RealGM Top 100 List #81

[penbeast0]

PG: Tony Parker, Mookie Blaylock, Mo Cheeks, Tim Hardaway, and Mark Price are the players I'm looking at . . . maybe Penny Hardaway though he never impressed me as much as he did the TV guys of his day.

Forwards: Marques Johnson and Chris Mullin would be the main scorers; maybe Carmelo Anthony though between his season of discontent in Denver and his playoff numbers, I'd have to be persuaded. Billy Cunningham, Bob Dandridge, Chet Walker, and Mitch Richmond also come to mind.

Bigs: Mel Daniels has 2 MVPs and 3 rings, albeit in a weaker league; similarly Neil Johnston has the best raw numbers in an even weaker league than Daniels. Amare Stoudamire and Jerry Lucas bring great numbers but defensive questions (Johnston is defensively questionable too); Bill Walton has the highest peak (though that's it for true career value -- 1 year then failed to stay healthy to the playoffs the next and 1 year as a reserve role player). Rasheed Wallace got support earlier though I've never been a fan of his.

There are a lot of other good players but as we are into the last quarter, that's my short list.

Chris Mullin v. Marques Johnson; Mel Daniels v. Neil Johnston; Tony Parker v. Tim Hardaway v. Mark Price, Mo Cheeks v. Mookie Blaylock; Jerry Lucas v. Chris Webber; those are the other comps I am looking at and would love feedback on.

By the boxscore numbers I go for Jerry Lucas or Chris Mullin. By the eye test I go for Mel Daniels or Marques Johnson.

VOTE Mel Daniels. Not as impressive statistically as Marques Johnson (or Jerry Lucas/Chris Webber) but has a strong defensive impact (more of a Moses Malone/Wes Unseld type as he wasn't a great shotblocker), excellent rebounding, good if not great offense, and came across similarly to Alonzo Mourning when you watched him as just a pure warrior type.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Chris Webber

Most definitely willing to change. Decent longevity, great prime. One of the most talented players ever, able to drop 20/10/5 with good defense on extremely strong teams.

I do think part of his relative inefficiency is because he had a LaMarcus Aldridge effect where his mid-range USG% and jump shots helped the incredibly strong offenses he was a part of (not to mention his amazing passing/creativity, which is an advantage over LMA) by allowing other players to get shots they were more comfortable with. I would have liked to see him engage in the low post more because he'd increase his individual scoring efficiency while being an incredibly dangerous passer from that spot, but what he did worked well, too.

OK, to clarify what Aldridge does and what I think Webber did. Say these guys put up 30 USG% in 38 MPG. Now, they're style of offense (taking a high volume of the dreadfully inefficient mid-range shots) certainly doesn't maximize their own individual scoring efficiency. But...

1. It's a low turnover strategy because passing to the high-post or mid-post is safer than passing it into the 5-feet-and-in range. The high post and mid-range areas cover more surface area on the court, so it's less predictable where those guys are going to catch the ball. You can even use pick-n-X to merely get the high post big man the ball in an isolation position. Think Dirk and Terry or Lillard/Batum and LMA today. Think CP3 and Griffin in 2015.

2. The other players comprising the rest of the 70 USG% in those 38 MPG get to maximize their scoring efficiency: the guards have space to work/slash, post players and offensive rebounders get more 1 vs. 1 quick-hitting opportunities, ball-handlers have effective pick-n-pop partners meaning more often than not they will be left open coming off the pick and can hit jumpers, cutters have space. I'd rather maximize the 70 USG% in terms of offensive efficiency (remember, they maximize their scoring efficiency and turnover rate since there is less predictability and less pressure on them) and have the 30 USG% player have his scoring efficiency dip a bit than have the 30 USG% guy have great scoring efficiency, a worse individual turnover rate, and the other 70 USG% have their total offensive efficiency decline.

3. It's allows you to put on the floor a true Defensive Center who can concentrate on going 1 vs. 1 with his man close to the boards for offensive rebounds. Think Tyson Chandler, Joel Pryzbilla/Greg Oden, and Robin Lopez. Think DeAndre Jordan in 2015. This is only a potential strongpoint, depending on how you choose to build your team.

