Target stop time for this one will be sometime Friday morning. Start it up.....
Dr Spaceman wrote:.
Mutnt wrote:.
RSCD_3 wrote:.
Quotatious wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
drza wrote:.
eminence wrote:.
yoyoboy wrote:.
RebelWithoutACause wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:.
Gregoire wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
The-Power wrote:.
SKF_85 wrote:.
Narigo wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
PCProductions wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
theonlyclutch wrote:.
BallerHogger wrote:.
michievous wrote:.
JordansBulls wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
thizznation wrote:.
SideshowBob wrote:.
fpliii wrote:.
Owly wrote:.
"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
Penny was a monster in 96. Rating out even better than Shaq by most metrics I care about. So versatile, incredible playmaker and scorer. Very high resiliency because of his skillset.
Confident about the Penny pick, after it it's a mess. Open to be convinced of some guys here.
PG coming up soon on my list: Baron, Westbrook, Stockton, Price, Kidd
Wings coming up soon on my list: Hill, Carter, Gervin , Roy
Big men coming up soon on my list: Rasheed, Griffin
Due to time I cannot participate regularly, sorry for that.
What I don't think should be happening and what is happening, that there are plenty of posters that committed to the project from the very start (I didn't join until I wanted to get more discussion going) and really engage in a lot of other topics but don't drop their vote here. Weak sauce on their part and everyone knows which posters I am talking about without dropping names.
1st ballot: Kevin McHale '87 I kinda went thru a big comparison between Howard/McHale, which I'll copy in the spoiler; it details my difficulty in deciding between the two:
Spoiler:
McHale vs. Dwight is an interesting comparison...... Offense Peak Dwight is much more athletic and---related to that---is a superior finisher: pretty much devastating when he gets the ball <3 ft from the rim; is basically the GOAT finisher outside of prime Shaq and perhaps peak Robinson (finishing >75% from that range in '10 and '11, despite huge volume there--->like 50+% of his shot load, often going thru 2 or 3 defenders and getting And1's). Has developed a nice little short-range jump hook (with either hand), too. Draws tons of fouls (and was shooting nearly 60% from the FT-line at his peak; which is not good, but not godawful for a big either; getting a 60% ft-shooter to the line is still fairly efficient scoring).
Admittedly, that's where his offensive prowess ends. He has no jump-shot or range to speak of at all, limited repertoire of post-moves, not much of a passer, and a touch turnover prone. Still, I don't mean to imply offensive mediocrity on his part (many of his critics attempt to do so, and it's absolutely untrue, imo). His hands, strength, explosiveness, etc, allow him to be in a GOAT-level tier when he gets the ball near the rim, and that cannot be trivialized. If taking a hack-a-Howard strategy, peak Howard's not as big a liability at the line as most versions of Shaq, Wilt, or Russell. Combined with even his limited post repertoire, this makes him a well-above average offensive player.
McHale, though, has a case for the GOAT where low-post game is concerned. Great footwork, makes excellent use of his lower body to create space and effectively post up to receive the ball in a position to score. Has a myriad of effective moves; I especially like the quick fake followed by the up-and-under for the layup; or the fake shot low-side, fake shot high-side, then (when defend leaves the ground) he ducks back under for the easy layup. And he made these moves quickly, much quicker than you'd think he's capable of when you see him run up the court; he simply doesn't appear as though he could possibly move that fast. He has the short-range jump hooks, the fall-away jumper, was a pretty good finisher despite vastly inferior athleticism (relative to Howard); just very nice soft touch near the rim. Had range out to at least 12-14 ft. And >83% FT-shooter at his peak. Guy was a scoring machine dropping 31.9 pts/100 possessions at 65.5% TS while playing damn near 40 mpg. Now certainly we can acknowledge that Bird's playmaking and the wealth of talent around him helped his efficiency. otoh, it also stole some primacy away from him. I could see peak McHale in other circumstances dropping 28-29 ppg (~36 per 100 poss) at maybe 61-62% TS in that time period. And he's less turnover prone than Dwight, and a bit better passer (when he chose to do so, though he was mostly a black hole if you gave him the ball in the post......not saying that's a bad thing, fwiw, when you consider what the typical result of giving him the ball in the post was).
So offensively, I give McHale a solid edge.
Defense McHale in ‘87 was an All-Defensive 1st Team forward, who often had to spend time guarding outside his position (on the opposing SF) to help hide Bird (though in Bird’s defense: Larry was a fantastic post defender). But that’s just one thing that helps illustrate McHale’s defensive versatility, because he was also an excellent low post defender, and he was also Boston’s primary rim protector, coming up with 2.7 blk/100 possessions.
