This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.
«
»

The Top 10 Power Forwards of All Time (*according to statistical +/-)

Posted by Neil Paine on March 9, 2009

Continuing our series from last week, today we're going to look at the top 10 power forwards ever by the "statistical plus-minus" method. If you don't remember what it's all about, it's basically a linear regression formula that tries to predict adjusted plus-minus using just the conventional stats you'd find in the box score. I don't think it's the ideal player rating metric or anything, but at the same time it doesn't seem to be the worst I've ever seen, either, so we're going to keep giving it a test drive by using it to rank the all-time NBA (& ABA, forgot to make that completely clear last time) players at each position. Here's what it has to say about the top 10 power forwards ever -- again, in alphabetical order:

Charles Barkley

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1985 21 PHI N 82 2347 19.8 59.9 2.7 4.6 7.5 3.6 1.6 1.4 5.2 8.6 28.6 2.99
1986 22 PHI N 80 2952 22.1 61.9 4.3 4.9 9.3 4.8 2.4 1.7 4.6 11.0 36.9 8.73
1987 23 PHI N 68 2740 23.7 66.0 5.0 5.9 9.1 4.9 1.8 1.6 3.8 12.1 40.3 10.11
1988 24 PHI N 80 3170 29.6 66.5 3.3 5.0 7.4 4.0 1.3 1.3 3.6 10.7 39.6 11.55
1989 25 PHI N 79 3088 27.0 65.3 4.3 5.3 7.7 3.4 1.7 0.9 3.5 11.5 39.1 12.44
1990 26 PHI N 79 3085 26.3 66.1 4.1 4.8 7.2 3.2 2.0 0.7 3.3 10.9 39.1 12.07
1991 27 PHI N 67 2498 30.3 63.5 4.6 4.2 6.9 3.4 1.8 0.5 2.8 11.6 37.3 13.12
1992 28 PHI N 75 2881 24.8 61.2 4.4 3.9 8.0 3.4 1.9 0.6 2.8 10.9 38.4 9.43
1993 29 PHO N 76 2859 26.4 59.6 5.2 3.2 9.4 3.2 1.6 1.0 2.7 12.0 37.6 10.42
1994 30 PHO N 65 2298 24.0 56.3 5.1 3.4 9.1 3.5 1.7 0.6 2.7 11.5 35.4 6.77
1995 31 PHO N 68 2382 25.4 57.2 4.5 3.3 9.0 2.4 1.8 0.7 3.3 11.2 35.0 9.30
1996 32 PHO N 71 2632 24.7 58.5 3.9 3.6 8.7 3.3 1.7 0.8 3.1 10.6 37.1 7.44
1997 33 HOU N 53 2009 19.9 58.1 4.9 4.2 9.9 3.0 1.4 0.5 3.0 11.1 37.9 7.69
1998 34 HOU N 68 2243 18.3 56.4 3.8 4.3 9.8 2.6 1.3 0.5 3.3 10.0 33.0 4.37
1999 35 HOU N 42 1526 17.7 54.6 5.0 4.4 9.2 2.6 1.1 0.3 2.3 10.7 36.3 5.59
2000 36 HOU N 20 620 18.4 53.4 4.0 4.5 8.8 2.8 0.9 0.3 3.1 10.0 31.0 2.67

