PG: Mo Cheeks, Tim Hardaway, Mark Price, and maybe Mookie Blaylock 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.
RealGM Top 100 List #82
Moderators: penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063
RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
penbeast0
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,142
- And1: 9,760
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
RealGM Top 100 List #82
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
trex_8063
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 12,554
- And1: 8,183
- Joined: Feb 24, 2013
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
A word on Dan Issel.....
Seems more than appropriate that he be gaining traction by this point, given for instance his place on the all-time leaderboard in WS (which RSCD3_ had presented previously):
Although not terribly similar in how they got things done, I see Issel somewhat like a “poor man’s Amar’e Stoudemire” (and only slightly "poor"), but with MUCH better longevity and durability. I used the Stoudemire comparison because they were both PF/C’s known for efficient volume scoring with not so special defense. Stat’s without a doubt better as a pure scorer (he’s just a FAR superior finisher), but has worse passing and ball control, which brings their overall offensive value a little closer. I still give the edge to Amar’e offensively, I just don’t think it’s terribly large edge.
Pretty similar as defenders, small edge to Amar’e as a rebounder. So…..a slightly-poor man’s Stoudemire, but with far and away better longevity/durability: he played literally twice as many prime-level games as Stoudemire. He played 15 total seasons missing a grand total of only 24 games in that span (by comparison, Stoudemire has missed >24 games in a single season FOUR different years).
For that reason, wherever one ranks Stoudemire on his ATL, imo Issel belongs anywhere from 5-20 places higher, depending on just how much you value longevity (me? I value it a fair bit).
As to HOW Issel got things done (as mentioned: he wasn’t the explosive ultra-elite finisher that Amar’e was), I’ll give my impressions from what I’ve seen of him….
Physically, he doesn’t look particularly impressive (by NBA standards): kinda like a slightly stockier version of Larry Bird. Perhaps some other physical similarities to Bird (other than the white skin): he can run the floor OK, but certainly not “fast” by NBA standards even for a big (a bit slower than Bird, even); he doesn’t have a quick first step, he’s not exceptionally strong, and he’s not much of a leaper.
And in spite of all this, he was able to score at a rate and efficiency somewhat beyond what one might reasonably expect, given those physical attributes.
From what I’ve seen, a lot of that scoring came in the low-post. And actually, while I’m on the Bird-comparison, Issel’s low-post game reminds me a bit of Larry Bird’s: both guys were fantastic at using their lower bodies to clear space, and both tend to act very quickly and decisively once the ball is in their hands. With Issel, after catching the entry pass, he’d often immediately go up to put one off the glass, generally leaning INTO the defender (who has barely had a chance to get his feet set)---not shy at all about contact, and had a pretty nice foul-draw rate; 79.3% career FT-shooter, too. He’d sometimes, while making these quick moves, subtly position his torso in such a way as to shield his defender from being able to effectively bat at the ball.
This is all pretty basic, non-flashy low post stuff, like that which might be coached to a high-school big; but it’s still very effective even at the professional level, if done well (and Issel did it well). Had nice hands and nice touch around the rim, too, fwiw.
Issel was, in general so far as I can tell, pretty consistently decisive with the ball. Aside from the low-post tendencies mentioned above, if he caught the ball 16 ft from the hoop and was open, the shot’s going up (pretty good mid-range shooter, btw). When he did decide to put it on the floor, it was usually something quick, non-flashy, and to-the-point. For instance, he’d maybe catch a pass 17 ft from the hoop, immediately make like he’s going to shoot, getting his defender to bite just a little, then put it on the floor----just one, maybe two dribbles---on the quickest path to the hoop.
With Issel, there just wasn’t a lot of standing around making multiple shot/pass/jab-step fakes, slow back-down dribbles in the post, or bringing the ball low and doing lots of pump-fakes, etc. He really just didn’t do those things that---while they might be effective for some other players---allow the defense time to get their feet set and start anticipating.
I recall that from Bird’s game, too. I think that tendency toward quick and decisive action was part of what made both of these guys so effectively offensively, despite some physical short-comings. Bird also had a whole myriad of offensive talents that Issel didn’t, but I digress….
But that’s largely what I saw from Issel on offense. A quick (3-4 minute) but decent look at his offensive game can be seen here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMmJNJLWcg[/youtube]
At any rate, I think Issel has a pretty hefty chunk of career value to brag about (as evidenced by his standing in WS, perhaps).
By my elaborate, all-inclusive formula with attempts to rank strength of league/era, considers accolades, nearly all statistical measures, etc, Dan Issel actually ranks #43 all-time.
By my more simple "Total Career Value" formula, which is purely based on PER, WS/48, and minutes played (both rs and playoff) and doesn't care a bit about accolades and makes no attempt to account for strength of league/era.....Issel ranks #24 all-time.
I know statistical measures will tend to overrate an offensive star (where Issel was great) and underrate defense (where Issel was not); still, it's getting hard to ignore him when he ranks so so SO high by all these measures.
Vote for #82: Dan Issel.
Could be happy supporting Webber, too, should he turn up in a run-off again.