4. This goes for any offensive player, but...if these guys (Aldridge/Webber) get red hot in an individual game from mid-range, you're pretty much toast. Because then you have the constant, consistent 70 USG% guys doing their thing PLUS mega scoring efficiency from the star scorer.

[trex_8063]

My top two choices for this spot are Tony Parker and Dan Issel. My next choices would likely be Chris Webber followed closely by Chris Bosh. (then a small gap until guys like Billy Cunningham, Jack Sikma, and Jerry Lucas)

For now, I think I'll stick with Tony Parker again, and hope he starts getting some support. He ranks #51 in my elaborate formula, #77 in my more simplistic formula (formulas cited in #78 thread; can repost lists and description upon request). Further arguments in the spoiler below:

Spoiler:

There's a great deal of positive to be said for him......
In the last 12 seasons (not counting this current one) he's been no less than the 3rd-best---often the 2nd-best---player on FOUR title teams. He's been no less than 3rd-best on.....well, 10-11 contenders (because the Spurs have legitimately been contenders nearly every season of his career); and in the case of '12, at the very least, you can make an argument he was actually the #1 guy (at least a #1A/1B scenario) on a contender-level squad.

His rs stats over that 12-year span (863 rs games):
17.8 ppg/6.1 apg/2.6 tov @ 55.4% ts
19.7 PER, .156 WS/48, 110 ORtg/104 DRtg (+6) in 32.9 mpg

And he did this for what is generally one of the best and most balanced teams in the league.
He's fantastic at breaking guys down off the dribble (for his career 35.8% of his fga are from inside 3 ft), an outstanding finisher (career 65.4% from <3ft), and really a very good mid-range pull-up shooter, too. I have little doubt that a peak Tony Parker could have annually been putting up 22-24 ppg on decent efficiency for a lesser team.

wrt post-season, I think his playoff woes get marginally over-stated. His ps numbers over this same span do take a bit of a dip; however, closer scrutiny reveals that it's in a large part due to TWO bad playoff years ('03 and '05). If we look at the other TEN seasons in this span, his playoff numbers are:

19.04 PER, .103 WS/48 in 35.8 mpg. This is basically a typical post-season dip that we see from most players.

On the grandest stage (the Finals), he's had some poor performances, though he does have at least one very very nice finals performance in '07: 24.5 ppg/5.0/3.3 apg/3.0 tov @ 59.5% ts (Finals MVP).
And really, he was pretty good last year in the finals, too: 18.0 ppg/4.6 apg/2.0 tov @ 55.0% ts (non-existent rebounding, although you're not really counting on boards from your PG anyway).


I don't think DRtg (and thus ORtg/DRtg comparisons) really do him justice, as DRtg has a somewhat causal relationship with not only steals/blocks (which he doesn't get many of), but also defensive rebounds (which he's not a very good rebounding PG-->not really a big slam on him, because......PG; it's typically the least relevant skill/attribute for a PG).

Generally I would say Parker appears "checked in" on defense, certainly not a huge liability on that end (like say....certain years of Steve Nash, or Derrick Rose, whose defensive effort is abominable at times).

Non-scaled PI DRAPM for Parker:
'03--> +0.9
'04--> +0.5
'05--> -0.2
'06--> +0.9
'07--> -2.2
'08--> +1.01
'09--> +0.48
'10--> -0.21
'11--> -0.44
'12--> +1.16
'13--> +1.06
'14--> +0.20

Aside from one poor year in '07, he generally appears entirely decent defensively based on impact data (particularly for a PG).

His best 3-year and best 5-year combined PI RAPM marks are similar to guys like Tracy McGrady and Kevin Durant, and a little better than Pau Gasol.

Given all this, I think he's got a fantastic top 80 case (likely top 75 imo).

Vote: Tony Parker.
reserve right to strategically switch pending what other votes turn up

[SactoKingsFan]

Going back to voting for Chris Webber now that he's gained some more support.

Spoiler:

Webber was a legit MVP candidate, very talented player with a versatile offensive skill-set and a solid/underrated defender. I think Webber's peak, prime and overall skill-set are enough to make him one of the top 70-75 candidates, and his issues at this point in the project don't look so bad since all the remaining candidates have significant weaknesses.

