RealGM Top 100 List #32

[penbeast0]

Things I need to see . . .

Some great posts on Artis have left me a bit less skeptical of his NBA years, he was far less active and played closer to the basket on both ends which accounts for (a) his lesser defensive impact, (b) the rep of not having good hands which was not a problem in the ABA, and (c) the great increase in efficiency AFTER the move to the NBA. Haven't seen any analysis on other top centers like Zo or Deke yet. How do they compare to Artis (and Dwight)?

Warspite, if you advocate Cousy, can you show him making his team appreciably better in any realistic way? It seems they replaced him without missing a beat and his playoff numbers are awful during the championship years; Ramsey was picking up the slack that Cousy dropped it seems. Thus the case for Cousy should probably be like the case for Nash or Kidd, based on his unique playmaking skills making his teammates better.

For now, I favor:

a. Artis Gilmore over other bigs left. Maybe McHale but I have questions about his rebounding.

b. Clyde Drexler over other wings left. Maybe Gervin but I like my stars to put in effort on defense. I love Alex English too but Gervin seemed to draw more attention and have a greater impact. I still am not seeing Baylor directly compared to anyone; how does he compare to Drexler, Gervin, English, McHale

c. Gary Payton over other PGs left. More efficient scorer, competent though less assist prone playmaker, better defender than Isiah. Better defense AND better individual offense than Kidd plus better team results (with better talent around him though). Kidd's playmaking in the half court just never seemed enough to make up this gap when he couldn't shoot; when he could shoot from 3, his defensive impact had dropped. Kidd's end of career is a lot better than Payton's, but Payton's peak is higher.

[RSCD3_]

Edit: Reserving a spot for the next player voted in

[Texas Chuck]

Vote for Chris Paul

Spoiler:

He has the arguably highest peak left on the board

( besides bill Walton whose longevity prevents me from taking him here )

His prime seasons 08/09/11/12/13/14 are consistently high in win shares and PER

He was a legit MVP candidate in 08 and a fringe candidate in all the other years

He has performed well in the playoffs

Going from (RS) 18.6/4.4/9.9 on 47.2/35.7/85.7 ( all together 57.5 TS%)

To (PS) 20.6/4.8/9.7 on 47.8/38.0/81.8 ( all together 57.5 TS )

Increasing his volume while keeping the same efficiency and assists from the regular season and he was injured in more than one of those postseasons

He isn't in the Gary Payton / Walt Frazier tier defensively but he is one below it and his offense is one tier down from GOAT offensive PG's such as Nash and Magic. It's a great balance and he can provide a lot of " lift "

He just was voted in at #31 mate.

[RSCD3_]

Vote for Chris Paul

Spoiler:

He has the arguably highest peak left on the board

( besides bill Walton whose longevity prevents me from taking him here )

His prime seasons 08/09/11/12/13/14 are consistently high in win shares and PER

He was a legit MVP candidate in 08 and a fringe candidate in all the other years

He has performed well in the playoffs

Going from (RS) 18.6/4.4/9.9 on 47.2/35.7/85.7 ( all together 57.5 TS%)

To (PS) 20.6/4.8/9.7 on 47.8/38.0/81.8 ( all together 57.5 TS )

Increasing his volume while keeping the same efficiency and assists from the regular season and he was injured in more than one of those postseasons

He isn't in the Gary Payton / Walt Frazier tier defensively but he is one below it and his offense is one tier down from GOAT offensive PG's such as Nash and Magic. It's a great balance and he can provide a lot of " lift "

He just was voted in at #31 mate.

Oh reading the OP I must have misread it I'll guess I must change my vote


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Texas Chuck]

Im still leaning Kidd, but I keep meaning to get into the bigs but haven't yet. But the PG discussion has been really good so not really an issue. But fpliii keeps hinting that the bigs are getting forgotten and that he's not sure that's correct so I'd love so see some discussion on the bigs.

Im really interested in some information on Gilmore,Zo, Cowens and Howard. I have Mutombo as the best center left, but I'm also aware that most don't. I've shown a preference over the last 7-8 threads for guys who were 2-way players: Hondo, Pippen, Kidd rather than being much more defensive or offensive oriented. But I'm really quite high on Deke's defensive impact, but I'd like to see some arguments for some of the other guys with strong defensive reps, but who have stronger offensive reputations.

[Sasaki]

I'm leaning towards Clyde Drexler and Gary Payton for now. We can play "Kidd went to the Finals twice", but Payton from my perspective was the player on the greatest team that failed to win, and the toughest of Jordan's teams. Kidd has an advantage that he did a much better job at settling down as a role player compared to Payton, but Payton was a better scorer. I'm surprised the gap between Stockton and Payton ( two point guards who are frequently compared to one another) is this huge.

[tsherkin]

GUARDS
I am looking hard at Clyde Drexler and Chris Paul who, like Artis, has spectacular numbers but I'm just not sure that his numbers don't overstate his impact. I am open to Payton, Kidd, or Isiah but all three have efficiency issues v. Paul and Paul is the best of the bunch as a playmaker and not a bad defender. Longevity is the biggest issue for Paul like it is for Durant. I'd love to say I'm looking at Sidney Moncrief here too but he is a bit below the Chris Paul level for either peak or longevity.