Tim Duncan

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1998 21 SAS N 82 3204 22.1 57.7 2.9 3.5 9.0 3.6 0.7 2.6 3.2 9.2 39.1 4.89
1999 22 SAS N 50 1963 22.2 54.1 2.5 3.3 8.4 3.0 0.9 2.6 3.0 8.6 39.3 5.17
2000 23 SAS N 74 2875 24.5 55.5 3.3 3.7 9.4 3.5 0.9 2.4 3.0 10.2 38.9 7.04
2001 24 SAS N 82 3174 23.4 53.6 3.1 3.3 9.5 3.1 0.9 2.5 3.2 9.8 38.7 6.19
2002 25 SAS N 82 3329 25.3 57.6 3.7 3.2 9.4 3.2 0.7 2.5 2.6 10.6 40.6 8.54
2003 26 SAS N 81 3180 24.0 56.4 4.0 3.3 10.0 3.2 0.7 3.0 2.9 10.8 39.3 8.98
2004 27 SAS N 69 2527 24.6 53.4 3.4 3.6 10.1 2.9 1.0 3.0 2.6 10.5 36.6 9.05
2005 28 SAS N 66 2203 24.9 54.0 3.3 3.8 9.8 2.4 0.8 3.2 2.7 10.4 33.4 9.03
2006 29 SAS N 80 2784 21.8 52.3 3.7 3.4 9.6 2.9 1.0 2.4 3.2 10.2 34.8 6.33
2007 30 SAS N 80 2725 24.0 57.9 4.1 3.2 9.5 3.4 1.0 2.9 3.1 10.8 34.1 8.68
2008 31 SAS N 78 2651 23.7 54.6 3.4 3.7 10.1 2.8 0.9 2.4 2.9 10.4 34.0 6.35
2009 32 SAS N 57 1977 24.1 55.6 4.5 3.3 9.3 2.7 0.6 2.2 3.0 11.1 34.7 7.48

Kevin Garnett

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1996 19 MIN N 80 2293 14.3 52.2 2.5 3.0 5.6 1.9 1.5 2.2 3.2 6.7 28.7 1.71
1997 20 MIN N 77 2995 17.4 53.7 3.1 2.5 5.7 2.3 1.4 2.2 2.6 7.6 38.9 2.86
1998 21 MIN N 82 3222 18.4 52.7 4.2 2.7 6.8 2.3 1.7 1.8 2.7 9.0 39.3 5.16
1999 22 MIN N 47 1780 21.4 49.3 4.4 3.6 7.1 3.0 1.7 1.8 3.3 10.1 37.9 5.73
2000 23 MIN N 81 3243 23.2 54.5 5.0 2.8 9.2 3.4 1.5 1.6 2.6 11.2 40.0 6.05
2001 24 MIN N 81 3202 22.1 53.1 5.0 2.7 8.7 2.9 1.4 1.8 2.5 10.8 39.5 6.31
2002 25 MIN N 81 3175 21.6 53.6 5.3 3.1 9.3 2.9 1.2 1.6 2.3 11.3 39.2 7.30
2003 26 MIN N 82 3322 22.4 55.3 5.9 2.9 10.2 2.7 1.3 1.5 2.4 12.0 40.5 9.29
2004 27 MIN N 82 3231 24.9 54.7 5.1 3.1 11.2 2.7 1.5 2.2 2.5 12.2 39.4 10.76
2005 28 MIN N 82 3121 23.8 56.7 6.1 3.2 11.3 2.9 1.6 1.5 2.7 12.8 38.1 10.82
2006 29 MIN N 76 2957 22.8 58.9 4.2 3.0 10.4 2.5 1.4 1.5 2.8 10.9 38.9 8.82
2007 30 MIN N 76 2995 23.0 54.6 4.2 2.5 10.7 2.8 1.2 1.7 2.5 10.8 39.4 6.44
2008 31 BOS N 71 2328 23.3 58.8 4.3 2.4 9.1 2.4 1.7 1.6 2.8 10.4 32.8 8.42
2009 32 BOS N 53 1706 20.5 56.0 3.3 1.8 9.3 2.1 1.4 1.5 2.9 9.1 32.2 3.97