10 Year Prime (94-03):
22.1 PER, .526 TS%, 14.7 TRB%, 20.4 AST%, 72.3 WS, .152 WS/48, 106 ORtg, 100 DRtg

10 Year Prime (94-03) Per 100:
29.2 PTS, 13.5 TRB, 5.8 AST, 2 STL, 2.2 BLK, 3.9 TOV

GOAT level passing big:

Webber was capable of making all the passes and you could run the offense through him without missing a beat. His 20.2 career AST% is exceptional for a big. The only other PF/C with a career AST% >= 20 is Alvan Adams.

1 of only 10 players with 17,000 PTS, 8,000 REB, 3500 AST and a career PER above 20:

The other 9 players with at least 17000 PTS, 8000 REB, 3500 AST and a career PER >=20 are Kareem, Wilt, Karl Malone, Duncan, KG, Dr J, Barkley, Bird and Baylor. Webber obviously doesn't belong in the same class as any of these legends, but I think it at least shows how talented and skilled he was.

[Quotatious]

Sorry for not voting in the previous thread. Life happened, didn't have much time.

To me, Greer seems like the type of player who gets overrated if you believe in some of the stories/narratives about him (I don't buy him being one of the best midrange shooters of all-time - his scoring efficiency wasn't high enough for that to be possible), and I wouldn't necessarily vote for him yet, but era-relative, he's certainly well-deserving, so I'm okay with him getting in (especially considering that Sam Jones is in since 68 - I don't think the gap between these two guys is that big - FWIW, Greer has a pretty sizeable advantage in terms of longevity).

Bill Sharman is IMO very comparable to Jones and Greer (and I feel pretty confident saying that Sharman was the best shooter of the three), he'll be my vote pretty soon, I guess. Cliff Hagan, as well (better all-around player who peaked higher than Sharman).

For now though, I'll vote for Walt Bellamy.

Not super confident about this one, but Bellamy had a very long career (1043 games, almost 39000 RS minutes), averaged about 20/14/2.5, almost 20 PER (incomplete, obviously), 16 WS/48, over 55% TS.

Totally unimpressive playoff career, but he's not the first guy on the list who's not exactly a playoff stunner. Also, his defensive reputation isn't really good, but he's also not the first center on the list who's defense leaves something to be desired (Moses, Lanier). Another thing that makes me hesitate is the fact that he played on losing teams for majority of his career, but I just voted for Elton Brand two spots earlier, and it wasn't a problem for me. Sometimes you just have a great/good player who finds himself in unfavorable situations.

The main reason why I'm voting for Bellamy is his awesome peak, especially considering that he peaked in his rookie season - one of the greatest rookie campaigns ever. Obviously his team only won 18 games that year, losing 62, but their roster was horrible...Bellamy averaged almost 32 points, finishing second in the league (while also leading the league in FG and TS%, even over Wilt), 19 rebounds (third after Wilt and Russell), second in WS/48, third in PER...You simply can't deny that he was a legitimately great player. He was similarly impressive (well, a bit worse, but still great) in '63 and '64 (even '65), as well. While I don't believe that his stats really reflect how good his impact was, his team was steadily adding a few wins every year (and it should be remembered that the Packers/Zephyrs/Bullets had their rookie season as a franchise, the same year as Bellamy's rookie season).

Basically, I just think that no one has more career value (very high peak combined with excellent longevity/durability, especially by 60s standards) than Bellamy. Excellent scorer and rebounder, even if his defense wasn't that good.

Tiny Archibald is in since 74 (I was one of his biggest supporters), and he also went in based mostly on his amazing statistical peak, and played on losing teams for most of his career, but his longevity/durability is clearly worse than Bellamy's, and neither has a good playoff resume, so Bells seems like a pretty deserving candidate at this point.

Again - I'm wasn't really sure if Bellamy is the best choice - I seriously considered like 10-15 guys here (Bosh, Parker, Webber, Sheed, Horace Grant, Walton, Moncrief, Melo, Dumars, Marques Johnson, Mullin, Sikma, Dennis Johnson, Cheeks), but none of them has as good a combination of peak and longevity as Bellamy.

That being said, I just wanted to vote for someone, after missing it the last time, so considering that I don't feel very confident about Bellamy, I'm open to changing my vote (I'll probably have to do so, if we're going to have a run-off, as I don't think Walt will get much support here).