Might want to edit this, pen.

[Jaivl]

Vote: Dikembe Mutombo

To sum up, his late-prime version has easily the best defensive impact we have data for. The only one outside the top 20 whose defensive impact is really comparable to the greatest offensive impacts ever.

Yes, he is a negative on offense. But think about it, you can put him on nearly every team, nearly every configuration, and he could thrive defensively. Rim-protection is really portable. Very athletic, good finisher in his younger years. Great longevity too despite entering the league at 25.

Want playoff showings? What about a 13 points, 12 rebounds and 6 blocks per game on a 5-game win against #1 seed, #1 SRS Seattle Sonics... in his first posteason? Followed by a hard fought 7-game loss against the Malone/Stockton Jazz where he put 14 points, 12 rebounds more than 5 blocks and 3 +20 point games! Jesus. And of course he was a crucial part on the '01 Sixers Finals run (14-14-3).

Comparing him against the other centers on the board (Reed, Cowens, Gilmore...) he's clearly the worst on offense, but I have a hard time thinking their offensive superiority translates in better results. We know a center-driven offense is not the best thing (unless you are a Shaq or something similar). And Deke's defensive impact is undeniable, portable and quite clearly superior of that of everybody else on the board.

[trex_8063]

My vote: Elgin Baylor.

Here is a re-post of my original statements from the last thread (with a few additions):

Spoiler:

In ‘59 and rookie Elgin Baylor had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only a peak Bob Pettit.
In ‘60 he had the 2nd-highest PER in the league behind only Wilt Chamberlain.
In ‘61: he had the highest PER (even ahead of Wilt, not to mention Pettit and rookie Oscar Robertson).
‘62 and ‘63: 2nd-best PER in the league both years, behind only Wilt Chamberlain (even ahead of triple-double season Robertson, as well as Pettit and Walt Bellamy’s insane rookie season).

That’s a super-impressive 5-year span, imo. Yes, he drops off quite a bit after, but it’s not as though he faded into obscurity or ineffectiveness in subsequent years. He was a relevant player until ‘70.

Despite his career "lingering" until the early 70's, he's still 24th all-time in career rs PER (while averaging a whopping 40.0 mpg for his career).
24th all-time in career playoff PER.
Was FOUR times in the top 3 in MVP voting, SEVEN times in the top 5 (one other time in 6th place). Is 23rd all-time in MVP award shares.
Is 23rd all-time RealGM RPoY shares.

Efficiency
By year TS%: Baylor vs League Avg (diff)
'59: 48.8/45.8 (+3.0)
'60: 48.9/46.3 (+2.6)
'61: 49.8/46.9 (+2.9)
'62: 49.2/47.9 (+1.3)
'63: 51.9/49.3 (+2.6)
'64: 48.7/48.5 (+0.2)
'65: 46.3/47.9 (-1.6)
'66: 45.6/48.7 (-2.0)
'67: 49.1/49.3 (-0.2)
'68: 50.5/49.8 (+0.7)
'69: 50.0/49.1 (+0.9)
'70: 53.7/51.1 (+2.6)
'71: 46.2/50.0 (-3.8) *2 game sample
'72: 48.7/50.4 (-1.7) *9 game sample

5-Year Prime avg ('59-'63) vs league avg: 49.9/47.2 (+2.7)--->above league avg in all five of those years, by more than 2.5% over in 4 of the 5.
Career vs league over same years (not accounting for games played): 49.4/48.6 (+0.8)

Offensive Impact
The Laker team offensive rating improved with rookie Baylor by 2.8 (by 1.4 even if measuring relative to league average) in ‘59. I won’t claim that Baylor always “helped the offense optimally” to the best of his abilities; but I do think he helped it. Obviously other metrics of offensive production/efficiency suggest Baylor was a “big deal”.

But what I’m beginning to wonder about is whether or not Baylor had a defensive impact that hasn't been properly appreciated.

Maybe his capability as a rebounder eliminated a lot of second-chance points for opponents????

idk, but something I noted is that the Laker team DRtg changed -1.4 (minus is a good thing for DRtg) in ‘59 with rookie Baylor. Relative to league average, DRtg improved by -2.8 (that’s a pretty big jump):
In ‘58, they were 8th of 8 defensively, DRtg +4.5 over league avg and +2.5 over the next worse team.
In ‘59, improved to only +1.7 over league avg (6th of 8).
They would continue to improve defensively over the next couple of seasons with acquisitions of Jerry West and aging Ray Felix. And then interestingly their defense appears to suffer slightly in ‘62 when Baylor misses significant games:
In ‘61, the Laker DRtg is -1.3 to league average (again: minus is good), 4th of 8.
In ‘62 Baylor misses 32 games and the Laker DRtg falls a little: just -0.3 vs league average (though still 4th of 9).
In ‘63: no more big Ray Felix playing significant minutes in the middle and Jerry West misses 25 games (things you’d expect to hurt the team defense); they otherwise obtain guard Dick Barnett (not sure that really helps the D significantly), and the only other change from the previous year is that Baylor is healthy (doesn’t miss a game)…….and the team DRtg improves to -1.2 vs league average (3rd of 9).
And then beginning in ‘64 (perhaps non-coincidentally just as Baylor begins to be significantly hampered by knee injuries, which causes his overall effectiveness to suffer, as seen by sudden drop in PER and other metrics), the Laker team DRtg takes a sudden dip (drops to significantly below average)……...And it would never recovery to a better than average team defense (even with big bodies like Darrall Imhoff and Mel Counts) until ‘69 when they obtained Wilt Chamberlain.

