Re: RealGM Top 100 List #55

[penbeast0]

Top PGs left: Kevin Johnson and Chauncey Billups; never been sold on Cousy but you have to consider him here. Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys. Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are a small step down.

Wings: Sam Jones and Vince Carter had long outstanding careers though Sharman and Greer were considered better than Sam Jones in their peaks but the numbers for Jones look better, Arizin is the other main 50s guy. . Nique and Iverson are a step down with their efficiency and defensive issues plus Iverson's attitude problems. Sidney Moncrief may be the 3rd greatest 2 guard ever . . . for 4 years, but his injuries limit his career value.

Best bigs left: Elvin Hayes is the Iverson/Nique type with weak efficiency (and poor passing) but with excellent defense and rebounding, and he was an ironman. My favorite is Mel Daniels with his 2 ABA MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, and Bob McAdoo for short peak guys . . . in that order for me I would guess. McAdoo, Neil Johnston, Amare, Issel, Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play defense are problematic for me. Ben Wallace, Nate Thurmond, or the Worm also could come up here as well as guys like DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, etc., even Zelmo Beaty and Yao Ming. Lots of names to consider.

With English voted in, I am open to persuasion. I'd love to vote Moncrief or Daniels, but not sure they have long enough careers; what do you think?

[Owly]

I'm voting Bob Lanier again, another composite post of my previous stuff why below

I'm voting Bob Lanier
Reasoning: looks like the best career added value by crude faux-EWA/WS combination. He's also high on a similar peak based ranking which I ended up posting a few threads back (43rd, and all those above him still available didn't maintain their peak anything close to how he did, and/or have era concerns).

Spoiler:

PPR Score PPR Rank name
29.69848481 17 Amare Stoudemire
32.80243893 18 Neil Johnston
43.56604182 25 Paul Arizin
47.38143096 26 Bob McAdoo
54.3783045 30 Walt Bellamy
55.90169944 31 Terrell Brandon
63.07138812 33 Elton Brand
65.30696747 35 Ed Macauley
67.53517602 36 Emanuel Ginobili
68.01470429 37 Arvydas Sabonis
76.53103945 42 Larry Foust
77.46612163 43 Bob Lanier

All with era concerns; longevity/peak maintainance issues and/or problems defense/intangiables (Manu probably the least but minutes is an issue; for a comp see http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2015).

Team level D might be held against him but his Drtg (hardly perfect, but I think sufficient for the point/claim being made) in '74 when he played 81 games led the league.

A concern might be that he missed quite a few games, including playing (just) less than 65 games and 2500 minutes for three of his five short prime/extended peak years ('76, '77 and '78 of '74-'78). Still for that 5 year span he looks like the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league (even after minutes are factored in) and he lasted much better than McAdoo.
cf:
The five year span in question http://bkref.com/tiny/64BQL
The 70s: http://bkref.com/tiny/0DbJe

Reviews on D

Lanier is the big difference. He played only when in the mood before last season. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.

[individual bio]
Called "Moses" by his teammates ... For leading them out of the wilderness ...... trimmer last season ...... Defense was his biggest improvement

Depending on who's in there, the Pistons can make you work. When one of the "whos" is either Trapp or Howard Porter, the opponents can relax a bit. But Rowe, Ford, Mengelt, Kevin Porter, Money and Lanier will get down and play some defense. Lanier, in fact often surprises people by jumping out to pick up guards or forwards. He also clogs the middle nicely.
[individual bio]
Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards.

Somewhat confusing. Lanier is a mammoth figure to try and get around [and some other decent players but the Porters are bad and the bench "woefully weak" ... comunication and fouling called a problem, perhaps coaching semi-implied as a problem based on that?]
[individual bio]
Can rebound, block shots, play defense, do everything but clean the kitchen floor ...... [unrelated but I've touched on this] Injuries have been a problem, though, but he has always played hurt

[Vitale will be looking to emphasize D] Lanier gives him a head start. That is the advantage of having a big center. Lanier seals off the middle and is tough and aggressive.

[individual bio]Devensively he can be as imposing as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore

Depending on how much you allow hypotheticals, you might also consider that Detroit rushed him back in his rookie year which may have been detrimental to his long term health.

One quick and dirty study of his impact.

'76 Pistons
team points differential over the year -86 over 82 games, -1.048780488 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -92 over 18 games, -5.111111111 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier +6 over 64 games, 0.09375 per game


'77 Pistons
team points differential over the year -85 over 82 games, -1.036585366 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -107 over 18 games, -5.944444444 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier 22 over 64 games, 0.34375 per game

Lanier('s impact) looks a little worse in '78
'78 Pistons
team points differential over the year -102 over 82 games, -1.243902439 per game
team points differential over 19 games without Lanier -100 over 19 games, -4.347826087 per game
team points differential over 63 games with Lanier -2 over 63 games, -0.031746032 per game

Other discussion from earlier threads

I'm not as familiar with Lanier, but those WOWY numbers Owly is posting make him certainly worth a big look. Still, I wonder whether he is a superior candidate to someone like Elvin Hayes.