[Owly]

As before I could see a few guys here(as before Howell, Johnston, Bellamy, maybe Sikma, maybe Hagan). I may revise this vote.

But I'm going to ...

vote Bill Sharman

Best shooter of his era. Best player at his position of his decade (OTOH the last one of these left, and a good distance ahead of the pack). Good athlete - committed to conditioning; good defender; very tough/competitive (including getting into/winning fights); good basketball mind (his coaching career, including titles in the ABL, ABA and NBA offers support for this).

[trex_8063]

Sorry for not voting in the previous thread. Life happened, didn't have much time.

To me, Greer seems like the type of player who gets overrated if you believe in some of the stories/narratives about him (I don't buy him being one of the best midrange shooters of all-time - his scoring efficiency wasn't high enough for that to be possible), and I wouldn't necessarily vote for him yet, but era-relative, he's certainly well-deserving, so I'm okay with him getting in (especially considering that Sam Jones is in since 68 - I don't think the gap between these two guys is that big - FWIW, Greer has a pretty sizeable advantage in terms of longevity).

Agree.

Again - I'm wasn't really sure if Bellamy is the best choice - I seriously considered like 10-15 guys here (Bosh, Parker, Webber, Sheed, Horace Grant, Walton, Moncrief, Melo, Dumars, Marques Johnson, Mullin, Sikma, Dennis Johnson, Cheeks), but none of them has as good a combination of peak and longevity as Bellamy.

Moncrief got in at like #67 iirc.....He's definitely in, at any rate. Lot of other good names in there (even if I'm not quite ready to support them yet).
Walton, reluctantly, I've moved just outside the fringes of my top 100. idk, his longevity is just so all-time poor......hard for me to justify that top 100 spot anymore, no matter how good he was for that 1.5 years.

[Quotatious]

Moncrief got in at like #67 iirc.....He's definitely in, at any rate.

Damn. My bad, lol. Considering that Moncrief has been in for quite a while now, and he only had 5 relevant seasons, I think that Chris Mullin is a very good candidate at this point. Between '89 and '93 (four healthy seasons, plus one more with 46 games, in '93) he averaged 25.8 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 60% TS, 4.1 OBPM. Not the same all-around player as Sid, because obviously Squid was one of the best perimeter defenders ever, while Mully was average at best (slightly below average overall, I'd say), but prime Mullin was one of the elite offensive players in the game. Basically James Harden with worse playmaking. He also had more good non-prime contributions than Moncrief.

On the other hand, you have a guy like Melo, who has twice as many prime seasons as Mullin (I'm definitely higher on prime Mullin than Anthony, because of his superior efficiency, but that's something to consider). It's just so hard to remain consistent with your criteria (at least for me, it is - I still feel like Walton should make the top 100, but it's hard to justify that if you want to be consistent - the guy had basically no longevity, at all, but he's a top 15 player of all-time at his peak...).

[SactoKingsFan]

Moncrief got in at like #67 iirc.....He's definitely in, at any rate.

Damn. My bad, lol. Considering that Moncrief has been in for quite a while now, and he only had 5 relevant seasons, I think that Chris Mullin is a very good candidate at this point. Between '89 and '93 (four healthy seasons, plus one more with 46 games, in '93) he averaged 25.8 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.9 spg, 60% TS, 4.1 OBPM. Not the same all-around player as Sid, because obviously Squid was one of the best perimeter defenders ever, while Mully was average at best (slightly below average overall, I'd say), but prime Mullin was one of the elite offensive players in the game. Basically James Harden with worse playmaking. He also had more good non-prime contributions than Moncrief.

What about Mitch Richmond? I think he should probably be in the mix if you're seriously considering Mullin, who peaked higher but had a much shorter prime.

Prime Richmond (91-98):

30.8 PTS, 5.2 AST, 5.3 REB, 7.9 FTA per 100

56.4 TS%, 40.1 3PT%, 84.7 FT%

That's pretty impressive, especially when looking at the terrible supporting casts Mitch played with in SAC.

[Clyde Frazier]

--

[Clyde Frazier]

[Finally got a chance to write this up...]