Seems more than appropriate that he be gaining traction by this point, given for instance his place on the all-time leaderboard in WS (which RSCD3_ had presented previously):
RSCD3_ wrote:I'm going to post the best remaining candidates by win shares
22. Dan Issel 157.82
35. Walt Bellamy 130.05
44. Buck Williams 120.09
46. Horace Grant 118.23
48. Chet Walker 117.35
53. Bailey Howell 114.82
56. Jack Sikma
Although not terribly similar in how they got things done, I see Issel somewhat like a “poor man’s Amar’e Stoudemire” (and only slightly "poor"), but with MUCH better longevity and durability. I used the Stoudemire comparison because they were both PF/C’s known for efficient volume scoring with not so special defense. Stat’s without a doubt better as a pure scorer (he’s just a FAR superior finisher), but has worse passing and ball control, which brings their overall offensive value a little closer. I still give the edge to Amar’e offensively, I just don’t think it’s terribly large edge.
Pretty similar as defenders, small edge to Amar’e as a rebounder. So…..a slightly-poor man’s Stoudemire, but with far and away better longevity/durability: he played literally twice as many prime-level games as Stoudemire. He played 15 total seasons missing a grand total of only 24 games in that span (by comparison, Stoudemire has missed >24 games in a single season FOUR different years).
For that reason, wherever one ranks Stoudemire on his ATL, imo Issel belongs anywhere from 5-20 places higher, depending on just how much you value longevity (me? I value it a fair bit).
As to HOW Issel got things done (as mentioned: he wasn’t the explosive ultra-elite finisher that Amar’e was), I’ll give my impressions from what I’ve seen of him….
Physically, he doesn’t look particularly impressive (by NBA standards): kinda like a slightly stockier version of Larry Bird. Perhaps some other physical similarities to Bird (other than the white skin): he can run the floor OK, but certainly not “fast” by NBA standards even for a big (a bit slower than Bird, even); he doesn’t have a quick first step, he’s not exceptionally strong, and he’s not much of a leaper.
And in spite of all this, he was able to score at a rate and efficiency somewhat beyond what one might reasonably expect, given those physical attributes.
From what I’ve seen, a lot of that scoring came in the low-post. And actually, while I’m on the Bird-comparison, Issel’s low-post game reminds me a bit of Larry Bird’s: both guys were fantastic at using their lower bodies to clear space, and both tend to act very quickly and decisively once the ball is in their hands. With Issel, after catching the entry pass, he’d often immediately go up to put one off the glass, generally leaning INTO the defender (who has barely had a chance to get his feet set)---not shy at all about contact, and had a pretty nice foul-draw rate; 79.3% career FT-shooter, too. He’d sometimes, while making these quick moves, subtly position his torso in such a way as to shield his defender from being able to effectively bat at the ball.
This is all pretty basic, non-flashy low post stuff, like that which might be coached to a high-school big; but it’s still very effective even at the professional level, if done well (and Issel did it well). Had nice hands and nice touch around the rim, too, fwiw.
Issel was, in general so far as I can tell, pretty consistently decisive with the ball. Aside from the low-post tendencies mentioned above, if he caught the ball 16 ft from the hoop and was open, the shot’s going up (pretty good mid-range shooter, btw). When he did decide to put it on the floor, it was usually something quick, non-flashy, and to-the-point. For instance, he’d maybe catch a pass 17 ft from the hoop, immediately make like he’s going to shoot, getting his defender to bite just a little, then put it on the floor----just one, maybe two dribbles---on the quickest path to the hoop.
With Issel, there just wasn’t a lot of standing around making multiple shot/pass/jab-step fakes, slow back-down dribbles in the post, or bringing the ball low and doing lots of pump-fakes, etc. He really just didn’t do those things that---while they might be effective for some other players---allow the defense time to get their feet set and start anticipating.
I recall that from Bird’s game, too. I think that tendency toward quick and decisive action was part of what made both of these guys so effectively offensively, despite some physical short-comings. Bird also had a whole myriad of offensive talents that Issel didn’t, but I digress….
But that’s largely what I saw from Issel on offense. A quick (3-4 minute) but decent look at his offensive game can be seen here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMmJNJLWcg[/youtube]
At any rate, I think Issel has a pretty hefty chunk of career value to brag about (as evidenced by his standing in WS, perhaps).
By my elaborate, all-inclusive formula with attempts to rank strength of league/era, considers accolades, nearly all statistical measures, etc, Dan Issel actually ranks #43 all-time.
By my more simple "Total Career Value" formula, which is purely based on PER, WS/48, and minutes played (both rs and playoff) and doesn't care a bit about accolades and makes no attempt to account for strength of league/era.....Issel ranks #24 all-time.
I know statistical measures will tend to overrate an offensive star (where Issel was great) and underrate defense (where Issel was not); still, it's getting hard to ignore him when he ranks so so SO high by all these measures.
Vote for #82: Dan Issel.
Could be happy supporting Webber, too, should he turn up in a run-off again.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
trex_8063
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 12,554
- And1: 8,183
- Joined: Feb 24, 2013
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
@ penbeast0: A quick reply regarding Mel Daniels, and why I'm not willing to lend him support at this point without some additional evidence......
81 are voted in, 19 spots remain. For those 19 spots, there are literally probably close 50 players for whom you could make at least a somewhat reasonable top 100 argument for (though perhaps not top 85 for all).
