RealGM Top 100 List #38

[penbeast0]

Finally, my vote is wide open again.

a. Dikembe Mutombo (or Ben Wallace) is the best defensive big left though Nate Thurmond has an argument. However, Mutombo is at least something of a positive on offense, the other two are zero or active negatives. Neil Johnston or Bob McAdoo are the best offensive bigs left. For two way players, Zo, Dwight or maybe McHale (but I have questions about his rebounding). Would love to see some good big man comps among this set. I don't see Reed or Cowens here yet (I have a quick note comparing at least their box score impact in #36). I really would love someone (someone else) to throw McHale up against Dwight and a couple of others and make a strong comp.

b. George Gervin seems the most impactful wing left, but I like my stars to put in effort on defense. Paul Pierce deserves a look too (a bit above Alex English), but Gervin seemed to draw more attention and have a greater impact. He seemed to have a greater impact than McHale too (leading teams with little support, etc, length of career, etc.) though normally I go for the two-way star first. I never worried about the likes of Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, or Glen Rice coming to town the way I did for Gervin. Saw Sam Jones mentioned too; in his day he was considered behind Hal Greer but I've always preferred Jones; Paul Arizin would be another old time name to mention. Sid Moncrief, Tmac, or Connie Hawkins are the highest peak left but just couldn't sustain it.

c. In terms of PGs, Isiah is certainly the default choice now. I'm not a fan of Iverson's game at all; same goes for Bob Cousy, Nate Archibald had the most incredible numbers but only for 4 years and for that length of time, I'd certainly rather argue for Moncrief. KJ is another with a nice peak but injury issues. Hardaway, Price, Billups . . . . not sure we are ripe for even discussing them yet.

So, basically open for arguments. Leaning George Gervin but am extremely available to persuasion.

[RightToCensor]

Isaiah Thomas and Allen Iverson are the two obvious next two. McHale has an argument though.

[penbeast0]

Isaiah Thomas and Allen Iverson are the two obvious next two. McHale has an argument though.

Gervin should clearly be in ahead of Iverson . . . both pretty much scorers as 90% of their value but Gervin was just a lot more efficient at it and Iverson doesn't stand out over George in much, if anything.

[SactoKingsFan]

My candidates for the last few top 40 spots are Pierce, McHale, Isiah, Miller and Gervin. Leaning towards voting for Pierce but it's not set in stone.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Led the Pistons to back to back titles in an era that was tough as nails. Had to deal with peak Bird and Magic in the process. Also won finals mvp, lost only 1 series in his career with HCA. Took a franchise from the bottom to the top as well in the process.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Reggie Miller

I'll re-post my last thing from the previous thread as I think it captured what I was trying to say particularly well:

Spoiler:

I'll just focus on this one comment, without quoting other points which I may touch on in-line (don't want to over-clutter the thread).

Anyway, perhaps you're right. I'm pretty sure I'm reasonably immune to bias based on who I "like" or "dislike"; I've spent ample time defending Iverson and Karl Malone to critics here, and I don't "like" either of those guys. But perhaps my baseline approach to analysis (my "starting place", as you called it) is flawed (at least for some players).

There are some compelling arguments itt for Miller. I'm still more than comfortable sticking with Payton here (I simply think Payton was on another level); but you guys are definitely making me reconsider my default position of Miller.

Couple other responses to some specific things you mentioned:

*I realize drawing double-teams and/or creating mis-matches is not an ultimate goal on offense. I only mention those things as means of "warping the defense", and thus affecting the game offensively beyond his individual stat-line.

**You brought up his rebounding and implied it's a product of his offensive game (running like mad thru screens to get open on the perimeter, etc, as apposed to being in a position to crash the boards)......however, that would only affect his OFFENSIVE rebounding, no? That aspect should have no particular impact whatsoever on his defensive rebounding, which is still fairly subpar:
Career Best DRB%: 9.2
Prime ('90-'99) DRB%: 7.7
Career DRB%: 7.8

For comparison here are a couple other SG's who are NOT even among the top tier of rebounding SG's:
Ray Allen best year: 11.8 (three separate years)
Prime: 10.5
Career: 10.3

Allen Iverson (7" shorter, fwiw) best year: 10.1
Prime: 8.2
Career: 8.1

Jerry Stackhouse best year: 13.4
Prime: 8.6
Career: 8.2

Anyway, not a huge black-mark on his overall game; but it is there, and I don't see that that one can be written away based on style of play.