Look at any boxscore metric and it will say Lanier peaked (much) higher, I suspect they'd all say he added more career value and tbh how "valuable" at this point in the list are, for instance, Hayes' Win Shares garnered from sub .100 WS/48 seasons - he gets 19 Win Shares from such seasons - set greatness impact replacement level at something like .120 WS/48 and you'd take a huge chunk out of his apparent contribution, ditto with PER - where he never hit 20, which Eric Murdock and Matt Geiger did, okay that's OTT, and as I've said before the range/SD seems like it might be less in the 70s but in any case that affects Lanier just as much anyway.

Lanier doesn't have Hayes' baggage as a teammate (not sure he was entirely happy/positive by the end in Detroit but nothing like Hayes) and he rates as better by the metrics in the playoffs despite playing a large chunk of his playoff career past his prime in a tough conference (80s East). Lanier being a more willing passer might make him easier to build around too.

What does Hayes have an edge in? D, probably (though positional competition isn't equal on the accolade front), and minutes. To me, it's not nearly enough.

Looking for something else to throw in there (it's boxscore oriented, like a lot of stuff, but I have tried to throw different angles with WoWY and contemporary reviews).

Players with as many or more top 2000(ish) player seasons (as before not absolutely up to date- LeBron should now be on there) by PER (17.9+

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
Karl Malone 17
Shaquille O'Neal 17
Kevin Garnett 17
John Stockton 17
Tim Duncan 16
Hakeem Olajuwon 16
Kobe Bryant 16
Moses Malone 16
Charles Barkley 15
Paul Pierce 14
Clyde Drexler 14
Michael Jordan 13
Wilt Chamberlain 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Robert Parish 13
David Robinson 12
Oscar Robertson 12
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Larry Bird 12
Jerry West 12
Patrick Ewing 12
Dominique Wilkins 12
Steve Nash 12
Allen Iverson 12
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Adrian Dantley 11
Elgin Baylor 11
Vince Carter 11
Larry Nance 11
Pau Gasol 11
Alex English 11
Chris Webber 11

Players with as many top 2000ish player seasons as Lanier by WS/48 (.144+)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
John Stockton 18
Karl Malone 17
Tim Duncan 16
Reggie Miller 16
Shaquille O'Neal 15
Hakeem Olajuwon 15
Charles Barkley 15
Kevin Garnett 14
Kobe Bryant 14
Moses Malone 13
Paul Pierce 13
Wilt Chamberlain 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Robert Parish 13
David Robinson 13
Oscar Robertson 13
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Jerry West 12
Adrian Dantley 12
Bill Russell 12
Ray Allen 12
Michael Jordan 11
Larry Bird 11
Steve Nash 11
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Larry Nance 11
Bailey Howell 11
Detlef Schrempf 11

Note that Nance is on both too, he's on my radar, Manu is under consideration too.

Top PGs left: Kevin Johnson and Chauncey Billups; never been sold on Cousy but you have to consider him here. Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys. Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are a small step down.

Wings: Sam Jones and Vince Carter had long outstanding careers though Sharman and Greer were considered better than Sam Jones in their peaks but the numbers for Jones look better, Arizin is the other main 50s guy. . Nique and Iverson are a step down with their efficiency and defensive issues plus Iverson's attitude problems. Sidney Moncrief may be the 3rd greatest 2 guard ever . . . for 4 years, but his injuries limit his career value.

Best bigs left: Elvin Hayes is the Iverson/Nique type with weak efficiency (and poor passing) but with excellent defense and rebounding, and he was an ironman. My favorite is Mel Daniels with his 2 ABA MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, and Bob McAdoo for short peak guys . . . in that order for me I would guess. McAdoo, Neil Johnston, Amare, Issel, Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play defense are problematic for me. Ben Wallace, Nate Thurmond, or the Worm also could come up here as well as guys like DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, etc., even Zelmo Beaty and Yao Ming. Lots of names to consider.

With English voted in, I am open to persuasion. I'd love to vote Moncrief or Daniels, but not sure they have long enough careers; what do you think?

I'm a Moncrief fan, more inclined to be bullish on him. I think Manu will/should get in before him amongst SGs, then off the top of my head he'd be amongst the top few candidates (maybe Jones and Sharman up there? Metrics, especially PER, aren't too kind on 60s and before guys that aren't in the absolute top tier).

Daniels, personally, I don't see, he's best in the period the ABA is weakest, and his metrics don't compare to the same era ABA MVPs (Hawkins, Haywood). Basically I see him as the (maybe?) best of a (semi-)ensemble champion (dynasty? they went finals, title, conference finals, title, title, conference finals). Arguable how often he was the best (in title years, by boxscore metrics Brown looks a bit better in '70, McGinnis seems to have taken the lead by '73), '72 he's the clear cut leader. I don't know Beaty just has similar (better, otoh) numbers in the ABA and a fuller career with good NBA play (whilst also showing that early ABA isn't equal to NBA).

