinking of the famous game six of the 1980 championship against the 76ers, in which the rookie Magic jumped center for the injured Kareem and had 42 points, 15 rebounds, seven assists, and three steals.

I’m thinking of the famous running “baby sky hook” over McHale and Parish, to beat the Celtics in game four of the 1987 finals. No one could turn Kurt Rambis into a devastating finisher on the fast break like Magic, and no one, if Rambis fell down, could pick the ball up and finish the shot himself like Magic.

Greatest champion: Be careful, Michael fans. If you want to disregard everything else and roundly declare that the only thing that matters is championship rings, you’ll be putting Michael second to Bill Russell.

And don’t tell me about Russell’s Hall of Fame teammates. Russell put Bob Cousy and Sam Jones into the Hall of Fame, and Jordan played with great teammates (Pippen, the second greatest small forward in NBA history, is underrated by Jordan fans because it makes Jordan’s accomplishment look better).

Bottom line: Russell’s contribution to those Celtics championships was 26.1 percent of statistical production; Michael’s was 25.3 percent. So don’t tell me about Russell’s help. And Russell had to contend with Chamberlain—there is nothing comparable as an obstacle in Michael’s paths to his rings.

I’ve watched footage of the Russell-Chamberlain matchups. Incredible. There’s no question that Chamberlain is the more dominating force. But Russell had his eye on the prize, and he would work Chamberlain craftily.

Sometimes he’d just concede the point. But the next time he might, by sheer timing and surprise, block Wilt’s shot out of nowhere and start the Celtics’ fastbreak. Russell was a 6’9” center, but he was really, really quick, he had long arms, jumped quickly, and used a tremendous savvy for the game.

ELEVEN CHAMPIONSHIPS IN THIRTEEN SEASONS, folks; and that coming off of two NCAA championships when Russell played at San Francisco, of all places. With an Olympic Gold Medal in the mix, as well. If championships are the bottom line, Russell is your G.O.A.T.

Greatest modern champion: OK, but let’s calm down just a little bit. The one mitigating factor in Russell’s accomplishment, for me, is the fact that when Russell’s Celtics first started winning titles, there were just eight teams in the entire NBA.

For most of the 60's, there were just nine teams. The last two Celtics titles came when the league had grown to 12 and then 14 teams. Michael and the Bulls won their six titles in the modern NBA, emerging out of competition against 26 to 28 other teams.

I believe that it was Michael’s fierce drive to compete and win, unlike any other I’ve ever seen, that drove the Bulls to three-peat twice. I don’t feel like I need to say a lot else about Michael, since there is no shortage of his worshippers at Bleacher Report.

He had a great overall career, yes, but not the greatest (Kareem). He was dominating, yes, but not the most dominating (Wilt). He was a winner, but not the greatest winner, nor the best at maximizing his teammates’ games (Magic).

He was not the greatest champion, but he was indeed the greatest modern champion. Overall, maybe he was the greatest.

But if I had to pick the G.O.A.T., considering all the criteria I have named above and weighing them as more or less important, I’d say Kareem is the guy (at least today I would).

Not only does he have the greatest overall body of work in a career, he was at one time as dominating as anyone ever except Mikan and Chamberlain; he was a great winner (.682 over a 20-year career), and he was a great champion (six rings, just like Michael, although five of them came in a secondary role).

But my point here is not to pick the G.O.A.T., but to re-open the discussion. No one is an idiot who argues for any of THE FIVE. All of them have a legitimate claim to be called the greatest of all time, and it’s time we left some room for different opinions on the matter. The end (of this article, but hopefully not of the discussion).

Can I Get a Little Help From Football Fans?

Karl — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:02:36 -0400

Sorry to cross over from my usual NBA field, but there's a guy over here with an article arguing that basketball player LeBron James, if he played soccer, would "rack up more goals than almost any player in history." Check out the story here. Any of you football folks care to come over to the NBA pages and explain how ridiculous that statement is? We basketball fans need a little humbling now and then. Thanks.

A Forgotten Decade: Reminiscences of the 1970s

Karl — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:51:50 -0400

The off-season is a good time for looking back. NBA history has largely been defined by its great dynasties: first George Mikan’s Minneapolis Lakers in the ’50s, the Russell’s Celtics (11 championships in 13 seasons!) through the ’60s, Magic’s Lakers and Bird’s Celtics in the ’80s, Jordan’s Bulls in the ’90s, and finally Duncan’s Spurs and Shaq’s Lakers/Heat between ’99 and 2007. For that reason, people tend to forget the decade of greatest parity in NBA history, the 1970s. In that decade, eight different teams won NBA titles—the next closest decade for parity was the 50s with six different champions (yet Minneapolis won four of them, whereas no team in the 70s won more than two).

People tend to think of the 70s as having been a weak decade, and I guess television ratings were down before Magic and Bird revived them, but I came of age as a basketball fan and young player in the 1970s, and those guys were my heroes. Come 1980, I was as entranced as everyone else by the Magic v. Bird show (and sided with Magic), and while I was never as enamored of Jordan (I felt he shifted the game from the team focus of Magic and Bird to more of an individual taking over type of game), I was as duly impressed by the guy’s iron will to win as anyone. But for me it was not a question of reviving a flagging interest. I had found plenty of dramatic basketball to watch in the 70s, and this article is for those of you who remember those years fondly as well (I suppose you have to be about my age, approaching 50).