Now, you've mentioned that you think the ABA of '68-'73 (Daniels' prime, though obv he did play in '74-'75, too; his 11 NBA games are negligible, imo) is stronger than the NBA of the 1950's, and I agree. However, I would say the NBA 1950's (or earlier) is the ONLY league/era which is weaker than the early ABA. The early 60's (~1960-65) NBA I would rate at approximately the same as the above-mentioned ABA years. By ~1965 and after, though.....the NBA is each and every year at least marginally better/more competitive than the average of those early ABA years (imo).
As such, really the only legitimate candidates left on the table who we can say played in a weaker league than Daniels are Neil Johnston, Bill Sharman, and perhaps Ed Macauley (he would have an outside chance of slipping in the top 100 in some circles, imo). And that's basically it. EVERYONE else (of the perhaps 50 candidates) played in a tougher league.
Now let's consider longevity.....
He's basically got just 8 seasons of professional play (about 6 seasons of prime-level). There aren't too many candidates with similar or worse: he's obv got Bill Walton beat; Neil Johnston is at least no better in this regard. Maybe 2-3 other guys whose longevity looks similarly "meh" (Amar'e, David Thompson.....others???).
So among the nearly 50 candidates would could consider to fill up the rest of this list, Daniels is among the BOTTOM ~5 for both longevity and strength of league played in.
So how does his statistical dominance look? Pretty good, though probably only slightly better than "middle of the pack" among who's left. His statistical profile (advanced metrics and such) might be in the top 19 of the 50-ish guys we have to choose from (maybe even as high as top 12-15).
But the bottom line for me: with a somewhat above avg (among the candidates) statistical resume, but occurring in a league/era that's in the bottom 5, and with bottom 5 longevity, too.......I cannot justify awarding one of the only 19 spots we have left to Daniels (much less lend him support here in the low 80's) unless you are able to demonstrate that his defensive impact was really quite monstrous, and/or he's on the all-time short-list for intangibles and non-boxscore stuff.
I think I cited some stuff in a prior thread wrt defensive credentials which are readily available: the first year we have DRtg (which admittedly is a really flawed stat, imo, though it does usually rate defensive bigs---particularly if they're shot-blockers---reasonably accurate) is in what was his early post-prime ('74)......but at any rate, it's decent to good, but certainly far from elite. In '75, it's not particularly impressive.
The first year the ABA awarded an All-D team was '73, which is still in Daniels' prime; but he wasn't the center given the honors.
As far as his team's DRtg rank during his seven all-star seasons: iirc they were #1 in '68. Otherwise there were I think two seasons at #2, two seasons at #4 (out of 10), and then two seasons his team had a below avg DRtg rank (6th once and 7th once, iirc).
In all, it looks decent, but not suggestive of the super-high defensive impact I would need to be convinced of before I'd lend Mel Daniels any first-ballot support in this project.
81 are voted in, 19 spots remain. For those 19 spots, there are literally probably close 50 players for whom you could make at least a somewhat reasonable top 100 argument for (though perhaps not top 85 for all).
Now, you've mentioned that you think the ABA of '68-'73 (Daniels' prime, though obv he did play in '74-'75, too; his 11 NBA games are negligible, imo) is stronger than the NBA of the 1950's, and I agree. However, I would say the NBA 1950's (or earlier) is the ONLY league/era which is weaker than the early ABA. The early 60's (~1960-65) NBA I would rate at approximately the same as the above-mentioned ABA years. By ~1965 and after, though.....the NBA is each and every year at least marginally better/more competitive than the average of those early ABA years (imo).
As such, really the only legitimate candidates left on the table who we can say played in a weaker league than Daniels are Neil Johnston, Bill Sharman, and perhaps Ed Macauley (he would have an outside chance of slipping in the top 100 in some circles, imo). And that's basically it. EVERYONE else (of the perhaps 50 candidates) played in a tougher league.
Now let's consider longevity.....
He's basically got just 8 seasons of professional play (about 6 seasons of prime-level). There aren't too many candidates with similar or worse: he's obv got Bill Walton beat; Neil Johnston is at least no better in this regard. Maybe 2-3 other guys whose longevity looks similarly "meh" (Amar'e, David Thompson.....others???).
So among the nearly 50 candidates would could consider to fill up the rest of this list, Daniels is among the BOTTOM ~5 for both longevity and strength of league played in.
So how does his statistical dominance look? Pretty good, though probably only slightly better than "middle of the pack" among who's left. His statistical profile (advanced metrics and such) might be in the top 19 of the 50-ish guys we have to choose from (maybe even as high as top 12-15).
But the bottom line for me: with a somewhat above avg (among the candidates) statistical resume, but occurring in a league/era that's in the bottom 5, and with bottom 5 longevity, too.......I cannot justify awarding one of the only 19 spots we have left to Daniels (much less lend him support here in the low 80's) unless you are able to demonstrate that his defensive impact was really quite monstrous, and/or he's on the all-time short-list for intangibles and non-boxscore stuff.
I think I cited some stuff in a prior thread wrt defensive credentials which are readily available: the first year we have DRtg (which admittedly is a really flawed stat, imo, though it does usually rate defensive bigs---particularly if they're shot-blockers---reasonably accurate) is in what was his early post-prime ('74)......but at any rate, it's decent to good, but certainly far from elite. In '75, it's not particularly impressive.