***The only other thing I might comment on was wrt his volume and his ability to "scale it up" as needed, and at basically the same efficiency. No doubt that he DID scale it up on occasion, but I try not to get too excited over small sample size results. If he could "at will" do these things, why wouldn't he during the rs in some of those years where the Pacers were winning 47-48 games, 52 games, etc. Presumably if they could consistently get his amazing efficiency for ~4-5 more FGA/game, that would translate into some more wins, better playoff seeding, better chance at contending, yada yada yada.


Anyway, those are the remaining questions I have floating around in my head. Some great arguments made for him, though.

Thanks for saying that at the beginning. Really makes me feel like you're thinking about what I say, even if you end up disagreeing.

Re: double teaming to warp the defense. Sure, and it's interesting to note the dimensions here. Because we talk about a player's "gravity" like more is inherently better, but this isn't necessarily the case. A great passer for example isn't going to have as much straight forward warping because teams are terrified of his passing ability, and hence I'm more likely to say something like "manipulates the defense" to try to convey the machinations at work.

Re: but what about defensive rebounding. Okay sure, not saying it's to be totally ignored, but it's not like the Pacers struggled at defensive rebounding, and that was despite the fact they had a giant center who wasn't too keen on crashing the boards.

Re: if he could scale, he would have, how could you not if you were that good at it?

Let's see here, Reggie Miller played 144 playoff games. In 25.4% of those games he scored 30 or more points.

Let's compare other guys who typically aren't doubted the same way:

Paul Pierce played in 148 playoff games, did that 10.8% of the time.
Clyde Drexler played in 145 playoff games,did that 12.4% of the time.
Ray Allen played in 171 playoff games, did that 6.4% of the time.
Gary Payton played in 154 playoff games, did that 3.2% of the time.

Forget for a second about the hows and the whys, about the notion of "scaling up". If you just look at the playoff data. Even after you adjust for player career arcs, different roles, etc, there's no way anyone could possibly look at all that and say "Yeah but when you really needed them to score, Reggie just wasn't on the same level of those other guys." Obviously, it looks at least at first glance like he's on a completely different level above them.

Reggie's 45h in total playoff games, but 16th in total 30+ point playoff games because he scored disproportionately compared to that list of guys dominated by all-timers. (For the record, the only guy above Miller on the list who wasn't already voted in is Allen Iverson.)

Now, let me put a limitation in front of Miller though: Miller's playoff peak is 41 points.

In all the times with Miller doing is clutch thing, he never had a game with truly extreme scoring levels.
Freaking Bonzi Wells has a higher scoring playoff game than Reggie ever did.

So how I see it is this: It's not that Miller had no limitations. He couldn't in his role go off for epically huge games. What he could do though is get you 30+ more reliably than a lot of players who are true volume-as-a-role scorers, and he could do it with great efficiency.

So then getting back to your concern:

Why the hell didn't he give that more in the regular season during which he scored 30+ only 8.2% of the time? (More than tripled his chance of scoring 30+ in the playoffs, despite playing some of the fiercest defenses known to man. Insane.)

I don't have the absolute answer here, but I will point this out:

Number of times played on team's with ORtg +3 or more better than league average among guys known to be scorers...who played basically just on 1 team (btw, I did that just for ease of search).

Kobe Bryant 9
Dirk Nowitzki 9
Reggie Miller 8
Michael Jordan 6
Paul Pierce 0

I'm not crediting Miller with creating all those offenses by himself, but you have to understand that by and large, things were working. It's not like he was on ineffective offenses desperately trying to find a way to work. Things worked in the organic way they came about, so there weren't really obvious, glaring flaws to change about it.

And of course in the playoffs, when you'd wonder if such issues would emerge, the Pacer offense shone even brighter.

[Doctor MJ]

Isaiah Thomas and Allen Iverson are the two obvious next two. McHale has an argument though.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but Iverson isn't even close to being on my radar at this point.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

1990 Finals MVP with one of the great performances by a PG ever. The legendary Game 6 3rd quarter against LA in 1988. 16 points in like, 94 seconds against New York. 24-10 in the playoffs from 1984-1987. Great skillset for the playoffs. Aggressive, creative, arguably GOAT ball-handler, great passer. Underrated strength for finishing. Detroit was normally top 10 in offense with Isiah at the helm.

