The most recent installment of the Chat Sports Question of the Day asked fans to vote on whether or not Dirk Nowitzki was a top ten all-time NBA player. I immediately voted no, and gave a long winded rebuttal to another writer's comment. However, I found myself hung up on this question, which was rolling around in my head all night. I know myself too well. I'm all about feeling. I will make snap judgments about basketball and football based on my feeling, because I believe I've watched enough to validate those feelings. But, I've learned through the years that my feelings about these topics are very subjective and not always reliable.
I think I'd take Barkley over Dirk without blinking an eye. But, I also owned a Charles Barkley jersey as a child and never miss him on TNT. Maybe I'm not being rational.
So, I had to bring this question to my ombudsman Ben. If you don't know about him, I first introduced him to our readers here. He and I later dialogued the benching of Russell Westbrook against the Mavericks. I've also featured his interjections in several other pieces (such as down at the bottom of this one). He's very rooted in statistical analysis, always looking to debunk common NBA misconceptions. Furthermore, he's a scientist by trade, so he requires more hard evidence than I do before arriving at a conclusion. Finally, he grew up in California as a Sacramento Kings fan, so he doesn't hold the same east coast biases that I do (although does seem to have some anti-Laker stuff going on at times).
This is not to say that what he says is definitively correct. These questions are nearly impossible to answer. But, I find that these types of dialogues can go along way in helping me sort out my feelings, allowing me to sleep at night.
Here is our e-mail conversation (I've left out the e-mail introducing the question, since I've already presented it. At this point, he's responding to the question, and my belief that Dirk is NOT a top ten guy, and shouldn't even be considered).
NOTE: many of Ben's e-mails respond directly to things that I said in a line by line way. So, he gives my quote, then responds to it (in case you were confused).
BEN: I mildly disagree. I think Dirk is legitimately getting close to being top 10. I seriously doubt I would put him up there, but I think he's probably in the top 20 (I haven't given that much thought, though) and I'd at least listen to the argument for him being top 10. A lot of it comes down to how you weight different factors (peak vs. total contributions, adjustments for era, etc.), so I'm inclined to think someone could do it reasonably well if they carefully set things up the right way. And, in general, I don't mind these efforts to rank guys and consider them in some historical context. I really like those kind of mental exercises. What bugs me about the question is how reflexive this stuff is to very recent history. There's no way this would be getting as much discussion if the Mavs hadn't won the championship this year. Titles are awful way to measure players, though, and I really don't think their title this year told us anything about Dirk as a player. I find it especially funny because he didn't even play all that well in the Finals (he was great in earlier rounds, though). For many people, though, this 6-game Finals win is a huge feather in his cap, whereas their 6-game Finals loss barely merited any consideration. Those series were almost coin flips, though.
NICK: Yeah, that was more what I meant (short term measurement). As in, LeBron plays great against Celtics and Bulls and is taking his rightful place in the pantheon, then has trouble offensively against Dallas and suddenly he's back to being a choke artist. It just seems like people should have to consider the whole body or work. And, with Dirk, as you said, I'm sure this never would have been a question if they hadn't won the title.
BEN:
"Yeah, that was more what I meant (short term measurement). As in, LeBron plays great against Celtics and Bulls and is taking his rightful place in the pantheon, then has trouble offensively against Dallas and suddenly he's back to being a choke artist."
This my biggest beef with mainstream media, even outside of sports. Everything is focused on short-term events and people lose sight of bigger broader stories.
"And, with Dirk, as you said, I'm sure this never would have been a question if they hadn't won the title."
I guess the point I was disagreeing with you about is that I would argue they should have been talking about it even without the title. I ended up having a couple of conversations about Dirk's all-time standing during the season and I remember being surprised by how well his career stacks up.
"I think Dirk is an all-time great player. Not a top ten. I feel like I could rattle off ten guys right now (Wilt, Russell, Elvin Hayes, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Kobe, Jordan, LeBron, Wade)"
There are serious problems, though, with just rattling off a list like that. First, I don't know that much about Elvin Hayes, but he strikes me as totally out of place on that list. He never won an MVP (highest finish was 3rd), never posted a PER above 20, and won only one championship. I just don't see any credible evidence that he could be top 20 even. He was well before my time, so I guess I could be wrong but I think he's a reach. I also think Wade is the perfect example of why you can't focus solely on peak value. When healthy Wade is amazing and probably a top 10 talent, but he's NEVER played 80 games and missed sizable chunks of 3 of his 8 seasons. He's also already pretty old at 29 and it's not clear how long his body will hold up. I'm one of his biggest backers, but I just don't see how a guy with only around 500 GP can make the top 10. I am willing to hold a spot for Lebron, though. He's on trajectory for top 5 pretty easily, he's still young, and he's been quite healthy. I would also seriously quibble with Kobe making the top 10. I know that is heresy to many, but his peak is not nearly as good as people think and he's nowhere near as good Jordan despite all the comparisons over the years. He's a player who is overrated because of championships and the myth of his clutch shooting. He is legitimately very good (easily top 20 and probably the second-best SG of all-time), but he's not clear top 10 by the numbers to me and I almost feel like I would weight down his numbers a bit because of his personality issues (exhibit 1: driving away Shaq when they could have won more championships together). So I would say there are 5 clear top 10 guys on your list: Jordan, Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, and Lebron. It is hard for me to imagine anyone excluding any of those guys. I say Hayes is clearly out and Wade is out until we have at least a few more outstanding seasons from him. That leaves Russell, Hakeem, and Kobe from your list. I'd toss in Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Larry Bird, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, and Dirk into that group as well. That leaves 13 guys for 5 spots. And that is some fierce competition. In the end, though, I don't know what is the best way to weight the contributions of those guys. I think I might take Magic, Robertson, Duncan, Russell, and Hakeem (with honorable mentions to Barkley, Garnett, and Dirk), but I feel like that could change from day-to-day.