So despite Dwight’s 3 DPOY awards (which I think marginally overstate his defensive value), I do think it’s close defensively. I probably give the small edge to Dwight, though, based him being sort of the sole anchor to his team’s defense, and the guy that they try to filter everything to. Although in the past I’ve criticized Dwight for his lack of footwork and timing (where it relates to shot-blocking), noting for example that in ‘13 Howard was avg 3.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 4.9%; meanwhile a 36-yr-old Tim Duncan was avg 4.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 6.4%. Even though he’s (even after his back surgery) considerably more athletic than a 36-yr-old Duncan, he’s getting soundly trounced in his shot-blocking stats. The primary reason, at least according to my observations, was that Duncan ascribed to (and executed) the fundamentals seen in shot-blockers like Russell and Dikembe, which involves keeping your arms up, moving your feet to stay close to the presumed shooter (so you’re in position to make the easier block), waiting for him to go up with the shot and then going up AFTER him to tip the ball just after it leaves his fingers…..a technique that requires attention to keeping your hands/arms up, footwork and timing; as opposed to relying on outstanding elevation. Dwight has a habit of doing the latter: just sort of vaguely drifting in the direction of a potential shooter, then relying on his outstanding athleticism, gathering himself for a giant leap and batting at the air in region of the arcing shot (occasionally coming up with the amazing grand-standing type of block).
However, I will say something for this method: while strictly speaking it may not be as effective in actually coming up with blocks, it does allow him to CHANGE more shots (because as he’s more just playing a region, rather than a player, he can “get in on” more plays defensively). And I do see Howard change a lot of shots that he doesn’t actually get a paw on.
I’ve also previously criticized this technique of his because it potentially puts him out of position for the defensive rebound; but I think I simply need to retract this criticism, looking at Dwight defensive rebounding numbers (which are obviously hyper-elite).
So overall, I likely give Dwight the small edge defensively.
Rebounding Here Dwight clearly has a sizable edge. Even relative to positional norms and expectations, it’s Dwight by a solid margin. I’ll point out one thing in McHale’s defense on this, however: part of what is depressing his rebounding numbers is what I’d mentioned above about him being forced to defend outside his natural position (guarding SF’s….that is: perimeter players)......this is at times putting him out of position for the defensive rebound.
Intangibles This is sort of vague, and of lesser import. I’ll give McHale the edge here….he just seems like the better teammate, and the more professional and cerebral player.
Durability This is the one that kinda hurts McHale. Based on all of the above, I’d give the small edge to McHale overall…...at least until faced with the reality that in his peak season, McHale’s body did break down and he played thru a serious injury (a friggin’ broken bone, iirc! Guy’s tough as nails) in the playoffs. While still good, even hobbled, he obviously wasn’t the McHale we’d seen throughout the rs. Howard, otoh, was healthy thru both rs and playoffs at his peak. So that’s a consideration which brings the comparison roughly back to parity for me.
Honestly, I’ve gone back on forth on this comparison, and I’m still not sure who I’ll rank in front.
I did ultimately go with Howard based on health (and performance) in the playoffs, but it was really tight for me. With Howard out of the picture, I'm fairly comfortable going with McHale here.
2nd ballot: Connie Hawkins '68 Touch of mystery surrounding early Hawkins, but here is how I see it.....
Physically, he’s listed as 6’8” (and from all photographic evidence I’ve seen, I think he’s a legit 6’8”.....not like a “generously 6’8” in his shoes” type of situation), and 210 lbs on bbref. He’s got a wirey strong build, a pretty long reach, and massive hands (which enable all the one-handed palm pass fakes, crazy sweeping scoop shots, etc):
And he’s got some grace, speed, and ups, as you can get a little sense of from in the videos below, as well as seeing some of the one-handed palming plays (and bear in mind when watching that almost all of that footage is him PAST his physical prime). Overall physically, he’s kinda reminiscent of Scottie Pippen, but with bigger hands.
He’s got some solid mid-range touch (again, see in videos below), and some good handles and passing for a biggish guy (was the original “point forward”, if I’m not mistaken).
Now before we get into what he did in his peak season (‘68), let’s first take a quick look at what he was still capable of in his late 20’s AFTER knee surgery (which I’m sure you’re all aware of how well players were typically able to come back after knee surgery in that day and age). Coming into the NBA as a 28-year-old rookie, one year after knee surgery, he went for a 10th-in-the-league 19.74 PER and .147 WS/48 in 40.9 mpg. His per 100 poss estimates: 24.8 pts, 10.5 reb, 4.85 ast @ +5.16% rTS. And fwiw, he was awarded All-NBA 1st Team honors alongside Billy Cunningham, and ahead of forwards Lou Hudson and Gus Johnson. Did nearly as well (on larger minutes) in the playoffs that year: somewhat inflated by pace, but he avg 25.4 ppg/13.9 rpg/5.9 apg in the ‘70 playoffs.