The first year the ABA awarded an All-D team was '73, which is still in Daniels' prime; but he wasn't the center given the honors.
As far as his team's DRtg rank during his seven all-star seasons: iirc they were #1 in '68. Otherwise there were I think two seasons at #2, two seasons at #4 (out of 10), and then two seasons his team had a below avg DRtg rank (6th once and 7th once, iirc).
In all, it looks decent, but not suggestive of the super-high defensive impact I would need to be convinced of before I'd lend Mel Daniels any first-ballot support in this project.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
-
SactoKingsFan
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,236
- And1: 2,760
- Joined: Mar 15, 2014
-
VOTE: CHRIS WEBBER
Although he's often criticized for maturity issues during his pre-Sacto years, poor durability, falling in love with his elbow jumper and avoiding contact, Webber was still a legit MVP candidate, one of the most talented and physically gifted PFs in NBA history, a versatile offensive big with a diverse skill-set and a solid/severely underrated defender.
IMO, Webber's great extended peak, very good prime, overall skill-set and decent longevity are enough to make him one of the top 70-75 candidates, and his issues don't look so damning since we're at a point in the project where all the remaining candidates have significant weaknesses.
94 ROY
5x All-Star
5x All-NBA (1x 1st, 3x 2nd, 1x 3rd)
5x Top 10 in MVP voting
Webber started off with a great rookie campaign in 94 for the Warriors.
94 ROY:
26.5 PTS, 13.8 REB, 5.4 AST, 5.1 BLK+STL Per 100; 21.7 PER, 55.9 TS%, 7.8 WS, .154 WS/48, 110 ORtg, 104 DRtg
I'm starting to think peak Webber is generally underrated. Extended peak (00-02) C-Webb did a bit of everything and was the centerpiece of some great/very good Kings teams.
Extended Peak (00-02):
32.3 PTS, 13.5 REB, 5.7 AST, 4.0 BLK+STL, 3.6 TOV Per 100
24.1 PER, 52.7 TS%, 14.1 REB%, 21.1 AST%, 10.6 TOV%, 30.4 WS, ,187 WS48, 107 ORtg, 98 DRtg
10 Year Prime (94-03):
29.2 PTS, 13.5 REB, 5.8 AST, 4.4 BLK+STL, 3.9 TOV Per 100
22.1 PER, .526 TS%, 14.7 TRB%, 20.4 AST%, 12.4 TOV%, 72.3 WS, .152 WS/48, 106 ORtg, 100 DRtg
Exceptional Passing/Playmaking for PF/C
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.
Some examples of Webber's all-time great passing ability in SAC and DET:
Passes like the ones shown in these videos were fairly routine for Webber throughout his career.
One 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.
I'll conclude this post with a video showing what peak Webber was capable of.
51 PTS, 26 REB, 5 AST, 3 ST, 2 BLK against IND and Jermaine O'Neal in 01:
Although he's often criticized for maturity issues during his pre-Sacto years, poor durability, falling in love with his elbow jumper and avoiding contact, Webber was still a legit MVP candidate, one of the most talented and physically gifted PFs in NBA history, a versatile offensive big with a diverse skill-set and a solid/severely underrated defender.
IMO, Webber's great extended peak, very good prime, overall skill-set and decent longevity are enough to make him one of the top 70-75 candidates, and his issues don't look so damning since we're at a point in the project where all the remaining candidates have significant weaknesses.
94 ROY
5x All-Star
5x All-NBA (1x 1st, 3x 2nd, 1x 3rd)
5x Top 10 in MVP voting
Webber started off with a great rookie campaign in 94 for the Warriors.
94 ROY:
26.5 PTS, 13.8 REB, 5.4 AST, 5.1 BLK+STL Per 100; 21.7 PER, 55.9 TS%, 7.8 WS, .154 WS/48, 110 ORtg, 104 DRtg
I'm starting to think peak Webber is generally underrated. Extended peak (00-02) C-Webb did a bit of everything and was the centerpiece of some great/very good Kings teams.
Extended Peak (00-02):
32.3 PTS, 13.5 REB, 5.7 AST, 4.0 BLK+STL, 3.6 TOV Per 100
24.1 PER, 52.7 TS%, 14.1 REB%, 21.1 AST%, 10.6 TOV%, 30.4 WS, ,187 WS48, 107 ORtg, 98 DRtg
10 Year Prime (94-03):
29.2 PTS, 13.5 REB, 5.8 AST, 4.4 BLK+STL, 3.9 TOV Per 100
22.1 PER, .526 TS%, 14.7 TRB%, 20.4 AST%, 12.4 TOV%, 72.3 WS, .152 WS/48, 106 ORtg, 100 DRtg
Exceptional Passing/Playmaking for PF/C
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.
Some examples of Webber's all-time great passing ability in SAC and DET:
Spoiler:
Passes like the ones shown in these videos were fairly routine for Webber throughout his career.
One 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.
I'll conclude this post with a video showing what peak Webber was capable of.
51 PTS, 26 REB, 5 AST, 3 ST, 2 BLK against IND and Jermaine O'Neal in 01:
Spoiler:
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
Moonbeam
- Forum Mod - Blazers
- Posts: 10,266
- And1: 5,082
- Joined: Feb 21, 2009
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
Sorry I've missed the last few. Preparing for this semester has been C-R-A-Z-Y!