Elvin Hayes

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1969 23 SDR N 82 3695 24.1 48.3 1.2 5.5 9.0 3.3 1.4 1.8 2.7 7.4 45.1 0.31
1970 24 SDR N 82 3665 23.2 49.2 1.7 5.2 9.0 3.0 1.3 1.5 2.8 8.2 44.7 1.57
1971 25 SDR N 82 3633 25.2 46.8 2.0 5.7 9.0 3.2 1.5 1.4 2.4 9.0 44.3 2.11
1972 26 HOU N 82 3461 23.4 47.1 3.1 4.9 8.6 3.1 1.5 1.2 2.6 9.9 42.2 3.75
1973 27 BAL N 81 3347 20.8 47.7 1.5 4.3 9.9 2.8 1.2 1.5 2.8 7.7 41.3 -0.58
1974 28 CAP N 81 3602 19.5 47.0 1.8 4.0 12.5 3.0 1.0 2.7 2.8 8.4 44.5 2.06
1975 29 WSB N 82 3465 21.4 49.6 2.3 2.5 8.9 3.0 1.8 2.1 2.7 8.3 42.3 4.56
1976 30 WSB N 80 2975 21.6 50.1 1.6 2.9 9.1 3.5 1.4 2.7 4.0 7.5 37.2 2.13
1977 31 WSB N 82 3364 23.2 54.4 1.9 3.5 8.8 3.3 1.0 2.6 3.7 8.1 41.0 5.16
1978 32 WSB N 81 3246 19.4 48.9 1.8 4.1 9.0 2.8 1.2 1.9 3.8 7.7 40.1 1.74
1979 33 WSB N 82 3105 22.9 52.3 1.8 4.0 8.7 3.0 1.0 2.4 3.9 8.1 37.9 2.62
1980 34 WSB N 81 3183 23.5 49.2 1.6 3.4 7.9 2.7 0.8 2.4 3.9 7.6 39.3 0.92
1981 35 WSB N 81 2931 19.5 48.3 1.3 3.2 7.5 2.6 0.9 2.3 4.1 6.5 36.2 0.21
1982 36 HOU N 82 3032 18.0 51.3 2.0 3.7 6.6 2.8 0.8 1.4 3.9 7.1 37.0 -1.16
1983 37 HOU N 81 2302 18.3 51.5 2.8 3.5 7.3 3.5 0.9 1.4 4.1 8.2 28.4 -1.14
1984 38 HOU N 81 994 15.7 45.0 2.8 3.4 6.7 3.2 0.6 1.1 4.8 7.6 12.3 -6.48

Jerry Lucas

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1964 23 CIN N 79 3273 17.2 57.8 2.5 5.4 11.5 3.3 0.8 2.4 3.7 9.0 41.4 4.86
1965 24 CIN N 66 2864 19.9 55.1 2.2 6.1 12.5 3.4 0.8 2.5 3.0 9.4 43.4 4.38
1966 25 CIN N 79 3517 19.4 49.9 2.4 6.4 12.6 3.6 0.8 2.4 3.1 9.6 44.5 2.62
1967 26 CIN N 81 3558 16.5 50.8 3.1 5.9 11.9 3.3 0.9 2.1 3.2 9.7 43.9 3.69
1968 27 CIN N 82 3619 20.2 56.5 2.9 6.0 11.9 3.3 0.8 2.5 2.8 10.1 44.1 5.31
1969 28 CIN N 74 3075 18.0 59.0 4.1 5.7 12.4 2.9 1.2 2.1 2.7 11.0 41.6 6.48
1970 29 TOT N 67 2420 16.6 55.4 2.9 4.9 10.7 2.6 1.1 1.7 2.7 9.0 36.2 3.97
1971 30 SFW N 80 3251 19.1 54.4 3.6 4.4 11.3 3.0 1.1 1.8 2.4 10.3 40.6 5.02
1972 31 NYK N 77 2926 18.0 54.8 4.5 4.0 10.2 2.4 1.5 1.6 3.1 10.5 38.0 5.70
1973 32 NYK N 71 2001 14.5 54.0 6.6 2.7 7.9 2.6 1.8 1.0 3.2 10.0 28.2 4.78
1974 33 NYK N 73 1627 11.7 49.2 5.9 1.6 8.0 2.7 0.7 0.6 3.4 8.7 22.3 0.18