[trex_8063]

Guy I'm leaning toward is Paul Pierce.

But I'm not set, and other guys on my radar who I'd certainly hear arguments for include Elvin Hayes, Robert Parish, Dwight Howard, Dolph Schayes, and George Gervin. Reggie Miller is becoming more intriguing to me, as well. I have to admit, I'm at least getting close to where I'll be considering not only Isiah Thomas, but also Allen Iverson (though I don't expect any support for the latter for at least a handful more places).

[Notanoob]

I'll probably cast my vote for Walton again, but I think it's worth bringing up some other guys just to change things up a bit.

Sam Jones- 3x All NBA 2nd team, 5xAll Star, 11xChampion, 1 top 5 MVP finish, scored on relatively good efficiency considering his team's strategy and the era. The team improved a lot when he replaced Cousy in the starting line up. He'd probably be listed at 6'5" or 6'6", which is pretty nice for a guy who spent some time at every perimeter position.

Dennis Rodman- 5x NBA Champion, 2xAll Star DPOY and 3rd Team All NBA, 7xFirst Team All-Defensive, 7x leader in Offensive rebounds, RPG, ORB%, DRB%, 8x leader in TRB%. All-time great man defender, especially in his Pistons days when he was lighter and chased around perimeter players regularly. After a rough transition in San Antonio, he became the GOAT rebounder, save for Wilt, and was a major contributor to the Bull's second 3-peat. His sheer offensive glass-crashing prowess kept him from being a total negative on offense in those years.

Alonzo Mourning- 2x DPOY, 1st Team All Defensive and All NBA, 2 top-3 finishes in the MVP race, 2x league leader on blocks and blocks per game. Accolades are skimpy, but that's because he had to compete with guys like Shaq and Deke for them during his somewhat short prime. He's a legit 2-way center, capable of reliably creating his own shot in the post and scoring on good efficiency, while providing top-notch defense. Deke was a negative on offense despite his superior defense, and Dwight's efficiency advantage is a result of getting a more looks created for him in the pick and roll, he wasn't as good of a post player as 'Zo.

Grant Hill- 7x All Star, 1st-Team All NBA and 4x 2nd Team All-NBA, 5 top 10 MVP finishes including one top-3 finish. A tremendous, beautiful scorer with a nasty crossover and nice dunks to finish, came with excellent playmaking and rebounding. Top 10 in triple doubles entirely on the strength of his first 5 seasons. Solid defender, although not really a plus defender, and somehow managed to play until he was 40 despite being ruined by injuries while in Orlando. He was playing meaningful minutes as a starter in Phoenix at age 39!

Tracy McGrady- 7x All Star, 2x 1st Team All NBA, 3x 2nd Team and 2x 3rd team, 2x PPG leader and 2 top 5 MVP finishes. Always linked to Grant Hill, and one of the more unlucky players in the league. McGrady entered his prime on a Magic team that was planning on having Grant Hill there to pair with him, and so he was forced to shoulder an insane scoring burden on incredibly terrible teams. Carried a dumpster-fire roster to the playoffs and gave the mighty Pistons all they could handle. His peak in 2003 is right up there with Kobe's and Wade's. Alternated being healthy with Yao for his Rockets career. Performed well in the playoffs despite not being able to get out of the first round- his poor teams in Orlando and poor health in Houston meant that he was always facing a top seeded team, so it would have been an upset for him to ever make it out of the first round, really. Good playmaker, didn't turn the ball over, gifted scorer but should have typically shot a lower volume because he wasn't all that efficient. Being honest, his position on this list is entirely because of his incredible peak- he was hampered by injuries for the rest of his career and never reached the heights we knew he was capable of.

Paul Arizin- 10xAll Star, Champion, 3x 1st Team All NBA, 1x 2nd Team All NBA, 3 top 5 MVP finishes (including 2nd place), 2x scoring champ. Probably peaked in 52, scoring 25.4ppg on 54.6TS%, along with 11.3RPG and 2.6APG. Nicknamed 'Pitchin Paul'. Along with Shayes, Cousey and Mikkelson, he's probably the last guy to get in from the 50s. Went from 13th in SRS to 2nd when he joined them his rookie season. Their offense went form 1st to last in the league when he left for Korea, then jumped back up to 6th, 1st and 1st when he returned. I don't know enough about the team to really say how much of this was his impact and not other guys leaving or whatever, but I think he had a pretty sizable offensive impact.