[SactoKingsFan]

I think Chauncey Billups should start gaining traction pretty soon. Late bloomer but was an excellent all around player during his prime. Since the introduction of the 3 PT line, Billups has the most seasons (7) with a TS% >= .590, USG% >= 20.0, PTS per 100 >= 25.0 and AST per 100 >= 8.0

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =ws_per_48

Sent from my LG-G2 using RealGM Forums

[tsherkin]

Owly, what do you think of the Lanier/McAdoo comparison? Longevity undercuts him a bit and McAdoo had some serious scoring ability early on in his career. What's your thought there (anyone else, jump in!)?

[Joao Saraiva]

I'm still voting for Allen Iverson.

Glad to see Billups mentioned, I hope voting for him or Ben Wallace pretty soon.

[john248]

I've been giving some thought on Lanier vs McAdoo recently and a tough call. McAdoo peaked a bit higher as an out of position PF going against centers, and he did have high impact as his teams got better as he got better. But Lanier had more years, was good offensively himself, had a nice 74 when he played defense, then had solid showings in the playoffs in 80 and 81 post prime.

[trex_8063]

At this point am feeling a touch of fatalistic humor in doing so, but am casting my vote for #55 for Allen Iverson.

Reasons have been well-covered in previous threads. For recap, the spoiler below contains the meat of my post from last thread (which really well covers most points):

Spoiler:

Did a year-by-year evaluation of with/without impact during his prime years (in which he missed any games: '99-'02, '04-'06) in Philly, and compared to that of Kevin Johnson during his prime years in PHX. Results were thus:
[spoiler]AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him over these years:
NOT weighted for games played/missed
+7.3 ppg
+1.1% TS%
+2.3 ORtg
+4.61 SRS
WEIGHTED for games played
+7.4 ppg
+1.2% TS%
+2.5 ORtg
+4.21 SRS
Weighted for games missed
+7.1 ppg
+0.8% TS%
+1.4 ORtg
+2.90 SRS
39-59 record (.398) without, 251-193 record (.565) with (avg of +13.7 wins per 82-game season).


AVERAGE effect of having Kevin Johnson vs. not having him.
NOT weighted for # of games played per season
+7.1 ppg.
+3.0% TS%.
+4.7 ORtg.
+4.01 SRS.
Weighted for # of games played
+7.8 ppg
+3.3% TS%
+5.2 ORtg
+4.02 SRS
Weighted for # of games MISSED
+4.1 ppg
+1.9% TS%
+2.7 ORtg
+3.98 SRS
79-60 (.568) record w/o, 396-203 (.661) record with: +7.6 wins per 82-game season.

Can show the work, year-by-year, if requested. Gist is that KJ appears to have a larger offensive effect, but overall (effect on SRS) his impact on team success appears no better than Iverson's in Philadelphia. Both affected a roughly +4 SRS change on their respective teams. Based on effect on win% (wins added), Iverson---at a glance---has a sizable advantage; however, I don't think that's reliable as wins are more difficult to "add" the nearer the top you are (i.e. elevating an otherwise poor 32/33-win team to a decent 46/47-win team---what Iverson was typically doing throughout his prime in Philly---is likely no larger an accomplishment that elevating an already good 46/47-win team to a very good 54-win team). SRS, I feel, is more reliable.

I was asked about Iverson's effect in Denver. I did not figure the with/without in '07, because it was going to require too much work (given the season is split between two franchises, so cannot simply reference the teams' season stats for comparison); and he didn't miss any games in '08. However, in response I noted that '08 represent Iverson's career best RAPM (and '07 was his 5th-best); his RAPM was significantly higher than Melo's in both years.

On the topic of RAPM:
Among Iverson's apparent primary competitors for this spot, none of the others have RAPM data available. In the last thread I showed a little RAPM comparison to Pau Gasol (who took #53):

Below are comparisons of non-scaled PI* RAPM (*NPI for '01):

Best 3 years
Gasol: +7.74
Iverson: +6.48

Best 5 years
Gasol: +10.22
Iverson: +9.89

Best 7 years
Gasol: +11.95
Iverson: +11.69

Best 10 years
Gasol: +12.14
Iverson: +12.78

His 3, 5, 7, and 10-year marks are all significantly better than Melo's, too, fwiw (since I mentioned him earlier)


Here is a look at PER, WS/48, WS (both rs and playoff for all), Per 100 volume stats, VORP, and BPM, comparing Iverson to four of his top competitors for this spot (KJ, Lanier, Nique, and English), as well as the last two players voted in (Gasol---thru '14 only---and Cowens):
career rs PER
1. Bob Lanier: 21.7
2. Dominique Wilkins: 21.6
3. Pau Gasol: 21.5
4. Allen Iverson: 20.9
5. Kevin Johnson: 20.7
6. Alex English: 19.9
7. Dave Cowens: 17.0