The best player of the decade, far and away, was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. And yet Jabbar’s teams won just one title in the decade. Why? That’s part of the fascination of basketball. If you saw this season’s Cavs v. Magic Eastern Conference Finals, you got a perfect demonstration of how the team with by far the best player on the court can nevertheless lose because the rest of his team gets outplayed and possibly the opposing coach has a better game plan. It’s the same reason Chamberlain’s teams didn’t win the title every season in the 60s.

But if you only remember the Kareem of the Lakers in the 80s, you have no idea what Kareem was like in his heyday (and I know he was good in the 80s). He was just a phenomenally gifted basketball player. There’s never been anyone that tall with that combination of agility, wiry strength, quickness, and above all shooting accuracy. The skyhook was unstoppable. And if anyone thinks it’s an easy shot, I invite him to go on the court and shoot it from 10 to 15 feet out (where Kareem would hit almost every time). Jabbar was just awesome in the 70s, a giant among boys, and more dominant than Jordan ever was in the 90s (sorry, Jordan fans, but if you didn’t see the 70s Jabbar, you don’t know).

The two teams that managed to win more than one title in the 70s (with two apiece) were the Knicks and the Celtics. Both were beautiful examples of the team concept. The Knicks are remembered as Willis Reed’s team, and certainly Reed was great in 1970 (much less so in 1973). But it was Walt Frazier who was the really skilled, sometimes even dazzling player. People tended to overlook it because Clyde the Glide was so adept at getting the fullest possible contributions from the Knicks’ assortment of role players: DeBusschere, Bradley, Lucas (in ’73), etc.

The Celtics were another great collective unit, and it’s remembered for the great John Havlicek (as it ought to be), the Rip Hamilton (non-stop movement player) of the 70s (only better). But their key guy was actually a 6’7” center, left-handed, red-headed Dave Cowens. Theoretically, the Celtics should never have been able to beat the Bucks with 6’7” Cowens matched against 7’4” Kareem, but if you saw the way Kendrick Perkins slowed down Dwight Howard this post-season, by pushing him farther out from the basket than his comfort zone, you know the way Cowens played Kareem. Cowens was a sort of brute, who could really push people around (I remember him decking Julius Erving in a fight, flat out cold), and used his strength to get rebounds and set nasty picks, but then could step out to about 20 feet and swish a surprisingly feathery jumper, pulling the bigger centers away from the hoop. He was also an excellent passer, as were all of the Celtics. Cowens really had a unique combination of skills.

The 70s also saw the second best team in NBA history: the 1972 Lakers, with Wilt Chamberlain and Jerry West. They won 69 games in the regular season, the most ever until Jordan’s Bulls won 72 in ’96. That team was sort of the last push of 60s talent into the decade of the 70s, given a chance now that Russell had retired from the Celtics. Of course West was just a phenomenal scorer, but what was really interesting was to watch the way Chamberlain had completely changed his game in the interest of winning. In the 60s, of course, Chamberlain was the most unstoppable scoring machine the NBA has ever seen, yet he won just one title, in ’67. He was also leaner and faster in those days. By ’72, he’d bulked up, and was just incredibly strong. With West on his team as the go-to scorer (not to mention Gail Goodrich), Chamberlain contented himself with relentless rebounding, shoot-blocking, picking and passing, and while he shot a lot less, he scored at an incredibly efficient rate, giving the Lakers 14 or 15 points a night while using up just 8 or 9 shots.

So far, we’ve mentioned players and teams from six of the first seven champions of the decade: the Knicks in ’70 and ’73, Kareem’s Bucks in ’71 (with an aging but still great Oscar Robertson!), Wilt’s and West’s Lakers in ’72, the Celtics in ’74 and ’76. What about 1975? That was the year that Rick Barry took the underdog Golden State Warriors and beat the much-favored Washing Bullets (much to my chagrin—the Bullets were my favorite team … we’ll get to them later).

Barry was the Michael Jordan of the 70s, without all of Jordan’s abilities. Here’s what I mean by that. If you stripped away Jordan’s jumping ability, his speed and strength, his turnaround jumper, etc., he’d still have been a winner, because at the core what you had with Jordan was an absolutely iron will, almost manic, to compete and to win. Barry didn’t have Jordan’s jumping ability, his speed, etc., but he had that same manic drive at the core. People remember him as something of a jerk, because he could be highly critical of teammates, coaches, refs, opposing players, etc. But in 1975 he took a team that had no business winning it all and just pushed them to the title.

Scoring 30-plus a game, Barry shot rapid-fire because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that every shot he took, outside, slashing, running one-handers, you name it, was going in. Barry played fast—forget all these isolation one-on-one players of today who look to freeze the defender on the perimeter—Barry did everything in the flow of the offense, and made the decision to shoot from outside, drive, or pass in a split second. It was relentless. As well as being a scorer, he was also a brilliant passer, and I believe he also led the league in steals that year. I think his teammates were afraid not to do their best (with Clifford Ray rebounding, blocking shots, and dunking; a rookie Jamaal Wilkes hitting his smooth jumpers and guarding his man like glue; Butch Beard playing solid guard, etc.).

