Which player in NBA history played at the highest level over his stats?

[SHAQATTACK]

I of course like Cowans

AC Green was huge for Lakers playing behind so many greats stealing the spot light.

Always liked Danny and Cornbread too.

Dennis Johnson and Chief played a huge role steady for many many years.


Hordford has been steady for a whole career in recent times.

A little known guard ....ffrom the championship Portland team is one of the best small  white players at guard I ever witness in person. This includes Stockton.

Dave Twardzik was his name. 

[johnnygreen]

This player is the absolute opposite of what this question is implying. If I remember correctly, didn't Ricky Davis, while playing for the Cavaliers, try to get a triple double on what may be one of the most bizarre plays the league has ever seen? On an out of bounds play, Davis received the inbounds pass and immediately drove to the opposing teams rim and intentionally missed, so that he could get the rebound he needed to pad his stats to get 10 rebounds?

[Jvalin]

Really hard to say if a player is underrated, unless you've seen him play with your own eyes. I started following basketball in the mid 90's. The first name that comes to mind is Tim Duncan. Imo, he's a GOAT candidate. Obviously, his career averages aren't worthy of a GOAT candidate.

The Spurs during the Timmy era were a very special team. If you ask me, most of their star players at the time were underrated. I mean, Manu Ginobili is definitely underrated! Call me crazy, but I truly believe that Manu at his peak was contributing more to winning than megastars like Kobe, Iverson or Harden. Or how about Kawhi (as a Spur)? The guy was good enough to win Finals MVP, yet he was averaging 12.8 points per game during that season! At the end of the day, the Spurs players had to sacrifice their personal numbers for the good of the team. No wonder most of their stars were underrated (at least imo).

Only exception I can think of is Parker whom I believe is overrated, but that's a whole nother story.

This really isn't an overrated or underrated thing but more that you would expect the player to contribute to winning at a rate higher than you would believe based on stats.

Tim Duncan through most of his career had amazing stats that you would figure would lead to winning. He did play above his stats but his stats were superstar level.

Ginobili fits better into this type of thing than Duncan, IMHO.

This is my point right there. His stats were superstar level, but imo he was playing at GOAT level.

Roy mentioned Russell. The way I see it, Timmy is our generation's Bill Russell: the ultimate team player, the ultimate winner.

[johnnygreen]

I know he doesn't qualify for this, but Kevin Garnett in the '07-'08 season, was one of the most dominant players I have ever seen and his stats didn't translate in his first season with the Celtics. He was easily the MVP of the league, but stats basically win that award. That season he averaged 18.8 and 9.2.

[Moranis]

Rodman is probably up there. 

Ben Wallace comes to mind, also.

They both had incredible stats though.  Didn't score, but were just such dominant rebounders it is hard to say they didn't have the stats to back it up.

That's not what the question is, though.    The stats are certainly there but they still don't belie the total effect these guys had on the game.     Defensive effort alone isn't totally measurable.  A guy thinking twice of driving the lane or simply altering his shot into a bad miss because Wallace anchoring the paint isn't exactly measurable.  However, that's still impacting the game in a way greater than what the stats show.

but they both had the defensive stats.  I mean Ben Wallace led the league in shot blocking at 3.5 in the same year he led the league in rebounding at 13 and had 1.7 steals.  He followed that up with 15.4 r, 3.2 b, and 1.4 s.  Those were his best 2 seasons, but he also had about 3 others where he had elite level stats that matched his impact.  Rodman was never really a shot blocker or steal generator, but he led the league in rebounds for 7 straight years and by at least 1.43 per game all 7 seasons with multiple years of greater than 4 rebounds more than his closest competitor.  In other words, Rodman was such an elite rebounder his impact was perfectly visible in his stats. 

You can look at the box score stats and see that both Big Ben and The Worm had tremendous positive impacts.  Now sure defense in general isn't as easy to capture statistically, but rebounding sure is and Rodman is the greatest rebounder in league history and Wallace was also elite (and had elite shot blocking). 

[hpantazo]

Easily Bill Russell.

[gouki88]

Lots of Celtic guys come to mind. Bill is the obvious one. Think he most fits this description of any player ever.

DJ also comes to mind. Look at his stats and you see “solid playmaker”, but he was huge for those titles

[RockinRyA]

Marc Gasol is a more recent one.  Never cracked 20 pts per game in any season or 10 reb per game in any season.  Never cracked 2 blocks per game.

Despite this, a key member of many very good teams.


Some other names:


Brent Barry
Bruce Bowen
Horace Grant
Manu Ginobili



With the exception of Manu those guys weren't really the core of their team, just really great role players who helped a lot of good teams.



OH --- can't believe I forgot to mention


Average Al!  Horford's had some really nice statistical seasons but I think he's always played above the level of his stats, especially in the latter part of his career.

Definitely agree Manu should be up there.

[indeedproceed]

Manu.

[Somebody]

What stats are you talking about? The box score? Plus-minus? Team metrics? There are tons of stats that can be used to gauge a player's value and most of the guys you listed excelled in at least one of those categories if not all of them. The question about statistics in basketball should be "what statistics are you using and what do they measure" instead of "statistics don't measure everything and there's some holy intrinsic value in basketball that you can never hope to somewhat capture and reflect in the numbers".