Peak PER
1. Allen Iverson: 25.9
2. Bob Lanier: 24.8
3. Dominique Wilkins: 24.6
4. Pau Gasol: 24.14
5. Alex English: 24.12
6. Kevin Johnson: 23.7
7. Dave Cowens: 19.3

career playoff PER
1. Allen Iverson: 21.2
2. Bob Lanier: 20.81
3. Pau Gasol: 20.78
4. Alex English: 19.9
5. Kevin Johnson: 19.1
6. Dominique Wilkins: 18.7
7. Dave Cowens: 16.6

career rs WS/48
1. Kevin Johnson: .178
2. Bob Lanier: .175
3. Pau Gasol: .168
4. Dominique Wilkins: .148
5. Dave Cowens: .140
6. Alex English: .127
7. Allen Iverson: .126

Peak WS/48
1. Pau Gasol: .232
2. Bob Lanier: .227
3. Kevin Johnson: .220
4. Dominique Wilkins: .197
5. Allen Iverson: .190
6. Dave Cowens: .173
7. Alex English: .166

career playoff WS/48
1. Bob Lanier: .175
2. Pau Gasol: .160
3. Alex English: .129
4. Dave Cowens: .119
5. Kevin Johnson: .117
6. Allen Iverson: .109
7. Dominique Wilkins: .079

career rs WS
1. Dominique Wilkins: 117.5
2. Bob Lanier: 117.1
3. Pau Gasol: 113.1
4. Alex English: 100.7
5. Allen Iverson: 99.0
6. Kevin Johnson: 92.8
7. Dave Cowens: 86.3

career playoff WS
1. Pau Gasol: 13.5
2. Kevin Johnson: 9.44
3. Dave Cowens: 9.38
4. Bob Lanier: 8.6
5. Allen Iverson: 7.3
6. Alex English: 6.5
7. Dominique Wilkins: 3.6

career rs Per 100: Pts+Reb+Ast+Stl+Blk-Tov
1. Dominique Wilkins: 46.6
2. Pau Gasol: 44.9
3. Bob Lanier: ~44.7
4. Allen Iverson: 44.6
5. Alex English: 41.9
6. Kevin Johnson: 41.4
7. Dave Cowens: ~39.3

career BPM
1. Bob Lanier: +4.7
2. Pau Gasol: +3.4
3. Dave Cowens: +3.0
4. Allen Iverson: +2.4
5. Dominique Wilkins: +2.3
6. Kevin Johnson: +2.2
7. Alex English: +1.7

VORP
1. Bob Lanier: est. 50-52
2. Allen Iverson: 43.4
3. Pau Gasol: 42.0 (thru ‘14)
4. Dominique Wilkins: 41.1
5. Dave Cowens: est. 37
6. Alex English: 34.6
7. Kevin Johnson: 26.7

I also think it's important to note that nearly all of the above metrics are either directly "per minute" stats (PER, WS/48), or indirectly "per minute" (RAPM, BPM, Per 100 stats......all per x possessions, and the more minutes played the more relative possessions played). That in mind, here's some mpg info:
career rs MPG
1. Allen Iverson: 41.1
2. Dave Cowens: 38.6
3. Pau Gasol: 35.6
4. Dominique Wilkins: 35.5
5. Kevin Johnson: 34.1
6. Bob Lanier: 33.5
7. Alex English: 31.9

career playoff MPG
1. Allen Iverson: 45.1
2. Dave Cowens: 42.3
3. Dominique Wilkins: 38.8
4. Pau Gasol: 38.6
5. Kevin Johnson: 36.9
6. Alex English: 35.7
7. Bob Lanier: 35.2

Other thing I'd give consideration to while looking at the above numbers is strength of era: I’d call it a near wash between KJ, Iverson, Wilkins, and Gasol for playing in the toughest era, followed closely by English, then Lanier, with Cowens in the weakest era.


Now, if we were to also add in some more subjective measures which are more media-driven......for instance, MVP Award Shares rank:
Allen Iverson: 24th
Dave Cowens: 29th
Dominique Wilkins: 38th
Bob Lanier: 52nd
Alex English: 75th
Kevin Johnson: 101st
Pau Gasol: never received MVP votes

Accolades, too, would place Iverson at the top of this heap. Depending on how much weight you put in things like that (or really, if you put any weight in these things), it could easily place him at the front of these seven players.

But yeah: media....meh. Hopefully this forum isn't overly media-influenced, so....here's a look at RealGM RPoY Shares rank (bearing in mind that *this forum isn't overly appreciative of Iverson, too *DISCLAIMER: am NOT crying "bias" with that statement, but simply pointing out the criteria trends on this forum do not favor someone like Iverson):
Dave Cowens: 43rd
Bob Lanier: 48th
Allen Iverson: 55th
Dominique Wilkins: 58th
Kevin Johnson: 91st
Alex English: 107th
Pau Gasol: never received any RealGM RPoY votes

Strength of era considerations apply to these things as well.