So the Warriors were champs in ’75; in ’76 the Celtics took their second title since Russell’s retirement. In 1977, the year Bill Walton’s Portland Trailblazers won the title, NBA fans were granted their single glimpse of what might have been had Walton’s body been durable enough to sustain a full NBA career. One of the greatest college basketball players ever, Walton could have been a top-10 ever NBA player, but his body never let him play more than 60 or so games in his prime. But man, was he good. He was a ferocious rebounder and shot-blocker, and with mean tough Maurice Lucas as the enforcer at power forward, Portland was scary. Walton could score quite niftily when needed, but was just as happy having the offense whirl around him, and those who saw him back then will remember the iconic image of Walton directing the offense, his hands above his head rotating to say, “let’s keep it moving.” Before I move on, I have to relate one other image of Walton that sticks in my mind: he had the ability to go up and grab a defensive rebound high off the boards and while still in the air, rotate his body and fire an outlet pass to start the break before he’d even come down with the ball. Amazing to see.

The final two seasons of the decade belonged to the Washington Bullets and the Seattle Supersonics, who played each other in both finals and who traded championships, the Bullets winning in ’78 and the ’Sonics in ’79. The Bullets were led by Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld. Hayes had played Kareem in one of the most famous basketball games in history, January 20 1968, between the Houston Cougars and the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s undefeated UCLA Bruins (Jabbar was then known as Lew Alcindor), in the first nationally televised basketball game, before 52,693 fans. Though Hayes was really a 6’9” power forward, he outplayed the 7’4” Jabbar in that game, with 39 points and 15 rebounds, holding Kareem to just 15 points as Houston won. (Jabbar and the Bruins would get their revenge in the NCAA tournament semi-final game, when the thumped Houston 101-69 and Kareem held Hayes to 10 points.)

Hayes went on to play his NBA career essentially out of position, most often matching up with 7-footers (and never complaining about it, unlike Amare Stoudemire). How did he do it? He had long arms and great jumping quickness, and he had a turnaround jumper that was almost impossible to block. As a kid of about 12 or 13, I spent countless hours in my driveway, working on my Elvin Hayes turnaround. It still serves me well when I play ball at my gym. In addition to the turnaround, Hayes was the best defensive power forward I’ve ever seen (I’d put Tim Duncan about tied with him). He had absolutely phenomenal anticipation, like Duncan, that allowed him to harass an opponent’s shot just about every time, even much taller opponents.

The Bullets did their thing essentially with no center but with two power forwards—Hayes and Unseld. Unseld was a great wide-body. He didn’t score much, but he could set picks that would crush defenders, sometimes two at a time, and he had the most amazing outlet pass I’ve ever seen: a two-hand, over-the-head rocket that he could throw three-quarters of the length of the court.

The Bullets had been a very good team since Hayes joined Unseld in the frontcourt in 1972, but it took the pickup of small forward Bob Dandridge to get them over the top. The smooth Dandridge was a highly skilled swingman who’d won a title in ’71 beside Kareem. In the 1978 post-season, the Bullets had to play the much lauded Philadelphia 76ers, who had a notorious forward duo of Julius Erving and George McGinnis, both of whom had been superstars in the ABA. Those Sixers clubs were so confident that they were the best team that when they didn’t win titles in the 70s, they kept telling Philly fans, “we owe you one,” then “we owe you two,” and so on, until they finally won a title with the addition of Moses Malone in ’83. Before the ’78 series with the Bullets, McGinnis had bragged that the Sixers forwards would dominate the Bullets forwards, and that he, McGinnis, would embarrass Hayes. Hayes and Dandridge didn’t say anything, but Hayes ate McGinnis alive, just really punked him, and, perhaps surprisingly, Dandridge outplayed Erving, as the Bullets put away the Sixers on their way to the title.

The Supersonics that won the ’79 title did it with a very nice three-star combination. They had 7-footer Jack Sikma, who had a bizarre-looking but unstoppable step-back, wrong-foot, turnaround jumper. They had Dennis Johnson, who would later be a key contributor to the Celtics’ great 80s teams, and who with the Sonics might have been the best, toughest defensive guard in the league (I remember when I heard that Bird’s Celtics had picked up DJ: that’s it, I said, they’ll win several more titles for sure). And the Sonics had point-guard Gus Williams, who was the fastest player I’ve ever seen with the dribble in the open court (maybe LeBron now matches him). He was a sort of one-man fast break, and when Sikma, a very good rebounder, dropped the outlet off to Williams, the other team knew that it had better sprint all-out to get back on defense or Williams would just take it end-to-end.

So that’s it. For me, the 70s were far from a lost decade. They gave me great memories, great inspiration, and I hope that there are a few readers at B/R whom this article helped to recall the 70s fondly as well.

To All the Saints at B/R: How Do I Get To Be as Good as You? (Humor)

Karl — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:45:42 -0400

I must have read two dozen sanctimonious, self-righteous articles on B/R from people shocked at the 24-year-old LeBron walking off the court and refusing to shake hands.