"I do understand the total contributions thing. But, I have two main issues with it:
A) warning: this is more of a personal preference thing. I just don't like to measure greatness in that way. I don't think Emmit Smith is the greatest running back of all time. I think Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, and Marshall Faulk were all way better. If I were starting a team, I would have taken all of them over him if I were a GM because I think in their primes I would have had a better shot at winning a title. So, even if Wade ends up being banged up a lot four years from now, I still will say Wade was a greater player because I don't think there will have ever been a season when I would have taken prime Dirk over prime Wade.
obviously it doesn't work for everyone. some guys don't play long enough to be considered. But, I feel like there are a lot of guys who were good for long enough that I still would have taken them over Dirk."
I think you have to weight both. Guys like Wade and Chris Paul have been amazing so far in their careers and both could retire now and make a case for having top 10 peaks. I feel like greatness, though, also requires some longevity and Wade looks like a guy who might have a relatively short career. The best example there for me is the comparison between Wade and Kobe. I would take peak-Wade over peak-Kobe every time, but Kobe has played so much more that I don't think we can say Wade has had a better career. I guess it comes down to taste, but I think you have to weight both.
"B) The stats we compare are virtually all offensive. Dirk has been a pretty good team defender that past few seasons. But, early in his career, he really wasn't. That was my biggest issue with Nash winning the two MVPs as well."
That's not really about peak vs career value, though. I totally agree that evaluating defense is tough and that is what makes it hard to place guys like Bill Russell in lists like this. It's especially hard since I didn't see him play. I guess the modern-day equivalent is someone like Garnett or Duncan, who don't deserve to be on these lists based on their offensive talents alone. They were both good offensive players, but they were never great on that end. I'm inclined to give them the credit for their contributions on D (which is why I include both Duncan and Russell in my top 10), but it really is hard to know how much that should matter. I would venture to guess that individual excellence on offense (the ability to score efficiently in a high-usage role) is probably more important to winning than any other factor (including individual defense), but this is a very tough argument to make because of the way basketball stats work. I'm inclined to think it is true, though.
"Dirk's great, I just really have a hard time with top 10. I'd even concede top 25."
I'd say based on my list above he's at least top 18, unless you'd like to nominate a few more guys.
NICK: Elvin Hayes averaged about 20 and 14 in the 70s and I've always heard him described as one of the top 20 defensive players at all times. It is hard though to figure all this stuff out, particularly with my own biases. I think I'd take Barkley over Dirk without blinking an eye. Dwight Howard. Some people swear by John Havilcek as one of the greatest of all time. But, if I had to look at the numbers and watch some film, maybe I'd feel differently. I feel the same way about David Robinson.
BEN:
"Elvin Hayes averaged about 20 and 14 in the 70s and I've always heard him described as one of the top 20 defensive players at all times."
I buy that Hayes was top 20 on defense, but it looks like his offensive game was worse than guys like Duncan and Garnett. And I'd put those two easily in top 10 defenders all-time. So I think it's a big stretch to put Hayes that far up in terms of overall value.
"It is hard though to figure all this stuff out, particularly with my own biases. I think I'd take Barkley over Dirk without blinking an eye."
I'm torn on Barkley vs. Dirk. That's exactly the kind of judgment call that strikes me as tough to make. They were just very different players, despite playing the same position. I think I'd probably go with Barkley, but it's not totally obvious to me and Dirk still looks like he might have another couple of great seasons left. Too early for me to say definitively.
"Dwight Howard."
"Some people swear by John Havilcek as one of the greatest of all time."
"I feel the same way about David Robinson."
"But, Kobe was virtually unstoppable for a long time. Dirk wasn't for a long time. I can picture haslem shutting him down. I can picture him getting totally rattled by Captain Jackson in round 1. I can see him really taking longer to develop into this guy that he's been for a couple years now."
"But, clearly I'm unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt with any of this stuff, so maybe I just need to let it go."
NICK: You had Bird and Magic on your lists. I agree. The only reason I excluded them is because to grow up in my family/region of the country is to believe that those two guys are gods. And, what I've seen of them IN THEIR PRIMES all comes from DVDs, books, anectodes, and youtube. SO, there's really no way for me to discuss them in any way that's grounded in reality.
My take on Robinson was just that my gut says I'd take him over Dirk, but objectively it feels like a tough call to make.
NICK: And I'll concede (happily) Kobe not in top ten, but I'd have a hard time putting him ahead of Dirk.
BEN (responding to my one about Kobe): Oh, I could put Dirk ahead of Kobe. In fact, I think I would, with the caveat that we haven't yet seen their whole careers.
BEN (in response to the Hondo one, as I now know): Look at his stats sometime. He was definitely good, but there's nothing there that screams amazing. He's probably more like Paul Pierce, although honestly Pierce is probably better. Good player who you love rooting for when he's your guy, but not legitimately an all-time great.
NICK: Please tell me you're talking about Kobe. You could make a statistical argument that Paul Pierce is better thank Kobe????
BEN: Kobe is better than Pierce. I was talking about Hondo. I do think Pierce is much closer to Kobe than to Hondo, though, if that makes you feel any better.
NICK: DAMMIT!!!!!
BEN: Drunk Celtics fan.
Back to the Boston Celtics Newsfeed