Again: this is what he was capable of past his physical prime. Statistically, he’s not far behind [an arguably peak] Walt Frazier, who we voted in at #32.
Anyway, I wanted to throw a little spotlight on what he was capable of in the NBA post-surgery because I want everyone cognizant of the very real possibility (if not the likelihood) that he was even better before his knee injury. If you don’t think the knee injury affected him, consider his scoring averages (it’s all that’s available on game log data of the time) in ‘69 before the injury: he was averaging 33.4 ppg pre-injury. In the 11 rs games AFTER coming back from injury: 19.9 ppg, followed by a significantly sub-standard (poor, actually) playoffs. I realize I cannot precisely extrapolate what he was in ‘70 by citing his late-season (post-injury) stats from ‘69; but anyway take it for what it’s worth.
In the ‘69 ABA season (marginally stronger than the ‘68 ABA, imo) there was also a presumably near-peak Rick Barry around for 35 games to compare to….. ‘69 Barry per 100 poss estimates: 36.0 pts, 9.95 reb, 4.1 ast @ +11.35% rTS PER 29.6, .301 WS/48 in 38.9 mpg
**‘69 Hawkins per 100 poss estimates: 33.6 pts, 12.6 reb, 4.35 ast @ +8.25% rTS. PER 29.7, .293 WS/48 in 39.4 mpg. **this includes the aforementioned 11 games (11 of 47 total) AFTER coming back from the injury, btw. Given the scoring drop I already outlined, it’s safe to assume his overall pre-injury numbers were a little better than what a near-peak Barry was doing in the same league. Frankly, he was probably a better player (before the injury) in '69 than he was in '68.
Now on to his ‘68 peak season (perhaps only peak by default, because he was actually healthy from start to finish)…... Yes, the ABA of the late 60’s was not overly loaded with talent, as Clyde Frazier pointed out. It wasn’t total bush-league, either. Mel Daniels was there, and there were several other legitimately “good” (if not truly “All-Star level”) players around: Donnie Freeman, Louie Dampier, Larry Jones, Roger Brown, Doug Moe, John Beasley, etc. And at any rate, Hawkins didn’t just distinguish himself in this crowd…….he utterly crushed them. He led the league handily in PER and WS/48, for instance, despite playing a league-leading 44.9 mpg. He had nearly twice as many OWS as the 2nd-place guy. He dominated that league to a degree that we haven’t often seen. Seriously: do a search for seasons with >28 PER (his was 28.8), >.270 WS/48 (his was .273), and >40 mpg (his was a whopping 44.9) in NBA and ABA history…...you come up with just 10 NBA seasons (3 of Kareem, 3 of Wilt, 2 of Jordan, 1 of Robinson, 1 of Shaq), and only 1 in ABA history (Connie Hawkins). If we change the requirement to 42 mpg, five of those NBA seasons disappear, btw.
Per 100 possession estimates for ‘68: 26.6 pts, 13.4 reb, 4.55 ast, just 2.8 tov @ +11.45% rTS. His 59.7% TS would be elite even by today’s standards.
And then he got even better in the playoffs.PER 30.0 and .310 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg in the playoffs, as he led the Pipers to the title. His numbers in the playoffs are gross even with considerations of pace: 29.9 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.4 topg @ 65.1% TS (which is like +16.8 rTS!!).
So yeah: regardless of the strength of the ABA in ‘68, I look at all of the above and absolutely I believe he’s a valid candidate at this stage.
3rd ballot: Bob McAdoo '75
Spoiler:
Hawkins vs. McAdoo (vs. McHale)
To start off, let’s just look at some base stats….. ‘68 Hawkins rs per 100 poss: 26.6 pts, 13.4 reb, 4.55 ast @ 59.7% TS (+11.45% rTS) 28.8 PER, .273 WS/48 in 44.9 mpg ‘75 McAdoo rs per 100 poss: 35.6 pts, 14.5 reb, 2.3 ast @ 56.9% TS (+6.68% rTS) 25.8 PER, .242 WS/48 in 43.2 mpg ‘87 McHale rs per 100 poss: 31.9 pts, 12.1 reb, 3.1 ast @ 65.5% TS (+11.73% rTS!!) 24.0 PER, .232 WS/48 in 39.7 mpg
Hawkins then got even better in the playoffs; McAdoo took a small dip in the playoffs, McHale (injured) took a more substantial dip in the post-season (though at 17.9 PER, .120 WS/48, and +2.0 BPM, he’s still pretty good). So taken at face-value, statistically Hawkins looks the best, McAdoo probably 2nd, McHale third. However, obviously we can’t merely take them at face-value; strength of competition must be factored in (especially considering that PER and WS/48 are standardized relative to the the league average player).
Without a doubt (imo), Hawkins played in the weakest league of the three, where there was precious few in the way of actual elite star level players for him to compete with.