There are lots of great candidates, but I'll go with Maurice Cheeks again. Great two-way player for a long time and a key to the success in Philly, I think. Very good playoff performer, too.
If the wind blows in the direction of Neil Johnston, Bill Walton, Joe D, Ben Wallace, or Horace Grant, I might consider changing.
There are lots of great candidates, but I'll go with Maurice Cheeks again. Great two-way player for a long time and a key to the success in Philly, I think. Very good playoff performer, too.
If the wind blows in the direction of Neil Johnston, Bill Walton, Joe D, Ben Wallace, or Horace Grant, I might consider changing.
-
SactoKingsFan
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,236
- And1: 2,760
- Joined: Mar 15, 2014
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
Owly
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,614
- And1: 3,132
- Joined: Mar 12, 2010
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
As before I've a number of viable candidates but I'm going to
vote Bill Sharman
My rationale last time
To expand on best player at his position of his decade (and here I'll assume only one decade for each player), that wasn't quite true, looking at it we don't yet have a 60s PF yet (assuming Baylor is considered a small forward), which would give me another reason to support Bailey Howell. And obviously neither of those guys are at these guys level. And it's not to suggest that these people were good or ranked highly (solely) because they separated themselves from their peers at their position (inevitably most of the top 25 will will be top of their position-decade ranking).
50s
C Mikan (24)
PF Pettit (21)
SF Arizin (63)
SG
PG Cousy (71)
60s
C Russell (3)
PF
SF Baylor (33)
SG West (15)
PG Robertson (12)
70s
C Abdul-Jabbar (2)
PF Hayes (58)
SF Erving (14)
SG Gervin (38)
PG Frazier (28)
80s
C M Malone (19)
PF McHale (44)
SF Bird (10)
SG Moncrief (66)
PG Magic Johnson (8)
90s
C O'Neal (6)
PF K Malone (17)
SF Pippen (27)
SG Jordan (1)
PG Stockton (26)
2000 (to present because of incomplete decade)
C Howard (43)
PF Duncan (5)
SF James (7)
SG Bryant (13)
PG Nash (25)
Still, I think there is some value in being the best at your position or role in your time, because unless you think you can field a team exclusively of bigs then you need to put someone at each position (or it least in each role and fill out different skill sets). And Sharman isn't narrowly the best SG of the 50s (whereas whilst I have Howell at the top of 60s PFs I see that others might take Lucas, DeBusschere, Heinsohn or Connie Hawkins), he's a good distance ahead of the pack (particularly if you don't consider Ramsay a SG, Carl Braun is probably the next best SG). I just think Sharman therefore added significantly to his team's title chances.
Obviously era competition is a factor but I'd suggest that he's been sufficiently docked for that.
The more "pure" off guards of the 50s and 60s don't have blow you away metrics in part because of their role. But versus say Greer is it better to be the best in a weaker era or 3rd (West, S Jones voted above him) in a slightly stronger one. Sharman's metrics are clear that he is consistently adding value over "good" by the metrics, Greer isn't; part of that could be the SG role limiting boxscore output but that hurts Sharman too. Greer has longevity but if part of that is the league playing 82 game seasons rather than 70 how much help is that? How much value does longevity hold when your boxscore output peaks at .0.1651 WS/48 and PER peaks at 17.7 (with .124 and 15.7 career numbers)? Okay there's non boxscore stuff too but Sharman was committed to conditioning and a strong defender. Other anchoring arguments might involve Cousy (same era, broadly similar metrics overall, holding up better in the playoffs and being better on D) or Miller (similar roles as floor spacer shooter, on high-ish volumes but not renowned off the bounce creators).
Sharman as best shooter at the guard positions of his era ...
vote Bill Sharman
My rationale last time
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).
To expand on best player at his position of his decade (and here I'll assume only one decade for each player), that wasn't quite true, looking at it we don't yet have a 60s PF yet (assuming Baylor is considered a small forward), which would give me another reason to support Bailey Howell. And obviously neither of those guys are at these guys level. And it's not to suggest that these people were good or ranked highly (solely) because they separated themselves from their peers at their position (inevitably most of the top 25 will will be top of their position-decade ranking).
50s
C Mikan (24)
PF Pettit (21)
SF Arizin (63)
SG
PG Cousy (71)
60s
C Russell (3)
PF
SF Baylor (33)
SG West (15)
PG Robertson (12)
70s
C Abdul-Jabbar (2)
PF Hayes (58)
SF Erving (14)
SG Gervin (38)
PG Frazier (28)
80s
C M Malone (19)
PF McHale (44)
SF Bird (10)
SG Moncrief (66)
PG Magic Johnson (8)
90s
C O'Neal (6)
PF K Malone (17)
SF Pippen (27)
SG Jordan (1)
PG Stockton (26)
2000 (to present because of incomplete decade)
C Howard (43)
PF Duncan (5)
SF James (7)
SG Bryant (13)
PG Nash (25)
Still, I think there is some value in being the best at your position or role in your time, because unless you think you can field a team exclusively of bigs then you need to put someone at each position (or it least in each role and fill out different skill sets). And Sharman isn't narrowly the best SG of the 50s (whereas whilst I have Howell at the top of 60s PFs I see that others might take Lucas, DeBusschere, Heinsohn or Connie Hawkins), he's a good distance ahead of the pack (particularly if you don't consider Ramsay a SG, Carl Braun is probably the next best SG). I just think Sharman therefore added significantly to his team's title chances.