Karl Malone

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1986 22 UTA N 81 2475 19.2 50.4 3.8 2.8 8.7 4.5 1.7 0.7 4.7 9.4 30.6 -2.13
1987 23 UTA N 82 2857 24.3 53.6 2.2 3.8 7.9 3.2 1.4 0.8 4.4 8.5 34.8 1.45
1988 24 UTA N 82 3198 27.8 56.8 2.4 3.4 8.7 4.0 1.4 0.6 3.6 9.4 39.0 3.46
1989 25 UTA N 80 3126 30.6 59.2 2.9 3.4 7.8 3.7 1.9 0.9 3.8 10.0 39.1 9.85
1990 26 UTA N 82 3122 33.3 62.6 3.0 3.0 8.9 4.0 1.6 0.7 3.4 10.6 38.1 10.04
1991 27 UTA N 82 3302 29.6 59.6 3.4 2.9 9.1 3.0 1.1 1.0 3.3 10.6 40.3 9.20
1992 28 UTA N 81 3054 30.1 59.9 3.2 3.0 9.1 3.3 1.4 0.7 3.0 10.5 37.7 8.79
1993 29 UTA N 82 3099 28.7 61.2 4.0 2.9 9.0 3.1 1.6 1.1 3.4 11.1 37.8 11.08
1994 30 UTA N 82 3329 25.3 55.0 4.0 2.9 8.6 2.9 1.5 1.5 3.3 10.6 40.6 8.74
1995 31 UTA N 82 3126 28.1 59.0 3.7 2.0 9.2 3.0 1.7 1.1 3.5 10.5 38.1 8.61
1996 32 UTA N 82 3113 27.6 57.5 4.5 2.3 8.2 2.6 1.8 0.7 3.2 11.0 38.0 10.55
1997 33 UTA N 82 2998 30.0 60.0 4.9 2.6 8.2 3.1 1.5 0.6 2.9 11.7 36.6 10.85
1998 34 UTA N 81 3030 29.3 59.7 4.2 2.5 8.6 3.3 1.3 0.9 3.2 11.1 37.4 9.68
1999 35 UTA N 49 1832 26.0 57.7 4.5 2.4 7.9 3.6 1.4 0.6 3.0 10.6 37.4 8.10
2000 36 UTA N 82 2947 29.5 58.2 4.3 2.4 8.6 3.3 1.1 1.0 3.2 11.2 35.9 9.47
2001 37 UTA N 81 2895 26.4 57.2 5.1 1.6 7.8 3.4 1.3 0.9 3.0 10.8 35.7 7.21
2002 38 UTA N 80 3040 23.6 53.2 4.5 1.9 7.2 3.5 2.0 0.8 3.0 9.9 38.0 4.38
2003 39 UTA N 81 2936 23.1 53.4 5.3 1.6 7.1 2.9 1.9 0.4 2.8 10.2 36.2 5.87
2004 40 LAL N 42 1373 15.8 55.5 4.6 1.7 8.7 2.9 1.4 0.6 3.3 9.1 32.7 2.21

Larry Nance

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1982 22 PHO N 80 1186 18.1 54.3 2.8 3.2 5.5 3.6 1.4 2.4 5.8 7.6 14.8 -0.22
1983 23 PHO N 82 2914 19.1 57.3 2.7 3.3 6.6 2.6 1.4 3.0 3.5 8.0 35.5 5.27
1984 24 PHO N 82 2899 20.0 60.5 3.0 3.1 6.2 2.4 1.2 2.4 3.8 8.2 35.4 5.48
1985 25 PHO N 61 2202 21.9 61.2 2.9 3.5 6.2 2.5 1.6 1.9 3.3 8.5 36.1 6.50
1986 26 PHO N 73 2484 23.1 61.6 3.8 2.7 7.0 3.3 1.1 2.0 3.9 9.5 34.0 6.04
1987 27 PHO N 69 2569 23.9 60.7 3.6 2.9 6.3 2.3 1.3 2.3 3.4 9.2 37.2 8.59
1988 28 TOT N 67 2383 21.4 58.6 3.5 3.2 6.9 2.6 1.1 2.7 4.1 9.1 35.6 6.81
1989 29 CLE N 73 2526 20.5 59.0 2.6 2.5 6.9 1.9 0.9 3.3 3.0 7.9 34.6 5.24
1990 30 CLE N 62 2065 20.3 55.4 3.2 3.2 7.1 2.2 1.1 2.4 3.7 8.8 33.3 4.28
1991 31 CLE N 80 2927 21.6 56.7 3.3 2.8 6.8 1.8 0.9 2.8 3.1 8.8 36.6 5.69
1992 32 CLE N 81 2880 19.4 58.6 3.3 3.0 6.5 1.2 1.1 3.4 2.8 8.5 35.6 7.73
1993 33 CLE N 77 2753 18.8 58.7 3.3 2.7 7.2 1.6 0.8 2.9 3.3 8.5 35.8 5.29
1994 34 CLE N 33 909 16.9 52.6 2.2 3.5 6.8 1.7 1.2 2.5 4.4 7.3 27.5 2.36