So I’m starting to wonder if Baylor had a bigger impact defensively than he’s previously been given credit for.

Overall impact......
The Lakers in ‘58 were 19-53 with an SRS of -5.78. And then they obtained rookie Elgin Baylor.
In ‘59--with Baylor being the only relevant player acquisition--they improved by 14 games to 33-39, SRS of -1.42 (+4.36 improvement); also made it to the finals (defeating the 2.89 SRS defending champion Hawks 4-2 along the way). That strikes me as indication of fairly significant impact.

EDIT (additional tidbits): Career team rs record: 643-474 (.576). Career team playoff record: 93-78 (.544)
*that's a better rs win% than the careers of Jason Kidd, Kevin Durant, Elvin Hayes, Artis Gilmore (to name a few getting mentioned; also better than Rick Barry)
**It's a better playoff win% than Kevin Durant, Artis Gilmore, Gary Payton, Elvin Hayes, Clyde Drexler, Jason Kidd (also Steve Nash, Patrick Ewing, Rick Barry, and Chris Paul)
***That's more playoff wins than any of the above mentioned, too.
****He's one of only 6 players with >20,000 pts, 10,000 reb, and 3,600 ast: with Wilt, Kareem, Barkley, and Karl Mailman, and Garnett (all of whom were top 20).

And here was a reply to Doc regarding his impact, era competition, etc.

Spoiler:

I don't think there are any other players out there since 1960, who were Top 3 players over a 3 year period,
I think Baylor, Cowens, Gervin come close, and I'm sure one or two others.

I really like Cowens, but longevity hurts him.
Baylor is 3-5th best in a less competitive league
I do like Gervin

Baylor was

#3 in 1959
#4 in 1960
#2 in 1961
#4 in 1962
#3 in 1963

This was in a league with Russell, Pettit, Wilt since 1960, Oscar and West since 1961.

Top-5 talent was more competitive in the early 1960s than the current NBA.

My first thought on this is that just listing out the competitors implies they were all at peak MVP competitiveness.

In the case of West for example, Baylor was literally in the way of West becoming the alpha superstar that was better than Baylor. So in the years you list Baylor beats West because West wasn't West yet, in part because of Baylor retarding that process. It's literally not an accomplishment.

Other guy? Pettit was older, Oscar was younger and not in the league the whole run, Wilt was erratic. It's not like this is the only era like this, but you can't just list the stuff out as if he was going into the teeth of the jungle the whole time.

Then there's things like Baylor finishing 4th in 1961-62 voting despite the fact he missed much of the season and the team offense exploded over the prior year despite having far less from Baylor. It's just obviously wrong. He wasn't in the Top 10 in Win Shares that year in a league with 10-ish teams. The equivalent today would be a guy around 45th in Win Shares in a WS-friendly role getting MVP attention. Just wouldn't happen.

You're pretty intent on lampooning any support Baylor gets, but I (again ) take issue with what seem like some misleading statements above (or at least some over-simplified linear logic)......

1) West wasn't West yet, and it's partially Baylor's fault.....
West was a young player in the years specified. You make it sound like he landed in the NBA a fully developed and mature ("peaked") player, and that it was simply Baylor's presence holding him back. Whereas I would suggest he simply needed a little time to mature (like nearly every other player in history).

In '62 Baylor misses 32 games and West's game appears to take a big jump forward. But let's not reach too hard for the "A happened, and B happened....therefore A caused B" type of linearity. How often do we see players get better in their 2nd year? Usually, as a matter of fact.

And if it was suddenly getting so much time away from Baylor that facilitated the surge in his game in '62.....why didn't he suffer a major setback in '63 when Baylor was back full-time?

And if Baylor and his ball-hogging is truly such a massive impediment to West's ability to fully impact the game......why is it that in '66---when Baylor a) misses 15 games, b) averages >10 minutes LESS per game than he EVER did previously, and c) is taking fewer shots when he is in the game---West's game does not take some giant surge forward? Baylor has to a large degree been moved aside, yet West's volume (relative to pace), efficiency, and general impact appear unchanged from the year before.
Or in '71 when Baylor is fairly literally gone completely, West's game is steady-state, too.

2) In '62 Baylor missed significant games and the Laker offense "exploded" under West......
It's true their offense did take a big leap forward that year. Again I just don't agree with "Baylor hurts their offense" angle you're trying to play here. For one, it's just a bit too much of the "A happened, and B happened, therefore....." kind of logic. West improved (and as I suggested above, I would contest more due to natural development that we USUALLY see from players in their 2nd year); also, Hot Rod Hundley (whose efficiency is beyond abominable, even for the era) had his role/minutes reduced by more than 30% that year. Jim Krebs, although just a low-volume role player, has by far his best offensive season. So there are multiple factors at play there, rather than just "Baylor missed games".