The NBA of ‘75 was better, but still a bit “depleted” of talent relative to some other eras. Guys like West, Robertson, Chamberlain, Reed, as well as guys like DeBusschere, Gus Johnson, Jerry Lucas have all vanished. And the ABA has robbed them of much of the top-tier replacement talent: near-peak Dr. J, peak Gilmore and George McGinnis, as well as prime Dan Issel, Bobby Jones, George Gervin, Maurice Lucas, etc are all still in the ABA at this point. In ‘75, guys like Jim Price, Steve Mix, Charlie Scott, and aging and fading versions of Dave Bing and Gail Goodrich were all-stars. In ‘87, otoh, McHale is distinguishing himself in a league that has peak or near-peak versions of Magic, Larry, Worthy, Dominique, as well as prime versions of Jordan, Olajuwon, Moses, Barkley, Isiah, Parish, English, as well as several (maybe dozens??) of guys at a level similar to prime Mo Cheeks, Tom Chambers, Fat Lever, Mark Aguirre, and Bill Laimbeer.
Comparing Player Attributes…. I’m going to start with Hawkins (my 3rd ballot) and McAdoo (my top HM).
Scoring Some may be inclined to wave Hawkins aside as a scorer due to the competition in the early ABA. But even against weaker competition, Hawkins’ volume and efficiency (shown above; and he was going for even larger volume at 65.1% TS in the playoffs, too) is nothing to sneeze at. Combined with that: 1) we see in his pre-injury numbers in ‘69 that he was averaging approximately 36-37 pts/100 poss at probably 59-60% TS (~+9% or so rTS).....pre-injury (and presumably near-peak) Rick Barry was averaging around 37 pts/100 poss at ~62% TS in the same league. 2) Post-injury/surgery Hawkins in ‘70 (an NBA that was marginally better than that of ‘75, imho) was averaging 24.8 pts/100 poss at +5.16% rTS. If I assume pre-injury Hawkins was better (and his drop-off in late ‘69 is dramatic enough to suggest he likely suffered some permanent deficits)..... …...there’s plenty of room to credit Hawkins as a formidable scorer. There’s sufficient video evidence to see that he was a very good close-to-mid range (like 10-18 ft) shooter, excellent transition finisher, capable of amazing close-range one-handed shots (in the same vein as Gervin or Dr. J), and a good FT-shooter.
Ultimately, though, I have to give at least a tiny edge to McAdoo. Pretty massive volume scoring on very very good efficiency in a stronger league than Hawkins. Looking at how many mid-range (or short-to-mid range, like 10-16 ft) jumpers he took---often contested and off the dribble---that he was still able to shoot >51% FG% is remarkable. And being able to shoot so effectively off the dribble (and from decent range) when you’re 6’9” is an impressive and scary skillset. 80+% FT-shooter that year, too. And given guys like Chris Bosh, Kevin Love, Jack Sikma, and apparently now DeMarcus Cousins all learned to extend their range out to the 3pt line, I’ve no reason to believe that McAdoo couldn’t also. As result, I think he’d fit well into this era of floor-spacing bigs, pick-n’-pops, etc.
Passing/Playmaking/Handles Even relative to positional expectations, this one obviously goes to Hawkins. Can delve into this further if someone disagrees; but the wealth of evidence (ast and TO rates, limited video of Hawkins, reputation, etc) all point to Hawkins. Granted he’s slipping out of his prime by the time turnovers were recorded, but McAdoo actually appears a touch turnover-prone (whereas Hawkins appeared the opposite, in the early ABA at least).
Defense I’m not exactly sure what to think of Hawkins’ defense. There’s so little video available to the public of his peak, no defensive stats at all (late career stl/blk numbers look OK, fwiw), and limited anecdotal info available. The ONLY subjective thing I’ve heard of his defense was a rating as “bad” from a poster here whose credibility I question. Otherwise, I’ve heard nothing (good or bad). Overall, I guess I’d grade his defense as average to maybe slightly below (but with a big “*” by it, due to lack of info).
This would be fairly consistent with McAdoo’s defensive reputation, too, as his is pretty mediocre (to sub-par) as well. Although in McAdoo’s defense, part of that is likely in relation to the fact that he was forced to play most of his career at a position he was significantly under-sized for. otoh, mediocre defense is more difficult to “hide” when you’re a big man; so perhaps it’s less “forgivable” for McAdoo???
Overall, I’m going to call defense roughly a wash. I certainly don’t think it’s any sort of big divider between them.
Rebounding I’m calling this roughly a wash, too. McAdoo averaged 14.5 reb/100 poss vs. 13.4 reb/100 poss for Hawkins (pre-injury Hawkins averaged nearly the same in ‘69, too, fwiw). With positional expectations in mind---given McAdoo was 6’9” and playing C, while Hawkins was 6’8” and playing primarily on the perimeter (SF)---I’d give the edge to Hawkins if all other things were equal. But again: weak early ABA. Brings it back to a wash for me.