Obviously era competition is a factor but I'd suggest that he's been sufficiently docked for that.
The more "pure" off guards of the 50s and 60s don't have blow you away metrics in part because of their role. But versus say Greer is it better to be the best in a weaker era or 3rd (West, S Jones voted above him) in a slightly stronger one. Sharman's metrics are clear that he is consistently adding value over "good" by the metrics, Greer isn't; part of that could be the SG role limiting boxscore output but that hurts Sharman too. Greer has longevity but if part of that is the league playing 82 game seasons rather than 70 how much help is that? How much value does longevity hold when your boxscore output peaks at .0.1651 WS/48 and PER peaks at 17.7 (with .124 and 15.7 career numbers)? Okay there's non boxscore stuff too but Sharman was committed to conditioning and a strong defender. Other anchoring arguments might involve Cousy (same era, broadly similar metrics overall, holding up better in the playoffs and being better on D) or Miller (similar roles as floor spacer shooter, on high-ish volumes but not renowned off the bounce creators).
Sharman as best shooter at the guard positions of his era ...
Clearcut best shooter at guard in his era, see for instance :
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =ws_per_48
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _by=ts_pct
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _by=ft_pct
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
penbeast0
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,142
- And1: 9,760
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
I always heard when I was young that Bailey Howell was a poor defender so I've always supported Jerry Lucas (Paul Silas?) over him as the best PFs of the 60s. Hawkins peaks the highest even considering the weak league (he was 1st team All-NBA at about 80% of his former level and at an unfamiliar position recovering from knee injury in his first NBA year); but he only gives you about 2 1/2 good year. Last time we discussed Howell, however, there was evidence presented of contemporaries lauding his defense which is not there about Jerry Lucas despite gaudier stats and much better shooting range. For now, I support Lucas over Howell (and probably Webber too) but open to argument if someone wants to go there.
It reminds me of arguing Kevin Love v. David West.
It reminds me of arguing Kevin Love v. David West.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
Quotatious
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 16,999
- And1: 11,143
- Joined: Nov 15, 2013
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
I'll go back to Chris Bosh as my vote.
I've become even less confident about Bellamy. There's a good chance that his scoring and rebounding numbers overstate his impact quite a bit (looking at his team's records throughout his career).
Meanwhile, Bosh proved that he could be a solid #1 option, carry a weak team to the playoffs (as he did twice in Toronto), put up very nice numbers (also finished twice in the top 10 in RAPM, in 2008 and 2010, and he's ranked 32nd on the 97-14 list, so his impact was definitely high, and seems to "back up" his boxscore numbers).
The thing I like about Bosh is that he accepted a limited role on a team with other stars, and played pretty good defense as the third best player on the Heat. It shows that he's a portable and versatile player.
Pretty nice longevity - quietly, he's already made 10 All-Star appearances (including this year), and he's already logged over 30000 regular season minutes (plus over 3000 in the playoffs).
Why Bosh over Webber? Much more efficient scorer, very comparable rebounder, usually a better defender, more portable, better longevity and durability (at least as a star). I mentioned Webber, because I feel like he's going to be the most popular choice in this thread.
I've become even less confident about Bellamy. There's a good chance that his scoring and rebounding numbers overstate his impact quite a bit (looking at his team's records throughout his career).
Meanwhile, Bosh proved that he could be a solid #1 option, carry a weak team to the playoffs (as he did twice in Toronto), put up very nice numbers (also finished twice in the top 10 in RAPM, in 2008 and 2010, and he's ranked 32nd on the 97-14 list, so his impact was definitely high, and seems to "back up" his boxscore numbers).
The thing I like about Bosh is that he accepted a limited role on a team with other stars, and played pretty good defense as the third best player on the Heat. It shows that he's a portable and versatile player.
Pretty nice longevity - quietly, he's already made 10 All-Star appearances (including this year), and he's already logged over 30000 regular season minutes (plus over 3000 in the playoffs).
Why Bosh over Webber? Much more efficient scorer, very comparable rebounder, usually a better defender, more portable, better longevity and durability (at least as a star). I mentioned Webber, because I feel like he's going to be the most popular choice in this thread.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
Quotatious
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 16,999
- And1: 11,143
- Joined: Nov 15, 2013
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
penbeast0 wrote:I always heard when I was young that Bailey Howell was a poor defender so I've always supported Jerry Lucas
This made me laugh. It's like saying "I always heard when I was young that Amar'e Stoudemire was a poor defender so I've always supported Carlos Boozer".penbeast0 wrote:(Paul Silas?)
Certainly a way better defender than both Howell and Lucas, based on everything I've seen/heard.
penbeast0 wrote:Hawkins peaks the highest even considering the weak league (he was 1st team All-NBA at about 80% of his former level and at an unfamiliar position recovering from knee injury in his first NBA year); but he only gives you about 2 1/2 good year. Last time we discussed Howell, however, there was evidence presented of contemporaries lauding his defense which is not there about Jerry Lucas despite gaudier stats and much better shooting range. For now, I support Lucas over Howell (and probably Webber too) but open to argument if someone wants to go there.