Dirk Nowitzki

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1999 20 DAL N 47 958 16.1 49.1 2.0 1.7 5.0 3.0 1.2 1.1 4.4 6.0 20.4 -3.02
2000 21 DAL N 82 2938 19.2 56.4 2.7 1.4 5.7 1.9 0.8 0.9 3.4 7.2 35.8 1.99
2001 22 DAL N 82 3125 22.4 60.1 2.2 1.5 8.0 2.0 1.0 1.3 3.1 7.7 38.1 5.50
2002 23 DAL N 76 2891 24.1 59.9 2.5 1.6 8.6 2.0 1.1 1.0 3.0 8.5 38.0 6.12
2003 24 DAL N 80 3118 25.4 58.1 3.0 1.0 9.0 1.9 1.4 1.0 2.6 9.1 39.0 7.49
2004 25 DAL N 77 2915 22.3 56.1 2.7 1.2 7.7 1.8 1.2 1.4 2.9 8.2 37.9 4.86
2005 26 DAL N 78 3020 26.4 57.8 3.1 1.2 8.6 2.3 1.3 1.5 2.8 9.3 38.7 8.51
2006 27 DAL N 81 3089 28.7 58.9 3.0 1.5 8.2 2.1 0.8 1.1 2.2 9.4 38.1 8.10
2007 28 DAL N 78 2821 27.9 60.5 3.8 1.8 8.3 2.4 0.8 0.9 2.5 10.3 36.2 8.72
2008 29 DAL N 77 2769 26.9 58.5 3.9 1.4 8.3 2.4 0.8 1.1 2.9 10.1 36.0 7.41
2009 30 DAL N 62 2339 26.9 56.3 2.7 1.1 7.7 2.2 0.8 0.9 2.3 8.6 37.7 3.29

Bob Pettit

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1955 22 MLH N 72 2659 22.6 48.0 3.5 5.3 10.0 3.7 1.7 1.7 4.0 10.7 36.9 6.07
1956 23 STL N 72 2794 26.2 50.2 2.7 6.4 10.1 4.1 1.4 1.9 2.9 10.5 38.8 7.07
1957 24 STL N 71 2491 28.4 49.4 2.2 5.9 10.9 4.2 1.3 1.7 2.9 10.1 35.1 5.94
1958 25 STL N 70 2528 27.1 49.2 2.5 7.2 12.0 4.9 1.1 2.5 3.5 10.9 36.1 6.91
1959 26 STL N 72 2873 30.0 51.9 3.1 6.1 10.7 4.9 1.2 1.9 2.8 11.7 39.9 9.87
1960 27 STL N 72 2896 27.1 51.0 3.7 6.8 10.8 4.6 1.2 2.3 2.9 12.1 40.2 7.78
1961 28 STL N 76 3027 27.8 51.1 3.4 7.5 12.6 4.4 1.3 2.4 2.8 12.4 39.8 9.13
1962 29 STL N 78 3282 29.8 52.2 3.5 6.5 11.4 4.7 1.2 1.9 3.6 12.4 42.1 8.23
1963 30 STL N 79 3090 30.0 52.5 3.3 6.0 9.9 4.6 1.3 1.7 3.8 11.6 39.1 9.36
1964 31 STL N 80 3296 27.1 53.5 3.2 5.6 9.5 4.1 1.3 1.6 3.7 11.0 41.2 8.19
1965 32 STL N 50 1754 26.2 51.0 3.0 5.3 9.2 4.2 1.3 1.6 3.9 10.4 35.1 6.75