But if you're talking about the raw box score + the general perception of this board I'd say Draymond Green. People are talking about him like he's Robert Horry when his defensive impact is around giants like Gobert/Eaton/Big Ben/Mutombo and his offence is better than any of those four. This is a player who played like a top 10-15 player for 5 straight years and people are still whining about "b-b-but muh triple single!" with the peculiar stance that the box score is apparently the only reliable statistical measure in basketball while taking a massive dump on statistics as a whole.

[Somebody]

Manu.

He's the poster child of modern NBA analysts

Easily Bill Russell.

Largest statistical defensive footprint in the history of the NBA even with the ambiguity of 60s data

Rodman is probably up there. 

Ben Wallace comes to mind, also.

They both had incredible stats though.  Didn't score, but were just such dominant rebounders it is hard to say they didn't have the stats to back it up.

That's not what the question is, though.    The stats are certainly there but they still don't belie the total effect these guys had on the game.     Defensive effort alone isn't totally measurable.  A guy thinking twice of driving the lane or simply altering his shot into a bad miss because Wallace anchoring the paint isn't exactly measurable.  However, that's still impacting the game in a way greater than what the stats show.

but they both had the defensive stats.  I mean Ben Wallace led the league in shot blocking at 3.5 in the same year he led the league in rebounding at 13 and had 1.7 steals.  He followed that up with 15.4 r, 3.2 b, and 1.4 s.  Those were his best 2 seasons, but he also had about 3 others where he had elite level stats that matched his impact.  Rodman was never really a shot blocker or steal generator, but he led the league in rebounds for 7 straight years and by at least 1.43 per game all 7 seasons with multiple years of greater than 4 rebounds more than his closest competitor.  In other words, Rodman was such an elite rebounder his impact was perfectly visible in his stats. 

You can look at the box score stats and see that both Big Ben and The Worm had tremendous positive impacts.  Now sure defense in general isn't as easy to capture statistically, but rebounding sure is and Rodman is the greatest rebounder in league history and Wallace was also elite (and had elite shot blocking). 

Ben Wallace had an amazing defensive footprint in Detroit and the Worm had a really good one during his prime as well, even though it was a level below Big Ben.

I know he doesn't qualify for this, but Kevin Garnett in the '07-'08 season, was one of the most dominant players I have ever seen and his stats didn't translate in his first season with the Celtics. He was easily the MVP of the league, but stats basically win that award. That season he averaged 18.8 and 9.2.

He had the highest PI RAPM score in 2008 and anchored a historically good defence lol, hardly an underwhelming statistical portfolio.

Dennis Johnson and Bobby Jones are others that come to mind from the 80's.

Bobby Jones and 80s Dennis Johnson look good in WOWY/GPM. Think Jones has an AuPM score (basically an imitation of PI RAPM with box data and raw on/off) thanks to Harvey Pollack recording +/- data in the 70s and 80s for some players and he was great in it as well.

[jambr380]

Bill Russell.  His PPG and FG% were just okay and there are no stats measuring his blocks and steals.  Looking at box scores alone, you’d conclude that he was a great rebounder, but not the greatest of his era, along with being good but not special elsewhere.

Nothing about that suggests “11 rings, 5 MVPs”.

This logic seems to make the most sense. 11 rings is absolutely ridiculous and he doesn't even have the block/steal #s to back up his case as a great defender (these #s obviously aren't necessary).

[slamtheking]

Bill Russell.  His PPG and FG% were just okay and there are no stats measuring his blocks and steals.  Looking at box scores alone, you’d conclude that he was a great rebounder, but not the greatest of his era, along with being good but not special elsewhere.

Nothing about that suggests “11 rings, 5 MVPs”.

This logic seems to make the most sense. 11 rings is absolutely ridiculous and he doesn't even have the block/steal #s to back up his case as a great defender (these #s obviously aren't necessary).

has to be Russell.  it's only because of his stats that he's not universally recognized as the GOAT.   He had the ability to put up more numbers in the stats that were counted back then but didn't because he was the ultimate team player focussed on winning with obviously successful results

[Somebody]

Bill Russell.  His PPG and FG% were just okay and there are no stats measuring his blocks and steals.  Looking at box scores alone, you’d conclude that he was a great rebounder, but not the greatest of his era, along with being good but not special elsewhere.

Nothing about that suggests “11 rings, 5 MVPs”.

This logic seems to make the most sense. 11 rings is absolutely ridiculous and he doesn't even have the block/steal #s to back up his case as a great defender (these #s obviously aren't necessary).

Raw box scores are just a small and frankly unreliable part of statistics though. Russell is top of the heap in team signals (he anchored some peerless defences and created some monster point differentials for his teams on the back of those defences), plus-minus (note that even those numbers with the exception of GPM underestimate him due to the lower point differentials of his era) as well as estimates of advanced box metrics (eg. DWS). He was very much a statistical monster when you look past the gaudy slash line and FG%.

[Androslav]

To me it is Manu, and I don't find anyone else particularly close.