It reminds me of arguing Kevin Love v. David West.
What do you think about Dave DeBusschere? He wasn't a classic PF (played just as much SF as PF, looking at his entire career), but he's probably the most versatile of all of these guys, and unlike Howell/Lucas, he was known as someone with great intangibles/leadership, and obviously excellent defense.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
penbeast0
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,142
- And1: 9,760
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
Other way around on the Boozer/Amare thing. Lucas has the stats, numbers, and more accolades plus the shooting range; for me to vote Howell over him, Howell would have to have a strong defensive edge.
I was always more impressed with Silas defensively than DeBusschere; possibly because the era had a lot of nasty post-up threats and Silas seemed appreciably stronger at post defense where DeBusschere was better out on the floor. Both are offensive mehs though; DeBusschere scores a reasonable amount at a mediocre efficiency; Silas doesn't score much (but was a very effective passer). Of course, this could be my Knick hating youth returning (as a Bullets fan, didn't like Boston or Philly either but NY was the one I really rooted against in the 70s).
I was always more impressed with Silas defensively than DeBusschere; possibly because the era had a lot of nasty post-up threats and Silas seemed appreciably stronger at post defense where DeBusschere was better out on the floor. Both are offensive mehs though; DeBusschere scores a reasonable amount at a mediocre efficiency; Silas doesn't score much (but was a very effective passer). Of course, this could be my Knick hating youth returning (as a Bullets fan, didn't like Boston or Philly either but NY was the one I really rooted against in the 70s).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
ceiling raiser
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,531
- And1: 3,754
- Joined: Jan 27, 2013
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
Positionally it's not a natural comparison, but how do you guys feel about Cheeks vs Sheed?
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
Owly
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,614
- And1: 3,132
- Joined: Mar 12, 2010
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
penbeast0 wrote:Other way around on the Boozer/Amare thing. Lucas has the stats, numbers, and more accolades plus the shooting range; for me to vote Howell over him, Howell would have to have a strong defensive edge.
I was always more impressed with Silas defensively than DeBusschere; possibly because the era had a lot of nasty post-up threats and Silas seemed appreciably stronger at post defense where DeBusschere was better out on the floor. Both are offensive mehs though; DeBusschere scores a reasonable amount at a mediocre efficiency; Silas doesn't score much (but was a very effective passer). Of course, this could be my Knick hating youth returning (as a Bullets fan, didn't like Boston or Philly either but NY was the one I really rooted against in the 70s).
Does Lucas have the stats though? See thread 47 post 15 (and 16
). viewtopic.php?t=1352770&start=20#p41476479WS/48 and PER both favour Howell for peak, for career (though PER marginally enough that by EWA, i.e. the added value version of PER, Lucas might sneak ahead though there's not a big minutes gap either so maybe not) and for (my arbitrary) seasons above good (10 seasons to 8 above 17,9 PER; 11 seasons to 7 above .144 WS/48).
The main advantage Howell has (boxscore wise) is he's substantially more prolific a scorer (on a per minute basis).
Certainly though All-NBA recognition favours Lucas (3 First Teams, 2 Second to Howell's single Second team appearance).
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
Doctor MJ
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 53,018
- And1: 21,977
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
fpliii wrote:Positionally it's not a natural comparison, but how do you guys feel about Cheeks vs Sheed?
Two guys on my mind right now.
I love Cheeks. For me he's one of those NBA TV classics finds. I knew of him, but I was watching a game from back in the '70s and saw one guy pop out from everyone else as having high BBIQ and fantastic motor. I was racking my brain trying to figure out who it had to be when they said his name. I was rather amazed. It wasn't how I had pictured Cheeks at all.
I think though, as much as I think Cheeks does lots of great things and the +/- you've uncovered likes him a lot, Sheeds numbers are truly jaw dropping, and as such for quite a long time now in this project the question with Sheed is simply: Have we punished him enough yet for being an ass?
I think Sheed's the better peak player than anyone left with a solid longevity, and so you just have to ask yourself if you'd take him over the other guys knowing what you know about him.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
RayBan-Sematra
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,236
- And1: 911
- Joined: Oct 03, 2012
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
VOTE : Dan Issel
We probably overlooked this guy to some extent.
13 year reg-season Prime : 24 / 10 / 2.4-apg on 56%TS
Has a 14th year where he averaged 20 / 7 / 2 on 56%TS.
-----------
12 year playoff Prime : 23 / 10 / 2.3-apg on 55%TS
Yeah he played a good deal of his career in the ABA but his stats didn't decline that much in the NBA so I feel comfortable with his portability in that respect.
Won an ABA title in 1975.
Made a few All-Teams in the ABA.
Received a tiny, tiny amount of MVP votes in the NBA at age 33 (practically none but still it shows that people were appreciating him).
He was also a major iron-man.
Barely missed any games during his 12-14 year Prime.
We probably overlooked this guy to some extent.
13 year reg-season Prime : 24 / 10 / 2.4-apg on 56%TS
Has a 14th year where he averaged 20 / 7 / 2 on 56%TS.