Vote for #81 - Carmelo Anthony

- 12 year career
- 6x all NBA (2 2nd, 4 3rd)
- 1 top 3 and 1 top 10 MVP finish
- 1x scoring champ

REG SEASON 06-14

26.3 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, .5 BPG, 46.1% FG, 35.3% 3PT, 81.7% FT, 55.4% TS, .149 WS/48, 110 ORTG, 10.9% TO

PLAYOFFS 06-13

27 PPG, 7.4 RPG, 2.8 APG, 1.3 SPG, .4 BPG, 42.1% FG, 32.9% 3PT, 82.8% FT, 51.9% TS, .124 WS/48, 107 ORTG, 9.9% TO

Peak carmelo developed into one of the best offensive players in the league. The “iso melo” stigma really became an outdated narrative as you saw all he really needed was a decent PG rotation to keep the ball moving (a little different, but billups certainly got the best out of him in denver). He became one of the better off the ball players in 12-13, actually shooting more efficeintly and on higher volume than durant in catch and shoot situations. His transition to a great 3 pt shooter also opened up his game, and he stepped into transition 3s about as well as anyone in the league.

He’s obviously known for his great post up and face up game, but not acknowledged as much for being a great offensive rebounder for his position. He has a deceptively quick 2nd jump and soft touch around the rim for put backs. He also possesses a unique rolling spin move to the hoop i’m not sure anyone else in the league has. The one thing he’s really average at is finishing at the rim, and i’d say that partially has to do with him not being able to take advantage of the way the game is called these days. He isn’t a freak show athlete like lebron, and he doesn’t have those long strides like durant / harden where they know the angles and draw fouls as easily as they do.

Carmelo had the full repertoire going with his career high 62 pts against charlotte last season (they ranked 5th in DRTG):

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYmRC0hFJc[/youtube]

I then look at someone like dominique, who was voted in at #61, and I think a 20 spot gap between the two is pushing it. Take a look at how they compare over their first 12 seasons (dominique actually comes off as worse if you look at his whole career):

http://bkref.com/tiny/ErtCG

They’re very comparable in most areas, and carmelo actually comes out as the better postseason performer, something wilkins was well criticized for, but still managed to get voted in much earlier.

There always seemed to be this all or nothing evaluation of carmelo where he’d be expected to be as good as lebron / durant (which he obviously isn’t), or he’s barely a top 20 player in the league. You may want to fault him for forcing his way to NY, but let’s not pretend like many players voted in already haven’t done the same.

ronnymac brings up a good point about low turnovers being a plus for high usage players. Below are are 20+ PPG scorers in the playoffs (excluding centers) sorted by TO% (best to worst):

http://bkref.com/tiny/HO11E

Of course there are guys at the “bottom” who were very successful, but the lower TO% can help offset some of the decrease in efficiency we see with carmelo in the playoffs. 25 of the 34 players on this list have already been voted in, and only 1 of those players (gus williams) has played in more playoff games then carmelo, so I think he has a good case for this spot.

As an aside, I think it’s pretty interesting to see guys like jordan and iverson with such low TO%s in the playoffs. Also would’ve never known ben gordon was a 20 PPG scorer in the playoffs for his career

Then we get to the clutch play. Carmelo separates himself from a perceived clutch player like kobe by actually hitting several clutch shots on impressive efficiency (not my intention to set off any kobe fan bat signal here… yes, he’s hit plenty of clutch shots in his career). 82games.com looked at shot data from 04-09 in the reg season + 04-08 in the post season. Carmelo was 6th in the league in makes, but #1 in the league by far in FG% at 48.1% (kobe was at 25% having made 1 more shot).

http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

By 2011, he already had enough game winners to choose from to create a top 10 for his career:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0vMD_CTYY[/youtube]

For clutch data from 2000-2012, carmelo was 7th in the league in FG%, and 50% of his FGs were assisted, which is interesting to note for being criticized for holding the ball too long.

http://www.libertyballers.com/2012/2/29 ... th-quarter

[I’d obviously prefer eFG% or TS% for these figures, but they weren’t available here]

I’m aware that he hasn’t been quite as clutch over the last few seasons, but i attribute some of that to fatigue (he led the league in MPG last season) and the makeup of his teams. He’s still had his fair share of clutch moments since coming to NY, and hit multiple game winners during his first season here. He did give us this gem in 2012, as well:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9neM8by1SQ[/youtube]

Carmelo gets a decent amount of flack for his playoff resume, and I think it’s a little overstated, so I’d like to provide some context for each season. It also seems to get pushed aside that making the playoffs 10 seasons in a row is no big deal or something, especially when the majority of them came out west. Below is carmelo’s team SRS rank and the opponent’s SRS rank that he lost to in the playoffs.