People have described the morals they learned from their parents, the careful lessons they try to teach their kids, etc.

And I just want to say to you all: thank you for gracing us with your presence.

It's so great to read articles by people who never speed on the highway, who always use their turn signals, who never look for loopholes on their taxes that they know are BS but that they can get away with, who give at the office AND in the neighborhood, and who always say please and thank you.

Folks in church (and you all go to church every Sunday, I know) make way for you as you move to the front row pew.

The minister confers with you before delivering his sermon.

Mother Theresa took notes while watching you.

The car manufacturers remove the horns from your cars, because they know you never honk impatiently at a clueless driver.

I know that I cannot be as good as you all, but I hope that by sticking around B/R and reading your articles I can be just a little better.

Thank you.

What Makes Chauncey Billups So Good?

Karl — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:33:45 -0400

How did Chauncey Billups transform a team of no-D, me-first coasters into the mean, nasty, and focused contender that the Denver Nuggets have become? What makes Billups so good?

I'm a stat head, but I think you can pretty much throw the stats out the window for this one. I'll offer an analogy instead.

But first, I have to preface it for the PC police by saying, and let me make this absolutely clear, I MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT BILLUPS' OFF-COURT ACTIVITIES.

In fact, I assume he's a stand-up guy, a citizen, a good father, etc. And also, let me say that I believe I have done far more illegal things in my life than Billups ever did (I'm not going into it).

That said, here's my analogy: I believe that IF Chauncey Billups ever went to prison, he'd be pretty much running the prison yard in three months' time, calling the shots, setting the agenda.

And again, I offer that analogy as praise, not as a slur. If I ever went to prison (about as likely as Billups going), I'd hide in my cell and put a sign up: "Please Don't Bother Me." But Billups, I think, would take charge.

How? By being tough and smart, smart and tough. One without the other doesn't get it done. Same deal in the NBA. George Karl even said something in an interview last night about the Nuggets being "smart tough" or something like that. It starts with Billups.

Anyway, watching Billups and the Nuggets in the postseason, the analogy occurred to me, and I offer it here.

Who is the Greatest Player of the Post-Jordan Era?

Karl — Fri, 01 May 2009 01:14:34 -0400

It's been eleven seasons (almost) since Michael Jordan retired from the Chicago Bulls after six championships in eight years. Who is the greatest player since that time? I'm not asking who has been the greatest player recently, or in the highlights you saw on Sports Center. I'm asking, if you take into consideration players' total achievements over those eleven seasons, who comes out on top? I will present the best candidates, with some of the factors that you might consider for each. In general, the candidates have all played in all eleven of those seasons since 1998, but I've made an exception for one player, LeBron James, and I'll explain why when we get to it. I urge readers actually to cast their votes after considering all the factors. The candidates will be presented alphabetically. Note that I am looking only at players' performances in those specified years, even if their careers began before the 1998-99 season. I need to explain some of my criteria. As I go through the candidates, I will stipulate what their totals, averages, and ranks are in two all-important categories. 1) Their overall statistical production (OSP) based on a formula I developed incorporating every significant statistic (points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, turnovers, scoring percentages). 2) Their win-credits (WCr). For this, I multiplied the percentage of their teams' OSP that they accounted for, times the number of wins their teams earned in the regular and post-seasons. I shall also occasionally talk of scoring impact. This is different from mere point totals. I arrive at scoring impact by figuring out the number of a player's scoring attempts, the average point-per-scoring attempt of the league in a given season, and the number of points a player would score if he converted at the league average rate. His scoring impact is then his surplus scoring above that number of "expected points," or his deficit below it (resulting in a negative number). I will mention other statistical factors where relevant.

Begin Slideshow

Cleveland Cav's Historic Season: Take a Minute To Appreciate It

Karl — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:27:48 -0400

The Cleveland Cavaliers have guaranteed themselves the best record in the NBA. They have set records for winning on their home court.

Of course, if they go the way of the 2007 Dallas Mavericks, who won 67 games and then lost in the first round of the playoffs to the 42-win Warriors, all will be for naught. I think the Cavs even feel that way unless they win the title.

Still, we ought to take a moment to recognize their regular season achievement. We've gotten a little used to 60-win teams lately, what with three teams this year, the Celtics' 66 wins last year, the Mavs and Suns doing it two years ago, and so on.

But consider: in the NBA's 63 seasons thus far, only 63 teams have ever reached 60 wins. If the Cavs win their final game against Philadelphia, they will have tied for the sixth highest winning percentage in league history.

If they lose, they'll have tied for the 11th highest winning percentage. That's out of 1,213 team-seasons through the history of the league. Not too shabby.

They did it with one superstar, and a supporting cast that brilliantly complements him. Obviously, the Mo Williams pick-up was huge. Williams and Delonte West both do a beautiful job of biding their time while LeBron essentially plays their position on offense (as point-forward), then stepping up with baskets and assists when needed.

The Cavs also did what they did this season with a huge front line that's difficult to shoot over or control the boards against. They did it with team unity, as just about anyone who watched their games could sense.