Playoff Considerations fwiw, McAdoo dropped off mildly in the playoffs, whereas Hawkins actually elevated his level of play even further in the playoffs.
Overall, this comparison is basically a wash to me. I’ve let Hawkins nudge him out for my ballot, perhaps based on the elevated playoff play, but I reserve the right to switch to McAdoo. I’ve flip-flopped more than once on this comparison.
How does McHale compare in these aspects of the game? Here’s how I see it….
I think he’s [clearly] the best scorer of the three. Seriously: 31.9 pts/100 poss @ 65.5% TS (+11.73% rTS) in a what is [perhaps by far] the most competitive league of the three is ridiculous. Critics may mention how the presence of Bird and Parish takes pressure off of McHale. Fair enough, but they also steal primacy (volume) from him. Look how a near-peak Chris Bosh’s volume fell when he arrived in Miami next to two stars. That McHale was a dominant enough scorer to warrant the volume he had among that company is remarkable. Critics may also cite Larry Bird’s playmaking as responsible for a big chunk of McHale’s efficiency. This is a touch misleading, imo; watching games from that era, McHale appears to be getting A LOT of his points on simple low-post isolations: he posts up, they dump him the ball, and he destroys whoever is guarding him. Simple as that. I’d further cite McHale’s ‘89 numbers as evidence of his prowess. Bird missed basically this entire season, and McHale is 31 years old and decidedly past his peak at this point (was really never quite the same after the injury late in ‘87), too: he still averaged 29.9 pts/100 poss @ 60.8% TS (+7.11% rTS).
McHale’s clearly [imo] the best defender of the three, too. Guy who can guard outside his position (had to often guard SF so Bird could guard a big), contests well, fundamentally sound post defender, and the team’s leading rim-protector (2.7 blk/100 poss in ‘87); All-Def 1st Team, too.
As a passer/playmaker, I’d rate him behind Hawkins, but likely at least marginally ahead of McAdoo from all I’ve seen. Takes care of the ball very well.
Rebounding: one of the weaker aspects of his game, likely last of the three, though likely just a little behind the other two. Again, I’ll point out that he had to often guard perimeter players (SF’s), which pulls him away from the rim and reduces his likelihood of getting on the defensive glass. Still averaged 12.1 reb/100 poss that year.
Based on all of the above, I’d rate ‘87 McHale significantly above both Hawkins and McAdoo…...in the regular season. But then there are playoff considerations: McHale was injured, and though still a significantly above average player despite a broken foot, he does suffer the largest post-season drop-off of the three. That’s the only consideration that keeps this relatively close for me. I’m still inclined to give him the edge because he was flat-out a better player for 90% of the season.
"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
1st ballot - Bob Petit 1963 2nd ballot - Willis Reed 1969/1970 3rd ballot - Bob Lanier 1974/Bob McAdoo 1975
Can someone compare Lanier to McAdoo? I have Big Mac over Lanier before, but after some researches Lanier impressed me as a two-way beast. Right now, it's tie - I can't choose...
70sFan wrote:Can someone compare Lanier to McAdoo? I have Big Mac over Lanier before, but after some researches Lanier impressed me as a two-way beast. Right now, it's tie - I can't choose...
Same for me - I had McAdoo higher earlier, but now I think Lanier was better, because the gap on defense in his favor is bigger than the gap on offense in Mac's favor. For a bigman, defense is very important, more so than for a wing, in my opinion. Everything from blocks per game to his team's defensive rating indicates that Lanier was a major impact defender in '74. He seems to be one of the more well-rounded centers of all-time at his peak. Meanwhile, McAdoo was about neutral defensively. It's sort of like '06 Elton Brand vs '05 Amare Stoudemire, for me - Brand/Lanier are much better defensively and still very good offensively, Stoudemire/McAdoo are beastly scorers, but mediocre defenders.
Why do you have Reed over Lanier? I have them neck and neck, slight edge to Lanier for his playmaking. I'm not saying it's wrong to have Reed ahead (for example, if you choose '69 as his peak, he's a clearly more efficient scorer than Lanier, even more so if you look at league-relative numbers, where Reed was at +7.1% relTS, which is elite efficiency - even unadjusted, he's at 56.2%, which is really good even by today's standards, and exactly the same in the playoffs, against Unseld and Russell, with a clearly higher scoring average - almost 26 ppg), I would just like to know your reasoning. Both guys seem to be really good on both ends of the court.
I feel pretty strongly convinced about '69 as Reed's peak, at this point. I know it's weird, considering that he won RS MVP, All-Star MVP and Finals MVP in '70, but he seems to be a slightly better player in '69.