CARMELO SRS RANK / OPPONENT SRS RANK

04 - 11th / 2nd
05 - 10th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
06 - 15th / 9th
07 - 9th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
08 - 11th / 2nd
09 - 8th / 3rd (eventual NBA champion lakers)
10 - 8th / 3rd
11 - 15th / 6th
12 - 11th / 4th (eventual NBA champion heat)
13 - 7th / 9th

Aside from 2013, the team he lost to has always been favored in SRS, with 4 of the 10 series losses coming to the eventual NBA champs. To me, this doesn’t reflect a player who’s come up short when he’s been expected to go farther in the playoffs. You can make the argument that if he was a better player, he may have been favored in more series, but that only goes so far. It’s clear that he hasn’t been as fortunate as some other players as far as who he’s played with. Some more details on his recent playoff loses:

09 - This run to the WCF almost gets glossed over at times. Nuggets were 2 wins away from the finals, losing to the eventual NBA champion lakers, who were just flat out the better team. He had some great performances during that run.

11 - Billups gets hurt in game 1 against boston (out for rest of series), then amare gets hurt in game 2 only playing 17 min. First 2 games are decided by 2 and 3 points respectively. Tony douglas forced to play PG for the rest of the series, basically putting it out of reach.

12 - Disastrous # of injuries. Tyson chandler finishes off a DPOY season, and of course gets the flu as soon as the playoffs start. Lin doesn’t come back for the playoffs, shumpert and douglas only play 1 game a piece, baron davis eventually goes down, and the knicks are only left with 33 yr old mike bibby to run the point, who already had 1 foot in retirement.

13 - First time since carmelo came to the knicks that they really looked like a team who could make a run to the finals. PG play was always an issue prior to this season, and felton came up big in the 1st round against boston. Ball movement flowing with kidd and prigioni as well. Then in the 2nd round against indiana, chandler again doesn’t look himself, which would later be revealed that he had an “undisclosed illness” during the series. I think there’s a good chance they beat the pacers with a healthy chandler, and who knows what happens from there.

Here are the best players carmelo’s played with over the course of his career: kenyon martin (often injured), post 30s iverson, camby (often injured), JR smith, nene (often injured), billups, afflalo, amare (often injured), tyson chandler (often injured), kidd in his last season and an in shape felton. Outside of iverson, that’s a collection of good players, but nothing that screams "consistent second option", or even "consistent first option" if you want to push carmelo down a notch. Fit is clearly important, too, and while iverson and carmelo never had "problems" with each other, it wasn't working. It’s not an accident that carmelo’s best seasons came with billups running the show in 09 and a knicks team in 2013 which focused heavily on keeping the ball moving and quick decision making.

With regards to how carmelo’s career is perceived, I always go back to pierce before garnett and allen came along. Even if we agree that pierce is the better player, he had only been to the conf finals once before that trade, and i’m not sure how his career progresses without those trades being made. Does he stick with it in boston and not make anymore playoff runs? Does he eventually go to another team? I just wonder how carmelo would be looked at had he been fortunate enough to play with teammates of that caliber.

[penbeast0]

Carmelo Anthony -- Clyde Frazier

Bill Sharman -- Owly

Walt Bellamy -- Quotatious

Chris Webber -- SactoKingsFan, ronnymac2

Tony Parker -- trex_8063

Mel Daniels -- penbeast0

Looking to see if there was anyone here that I wanted to do strategic voting for but everyone seems pretty reasonably grouped here. Mel Daniels is the odd man out actually as everyone else is a long career player while he has easily the highest peak and accolades but not the longevity.

[RayBan-Sematra]

VOTE : Tony Parker

Not a big fan of Webber.
I considered Daniel's but I think his longevity is not enough to where I would feel comfortable ranking his career value above Parker's.

Not a huge Bellamy fan.
He was a bad defender and was riddled with injuries after his first 5-6 seasons.
Only had about 8 Prime years.
Something funny. BBREF says he played 88 games in one season where he got traded from one team to another..