Dolph Schayes

Year Ag Tm Lg G Min P/40 TS% AS/40 OR/40 DR/40 TO/40 ST/40 BK/40 PF/40 V.I. MPG SPM
1952 23 SYR N 63 2004 17.3 46.8 3.6 5.7 9.7 3.6 1.5 1.8 4.2 9.9 31.8 5.48
1953 24 SYR N 71 2668 19.1 48.7 3.4 5.2 8.7 3.4 1.7 1.6 4.1 9.7 37.6 6.31
1954 25 SYR N 72 2655 18.2 49.8 3.2 4.6 8.3 3.0 1.5 1.6 3.4 9.1 36.9 6.28
1955 26 SYR N 72 2526 21.3 49.0 3.4 5.1 9.0 3.3 1.5 1.6 3.9 10.1 35.1 5.93
1956 27 SYR N 72 2517 23.7 49.7 3.2 5.4 8.9 3.4 1.6 1.5 4.0 10.3 35.0 7.04
1957 28 SYR N 72 2851 22.6 50.2 3.2 4.9 9.2 3.4 1.4 1.2 3.1 10.1 39.6 7.23
1958 29 SYR N 72 2918 24.9 50.8 3.1 5.0 9.2 3.9 1.3 1.3 3.4 10.3 40.5 7.77
1959 30 SYR N 72 2645 22.9 48.8 2.7 5.3 9.1 4.0 1.3 1.3 4.2 9.6 36.7 4.79
1960 31 SYR N 75 2741 24.5 49.6 3.7 5.0 8.9 4.1 1.3 1.3 3.8 10.8 36.5 6.09
1961 32 SYR N 79 3007 24.6 48.2 3.9 4.7 8.0 4.4 1.3 1.1 3.9 10.7 38.1 5.38
1962 33 SYR N 56 1480 21.8 46.1 3.2 4.2 7.4 4.1 1.2 1.0 4.4 9.3 26.4 1.09
1963 34 SYR N 66 1438 16.9 47.1 4.7 3.5 6.6 4.0 1.2 1.0 4.8 9.3 21.8 1.08
1964 35 PHI N 24 350 15.0 39.9 5.4 4.6 7.7 4.9 1.3 0.9 8.5 10.0 14.6 -2.00

Just missed the cut: Horace Grant, Connie Hawkins, George McGinnis, Kevin McHale, Clifford Robinson, Rasheed Wallace, Chris Webber

Over/under-valued: You know, the only name that probably wouldn't consistently show up in most people's top 10 lists is Larry Nance -- but that's mainly because Nance has always been criminally underrated. Check out Larry's career numbers, normalized to this year's environment of 108.7 pts/100 possessions:

Year Ag Tm Lg Ht Pos G Min trORtg %Poss trDRtg
1982 22 PHO N 82 F 80 1186 102.2 20.4 102.6
1983 23 PHO N 82 F 82 2914 114.7 19.0 101.2
1984 24 PHO N 82 F 82 2899 118.6 19.2 106.7
1985 25 PHO N 82 F 61 2202 117.9 20.1 105.2
1986 26 PHO N 82 F 73 2484 116.2 22.0 106.7
1987 27 PHO N 82 F 69 2569 121.9 21.8 108.1
1988 28 PHO N 82 F 40 1477 114.0 22.4 108.4
1988 28 CLE N 82 F 27 906 121.9 19.7 105.4
1989 29 CLE N 82 F 73 2526 119.9 19.0 101.9
1990 30 CLE N 82 F 62 2065 113.7 20.8 105.0
1991 31 CLE N 82 F 80 2927 116.6 21.3 107.0
1992 32 CLE N 82 F 81 2880 125.5 18.7 105.6
1993 33 CLE N 82 F 77 2753 120.7 18.7 104.0
1994 34 CLE N 82 F 33 909 113.3 18.7 104.3

That's a career line of 117.7/20.1/105.2, normalized to 2009... In other words, it's the equivalent of having a career average roughly as productive on a per-possession basis as Ray Allen's, Jameer Nelson's, Chauncey Billups', & Mehmet Okur's 2008-09 campaigns. Oh, and he's one of only 6 players to average 17 PPG, 8 RPG, 2 BPG, and post a career TS% > .580. The other five? Only some guys named Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Artis Gilmore, Shaquille O'Neal, David Robinson, & Alonzo Mourning. Yeah, yeah, I know, multiple endpoints and all that, but you still gotta admit that it's impressive company.