If it's Baylor holding back West and the offense---and it's this '62 season you want to cite as evidence of that----why is it that when in '63 and: a) Baylor doesn't miss a game, b) is taking a whopping 28.4 FGA/game, and c) West misses 25 games......that the Laker offense doesn't fall off from this "exploding" '62 offense under West? In fact, even relative to league averages---which as a whole the league avg ORtg went +2.3 from the year before---the Laker offense was +0.1 in '63 compared to '62.
Or how about in '66 (again: that's the year where Baylor misses 15 games, is playing barely over 30 mpg, and taking fewer shots per 100 possessions than he ever had in his career).....why didn't the Laker offense surge forward? In fact, relative to league average, if fell -0.4.

And I've cited before the Lakers offensive jump forward during Baylor's rookie season, too. Overall, I'll allow that Baylor's offensive impact perhaps sees it's maximum potential when he's the ONLY superstar on the team. Perhaps he doesn't co-exist next to another superstar as well as others. But that's not the same as saying Baylor hurt their offense (which appears to be your implication, and which several things I've cited above would imply is a highly questionable stance).

3) Pettit was old and therefore not terribly relevant competition......
Pettit was possibly at his absolute peak in '59, and '61 wasn't far behind imo. He was only 30 years old going into the last year cited (and still one of the hyper-elite players in the league that year).

4) Oscar was young, therefore not terribly relevant competition......
Oscar was that rare breed who was a superstar the second he stepped into the league. '62 was the remarkable triple-double year, and I think arguably his 2nd or 3rd-best overall year. '63 wasn't far behind.

5) Wilt was erratic, therefore not terribly relevant competition......
Perhaps a touch "erratic", though consistent enough to be posting numbers not seen before or since throughout the last four seasons cited.

And then there's Russell......

If you want to stick with the argument that Baylor got so rated in MVP voting because the same "status quo" thinking about Baylor that's been endemic to modern all-time rankings was effecting voters then, well.....that may be a valid argument.
But let's not slander or down-play the competition of the time: the top 5 were clearly pretty stellar in an all-time sense.

If you're skeptical about Baylor, I do think it worth an open-minded read. It's all there: elite numbers and statistical footprint, team success, indicators of impact (contribution to said team success). Seems like more than ample case for #32.

I could be happy lending my support to Kidd, too, if that's the way the wind blows; but for my initial vote I gotta go with my heart and stick with Baylor.

[Sasaki]

Great longevity too despite entering the league at 25.

Is that necessarily so? Mutombo entered the league in 1991. He made his last All-Star Game in 2002, played just 24 games in 2002-03, and by the time he joined the Rockets in 2004, the dude was nothing more than a backup center who hung around behind Yao for the next four seasons. Sure, I love Mutombo to death and he had some great moments when Yao inevitably got injured, but he wasn't capable of lasting a full NBA season.

So, Mutombo lasted at around 11 seasons as a great defensive center, and then hung around for a while longer as a backup. 11-12 years is not great longevity.

[trex_8063]

btw, while I know this post contributes nothing to the discussion, is basically just clutter.......I want to express my gratitude to this forum for providing such vibrant and varied discussion on the topics I'm interested in. It goes far beyond the level (and quantity) of meaningful discussion I found on other sites.

On a side note, I'd posted something on the football/NFL PC forum, only to discover that it's like a graveyard over there by comparison. Kind of surprising to me (not like the NFL isn't crazy popular), but it made me appreciate this forum all the more.

So anyway, uh......thanks, I guess . Cheers lads.....

[DQuinn1575]

Durant has been the #2 player in the league the last 5 years, he is second in win shares over the last 6.

I think his peak is much higher than anyone left, save Walton and Baylor.

Walton obviously has longevity - and will be behind the other 2 at least.

I think Durant has peaked higher than Elgin, and Elgin's longevity isn't enough to beat out Durant.
Right now I'm leaning toward Elgin as next best after Durant,

VOTE FOR KEVIN DURANT

[ElGee]

My guess is the guy I'm higher on than the norm is Reggie Miller, and I would vote for him here. I don't expect people to vote for him yet -- he's in the same tier as Kidd for me -- but I imagine he'll have very few champions so I'll explain why I have Miller so high.

First, a reminder: GOAT rankings and Peak aren't the same. That divide is never more present than when talking about longevity guys like Miller. I have him my top 30 all-time but my top 50 peaks. Stockton is just like this. Kidd too. Havlicek as well. So without doing a year-by-year, first let me say I'd have voted for Reggie for 13 or 14 all-star games. His longevity, from 89-02 is part of the reason why he's one of the all-time leaders in Win Shares and scored over 25k points. Of the 18 players with 25k+ career, Miller stands as an outlier in efficiency: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _by=ts_pct

The RAPM data we have on Miller is elite as well. Using Doc's scaled RAPM, Miller is +8.3 in 1998 (13th), +5.1 in 1999 (26th) and +5.8 in 2000 (17th). (Note: there are low-minute players in there as well.)