There's some negative media spin which has dogged Iverson since late in his career, which I think is well addressed in the article Joao Saraiva included in his post, quoted below:

Vote for Allen Iverson once more. I didn't get to vote for anyone else so far.

"Iverson not only won the 2001 regular season MVP--though I think that Shaquille O'Neal deserved the honor that year--but he received at least one MVP vote in eight of his 13 full seasons. Iverson won the 1997 Rookie of the Year award and two All-Star MVPs while making the All-Star team 10 years in a row (2000-09). Iverson earned seven All-NBA selections, including three First Team nods.

ESPN noted that Iverson is one of only three players in NBA history who averaged at least 25 ppg, five apg and two spg--the others are Michael Jordan and Jerry West; of course, steals have only been officially recorded since 1973-74 in the NBA, so West's "career" average only includes 81 steals in 31 games in his final season, which means that in the past 35 years the only two players to average 25-5-2 during full length careers are Jordan and Iverson.

Numbers rarely tell the whole story but check out Iverson's NBA/ABA ranks in some key categories: fourth in career mpg (41.4), sixth in career scoring average (27.0 ppg), sixth in career spg (2.2), 11th in career free throws made (6277) and 22nd in career points (24,020)--and Iverson stepped up his game in the postseason, ranking second in career ppg (29.7, trailing only Michael Jordan), third in mpg (45.1, trailing only legendary iron man centers Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell) and seventh in spg (2.07, just behind Jordan).

Now, let's put those statistics in historical perspective. Iverson lapped the field in career regular season points among the six foot and under set (Hall of Famer Calvin Murphy is second with 17,949)--but he also scored more career points than Charles Barkley, Robert Parish, Adrian Dantley, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton or Larry Bird! The regular season career mpg leader list is dominated by Hall of Fame big men like Chamberlain, Russell, Jerry Lucas and Bob Pettit, plus powerfully built swingmen Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor and LeBron James. Jerry West is the only other relatively small player in the top ten and he is a legit 6-3; Latrell Sprewell, a 6-5 shooting guard, rounds out the top 10.

The free throw numbers are a testament to Iverson's mental and physical toughness: he repeatedly drove to the hoop, crashed into players who were literally 100 pounds heavier than he is, accepted the punishment and made the free throws. You can legitimately question Iverson's shot selection at times but you can never question his heart, his toughness or his will to win.

Iverson's defense is often berated but he was a two-time Big East Defensive Player of the Year at Georgetown and his steals numbers in the NBA attest to the fact that he certainly put forth some effort at that end of the court despite the huge offensive load that he carried. Iverson was not a lock down defender but he proved under Coach Larry Brown in Philadelphia that he could be a cog on a very good defensive team and lead that team to the NBA Finals.

Iverson won four NBA scoring titles, matching 6-7 Hall of Famer George Gervin and exceeding every other player in pro basketball history except for Jordan (10) and Chamberlain (seven). Iverson won as many scoring titles as Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade combined! It is certainly true that Iverson did not shoot a great percentage from the field but TNT commentator Doug Collins consistently made the excellent observation that because Iverson drew so much attention with his bold forays to the hoop his misses often turned into excellent offensive rebounding opportunities for his teammates.

Many players who attempt 18-20 or more field goals per game get labeled as "selfish gunners" (though no one says that about LeBron James or Dwyane Wade). I have often expressed justifiable skepticism about how assists are officially recorded but the assist still remains the only statistic we have to quantify passing and it is worth noting that Iverson ranked in the top ten in the NBA in that category four different times, amassing a career average of 6.2 apg--better than Walt Frazier, Dave Bing and Chauncey Billups, among others.

Iverson and Billups will always be linked, of course, because Detroit's trade of Billups and Antonio McDyess to Denver for Iverson in November 2008 seems--in retrospect--to be the beginning of the end of Iverson's career. Much has been written about that trade and its aftermath--and most of what has been written is garbage. Let's dispel a few myths:

1) Contrary to revisionist history, Iverson did not "fail" in Denver: he ranked seventh in scoring and eighth in assists in 2006-07 and third in scoring and ninth in assists in 2007-08. The Nuggets made the playoffs both years, including a 50 win season in 2007-08 that was the best regular season performance by that franchise since 1987-88. In 2007, the Nuggets lost in the first round of the playoffs to the eventual champion Spurs, winning one more playoff game against San Antonio than LeBron James' Eastern Conference champions did in the NBA Finals. In 2008, the Nuggets were swept in the first round by the eventual Western Conference champion Lakers; Iverson led the Nuggets in scoring and assists during that series, while Carmelo Anthony shot just .364 from the field and led the Nuggets in turnovers.