[tsherkin]

George Gervin, the Steamwhistle of basketball.

Do one thing; really, really well.

Gervin is arguably the second-best wing scorer out there, though obviously there's some competition. Did a fair amount with not a ton, and was bloody phenomenal at what he did.

Lots of good bigs to consider, lots of folks really, but Gervin's been on my radar a while. I have him ahead of Kidd, and Payton, among others.

[ThaRegul8r]

Dennis Rodman- 5x NBA Champion, 2xAll Star DPOY and 3rd Team All NBA, 7xFirst Team All-Defensive, 7x leader in Offensive rebounds, RPG, ORB%, DRB%, 8x leader in TRB%. All-time great man defender, especially in his Pistons days when he was lighter and chased around perimeter players regularly. After a rough transition in San Antonio, he became the GOAT rebounder, save for Wilt, and was a major contributor to the Bull's second 3-peat. His sheer offensive glass-crashing prowess kept him from being a total negative on offense in those years.

I was actually reviewing my entry on Rodman today, and one of my issues with him as far as an all-time ranking (for me anyway) is, if you value a player being able to take whatever it is he brings to the table to help his team in multiple situations, Rodman isn't going to be portable in the sense that he needs a strong personality to be able to keep him in line in addition to an elite coach who's going to be able to manage him. Without that, he's going to be a distraction, a disruption and a detriment. His later obsession with rebounding got to the point where it actually hurt his team when he was so focused on grabbing rebounds that it took precedent over doing what his team needed from him in order to win, and actually cost his team in the playoffs in at least one well-documented incident. That's just as much a part of the package as his contribution to the Pistons' back-to-back titles and the Bulls' second three-peat, and both need to be taken into account. I haven't decided how to balance the two as I never had an all-time list and thus it wasn't relevant to me.

[lukekarts]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

1990 Finals MVP with one of the great performances by a PG ever. The legendary Game 6 3rd quarter against LA in 1988. 16 points in like, 94 seconds against New York. 24-10 in the playoffs from 1984-1987. Great skillset for the playoffs. Aggressive, creative, arguably GOAT ball-handler, great passer. Underrated strength for finishing. Detroit was normally top 10 in offense with Isiah at the helm.

This for me. You'll note I've been pretty quiet for the last 3-4 topics because I don't really have a preference. But now there's beginning to be more of a separation for me when it comes to the next guys on the list.

Isiah is hard not to vote for at this point, pretty good longevity combined with some great playoff performances, individual and team success.

VOTE: Isiah Thomas

[batmana]

My vote goes to Isiah Thomas here.

A clear-cut leader, a very good scorer and facilitator (4 straight seasons of 20+ PPG and 10+ APG), a hard-nosed player who would go hard on defense as well. A strong playoff performer and generally a big-game player. He did this in an era where it was arguably more difficult for a 6-foot PG to do the same things (penetration, finishing) that (according to the most common comparison) Chris Paul is doing 20 years later. I would have liked Isiah higher than some of the PGs that were already voted but in reality they are all really close and could be ranked differently albeit in the same tier.

I'm not really sure how to rate the players after Isiah gets voted, I have already expressed my support for Bill Walton and I see Reggie Miller and Kevin McHale as strong favorites afterwards but I haven't thought about the others and there seem to be a lot of candidates.

[Jim Naismith]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Great player who played even better in the playoffs

Leader of talented and headstrong Bad Boys

Won against Bird, Magic, Jordan in the playoffs during their primes

Rare point guard who also could take over games as an individual scorer

[Texas Chuck]