RebelWithACause wrote:Thoughts on Moncrief at this point?
'84 and '85 Moncrief was IMO on the same level as peak Pippen. So, if you're already voting for Pip, I can see how Sid would be the next in line for you.
My nominations will be: 1. 96 Penny Hardaway 2. 99 Jason Kidd 3. 85 Isiah Thomas
I've already explained all 3 in previous threads but my main argument for each comes out to be: Penny - offensively he's more capable of leading a great team than probably anyone left and defensively he's above average.
Kidd - One of the highest single season on/off scores ever. It is also the best offensive team he's been on. Now 03 has the advantage of a superior postseason but I don't think he was a better player then just that he was in a weaker conference.
Isiah - Pre Bad Boys he actually earned his reputation. He averaged 21.5/4.5/13.9 (or 18.9/4.2/12.4 pace adjusted to last year's league average) on 52.9 TS% but a moderately high 115 ORTG. In the playoffs he really performed (and he's someone who historically outperformed his regular seasons regularly) winning the first series easily and fought Boston to a close 6 games (Boston blew them out game 1 but barely won in 2, 5, and 6) averaging 26/6/11 on 55 TS with a 121 ORTG. He put up 26/6/16 in a game 3 win, 21/4/10 in a game 4 win, and 37/12/9 in the final game. Offensively he led Detroit to the 9th best offense with a pretty bad (unless you like a ton of inefficient scorers) supporting cast.
RebelWithACause wrote:Thoughts on Moncrief at this point?
'84 and '85 Moncrief was IMO on the same level as peak Pippen. So, if you're already voting for Pip, I can see how Sid would be the next in line for you.
Agree Pip's probably a reasonably close comparison for Moncrief (I waver between '83 and '84 for his peak, personally).
I think Moncrief was a little better scorer, but Pippen a clearly better passer/playmaker/handler (especially relative to position played: not even close, actually). Both were excellent rebounders, both excellent (in an all-time sense) defenders. I somewhat like what Pippen can offer defensively just a little better. With his size and athleticism, he offers a touch more versatility as well as having more potential and making a bigger imprint where help-D is concerned. So I like Pippen's peak a little better, but it's fairly close. As per previous discussions, I think Clyde Drexler is another peak that's very very close to Moncrief's.
"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
On the following line of thought: "McHale wasn't that great a scorer, he merely appears so as a result of Bird's playmaking".....
I'd already responded to this in the last thread with some observational stuff regarding McHale's isolation post game, as well as citing how in '89 (PAST his peak) when Bird missed basically the entire year, he still avg 29.9 pts/100 poss at 60.8% TS (comparable to peak Dwight, fwiw).
I'll augment my case by citing how he was with/without Bird in what I'm labeling his peak season ('87). Bird missed 8 games that season (McHale played in all 8 of those). Below are McHale's scoring numbers with and without Bird in '87:
69 games played with Bird: 25.9 ppg @ 65.5% TS, ~125.4 ORtg 8 games played without Bird: 28.0 ppg @ 65.6% TS, ~130.7 ORtg
I hope we can lay to rest this notion that Bird somehow "made" McHale as a scorer.
McHale (at his peak) is arguably the best pure scorer left on the table at this point (off the top of my head, Gervin's really the only other who seems close), while simultaneously being an excellent defensive player. I'll be honest: how he doesn't have more traction at this point is baffling to me.
"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
I guess I'm closing this thread in the next couple hours with, what? 3 people casting votes?
Dr Spaceman wrote:.
Mutnt wrote:.
RSCD_3 wrote:.
Quotatious wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
drza wrote:.
eminence wrote:.
yoyoboy wrote:.
RebelWithoutACause wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:.
Gregoire wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
The-Power wrote:.
SKF_85 wrote:.
Narigo wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
PCProductions wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
theonlyclutch wrote:.
BallerHogger wrote:.
michievous wrote:.
JordansBulls wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
thizznation wrote:.
SideshowBob wrote:.
fpliii wrote:.
Owly wrote:.
"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
70sFan wrote:Can someone compare Lanier to McAdoo? I have Big Mac over Lanier before, but after some researches Lanier impressed me as a two-way beast. Right now, it's tie - I can't choose...
Same for me - I had McAdoo higher earlier, but now I think Lanier was better, because the gap on defense in his favor is bigger than the gap on offense in Mac's favor. For a bigman, defense is very important, more so than for a wing, in my opinion. Everything from blocks per game to his team's defensive rating indicates that Lanier was a major impact defender in '74. He seems to be one of the more well-rounded centers of all-time at his peak. Meanwhile, McAdoo was about neutral defensively. It's sort of like '06 Elton Brand vs '05 Amare Stoudemire, for me - Brand/Lanier are much better defensively and still very good offensively, Stoudemire/McAdoo are beastly scorers, but mediocre defenders.