-----------
12 year playoff Prime : 23 / 10 / 2.3-apg on 55%TS
Yeah he played a good deal of his career in the ABA but his stats didn't decline that much in the NBA so I feel comfortable with his portability in that respect.
Won an ABA title in 1975.
Made a few All-Teams in the ABA.
Received a tiny, tiny amount of MVP votes in the NBA at age 33 (practically none but still it shows that people were appreciating him).
He was also a major iron-man.
Barely missed any games during his 12-14 year Prime.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
RSCD3_
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,932
- And1: 7,342
- Joined: Oct 05, 2013
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
Vote: Dan Issel
A less athletic, opportunistic scoring poor mans Amare Stoudemire Stoudemire with slightly better team defense and longer longevity.
In today's game think of Minnesota Kevin Love if he played slightly better defense, didn't rebound as much and played in the post more. He made quick decisions as well.
I think he could be a very good 3rd / good second option when pairs with a nice dominant wing.
A less athletic, opportunistic scoring poor mans Amare Stoudemire Stoudemire with slightly better team defense and longer longevity.
In today's game think of Minnesota Kevin Love if he played slightly better defense, didn't rebound as much and played in the post more. He made quick decisions as well.
I think he could be a very good 3rd / good second option when pairs with a nice dominant wing.
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.
Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back
Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back
Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
RSCD3_
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,932
- And1: 7,342
- Joined: Oct 05, 2013
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
Votes as of 11:50 PM EST
Mel Daniels - 1
Dan Issel - 3
Chris Webber - 1
Chris Bosh - 1
Bill Sharman - 1
Maurice Cheeks - 1
Mel Daniels - 1
Dan Issel - 3
Chris Webber - 1
Chris Bosh - 1
Bill Sharman - 1
Maurice Cheeks - 1
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.
Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back
Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back
Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
Clyde Frazier
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 20,212
- And1: 26,083
- Joined: Sep 07, 2010
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
Vote for #82 - 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 efficiently 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. 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 game winners, but #1 in the league by far in FG% on game winners at 48.1%:
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.
- 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 efficiently 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. 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 game winners, but #1 in the league by far in FG% on game winners at 48.1%:
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.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
ronnymac2
- RealGM
- Posts: 11,003
- And1: 5,070
- Joined: Apr 11, 2008
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
Vote: Chris Webber
Webber's 1997 season stands out to me. 20.1/10.3/4.6/1.7/1.9 while shooting over 51% and shooting 39.7% from 3 on 2.1 attempts. Incredible. League leader in rebounding in 1999. Still a 20/10/3 producer in 2006 next to a super high-usage wing. His hellacious run in Sacramento has been covered. Could have very well won a ring in 2002.
Webber's 1997 season stands out to me. 20.1/10.3/4.6/1.7/1.9 while shooting over 51% and shooting 39.7% from 3 on 2.1 attempts. Incredible. League leader in rebounding in 1999. Still a 20/10/3 producer in 2006 next to a super high-usage wing. His hellacious run in Sacramento has been covered. Could have very well won a ring in 2002.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
-
penbeast0
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,142
- And1: 9,760
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #82
Mel Daniels - penbeast0
Dan Issel - trex_8063, Ray-Ban Sematra, RSDC3_
Chris Webber - SactoKingsFan , ronnymac2
Chris Bosh - Quotatious
Bill Sharman - Owly
Maurice Cheeks - Moonbeam
Carmelo Anthony -- Clyde Frazier
Webber v. Issel -- two weak defensive bigs who didn't have a good history in the clutch (is it coincidence that Issel's worst season where the team turned away from his scoring to focus on Artis Gilmore, that was Kentucky's one great playoff run?)
I disliked Webber about as much as anyone that ever played for the Bullets/Wizards (ok, and Rod Strickland); didn't like his game, didn't like his whining and partying, didn't like his lack of focus on winning, . . . and I loved Issel who was a class act on my favorite ABA team with a couple of great quotes as well.
But it's hard for me to say that Issel was actually better than Webber; lasted longer, sure, but impact on winning wasn't great. Maybe it was because he was more of a 4 than a 5, maybe he was overshadowed by Gilmore and English, but he seemed to be an empty stat kind of guy. Webber too, but Issel more so.
Not voting yet, but leaning Webber.
Dan Issel - trex_8063, Ray-Ban Sematra, RSDC3_
Chris Webber - SactoKingsFan , ronnymac2
Chris Bosh - Quotatious
Bill Sharman - Owly
Maurice Cheeks - Moonbeam
Carmelo Anthony -- Clyde Frazier
Webber v. Issel -- two weak defensive bigs who didn't have a good history in the clutch (is it coincidence that Issel's worst season where the team turned away from his scoring to focus on Artis Gilmore, that was Kentucky's one great playoff run?)
I disliked Webber about as much as anyone that ever played for the Bullets/Wizards (ok, and Rod Strickland); didn't like his game, didn't like his whining and partying, didn't like his lack of focus on winning, . . . and I loved Issel who was a class act on my favorite ABA team with a couple of great quotes as well.
But it's hard for me to say that Issel was actually better than Webber; lasted longer, sure, but impact on winning wasn't great. Maybe it was because he was more of a 4 than a 5, maybe he was overshadowed by Gilmore and English, but he seemed to be an empty stat kind of guy. Webber too, but Issel more so.
Not voting yet, but leaning Webber.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.