Props to Mike Brown, who's been a great defensive coach pretty much from the get-go, but who vastly improved the design of the Cavs offense this year.

The Cavs were in the upper echelon of the league in every major category.

According to Basketball Reference, they had the fourth most efficient offense (taking into account not just points but points per possession), the third most efficient defense (same criteria), and were in the top half of the league in offensive rebounding percentage, defensive rebounding percentage, turnover management on offense, producing turnovers on defense, getting to the free throw line on offense, and keeping the opponents off the free throw line on defense.

Their average point differential against their opponents, 9.1, is the 13th best in league history.

What more is there to say? The playoffs loom, and the Cavs will have to get it done there. Because I'm sort of a corny, "all men are brothers" kind of guy, one of my favorite images was LeBron and Ilgauskas hugging after the Cavs beat the Pistons in the 2007 Eastern Conference finals. Ebony and Ivory and all that (sorry, I'm getting all choked up...give me a minute...OK, I'm better). Let's hope for more such touching scenes.

But whatever happens, take a moment to recognize one of the greatest regular seasons any team in NBA history has ever put together.

The Moral of the Allen Iverson-Chauncey Billups Trade

Karl — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:21:31 -0400

Is there a more instructive story in the NBA season this year than that of the Iverson/Billups trade?

When it happened, the guys in my gym were saying that Detroit had really made out by getting the NBA's third highest all-time scorer in exchange for a mere 15.1 points-per-game career scorer.

All Billups has done in Denver is turn them around and show them what its takes to win, and that's even without Marcus Camby to anchor the defense, something Iverson benefited from in the mile-high city.

As for Iverson? Iverson has been a disaster in Detroit.

Iverson is a 2-guard on offense and a point-guard on defense.

That means that his team needs to find someone else who can play the point on offense, yet cover the big 2-guards of the league on defense. No easy task.

Iverson needs minutes and shots. He's a "volume shooter."

Translation: year after year he shoots well below the league averages in percentage, yet shoots a ton.

He gets some assists, but his passing does not generate team offense. His assists always come late in the shot clock (because he dribbles around so much), and leave his teammate with nothing to do but finish.

He's difficult to win with. Chris Webber on TNT said that he was the greatest athlete he'd ever played with, but the most difficult player to be on the court with.

It's well known how many players struggled when they were Iverson's teammate, and then flourished after being traded to another team.

There is a myth that Iverson carried Philadelphia to the NBA finals on his back in 2001. In fact, that team won with defense and rebounding, neither of which Iverson specializes in (you can look it up at basketball-reference.com).

On offense, in which Iverson was jacking up an amazing 32 percent of the team's field goal attempts, the 76ers were mediocre at best, shooting just 44.7 percent as a team (and yet that was higher than Iverson's 42%).

You could argue that the 76ers succeeded in spite of Iverson, not because of him.

Is anyone really that surprised that the Iverson-Carmelo hookup in Denver didn't even translate to a first-round win in the playoffs? Really?

This year, Detroit was mediocre at best with Iverson starting and Rip Hamilton on the bench. Iverson got hurt, Hamilton moved back into the starting lineup, and Detroit went on a tear.

Meanwhile, Billups has Denver poised at No. 2 in the West.

What does Billups do? Defensively, he absolutely bullies the opposing point guard, and he expects his teammates to do the same on their opponents.

Offensively, he takes great care of the ball, so that his teams in Detroit were always among the league leaders in shots per possession (a much neglected stat).

He gets everyone else on the team going, not worrying about his numbers, then, when it's needed, he calmly steps up and sticks the killer three-pointer, or backs down the opposing point guard in the post and shoots over him.

Whatever his team needs. Whatever it takes to win.

Iverson has the shoe contracts and the notoriety. Kids idolize him and want to play like him, and like him, they haven't a clue about what it takes for a team to win at basketball.

The NBA MVP Race Isn't Even Close: LeBron James' Historic Season Leads the Pack

Karl — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:09:21 -0400

I’ll keep this simple.

There’s been a lot of debate about the 2009 NBA MVP. Is it LeBron, D-Wade, or Kobe?

Look, get real—objectively, by the numbers, it’s not even close. It’s LeBron by a mile, and Wade and Bryant aren’t even in the running for runner-up.

The MVP is the player who does the most to generate wins for his team during the regular season, plain and simple. That can be measured.

LeBron has accounted for 27.9 percent of Cleveland’s overall statistical production, or OSP (and yes, I’m counting everything—scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, steals, turnovers, and shooting percentages).

Cleveland’s current winning percentage projects to a finish of 67 or 68 wins (67.8 is the current projection).

So LeBron’s 27.9 percent share of Cleveland’s 67.8 projected wins would give him 18.85 win-credits.

If he does indeed finish that way, it will be the most win-credits earned by any player in 37 years (when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar earned 19.60 win-credits), and it will be the fifth highest number of win-credits in NBA history (Wilt Chamberlain in that famous 1967 season with the Philadelphia 76ers earned 21.35 win-credits, the most ever in a regular season).

Only Chamberlain (twice), Abdul-Jabbar, and George Mikan (in a shorter NBA season) have ever earned more than 18.85 regular season win-credits. We are watching a historic season, folks.