Carmelo is an interesting choice but I just think he is lacking to some degree in terms of bbiq/intangibles and he has always been a mediocre defender.
Even his iso scoring tends to disappoint in the playoffs (bad efficiency in many years).

Sharman I am unfortunately not overly familiar with and he played in the 50's.
He might be a legit candidate but I can't consider him due to how little I know of him.

[penbeast0]

So, it looks like Tony Parker v. Chris Webber.

Webber scores at a slightly higher volume (exaggerated by his greater mpg), Parker at a higher efficiency (despite being a guard). Edge Parker

Webber is the better rebounder, even relative to position. Edge Webber.

Parker is the superior playmaker, particularly when you look at per 100 possession data, but Webber is clearly superior for his position. Edge Webber.

I would give Webber a clear defensive edge as well, though I don't like the way he gives up post position. Edge Webber.

Longevity -- Parker stayed healthy more. Edge Parker (trex is right).

Intanglibles strongly favor Parker. Between Webber's whining, off court miscues, and tendency toward bonehead plays in the clutch, it more than compensates for Parker's not always outstanding playoff play. Parker also has a lot more playoff success, but I attribute that much more to Tim Duncan than to Parker. Strong Edge Parker.

Frankly, I disliked Webber as a player and see him as overrated, but not sure how I can put Parker ahead of him. I know if I was drafting one or the other, I'd be drafting Webber, warts and all.

Vote (holding nose) Chris Webber.

[HeartBreakKid]

A few months ago, I would have said Tony Parker without thinking much hesitation, but objectively speaking, I think Webber was probably a better player.

Parker had a really good peak imo, I thought he ran SA's system perfectly. It's still hard to look away that Parker has come up pretty short in the playoffs, and never really carried the Spurs. Webber was an overrated player when it came to carrying too, but Parker's reputation is heavily skewered by him winning so much.

I think one has to go with Webber here. Scoring wise, I actually like Parker a bit more, but offensively, I think Webber was probably Parker's equivilant, as he was a very good playmaker (Parker also became a pretty good quarterback himself).

Defensively, I think it is a blow out in Webber's favor. Parker has always been pretty meh defensively, sometimes even down right awful. Webber was soft in the paint, but there were aspects of his defensive game which were quite valuable, he was very long and was pretty quick which helped.

My vote goes to Chris Webber.

[trex_8063]

So, it looks like Tony Parker v. Chris Webber.

Webber scores at a slightly higher volume (exaggerated by his greater mpg), Parker at a higher efficiency (despite being a guard). Edge Parker

Webber is the better rebounder, even relative to position. Edge Webber.

Parker is the superior playmaker, particularly when you look at per 100 possession data, but Webber is clearly superior for his position. Edge Webber.

I would give Webber a clear defensive edge as well, though I don't like the way he gives up post position. Edge Webber.

Longevity is about even.

Intanglibles strongly favor Parker. Between Webber's whining, off court miscues, and tendency toward bonehead plays in the clutch, it more than compensates for Parker's not always outstanding playoff play. Parker also has a lot more playoff success, but I attribute that much more to Tim Duncan than to Parker. Strong Edge Parker.

Frankly, I disliked Webber as a player and see him as overrated, but not sure how I can put Parker ahead of him. I know if I was drafting one or the other, I'd be drafting Webber, warts and all.

Vote (holding nose) Chris Webber.

More or less agree with assessment on the various aspects of their games with exception of the bolded:

I think longevity is a very clear edge to Parker: even not counting this current season Parker had >100 more rs games played than Webber (and basically even rs minutes, despite the huge minutes you noted about Webber; and obv far more playoff games than Webber, fwiw). Further, Parker's got well over 200 more PRIME-level rs games played.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Tony Parker

Not a lot to day. I just don't really believe in Webber. Not that he isn't a good player, it's just that his stature got blown up out of proportion when the Kings became great and he was the big name on the team. In the end he's a guy who really hordes the volume box score on his team as a big man without great efficiency, and I think we don't see guys like this now for a reason. I think Webber would have to change how he plays now to fit in with new trends, and those trends for the most part would have been just as helpful back when he was playing.

I think it's certainly possible to overrate Parker because of his proximity to team greatness, but in the end he's a fundamentally solid player who has remained at the core in San Antonio for a very long time despite having a coach who has proven quite willing to move on from most everyone else. That makes quite clear that he could fit in most anywhere.