That's not to say I'd have put Nance ahead of, say, C-Webb on a subjective list, but he deserves a lot more attention than he's gotten so far, so it's kind of cool to see him crack the top 10 on one of these lists. You'd think winning the first-ever NBA Slam Dunk Contest would have earned Nance some recognition by now, but instead he remains one of the most underappreciated players in the history of the league. It time to give Larry his due, people!

Related posts:

    The 50 Biggest Playoff Upsets, 1991-2009
    Optimizing the Rockets II
    Which Single-Game Playoff Outcomes Were the Most Surprising?
    D-Rose and Iverson
    The Bird-Dirk Advanced Stat-off

This entry was posted on Monday, March 9th, 2009 at 7:41 am and is filed under Analysis, History, Statistical +/-. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

10 Responses to “The Top 10 Power Forwards of All Time (*according to statistical +/-)”

  1. Sir Charles Says:
    March 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Prime Charles Barkley is the Best PF I Ever Saw!

    His Impact is Constantly Underrated. If he played in his Prime with a Great Center to Anchor the Defense or Great Defensive Role Players (like Hakeem had) or a PG or Passer like Bird, Magic or Stockton that though team 1st it would have been laughable!

  2. Neil Paine Says:
    March 9th, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    It's true, Barkley was a beast in his prime. People think of "Phoenix Charles" (who won an undeserved MVP over MJ), "Houston Charles" (an old guy), and "TNT Charles" (the Round Mound of Sound-Bytes) but "Philly Charles" was completely off the charts, just monstrously efficient (.660-ish TS%!) while scoring 25+ PPG and grabbing 12-15 RPG. But for some reason, nobody really appreciates how awesome he was back in those days. So here's a video that will help everyone remember:

    YouTube -- Charles Barkley Mix

  3. Jason J Says:
    March 10th, 2009 at 11:43 am

    Charles is one of my very favorite players of all time and one of the few true creator big men who could really be asked to be the primary playmaker and primary rebounder for a playoff team. Surprisingly clutch as well and really great at moving between positions on the floor. Could bring the ball up, make sharp cuts, pass from high and low post... Did have a major flaw as both a lazy and undersized (length anyway) defender.

    To me Duncan is always underrated by stats and metrics. He's one of those classic guys whose effectiveness doesn't shine through on a box score. It's so hard to measure the impact of a defensive rotation or a tipped out rebound or a smart skip pass. Timmy just has a knack for making the right play, and he's probably the best defensive 4 of all time (highly debatable - as is calling him a 4 at all).

    I'm a little surprised Webber didn't make the list.

    I also think McHale is a guy who doesn't get a lot of credit for how ridiculous he was - mostly because he willingly played second fiddle for so long. At his best he put up 26 & 9 shooting 60% from the field and 80% from the line. He just never had a high enough usage to make a list this exclusive.

  4. Eddy Says:
    March 10th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Yeah, after looking at the numbers, the one thing that jumped out to me was how dominant Barkley was in his Philly days. No one else in the Top 10 is able to compare to some of the seasons Sir Charles had as a Sixer. That's impressive.

  5. David Badgley Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    How does Dan Roundfield rate?

  6. MyArvydas Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    I think Roundfield would not rate that high (very efficient guy, but his career was cut short by injuries). I'm surprised by the high rating of Horace Grant, though, as he didn't score a lot of points and was not a huge shot blocker either.

  7. Keith Ellis Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    I like Larry, too, but Nance didn't win the NBA's first Slam-Dunk Contest. Dr Dunk did.

  8. Neil Paine Says:
    March 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    I beg to differ: http://www.nba.com/history/allstar/slamdunk_year_by_year.html

  9. ScottR. Says:
    March 24th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Interesting, but I maintain that Tim Duncan is a center. He guards centers on defense and doesn't run the floor or fill the lane like a true PF. Also, I noticed Larry Bird was considered a SF in another article but, to me at least, played more like a PF than SF. Bird was never afraid to bang down low and I recall McHale guarding the smaller, quicker players.

  10. Knick with the Knack Says:
    April 14th, 2009 at 1:20 am

    Does Charles Oakley come anywhere near the top guys? Obviously his traditional stats aren't that impressive (except for rebounds), but he seemed to be the 2nd best player on the constantly strong '90s Knicks. Win Shares seems to like him.

«
»