I’m just pointing out the facts.

As for the runner-ups:

Chris Paul currently projects to the second highest win-credits at 14.75, and he will not be passed, just as he has no chance of catching LeBron.

Dwight Howard projects to 13.87 win-credits, and he is also unlikely to be passed.

Kobe does finally come in at fourth with a projected 12.47 win credits, just ahead of his teammate Pau Gasol at 12.28 win-credits. (It’s true folks: Kobe accounts for 19.4 percent of the Lakers’ OSP, and they currently project to 64.3 wins. I’ll let you all do the math.)

Finally, we get to D-Wade at 11.82 projected win-credits, sixth highest overall (Miami just won’t have enough wins, projecting to 43.2, though Wade does account for a high 27.3 percent of their statistical production).

Wade is a great player having a great season, as well as Kobe, but there is no way they can claim the MVP, nor can anyone but LeBron, who is having an MVP season like few of us have ever seen (deal with it).

It’s an MVP season never matched by Jordan, Shaq, Magic, or Bird, among so many others.

Below is the breakdown:

		This Season
Year	MVP	Player	TM	OSP/G	ProjWins	%OSP	ProjWCr
2009	1	LeBron James	CLE	36.1	67.6	27.9	18.85
2009	2	Chris Paul	NOH	36.7	51.7	28.5	14.75
2009	3	Dwight Howard	ORL	29.8	61.8	22.5	13.87
2009	4	Kobe Bryant	LAL	27.1	64.3	19.4	12.47
2009	5	Pau Gasol	LAL	27.0	64.3	19.1	12.28
2009	6	Dwyane Wade	MIA	34.0	43.2	27.3	11.82

		All-Time
Year	MVP	Player	TM	OSP/G	Wins	%OSP	WinCr
1967	1	Wilt Chamberlain	PHI	52.8	68	31.4	21.35
1950	2	George Mikan	MNL	18.0	51	39.7	20.23
1972	3	Kareem Abdul-Jabbar	MIL	45.3	63	31.1	19.60
1968	4	Wilt Chamberlain	PHI	50.9	62	31.2	19.34
2009	5	LeBron James (projected)	CLE	36.1	67.6	27.9	18.85
1949	6	George Mikan	MNL	20.2	44	41.3	18.18

Is Kobe or LeBron the MVP on Numbers?

Karl — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:54:12 -0400

NBA fans endlessly wrangle about who should be the most valuable player in a given season but it’s a question that’s quite resolvable by statistical analysis. Of course fans might prefer to continue wrangling because they enjoy it, and that’s fine, but for those who’d prefer a way out, I’ve got a pretty simple solution.

The old principle that the MVP should be the best player on the best team is too simple, but it at least moves in the right direction because it links individual performance to team success. The MVP is not simply the best player. If that player’s team is at the bottom of its division he cannot be the league's most valuable.

The MVP does not operate in a vacuum. To be the MVP he must be a great player who translates his individual efforts into team results. But “best player on the best team” is too simple because it doesn’t allow for gradations: what if the best (winningest) team, having balanced production between three or four players, has one more win than the second best team, overwhelmingly led by a single great player who does everything for his team and carries them on his back?

We can refine the “best player on the best team” credo then by stating that the MVP is the player who does the most to generate wins for his team—and that, my friends is for the most part quantifiable.

We know how many wins a team has—that’s an objective fact. So then it’s a matter of divvying up the “pie” of the team’s wins (with some pies being bigger than others) according to the contributions of its players. The guy in the league with the biggest slice of pie is the MVP.

On that principle, Cleveland’s and Los Angeles' pies this year are going to end up much bigger than Miami’s, so even if Dwyane Wade’s portion of Miami’s pie is equal to, or bigger than LeBron James' or Kobe Bryant's portions of their teams’ pies, it seems unlikely that his slice will be as big as theirs, but we’ll see.

To determine the portion of the pie that goes to one player, we need a single measure of overall statistical production (OSP). With that the rest is simple: take the player’s OSP and divide it by the team’s OSP to come up with a percentage (top players in the league typically account from 20 to almost 30 percent of their teams’ OSP). Then multiply that percentage by the team’s wins, and you’ve got the player’s piece of the pie. A player whose OSP is 20 percent of his team’s OSP, and whose team wins 60 games, will have an MVP “pie slice” of 12 win shares.

So who's more deserving—will a 30 percent player on a 40-win team, or a 24 percent player on a 50-win team get the honors? By this measure, all three hypothetical players would be tied for MVP, but if any of them could increase his percentage of OSP without losing more games, or win more games while maintaining his percentage of OSP, he would move ahead of the other two.

So we need a method of taking all of a player’s statistics and combining them into a single figure for OSP. That may be easier said than done, and people will argue over the details, but at least we know what the stats are (points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, shooting percentages, and turnovers). It’s simply a question of the relative weights these statistics are given in the formula for combining them.

Cards on the table time: I’ll describe my own formula, which I have settled on after using spreadsheets to experiment with a variety of systems.

I’ve tried to keep my formula for OSP as simple as possible. Players get one credit every time they make a positive play, whether scoring a basket (or its equivalent: a field goal equals half a basket, a three-point field goal equals 1.5 baskets), pulling down a rebound, dishing out an assist, blocking a shot, or stealing the ball).