Why do you have Reed over Lanier? I have them neck and neck, slight edge to Lanier for his playmaking. I'm not saying it's wrong to have Reed ahead (for example, if you choose '69 as his peak, he's a clearly more efficient scorer than Lanier, even more so if you look at league-relative numbers, where Reed was at +7.1% relTS, which is elite efficiency - even unadjusted, he's at 56.2%, which is really good even by today's standards, and exactly the same in the playoffs, against Unseld and Russell, with a clearly higher scoring average - almost 26 ppg), I would just like to know your reasoning. Both guys seem to be really good on both ends of the court.
I feel pretty strongly convinced about '69 as Reed's peak, at this point. I know it's weird, considering that he won RS MVP, All-Star MVP and Finals MVP in '70, but he seems to be a slightly better player in '69.
I would really like to see a Reed/Lanier direct comparison to be honest. I know Lanier wasn't known for his defense, but I believe it was in 74 that he had a great season on that end, which I'm pretty sure was in no small part due to working with Bill Russell the previous summer.
bastillon wrote:thoughts?
johnlac1 wrote:thoughts?
penbeast0 wrote:thoughts?
Samurai wrote:thoughts?
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
trex_8063 wrote:McHale (at his peak) is arguably the best pure scorer left on the table at this point (off the top of my head, Gervin's really the only other who seems close)
Staying with 63 as pettit's peak. Looked at 59 and while his FT rate was really impressive that season, I just don't like how they went out in the playoffs, losing to the -1.42 SRS lakers. He arguably faced better competition in 63 as well, and had a solid reg season and post season. As for king, I'm more impressed with what he did in the context of his season than mcadoo. Totally undecided on my 3rd ballot, but short on time and fine with McHale in this range. Isiah is interesting, too. Probably deserves a closer look at this point, along with kidd.
[Among others... it's so tight at this point as far as i'm concerned]
Changed my votes quite a bit. Lanier and Reed emerged as great candidates because of their excellent all-around skill-set, and the fact they are centers, which earns a few points in my book, too- I give Lanier a slight edge, but it's basically a toss-up. Both were great offensively and defensively at their peaks, very good rebounders, too. Excellent in the playoffs, as well (and against #1 rated defenses, at that). It was an extremely tough choice to give Lanier the edge, but he looks marginally better, statistically, and that playmaking Lanier provided, is the thing that made me give it to him. Both guys really impressed me based on eye-test, too. Great post game for that era, good shooting touch, both really physical, but capable of finesse moves, as well. Especially Lanier's post game (that hook shot he had, was effective out to about 13-15 feet - that's awesome range for a hook shot or jump hook) was textbook perfect.
Connie remains in my top 3, but I'm not as high on him as I previously had been, because the ABA in its first season looks like a really weak league, compared to the NBA. Still, Hawkins dominated it so much that I think he deserves to get my vote (he also dominated the #1 and 2 ranked defenses in the ABA that year, in the playoffs - the Muskies and Buccaneers).
Penny Hardaway - 6 Bob Pettit - 6 Bob McAdoo - 4.5 Kevin McHale - 4 Willis Reed - 4 Bob Lanier - 3.5 Connie Hawkins - 3 Scottie Pippen - 3 Manu Ginobili - 2 Jason Kidd - 2 Bernard King - 2 Isiah Thomas - 1 Kevin Love - 1
Well crud. WE ARE OFFICIALLY ENTERING A 24-HOUR RUN-OFF BETWEEN PENNY AND PETTIT......which will end Saturday morning. If you did not cast a vote for either, please indicate your favorite between the two and reasons why.
Dr Spaceman wrote:.
Mutnt wrote:.
RSCD_3 wrote:.
Quotatious wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
drza wrote:.
eminence wrote:.
yoyoboy wrote:.
RebelWithoutACause wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:.
Gregoire wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
The-Power wrote:.
SKF_85 wrote:.
Narigo wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
PCProductions wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
theonlyclutch wrote:.
BallerHogger wrote:.
michievous wrote:.
JordansBulls wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
thizznation wrote:.
SideshowBob wrote:.
fpliii wrote:.
Owly wrote:.
"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
I'm having a hard time with this one. On my tentative peaks list, I do have Pettit higher, but I can't say I'm dead-set on that. It certainly seems pretty close.
Can't just compare numbers, obviously, as there's a great deal of difference between their respective eras. As I'd previously posted about Pettit at length:
Spoiler:
Thoughts on Bob Pettit….. …..since he was mentioned last thread. I’m glad someone finally mentioned him, as I’ve been curious when (or if?) you guys think he should be getting some ballots. He’s a tough one to gauge due to era. I mean, if we were going on in-era dominance only, he’d def be on the table (if not already voted in). But as that’s not what we’re doing (at least not most of us), it’s hard to decide where he belongs.