So for a long time, what does Miller give you? At a high-level

-excellent volume scoring
-great spacing
-moderate creation using the screen
-underrated defense at the shooting guard
-uber portable scoring because he's a GOAT-level shooter AND scores mostly on catch-and-shoot action so he doesn't vacuum possessions

1. Volume Scoring

Spoiler:

As with Nash, I can't isolate volume scoring. It's part of a player's Global Offense package. I'm focusing on it with Miller because I don't think people realize how well he volume scored. He is basically the GOAT player at raising his game against in the PS when the situation calls for: one study I ran years back looked at a player's expected postseason performance versus their actual one based on defensive quality. Miller, if he maintained his RS play from 1990 to 2001 should have had a PS stat line of 18.8 ppg, 59.3% TS 117 ORTg. Instead it was 23.5 ppg, 60.6% TS and 122 ORtg. (!) If his scoring is normalized in the PS, we see:

Normalized PS Prime PPG TS% Ortg
Michael Jordan 33.4 .565 118
Kobe Bryant 28.9 .558 113
LeBron James 28.6 .562 114
Hakeem Olajuwon 27.3 .570 113
Shaquille O’Neal 27.3 .582 115
Karl Malone 27.1 .535 109
Dirk Nowitzki 26.3 .589 119
Dwyane Wade 26.2 .579 114
Charles Barkley 25.6 .583 118
Larry Bird 24.3 .550 113
Reggie Miller 24.0 .620 125
Tim Duncan 23.6 .556 111
David Robinson 23.0 .538 110
Kevin Garnett 22.4 .529 108

His volume -- ~ 24 per game -- on outlying efficiency in the PS is phenomenal. I'll let the reader balance it against say, 27 ppg at 57%, but needless to say we would expect good offenses from it. Miller played on one below average offense from 1990 to 2000, with a number in the +4 range and peaking in 1999 at +6.5 I find it highly instructional that there's a spike in 1999, because 1999 and 2012 were basketball experiments examining what happens when offenses aren't given time to gel in the pre-season. Sample size only 2, and also in 1999 players were flat out of shape, but still, offenses in both years were horrible at the start and this showed as teams had very little synergy. This is a "take my word for it" argument if you weren't there, and I don't know how to prove it, but I'm sure regulator could drum up some articles on how widely acknowledged this was -- teams were resorting to playing more iso than ever because they couldn't do their thing.

Why is this instructional for Miller? Because he's the poster child of offensive portability! You stick him on the court, run him around a bunch of screens, the screening action distorts the defense organically (without Miller having the ball) and then either the PG (with the ball) OR MILLER (when catching) can advance a power play if the defense isn't properly set. It's like a one-man team offense. Pacers fan know how many slip screen dunks the Davis brothers had from Mark Jackson after setting a screen for Miller around the elbow because the defense couldn't properly react. Could 99 be a random spike? Sure -- but I'm not surprised to see this number because of Miller and Indiana's PS history.

Now let's look at their PS relative ORtg's:
1989-90 0.0
1990-91 9.7
1991-92 4.0
1992-93 11.2
1993-94 1.7
1994-95 6.9
1995-96 -1.0
1996-97 -
1997-98 7.2
1998-99 8.3
1999-00 8.1
2000-01 1.4

See that dip in 1996? Miller missed 4 of the 5 playoff games that year. From 1991 to 2000 Indiana was a +6.7 offense in the PS. (!) This is monstrous. Now, I don't want to take away from Chuck Person at the beginning, Schrempf, Mark Jackson or even guys like Mullin and Smits. I'm not advocating that Miller impacts the game like Nash or Bird. But in 93 the Pacers PG was Pooh Richardson. Schrempf was the second-leading scorer. Against a GOAT-level Knick defense he averaged 31 per game on 69% TS. For perspective, in 6 games vs those Knicks Jordan averaged 32 on 52% TS.

Was it a fluke? In 1994 against the Knicks he averaged 25 ppg on 58% TS over their 7-game series. Smits was second at 16 ppg and after that there's hardly any offensive talent to be found -- McKey, Davis, Davis, Workman, Fleming. Indiana scored nearly 2 points better than league against the Knicks in that series.

In the 95 playoffs, Miller averaged 26 per game on 61% TS. Time and time again, Miller's scoring volume jumped without a drop in efficiency, and this jump coincided with his team performing like an elite offensive team without seeming to have elite offensive team talent. I'll talk about why this is the case in part 4. As a final perspective of his volume scoring, here are the results of the elite defense study I ran this summer:




Dirk Nowitzki is a 21 ppg/57% TS player against sub-103 defenses. Miller is 20 ppg/59% TS. Kobe is 23/53%. Again, I do not hold Miller quite in the same esteem as these guys because his creation isn't quite there, but his scoring is often under appreciated or misunderstood because of his RS numbers.

I've also seen his scoring looked down upon because he comes off screens and doesn't play one-on-one. My impression has always been people don't think he's "creating his own offense' if someone passes him the ball. But this is not really true, because Miller can go out there with any players in NBA history who can screen for him and his running gets him his shot. Furthermore, this actually has it's perks over holding the ball since defenses can't seem to stop this approach!