To these metrics I add two efficiency measures, one for shooting and one for ball-handling. A player increases his OSP, or decreases it for every point he scores above or below the league rate given the number of his scoring attempts.

(The league rate after last night’s games was 1.087857 points per scoring attempt, where scoring attempts = field goal attempts plus .44 times free throw attempts. Statisticians determined that .44 was a more accurate measure than .5, given and-one plays, technical fouls, and the occasional three free throws for a fouled three-point shooter.) This efficiency measure typically ranges from -2, up to +3 or rarely +4.

For ball handling I use the number that the statistician John Hollinger calls the pure point guard rating. The formula is 2/3 times assists, minus turnovers, and the results, again, range from about -2 to +4. In effect this allows for an acceptable number of turnovers if a player is handling the ball and distributing it, but it also assesses a penalty for turnovers beyond that acceptable number and adds a bonus for greater ball handling efficiency.

So there’s my OSP formula. Other people might want to tinker with it, but I doubt the MVP results will change much once you multiply the players’ percentage of OSP times the teams’ wins. Below in the table are my results for the top 30 MVP candidates, statistically speaking. The number of wins and win shares given are projected over 82 games.

I know by experience on this website that there are people who will look at the table and declare it stupid and insane that, for instance, Rajon Rondo could be listed ahead of all the other Celtics. My response is that the Celtics’ “big three” must be stupid and insane, since they’ve all testified that Rondo has been the Celtics’ most valuable player this year. I stress that the table does not show who is the BEST player, just the one who gets the most credit for the most wins (i.e. the biggest slice of pie).

And remember, the pie is bigger for the Cavs, Lakers, and Celts. If you run this system for the whole league and total the win shares for all the individual players on a given team, it will exactly equal the number of wins the team projects to given its current winning percentage. For the rest, I let the numbers talk, and invite others who know how to use spreadsheets to download the data from basketball-reference.com and run their own formulas.

The last thing I’ll add is that if LeBron does indeed finish the season at 18.71 win shares as he projects to as of now, it will be the fifth greatest NBA MVP season in history, with only Chamberlain (twice), Mikan, and Abdul-Jabbar ever totalling more win shares (Mikan doing it in 1950, when teams played just 68 regular season games). And yes, I’ve crunched the numbers for every NBA season.

I do happen to be a Cavs fan, but I don’t necessarily think that LeBron is the best player in the NBA today—he has weaknesses, some of which show up particularly in big games. Still, what he’s doing this year in terms of leading the Cavs' to wins is remarkable. Here are your results for 2008-09 so far:

OSPRk	MVP	Player	TM	G	PjWSh	OSP/G	%OSP	ProjWins
2	1	LeBron James	CLE	70	18.71	36.1	28.0	66.8
1	2	Chris Paul	NOH	65	14.90	36.8	28.5	52.3
4	3	Dwight Howard	ORL	67	13.44	29.6	22.2	60.6
5	4	Kobe Bryant	LAL	69	12.71	27.5	19.4	65.4
6	5	Pau Gasol	LAL	68	12.20	26.7	18.7	65.4
3	6	Dwyane Wade	MIA	68	12.13	34.5	27.6	44.0
16	7	Rajon Rondo	BOS	69	11.11	24.9	18.2	61.2
7	8	Tim Duncan	SAS	64	10.67	26.7	19.9	53.5
32	9	Paul Pierce	BOS	71	10.02	21.8	16.4	61.2
11	10	Brandon Roy	POR	66	9.95	25.5	19.3	51.5
56	11	Mo Williams	CLE	70	9.91	19.1	14.8	66.8
19	12	Yao Ming	HOU	68	9.77	24.0	18.2	53.5
13	13	Jason Kidd	DAL	70	9.61	25.3	19.5	49.2
12	14	Dirk Nowitzki	DAL	69	9.48	25.3	19.3	49.2
46	15	Rashard Lewis	ORL	69	9.30	19.9	15.3	60.6
44	16	Hedo Turkoglu	ORL	66	9.04	20.2	14.9	60.6
20	17	Joe Johnson	ATL	68	8.87	23.5	18.5	48.0
55	18	Ray Allen	BOS	70	8.67	19.1	14.2	61.2
23	19	Chauncey Billups	DEN	65	8.59	23.2	16.3	52.7
8	20	Deron Williams	UTA	55	8.56	28.4	16.7	51.1
26	21	Tony Parker	SAS	59	8.53	23.2	16.0	53.5
35	22	David West	NOH	63	8.35	21.3	16.0	52.3
21	23	Andre Iguodala	PHI	68	8.15	23.5	19.3	42.2
25	24	Andre Miller	PHI	68	7.97	23.0	18.9	42.2
59	25	Lamar Odom	LAL	65	7.92	18.2	12.1	65.4
41	26	Kevin Garnett	BOS	55	7.89	22.1	12.9	61.2
40	27	Nene Hilario	DEN	67	7.83	20.5	14.8	52.7
57	28	LaMarcus Aldridge	POR	69	7.74	19.0	15.0	51.5
68	29	Luis Scola	HOU	72	7.54	17.5	14.1	53.5
10	30	Steve Nash	PHO	61	7.45	25.8	16.5	45.2

The Tough-Guy Pose: How Ridiculous

Karl — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:39:27 -0500

I keep seeing highlights of stick-boy Kevin Durant after a dunk doing the angry-stare-down-of-an-opponent act.