Regarding his potential era portability, I’d start by looking at him physically, to establish the kind of athlete that he was. bbref lists him as 6’9”. Not sure if he’s one of those who might be listed as 6’10” today??? A geriatric (possibly shrunk?) Bob Pettit claimed that at his most recent measurement he was 6’8.25” in stocking feet, fwiw. Here are a few photos to showcase his height:
On his tippy-toes next to an air-borne (by about 2”) Tom Heinsohn (6’7”):
In the air next to Russell; their socks/ankles look like they’re nearly the same distance off the ground (Pettit maybe marginally more, like <1”), and their heads appear at basically the same height. And as I’d demonstrated in I believe the #9 thread, Russell would most likely be listed as 6’11” today:
Pettit’s got a pretty good natural build. bbref lists him as 205 lbs, though he indicates that was his early career weight. Because he took it upon himself to lift some weights and get stronger later on in his career, which takes some individual initiative, btw; and according to him, he put on close to 30 lbs during his career. One should be cognizant of a couple things regarding this era: 1) they basically didn’t have significant weight-lifting facilities to offer their players, and 2) training aimed at putting on mass (for strength/power) was at the least not encouraged…..at the most it was actively discouraged (the philosophy of the time being that extra weight would both slow a player down as well as hinder his endurance). So bear those things in mind as you scrutinize his build:
He’s got some decent speed and first step quickness for his size (will show in the video below). Couple-three things people should be cognizant of when gauging speed by watching these old clips: 1) see how well you can take off with the dribble when you’re not allowed to be put your hand on the side of the ball (carries). 2) Flat-soled Converse All-Stars or similar (with little ankle support) is the general footwear of the time. 3) This was an era where fans were allowed on the court (in their street shoes) after the game, and where it was also not unheard of for fans to throw food/drink/etc on to the court during the game…..so I’m guessing the floors were dingy and cruddy, not the waxed to a shine courts of today. Try to imagine how quick today’s stars would be under the same circumstances.
And he’s got some modern aspects to his game (like an actual jump shot, which he can do off the dribble). Decent range for his size, too.
A few to pay special attention to…. *First score at 0:08 (quick first step, quick spring off the ground, “modern grace” on the finish). *Steal and dunk at 0:53 (deceptive because of slow-mo, but otherwise looks fairly “fleet of foot”). *Jump shots at 1:12 and 1:16 (especially that second one: shot fake, dribble and pull-up). *Series of jump shot clips beginning at around 3:25. Can see the brains (going straight up or into his man) instead of resorting to a fallaway (looks like breaks a defender’s jaw with his elbow at the 4:58 mark). Also check out the range: easily 19-20 ft on a couple of those. And like a Diet Nowitzki in the post there???? And again the quickness for his size seems apparent in a lot of those clips (note the drives at 5:02 and 5:07, for instance).
Anyway, watch the whole video, it really showcases a lot about Pettit. idk, I could believe he should be candidate right now. Anyone want to make the first case (I’ve got the ball rolling, hopefully).
....and I see a lot of potential in both his size/athleticism, as well as some modern-translatable skills he was demonstrating even as early as the late 50's.
Have been trying to think of a modern comparison for him......he kinda feels a touch like Paul Millsap to me. Not quite as stocky, though probably at least 1" taller. Aside from similar size, there are other similar aspects about their respective games: outside shooting touch, ability to put the ball on the floor and work in a perimeter isolation sense, quickness and leaping ability......all of these appear fairly close. Both show signs of being decent passing bigs, and perhaps have similar defensive reputations (info for Pettit somewhat lacking, though). I suspect Pettit would be a marginally better rebounder (I don't think he'd be as dominant on the boards as he was in his own time, but I think he might be able to slightly outdo the ~14% TRB% Millsap has been managing in recent years), and is a little better FT-shooter. I also like his conditioning and ability to play bigger minutes a little better, too. Other than these few minor upgrades, I think he'd probably be a similar caliber player as Paul Millsap, though I allow for possibility that he might surprise me (in a positive way) on the offensive end. And then obviously his in-era dominance exceeds what Penny did in his era.
I think Penny's talent probably translates reasonably well back in time. The 3pt line was never a huge part of his game, so I don't think he's "damaged" as much by its absence. Restrictions on ball-handling and poor spacing would no doubt effect him; but otoh, his size/athleticism would look even more stellar relative to the perimeter talents of the 50's/60's. I don't think he'd be as dominant as Pettit was in that era, but could be like a better playmaking version of Sam Jones or similar.
So who to pick........ idk, I'll have to think on this for awhile. Hopefully I can come up with a decision before deadline.
"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
Not saying it's incorrect to vote this way, but let's have the reasoning (more of the point of these threads/projects).
"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