2. Spacing

Spoiler:

I don't need to discuss this much since it's been established quite a bit in the project. Just note that Miller is a GOAT-level shooter.

3. Creation

Spoiler:

This is where Miller has always been really underrated because he didn't rack up assists. People assumed he was one-dimensional (I did!) but this article sums up well how much this kind of screening action can create opportunities. http://grantland.com/features/kyle-korv ... nta-hawks/

Furthermore, when I tracked games these Miller types like Ray Allen and JJ Redick had WAY more creation than you would expect running off of screens because of how much "gravity" that creates (draws defenders to). Again, the player with the ball can make the pass to another player for an easier shot based on Miller's cuts, or Miller can receive and move the ball along.

4. Underrated Defense

Spoiler:

This one I'll leave for someone else because I can't find a good compilation of my data right now. Go look at SG performance vs. Indiana and then say, Chicago with Jordan. You'll be scratching your head at why guys didn't play better against scrawny Reggie Miller. I'd argue it's because Miller was a long, hustling 6-7 who was a total pain in the ass and liked to get in your head. Much like with creation, i don't consider Miller an elite defender. It's just that I think his defense is actually pretty good -- definitely better than replacement level.

5. Portability

Spoiler:

Perhaps Miller's calling card.

I noticed over the years that every time someone asked me to build a s super team, I'd always include someone like Miller or Allen on the bench for their incredible shooting and spacing, and because they are so compatible with basically every other kind of offensive player. Miller even more so.

As he showed in certain seasons in Indiana, Miller could still ramp up his volume at incredible efficiency -- NOTE: Miller was excellent as drawing fouls, one of the areas he separates himself from someone like Ray Allen -- even without the support of good offense around him. That's simply the power of his offensive style. But when other players start filling up dimensions like "creation," "isolation scoring" and "post scoring," Miller still shines. Heck, Miller shines when you replace a Miller-type (!) because Miler would still be an improvement.

A few years ago I ran a study on shooters in good lineups. Basically all of the top shelf lineups had elite shooters. The short explanation for this is that the power of 5 players to be a threat anywhere is significantly more important than one guy helping himself (true iso-scorer) or a creator needing slashers or playing a 2-man game without shooters.

I also don't think much of Olympic play, other than to see certain fits. The 1994 USA team was a Dream Team and so was 1996. In 94, Miller was second to Shaq in scoring at 17 ppg on 84% TS (best on the team by 14%). In 96 he was second again closer to 12 per game on 67% TS (3rd on team). In both situations, he led the Dream Teams in minutes by a landslide. Why? Maybe because there's no stopping Reggie Miller from doing his thing. It just fits in like, every scenario.

In conclusion, you have a guy with incredible longevity churning out all-nba quality seasons year after year. He's one of the most misunderstood players of all-time -- I was arguing in the 90's for Miller's spacing and screening effects after a while because of how he torched Celtics. Then you start watching him come off the screen and yell "don't leave him open" and someone else gets open because of damn Reggie Miller. Then he's drawing fouls out of thin air. Then he's scoring 25 points a night on GOAT-level efficiency. Knicks fans can probably relate.

All told, I'd give Miller something like 13 all-star seasons and a number of all-nba seasons, but because his regular seasons stats were closer to 20 points per game with 3 assists (and no one really knew about TS%) and he toiled in Indiana without another star, he made a mere 3 all-nba teams and 5 (would be 6 with 1999) AS games.

[colts18]

Now that CP3 was voted in, someone I'm looking at is Kevin Johnson. Might be the most underrated player in history. An all-time great offensive PG. I had at the same level of CP3 entering last season.

[SactoKingsFan]

Clyde Drexler should probably start gaining some traction soon. He’s one of six players to score 20,000+ points and average at least 5 rebounds and 5 assists.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... tats::none

[magicmerl]

My vote is for Elgin Baylor.

I get that he was relatively inefficient compared to apbrmetrics of today. I also get that West was better than him and should have had a larger slice of the offense (athough I discount that because West is already in and not being as good as someone ranked ahead of you is a given). Having said that, i also give him credit for the conditions he was playing under, with his military duty, and almost being a part time player. The fact of his production is a little incredible given his circumstances.

[Warspite]