2) Although Billups certainly played very well for Denver last season, the "change in culture" in Denver largely consisted of big men Nene and Kenyon Martin getting healthy, Chris Andersen playing better than anyone expected and several Western Conference teams battling injuries to key players (Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Jazz), thus enabling the Nuggets to move up in the standings. The Nuggets exceeded their 2008 win total by four, blew by undermanned Dallas and New Orleans teams in the playoffs and then lost to the Lakers.

3) When the Pistons acquired Iverson, Joe Dumars said that the team would use Iverson's ability to create shots for himself and others to become a more explosive offensive team, particularly in the fourth quarter, a time when the Pistons too often became stagnant during the past few years in the playoffs. Early in the season, Iverson played brilliantly in a Detroit win over the Lakers but the Pistons inexplicably decided that Rodney Stuckey must be in the starting lineup no matter what. That meant that either Iverson or Richard Hamilton would have to come off of the bench, a role that neither All-Star player is accustomed to filling. It made no sense for the Pistons to bring in Iverson and not let him play the way that he is used to playing, especially when Dumars specifically said that he acquired Iverson to make the Pistons more explosive offensively.

There is merit to the argument that regardless of what was said to Iverson that he should do whatever his coach asks him to do--including coming off of the bench--but clearly Iverson is too honest and too prideful to do that; Iverson does not want to sit behind inferior players. I think that Iverson is still capable of averaging 20-plus ppg for a playoff team but the poor way that the Pistons treated him--and the defiant way that Iverson responded--has clearly lowered Iverson's perceived value. The Memphis experiment was obviously doomed from the start and the less that is said about that brief moment in his career the better.

It is bitterly ironic that in the immediate wake of Iverson's retirement announcement, Iverson's name was one of just six--the others being Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James and Shaquille O'Neal--mentioned during ESPN's NBA Shootaround as a candidate for "Player of the Decade." Love him or hate him, there is no denying Iverson's colossal impact on NBA history."

By David Friedman.

Found it very interesting to see the points about Iverson with Denver, and also some other aspects.

However in terms of Iverson's positive impact I think it has all been said: trex made some awesome points about it but some people here choose to ignore that. Definitely had a better impact than Dantley for example. And I'm not saying bad about Dantley, I actually thought he was a great player and one of the few I'd see as a possibly ranking over Allen Iverson in the multiple run offs he had...

I have no problem with people voting for someone other than Iverson here (Lanier is looking more formidable the longer I look at him). But given all of the above, I cannot fathom a sound reasoning for him to not even be in the discussion (which seems to be your implication).

One could disregard all subjective opinion, and all subjective and/or media-driven indicators (like accolades and MVP award shares, etc).......using the above objective metrics only, Iverson is very clearly at least "in the mix" among these guys.

I think his peak and avg level of play during his prime are very comparable to Kevin Johnson. Kevin Johnson is likely more portable (though to be fair, I don't think Iverson got too much opportunity to test that theory), but Iverson with better longevity: one addition season (74 rs games) of prime-level play, and roughly TWICE as many "role player" games played. Some more subjective indicators place Iverson more firmly ahead of KJ, but largely it's the longevity to me.

McAdoo I think had a superior peak and avg level of play in his prime......but his prime only lasted about 6 seasons (445 rs games; vs. 10 seasons/673 rs games for Iverson); Iverson also has basically one whole season more worth of total games played. Some slight era considerations apply, as well.

Lanier is intriguing to me right now, but I'm still a touch skeptical of his defense. I read the contemporary reviews Owly posted; though the consistently poor defenses in Detroit (even when obtaining a decent perimeter defender like M.L. Carr) still has me apprehensive. Given that apprehension, as well as era considerations, I'm not willing to back off of Iverson in favor of Lanier (though would likely support him in a run-off).

The other guys who feel really close to me haven't really gained traction yet (Hayes and Cousy, fwiw).

EDIT: Another guy I'm looking at more presently is Sidney Moncrief. Historically I've not had him this high on my ATL, but the more I scrutinize, the more I think he's worthy of discussion. His poor longevity is a big thing against him, however.

[Owly]

Owly, what do you think of the Lanier/McAdoo comparison? Longevity undercuts him a bit and McAdoo had some serious scoring ability early on in his career. What's your thought there (anyone else, jump in!)?

In terms of personal preference I like McAdoo. I suspect he got somewhat of a raw deal in terms of how his career turned out, bouncing around losing cultures and I suspect that got to him (though IIRC Pen alluded to/suggest drug use which I'm not sure I'd heard about for him - though it was supposedly rife at the time). He's got a very strong peak (especially if the higher metrics/PER at that time were "depressed"). My gut instict is to rate him very highly, in part because he was, for a period, a guy you could build around.