The Celtics were playing Houston in a game on Feb. 25, 1976. On two different occasions, Rockets guard Mike Newlin stepped in front of Cowens and flopped worse than "The Chevy Chase Show," drawing charge calls against Cowens.
Cowens panned Newlin's act. He had always maintained that all players should adhere to an unwritten code of conduct, one that Newlin had blatantly violated. The transgression required retaliation.
"I said to myself, 'OK, I have to put an end to this,' " Cowens says. "I foul out enough without having this crap."
As Newlin trotted up court on a Houston possession shortly after the second foul, Cowens charged at him and leveled him with two high forearms. He turned toward referee Bill Jones and bellowed, "Now that's a foul."
Critics skewered Cowens for the vicious blow. In defense, he penned a letter to the Boston Globe that read more like a college thesis, in which he reeled off five reasons why the "fraudulent, deceiving and flagrant acts of pretending to be fouled when little or no contact is made is just as outrageously unsportsmanlike as knocking a player to the floor."
"Pretending," Cowens wrote, "makes players think they can achieve their goal without putting in the work or effort that it takes to develop any skill or talent. . . . It distracts anyone who attends the game to study fundamental basketball skills and traits of the game.
"If this practice continues unrestrained or the actor is allowed to utilize this fraudulent exercise successfully, it will gradually become an accepted strategy and will be taught to kids more enthusiastically by their coaches."

source--- San Francisco Chronicle. October 30, 2000
http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Th ... 302594.php


I'm leaning towards Dave Cowens over Deke now. The above is not meant to be making a case for him obviously, but merely to share one of my favorite Dave Cowens stories. I had heard him talk about this on local radio once and so looked to find documentation online. With all the current uproar over flopping in the league I enjoyed how Cowens chose to deal with it.

[penbeast0]

Reed v Cowens v. Beaty

All three shared some things in common . . . undersized, mobile centers with good range and good defense. Reed is the strongest, Cowens the most physical, Beaty has a Bill Laimbeer/Vlade Divac rep for annoying opps with a lot of dirty/veteran tricks.

All had shortened careers, Reed played only 7 years over 20 games in a season, Cowens played 10 but with increasing missed games plus a half year attempted comeback in Milwaukee, Beaty played 12 seasons (2 as reserve) but 2 were cut short by his recurring knee injuries; it's not a coincidence that his best season (72 in Utah) came after being forced to sit out a year. Beaty is considered a step down from Reed and Cowens but seems a reasonable comp to show their strengths.

Prime numbers

Reed (67-71) 20.5ppg 13.5reb 2ast .540ts%
Cowens (72-76) 19.5ppg 15.5reb 4ast .495ts%
Beaty* (65-69) 20ppg 12reb 1.5ast .535ts%
*(using NBA numbers only)

As the numbers show, Cowens was the best passer and rebounder, but the worst shooter. Reed is slightly better than Beaty in all areas but only slightly (and the NBA had expansion in these years so Reed was playing against slightly inferior competition). Beaty has the longevity edge. Very comparable players if you consider their defensive abilities roughly equal. I didn't use Beaty's ABA years because I don't want to get into a debate about how much to discount them.

[Quotatious]

I'm really not sure. Gervin, Isiah, Dwight and my man the Truth, are my top candidates. Then probably Zo (slightly worse peak/prime than Howard, and worse longevity). Still not very comfortable with Reggie at this point (because IMO Reggie = Ray, and both are worse than Pierce). I'll really have to think more, but it seems like Thomas is going to win this one (I'm okay with that, but not sure if he's really the best). It's possible that I'll abstain from voting this time.

Edit: Oh, and Hayes, as well.

[dautjazz]

I don't have a vote, but I'm pretty surprised that Thomas hasn't been selected yet. IMO he should of come around Stockton's pick. He was a monster in his peak and has great performances on the biggest stage.

[Clyde Frazier]

I may incorporate this into a gervin vote, but haven't made a final decision yet. Looking at gervin's best 5 seasons, they're very comparable to durant's last 5, who was voted in at 36.

GERVIN 78-82

AVG - 29.8 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.4 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.3 TOPG

PER 100 - 37.6 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 1.7 SPG, 1.2 BPG, 4.1 TOPG

~52% FG, 30% 3PT, 84% FT, 58% TS, 113/106 OFF/DEF RG, .185 WS/48

DURANT 10-14

AVG - 29.3 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.3 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.4 TOPG

PER 100 - 38.7 PPG, 10 RPG, 5.1 APG, 1.7 SPG, 1.4 BPG, 4.4 TOPG

~49% FG, 38% 3PT, 89% FT, 62% TS, 119/103 OFF/DEF RTG, .250 WS/48

Both players were selected to all NBA 1st team in all 5 of those seasons.

You can make arguments against gervin such as average longevity and so so team success, but I just wanted to point out how truly gifted he was offensively.

It's too bad Steve Smith's "Baby Ice" nickname didn't stick, because it's quite fitting.