Vote Isiah Thomas

84
Game4: Forcing a game 5 Thomas 22pts 16asts 53%
Game 5: Scores 16pts in 90secs to force OT finishes with 35pts 12asts

85
Game1: Matchup with MRR he puts up 21pts 11asts on 62% vs the great def MRR. He also holds MRR to 29% FG
Game2: 29pts 14asts 53%
Vs Boston
Game2: After a 35pt loss to the champs In Bostons Garden Isiah makes it a close game with a near triple double 28pts 15asts 9rebs 55%
Game3 26pts 16asts in Detroit for the win.
Game4 21pts 10asts 57% to tie the series he is avg 3spg.
Game5 Bird puts up 43pts and DJ 30. Isiah still with 21-10 on 50% but in Boston thats not good enough
game6 Isiah with 37pts 9asts and 12 rebs tries to extend the series but 3 Celtics not named Bird score +20pts.
86
Game4 Trying to stave off elimination Isiah puts up a triple double of 30pts 12asts 10rebs but eventualy falls to Niques 38pts in double OT
87
1st rd 21ppg 9apg 51% sweeping the Bullets
2nd rd rematch with the Hawks
Game 1 hits game winner on the road at the buzzer 30pts 10asts 61%
Game3 back in Detroit Isiah 35pts 8asts 8 rebs with the W
Game4 another 31pts
game5 Isiah with a bad shooting game but still gets to the FT line and finishes with 19pts 12asts 8rebs for the W
ECF vs Cs
Game2 Isiah tries to keep it close with 36/10
Game3 blowout win
Game4 Worst playoff loss in Celtics history
game5 Bird steals the inbounds and they need all of his 36pts 12rebs 9asts to win the game at the end
game6 Isiah rallies the team to a win over Birds 35pts 70%
game7 Cant overcome Birds 37-9-9 and 3 teammates double doubles

After game 7 Isiah Thomas covers for Rodmans stupid remarks about Larry Bird and takes 99% of the blame/fallout shielding his team. The greatest selfless act in professional sports it galvanises the team making them unbeatable on the court by anyone but the refs.
88 1st rd
game1 Vs the Bullets with Moses, Bernard King and Jeff Malone (enough talent to win a title today but only gets you a 7th seed in 88)
Isiah 34pts 9rebs and 4 steals (50%FG) for the win in a game in which Microwave,Dumars go 3-14
game2 Isiah 30pts and 5steals leads the Pistons who are in a huge shooting slump (Dantley .385 FG) to a 1 pt win.
game3 Isiah with another typical 29pts but the Bullets big 3 score 79.
game4 Isiah with 17-10 and 3steals but King and Malonex2 are on fire avg +70pts on almost 60% in 2 games.
Game5 Dumars finally shows up and scores 19pts and holds Jeff Malone to 1-12 Pistons blowout Bullets
2nd rd
Game1 Holding MJ to 45% and 5TOs Pistons only shoot 38% and win big.
Game2 MJ goes off for 36pts Isiah tries to counter with 25pts 13asts but Bulls pull the upset.
Game3 Isiah with 19pts 11asts in a 22 pt blowout road win.
Game4 MJ is no Jeff Malone as he suffers a 2nd blowout loss at home to the Pistons.
Game5 MJ 25pts 8asts 45% Isiah 25pts 9asts 45% The 2 co equals guarding each other playing 1on1 in the 4th with Isiah crushing MJ in the 4th for the win.
ECF
game1: Isiah in Boston Garden puts up only 35pts 12asts on 63% shooting demoralising the Cs
game2:Isiah 24pts 11asts Boston needs 2 OTs to win the game at home and prevent the sweep.
Game3 Isiah another 23pts on 50% and they overcome McHales 32pts on 64%
Game4 Dumars 1-10 Dantley 2-9 and Isiah has to do everything (near triple double) and Boston gets a 1 pt win.
game5 Back in Boston Isiah breaks them for 35pts 8rebs and restores order. He is the best player on the floor in the Eastern Conference. Bird nor MJ can match him. Birds career is now done as a contender.


This is just a short playoff history of Isiahs climb to the top. The fiction that the Pistons are some def team with no stars is absurd. Isiah Thomas is the superstar player who leads his team in scoring, is a big volume playoff scorer and his scoring is needed because his teammates dont show up. Im a huge Adrian Dantley fan but Im losing a ton of respect for him with this post. Furthermore Looking at the 88 run in the east it only confirms what I thought looking at the talent difference. I believe the Bullets big 3 could match up quite well with the Heat big 3 of 2014 yet they are a 7th seed. It makes me wonder if any team of the last 10 yrs in the NBA could win a division title in 1988.

One can easily conclude that Birds supporting cast was the reason that he was able to beat a superior player in Isiah Thomas and that after 87 his cast of 4HoF teammates wasnt enough.

If you value postseason play you have to look at Isiah Thomas who has a 4 yr run similar to Shaqs in dominance from his position.

[Texas Chuck]

Great post about Bird's greatness, but he's already in......

In all seriousness tho, Zeke obviously has some big playoff heroics. And I agree they should be getting more attention even if people believe the Pistons were solely about the defense.

[penbeast0]

Gary Payton v. Isiah Thomas

Longevity: Payton 16 years, Thomas 13 years
Years over 20PER: Payton 8, Thomas 3 (surprising dominance for Payton)

Scoring: Payton career 24.0/100 possessions at .528 TS%
Thomas career 25.7/100 possessions at .518 (roughly even)
Payton Peak 29.6/100 possessions at .545 TS%
Thomas Peak 27.2/100 possessions at .525 TS% (advantage Payton)

Playmaking: Payton career 9.9ast/100 possessions v. 3.3 turnovers
Thomas career 12.4ast/100 possessions v. 4.1 turnovers (slight advantage Thomas)

Rebounding: Payton career 5.8reb /100 possessions
Thomas career 4.7reb/100 possessions (advantage Payton)

Playoffs: Payton career 21.3pts/100 possessions at .506 ts% for a 15.6 PER
Thomas career 27.6pts/100 possessions @.520ts% for a 19.8 PER (Strong advantage Thomas)
though to be fair, Payton had a lot more playoff games out of his prime
Payton peak 1996 (21g) 25.9pts/5.3reb/6.5ast/100 possessions @ .568 ts%
Thomas peak 1989 (17g) 26.4pts/6.2reb/12.0ast/100 possessions @ .560ts% (slight advantage Thomas)

Defense: Payton 9 times 1st Team All Defense, 1x Defensive Player of the Year (1996)
Thomas (none)

So, comparing the two using simple metrics . . .