I would imagine those really doubting Parker here don't disagree with the last paragraph, but they have doubts about how far he could go if he were really "the man" like Webber was. While I don't think there's much doubt that Parker's box score impressiveness was curtailed by Pop's brilliant but team-centric approach, to me the bigger thing really is that I just Sacramento didn't need Webber to put up such gaudy numbers to be an amazing team and at times it got in the way, and meanwhile Webber being the man on earlier teams got them precisely nowhere.

[KilloJoeX]

Then we get to the clutch play. Carmelo separates himself from a perceived clutch player like kobe by actually hitting several clutch shots on impressive efficiency (not my intention to set off any kobe fan bat signal here… yes, he’s hit plenty of clutch shots in his career). 82games.com looked at shot data from 04-09 in the reg season + 04-08 in the post season. Carmelo was 6th in the league in makes, but #1 in the league by far in FG% at 48.1% (kobe was at 25% having made 1 more shot).

lmao perceived? look at kobe's numbers in the last 5 min of close games during his prime season on 82games.com
they were amazing. hardly just a ''perception'
not to mention hes one of the best playoff performers ever while melo is one of the most disappointing. thats the real measure of "cutch play' and kobe blows melo away as a playoff performer.
why even bring up bryant? you didn't need to make your point. its clear you dont what you're talking about.

[SactoKingsFan]

Then we get to the clutch play. Carmelo separates himself from a perceived clutch player like kobe by actually hitting several clutch shots on impressive efficiency (not my intention to set off any kobe fan bat signal here… yes, he’s hit plenty of clutch shots in his career). 82games.com looked at shot data from 04-09 in the reg season + 04-08 in the post season. Carmelo was 6th in the league in makes, but #1 in the league by far in FG% at 48.1% (kobe was at 25% having made 1 more shot).

lmao perceived? look at kobe's numbers in the last 5 min of close games during his prime season on 82games.com
they were amazing. hardly just a ''perception'
not to mention hes one of the best playoff performers ever while melo is one of the most disappointing. thats the real measure of "cutch play' and kobe blows melo away as a playoff performer.
why even bring up bryant? you didn't need to make your point. its clear you dont what you're talking about.

Although I'm not a Melo advocate, I thought this post needed to be addressed since it's quite misleading.

SideshowBob compiled and shared clutch (last 5 min w/in 5 pts) RS data from 97-13 on several notable players. The clutch efficiency stats for Kobe and Melo are actually comparable.

01-10 Kobe: 43.8 eFG%, 54.2 TS%

05-13 Melo: 44.0 eFG%, 54.7%

[Quotatious]

Run-off vote: Tony Parker

I really don't feel confident voting for Parker. I think it's very close, and both guys would rank very high on my list of "players who look better when I watch them play, than they look on paper". I couldn't decide who I should vote for until I looked at 97-14 RAPM numbers (obviously it doesn't take Webber's first three seasons into account, but it still consists of almost his entire prime, and most of his career) - Parker is ranked 68th, Webber 185th...that's a significant gap.

Peak-wise, Webber obviously has pretty nice boxscore numbers (including 6+ BPM and VORP in 1997, so even before his days with the Kings), but Parker's 2013 (and possibly 2009, too) season is IMO at least as good as peak Webber, probably better - Parker ranked 2nd in the league in RAPM after LeBron, in 13, at over +6.0 overall - combined with his 20 points, 3 rebounds and almost 8 assists, on 23 PER, almost 21 WS/48 and almost 59% TS, and a solid playoff run, it's really impressive - I'd say that TP was easily a top 10 player in 2013, IMO just outside the top 5).

Parker has a good case to be the best Spur in 2009, over Duncan, who still averaged almost 19/11/4 that year, which is quite an accomplishment.

I wouldn't want Webber or Parker as my #1 option, but I have more trust in Tony as the #2 - he can get his points on a much more limited amount of shot attempts - C-Webb was too trigger-happy to be a good fit as the #2 option, for my liking. Phenomenal passer/playmaker for a bigman (top 5 of all-time, quite possibly), but on the other hand, Parker is an all-time great finisher at rim for a point guard. TP also seems to have better longevity at this point.