Still in terms of the comp with Lanier, his peak is a little better by the boxscore (25.76 PER to 24.78; 0.2416 WS/48 to 0.2272) but not by a lot. And I think McAdoo's boxscore D overrates him based on his defending the center position (the contemporary and after the fact views on his D are largely - almost exclusively - negative, at least until his arrival in LA where he was considered effective in there 1-3-1 zone-press). So unless you've got a perfect complementary player at PF (strong enough to defend the C, floor stretcher enough to keep the center defending McAdoo) then McAdoo either gives back a fair bit of the advantage he creates on D (at C), or loses a lot of what makes him unique (at PF). So thinking about it my present thinking is they're maybe about even in terms of peak, though I know McAdoo's is considerably more fabled (MVP and perhaps yearly metric leads maybe help).

From there it's hard not see Lanier as better. Better as an 80s role player, started earlier, just productive longer. As I said I like McAdoo. I think Jack Ramsey said some very nice things about him in terms of him being a workhorse, and he kept on playing in Europe through to age 42, then became an assistant and now scout so he seems committed to the game (I don't know, it could just be the easiest, smartest choice, but I wouldn't have thought he needed the money). It just looks to me like Lanier was better.

[trex_8063]

About 26-27 hours in, and thru post.....#8. :sadface:
Anyway, here's the count:

Allen Iverson (2) - Joao Saraiva, trex_8063

Bob Lanier (1) - Owly

:sadfacetoo:


@penbeast0: wrt to Moncrief and Daniels. I'd name-dropped Moncrief, but I do think his poor longevity hurts him a lot. Not that I necessarily think he couldn't be a valid candidate at this time, though think his longevity makes his case a touch tenuous. Daniels I don't feel like it is a candidate yet: his longevity is even worse, he had his best years during the weakest stretch for the ABA, and he's guilty (albeit to a lesser degree) of some of the same inefficient scoring that we've been pretty critical of in others, too. He's -0.3% ts% from league average over his career, fwiw. And there were some more efficient scoring options available (Roger Brown; Bob Netolicky was decently efficient in the years Daniels was shooting high volume on poor efficiency, too).

[Joao Saraiva]

Come on people, don't vote! It's Iverson's chance to finally get in

[Basketballefan]

Come on people, don't vote! It's Iverson's chance to finally get in

I think Iverson would've already got in with a larger pool of voters.

[trex_8063]

Come on people, don't vote! It's Iverson's chance to finally get in

I think Iverson would've already got in with a larger pool of voters.

Are you boycotting the vote at this point?

[Basketballefan]

Come on people, don't vote! It's Iverson's chance to finally get in

I think Iverson would've already got in with a larger pool of voters.

Are you boycotting the vote at this point?

Not sure what you mean but i will probably cast my vote for Ai once again.

[SactoKingsFan]

Come on people, don't vote! It's Iverson's chance to finally get in

I think Iverson would've already got in with a larger pool of voters.

Wouldn't mind Iverson getting in soon since this is right around where I have him on my ATL. Wasn't on most of the top 50 pre-lists, so I'm not sure he would have been voted in much higher even with more of the panel voting.

Sent from my LG-G2 using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

Thinking of Dennis Rodman here but quite frankly think Bobby Jones was slightly better. Better defense (Rodman superior in the post, Jones much superior help defender, Jones didn't get into the habit of leaving his man to pad his rebounding stats), a very good low usage offensive player with excellent efficiency, good off ball movement, good passing, and of course Jones wasn't a headcase -- on the other hand, Rodman is the GOAT rebounder and having a truly elite skill like that gives coaches and GM's options they wouldn't have otherwise.

Also, if anyone is recovered from Thanksgiving (we are doing the family dinner tonight so I won't be on much), I'd love to see a comp of Sam Jones v. Vince Carter since those are the main scorers I'm thinking of. KJ is a little too injury prone, I'd probably take Moncrief first since you have a strong injury free window of at least 4 years to try for a title then his decline was fast and clear so you don't keep trying to build around him the way Portland and San Diego did around Walton.

[lukekarts]

Thinking of Dennis Rodman here but quite frankly think Bobby Jones was slightly better. Better defense (Rodman superior in the post, Jones much superior help defender, Jones didn't get into the habit of leaving his man to pad his rebounding stats), a very good low usage offensive player with excellent efficiency, good off ball movement, good passing, and of course Jones wasn't a headcase -- on the other hand, Rodman is the GOAT rebounder and having a truly elite skill like that gives coaches and GM's options they wouldn't have otherwise.

.

I'm not sure Jones was better than Rodman. As you alluded to, Rodman's unique skill (simply the best rebounder there has ever been) is worth significant value and although Jones was a better man defender, does that negate Rodman's rebounding? Neither were particularly notable scorers, though Jones was clearly able to handle higher volume more effectively.

Do either deserve consideration at this point? Maybe; though we've still got MVP or MVP contenders available to us which makes it hard to justify. Still, DPOY credentials are not to be dismissed.

Anyone else have thoughts on these?