Payton is the better regular season player.
Thomas is clearly the superior at stepping up in the playoffs
Payton has a massive defensive edge

Basically, about what was expected. If you value PG defense as I do (and our advanced metrics have shown that, other than Garnett, Duncan, and the center position, all 4 of the other positions have roughly equal defensive importance) then Payton has a strong edge over the course of their careers. If you value playoffs appreciably more than regular season (I tend to value them similarly, the greater sample size of the one balancing the greater importance of the other though there are exceptions), then Isiah has that edge though Payton had some great defensive playoffs, v. Kevin Johnson where he got the nickname "Glove", v. Michael Jordan even.

For me, the choice is still Gary Payton over Isiah Thomas. Since I value him over Kidd as well, I rate Gary Payton first among the remaining PGs. I don't have a clear decision over whether I value Payton over Artis Gilmore or the top SFs yet though and am open to being convinced.

[trex_8063]

Gary Payton v. Isiah Thomas

Longevity: Payton 16 years, Thomas 13 years
Years over 20PER: Payton 8, Thomas 3 (surprising dominance for Payton)

Scoring: Payton career 24.0/100 possessions at .528 TS%
Thomas career 25.7/100 possessions at .518 (roughly even)
Payton Peak 29.6/100 possessions at .545 TS%
Thomas Peak 27.2/100 possessions at .525 TS% (advantage Payton)

Playmaking: Payton career 9.9ast/100 possessions v. 3.3 turnovers
Thomas career 12.4ast/100 possessions v. 4.1 turnovers (slight advantage Thomas)

Rebounding: Payton career 5.8reb /100 possessions
Thomas career 4.7reb/100 possessions (advantage Payton)

Playoffs: Payton career 21.3pts/100 possessions at .506 ts% for a 15.6 PER
Thomas career 27.6pts/100 possessions @.520ts% for a 19.8 PER (Strong advantage Thomas)
though to be fair, Payton had a lot more playoff games out of his prime
Payton peak 1996 (21g) 25.9pts/5.3reb/6.5ast/100 possessions @ .568 ts%
Thomas peak 1989 (17g) 26.4pts/6.2reb/12.0ast/100 possessions @ .560ts% (slight advantage Thomas)

Defense: Payton 9 times 1st Team All Defense, 1x Defensive Player of the Year (1996)
Thomas (none)

So, comparing the two using simple metrics . . .

Payton is the better regular season player.
Thomas is clearly the superior at stepping up in the playoffs
Payton has a massive defensive edge

Basically, about what was expected. If you value PG defense as I do (and our advanced metrics have shown that, other than Garnett, Duncan, and the center position, all 4 of the other positions have roughly equal defensive importance) then Payton has a strong edge over the course of their careers. If you value playoffs appreciably more than regular season (I tend to value them similarly, the greater sample size of the one balancing the greater importance of the other though there are exceptions), then Isiah has that edge though Payton had some great defensive playoffs, v. Kevin Johnson where he got the nickname "Glove", v. Michael Jordan even.

For me, the choice is still Gary Payton over Isiah Thomas. Since I value him over Kidd as well, I rate Gary Payton first among the remaining PGs. I don't have a clear decision over whether I value Payton over Artis Gilmore or the top SFs yet though and am open to being convinced.

Nice comparison breakdown, although as you mentioned, Payton's playoff numbers take a BIG hit because so many of his playoff games came in his twilight as he bounced around (including two stops with finals participants: '04 Lakers and '06 Heat); whereas ALL of Isiah's playoff games came in his prime. I don't think it's fair to hold Payton's longer career AGAINST him in that fashion.

If we were to compare only prime Payton (say....'94-'03) vs. prime Isiah in the playoffs:

Isiah
Per 100 possessions: 27.6 pts, 6.4 reb, 12.1 ast, 4.5 tov on .520 TS%
19.8 PER, .143 WS/48, 110 ORtg/105 DRtg (+5); 12.5 total WS
Payton ('94-'03)
Per 100 possessions: 27.2 pts, 6.2 reb, 9.0 ast, 3.4 tov on .528 TS%
19.4 PER, .130 WS/48, 111 ORtg/109 DRtg (+2); 7.9 total WS

So for playoff performance it's still advantage to Thomas, but it's now apparent it's not such a big gulf.

Speaking for myself, the longevity factor also adds some career value to Payton (only bring it up because you didn't mention it in your closing remarks); for me that puts a touch more distance between them. Generally agree with your assessment, though (except that I rate Payton marginally behind Kidd).