Durant seems like an effective offensive player, but the majority of NBA players could probably break him in half without too much trouble.

So, why the pose?

Who's kidding whom?

Here's another example: An outside jump-shooter makes a three-point shot and then starts beating his chest and makes an angry tough guy face. Dude, you made a jump shot—you didn't clear out the middle for a brutal rebound or dunk.

There are players who really do seem tough. I think of Maurice Lucas in the '70s, or Pitt's DeJuan Blair today.

Lucas used to try to get some mileage from intimidation, and he could pull it off. Blair just seems to go about his business of getting rebounds and baskets, without a lot of posturing.

I happen to prefer Blair's mode over Lucas's, but at least Lucas could back it up.

While I'm at it, I can't help but wonder about some of the posters on this site who throw inflammatory words around ("you moron," etc.).

Would they say those things in person? Not to me, I think (and that isn't a challenge, just a secure conviction).

Not that I believe in throwing your weight around just because you can. I don't. But when you don't have anything to throw around in the first place, why bother?

Anyone else find the tough-guy pose ridiculous?

The Entitlement Three-Point Shot Must End

Karl — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:28:30 -0500

Anyone besides me tired of the "Entitlement Three-Point Attempt"? That's a three-pointer taken by a star who doesn't shoot three-pointers well, but no one says anything because he does so much else for the team. Simply put, anyone who isn't a 36 percent three-point shooter has no business chucking up threes.

Why 36 percent? That's equivalent to the league average for converting attempts into points from inside the three-point line. Since you can't figure on getting to the foul line on a three-point attempt, you have to equal whatever the success rate is for two-point attempts plus free throws, and that means 36 percent from the three-point line.

Anyone below this rate, even if he is a star, is just wasting possessions for his team. Here's a list:

Joe Johnson, 34 percent, 303 attempts

Nate Robinson, 33 percent, 264 attempts

LeBron James, 31 percent, 249 attempts

Stephen Jackson, 34 percent, 244 attempts

Baron Davis, 29 percent, 230 attempts

Antawn Jamison, 34 percent, 208 attempts

And so on. I'm a fan of some of these players, LeBron especially, but they have no business taking all those three-point attempts.

I know, I know, how's Mike Brown going to tell LeBron James not to shoot threes? The best he can do is to suggest he shoot them less, try to get to the rim more. But if I were an NBA coach and had absolute authority (which I wouldn't), I'd put the ban on anyone who couldn't reach the 36 percent target.

Are We Watching the Same Game?

Karl — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:16:45 -0500

There are times when the buzz I hear, whether from TV commentators or from the guys at the gym, is just blatantly out of step with the facts.

Here's an example: I keep hearing, over and over again, that LeBron James has improved his outside shooting.

Now, I love LeBron's overall game, but his outside shooting is a matter of public record. You can look it up.

In LBJ's rookie season he shot 29.0 percent on his three-pointers. He raised that his sophomore season to 35.1 percent, but it's gone down every year since.

In his third season, he dropped to 33.5 percent, in his fourth to 31.9 percent, last season to 31.5 percent, and this season, his sixth, he's currently at 31.3 percent.

So what's with the much repeated conviction that LeBron has steadily improved his outside shot?

Another one: Last night I was watching Kansas v. Oklahoma, and at halftime Digger Phelps offered the analysis that Oklahoma's guards were having trouble getting their shots without big man Blake Griffin in the game to draw double teams.

While Phelps was talking, they showed the graphic of the Oklahoma guards' points. Between them they had something like 20 points in a game that was in the 30s at halftime. Huh?

Was Phelps watching the same game I was? Sometimes I think people have a sort of movie running in their heads of the game they've decided ought to exist, and they see that instead of what's in front of them.

Can anyone offer other examples?

Play NBA GM: What's the Best Starting Lineup You Can Get For $50 Million?

Karl — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:21:12 -0500

Hoops Hype lists all NBA salaries (click on the team names at the top of the page for complete information) at http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm.

So you be GM: What's the best starting lineup you can come up with for $50 million?

Yes, your team as a whole will be over the cap (is it $58 million?), but so is every team that contends. You can have anyone in the league; you just can't go over $50 million (and this is based on players' salaries for 2008-2009).

Here's my starting unit:

Dwight Howard	ORL	C	$13,758,000
Carlos Boozer	UTA	PF	$11,593,817
LeBron James	CLE	SF	$14,410,581
Brandon Roy	POR	SG	$3,084,240
Chris Paul	NOH	PG	$4,574,189
			$47,420,827

I know Boozer's hurt, but he's supposed to be coming back, and he's really good. Obviously, Paul, Roy, James, and Howard are going to have hugely higher salaries in a couple of years, but for now you can get them for song. And I've got $2.6 million to spare! Anyone think they can top that?