[Owly]

Thinking of Dennis Rodman here but quite frankly think Bobby Jones was slightly better. Better defense (Rodman superior in the post, Jones much superior help defender, Jones didn't get into the habit of leaving his man to pad his rebounding stats), a very good low usage offensive player with excellent efficiency, good off ball movement, good passing, and of course Jones wasn't a headcase -- on the other hand, Rodman is the GOAT rebounder and having a truly elite skill like that gives coaches and GM's options they wouldn't have otherwise.

.

I'm not sure Jones was better than Rodman. As you alluded to, Rodman's unique skill (simply the best rebounder there has ever been) is worth significant value and although Jones was a better man defender, does that negate Rodman's rebounding? Neither were particularly notable scorers, though Jones was clearly able to handle higher volume more effectively.

Do either deserve consideration at this point? Maybe; though we've still got MVP or MVP contenders available to us which makes it hard to justify. Still, DPOY credentials are not to be dismissed.

Anyone else have thoughts on these?

My gut is to go Jones. When he had that unique skill/area of productivity (arguably GOAT rebounding) he became less effective in other areas.

1) Scoring: Going from low volume high efficiency to super low volume, bad efficiency.
2) Defense: Less noticable (or at least less noticed, perhaps in part because of established defensive rep) his defensive game suffered as he became single minded about rebounding.
3) Teammate/Intangiables: From competitive but apparently shy, positive to at best ignorable (Chicago, with MJ and Jackson) to cancerous (Spurs).
4) Fouls: Later model Dennis started giving away points by accumulating needless techs. Maybe sometimes they were worthwhile in terms of getting in peoples head or whatever, but I'm not sure I buy into him as a master psychologist, rather than just a loose cannon who was willing to be jerk (perhaps unavoidably was one).

I'd also suggest the typical value of an offensive rebound reflects the fact that there's a fair chance you put the ball back in from an easy position; when Rodman was dedicated to offensive rebounding, in most years, he just wasn't doing that.

That's the negative (towards which I've drifted) on later model Rodman. I think the earlier (defense, and then transitioning in '91 and mostly there but not ignoring O or accumulating techs '92) versions were superior.


Jones has strong metrics for a non-scorer, looks super portable (elite D, good passer, low ego, good teammate, very efficient scorer, doesn't need the ball to be effective). The one big issue with him is minutes (presumably due to his asthma, but a crimp on his total impact.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Vince Carter

My true contenders for this spot are Nate Thurmond, Allen Iverson, and VC.

Vince was one of the most dynamic players in the golden era of shooting guards. His passing out of pick-n-roll while in New Jersey made him similar to his cousin, Tracy McGrady. His explosiveness, 3-point shooting, and low turnover rate in Toronto made him a super portable offensive menace for the Raptors.

After ending his prime in New Jersey, he willingly turned into a valuable role player, even coming off the bench for some strong teams like Dallas last year and Memphis this year. This in my opinion helps him overtake his contemporary, Allen Iverson, though I get the argument for AI as well.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo

Worms: Dennis Rodman

Wings: Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Paul Arizin, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[Joao Saraiva]

Thinking of Dennis Rodman here but quite frankly think Bobby Jones was slightly better. Better defense (Rodman superior in the post, Jones much superior help defender, Jones didn't get into the habit of leaving his man to pad his rebounding stats), a very good low usage offensive player with excellent efficiency, good off ball movement, good passing, and of course Jones wasn't a headcase -- on the other hand, Rodman is the GOAT rebounder and having a truly elite skill like that gives coaches and GM's options they wouldn't have otherwise.

.

I'm not sure Jones was better than Rodman. As you alluded to, Rodman's unique skill (simply the best rebounder there has ever been) is worth significant value and although Jones was a better man defender, does that negate Rodman's rebounding? Neither were particularly notable scorers, though Jones was clearly able to handle higher volume more effectively.

Do either deserve consideration at this point? Maybe; though we've still got MVP or MVP contenders available to us which makes it hard to justify. Still, DPOY credentials are not to be dismissed.

Anyone else have thoughts on these?

I actually think Ben Wallace might have a place in that discussion. 4 times DPOY, great NBA finals in 04 against Shaq, several times performing great with the Pistons... I'm just not sure about his longevity.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote: Vince Carter

My true contenders for this spot are Nate Thurmond, Allen Iverson, and VC.

Vince was one of the most dynamic players in the golden era of shooting guards. His passing out of pick-n-roll while in New Jersey made him similar to his cousin, Tracy McGrady. His explosiveness, 3-point shooting, and low turnover rate in Toronto made him a super portable offensive menace for the Raptors.

After ending his prime in New Jersey, he willingly turned into a valuable role player, even coming off the bench for some strong teams like Dallas last year and Memphis this year. This in my opinion helps him overtake his contemporary, Allen Iverson, though I get the argument for AI as well.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo

Worms: Dennis Rodman

Wings: Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Paul Arizin, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Mark Price

I'd actually think Vince should already be in, I'll vote for him right after Iverson.