RealGM Top 100 List #66

[Doctor MJ]

He'd probably be considered for MVP if his team won enough.

Thurmond was MVP runner-up to Wilt in Wilt's finest season. Everyone was talking about him being the heir-apparent. It was his Warriors who took the most games in a series in the playoffs against arguably the GOAT single-season team.

Not to be a wet blanket, if Thurmond and Rick Barry's team who played Wilt in the championship.

[lorak]

If Thurmond isn't a terribly bad offensive player but his teams were so horrible on offense and they were built around the offense of two people -- Rick Barry and Nate Thurmond -- then Rick Barry doesn't belong ahead of the much more efficient (and less of a jerk) Adrian Dantley. Or Thurmond really is a bad offensive player but a great defender and rebounder which is where I am coming from -- and that still may be enough to get him in here.

Warriors with Thurmond AND Barry ('66, '67, '73, '74) are the best offensive teams during Thurmond's career. And we see clear improvement in both cases when Barry joined the team (and when he left in 1967 they became much worse on offense). So I think Thurmond was really bad offensive player, maybe not as bad as Ben Wallace, but not much better than him also.

[ElGee]

vote: Grant Hill
nominate: David Thompson

Has everyone forgotten about Grant HIll? He hasn't been voted in yet...

[ElGee]

Just way too much love in this project for role players like Jones and Rodman. Makes no sense to me. And I'm using the term love literally. I think thoughtful posters who like them as players -- I sure as hell do -- for what they add to the team are valuing those contributions ahead of overall value and Grade B superstars. At least there is some consistency about though...but c'mon, Bobby Jones over some of the guys left on the board? Why did he rarely start and play ~28 mpg? His peak couldn't touch David Thompson's IMO.

To be honest, I was hoping to push for an all-Nuggets conversation before nominating anyone from the group. Nom'ed Bobby because I needed to pick someone, and he has been on my mind.

Nuggets have Jones, Thompson, and Issel as a trio, and I think it really warrants conversation.

I think it makes sense to go chronologically.

'73-74. None of the players are on the team. The team is weak, SRS of -0.49.

'74-75. The great leap forward. The team's SRS jumps to +6.62, and now the team's record is +6.62. So what happened?

Well, major changes:

1. Mack Calvin joins the team appears to be the anointed star. Makes 1st team All-ABA.

2. Rookie Bobby Jones. He plays 2700+ minutes, which is 2nd on the team and more than any other new player. He also leads the team in Win Shares.

3. Larry Brown becomes the coach. This was certainly a factor in the success, but how big of a factor, and how much should that count against the players?

'75-76: Another great year, but the SRS and team record dip a bit. Noteworthy changes:

1. Mack Calvin's gone. btw, Calvin changed teams 9 times in his 12 year career. Pretty hard to fathom that a player a guy capable of spearheading a 6+ SRS improvement wouldn't also be worth keeping on your team.

2. Dan Issel joins and leads the team in PER and WS.

3. Rookie David Thompson joins and leads the team in scoring.

Incidentally, Thompson plays about 3100 minutes, while Issel and Jones play about 2800.

Denver joins the NBA and remains elite before descending toward mediocrity. When did that descent begin in earnest? Debatable. The first big SRS drop came in '77-78 (-4.15), but the team record didn't see a serious decline until ('79-80) when we see a second big SRS drop.

If you don't care about SRS, the narrative is straight forward:

1. Thompson missing time and regressing.

2. Also, Larry Brown quit late in '78-79 and his brain was missed. Incidentally, Brown quit and went back to college to coach UCLA because of George McGinnis. McGinnis was just such an awful follower of instruction that Brown demanded he be traded, but management refused. McGinnis was acquired by trading Bobby Jones away.

If you don't want to ignore the first SRS drop it becomes tougher though.

The big symptom of '77-78 is that the defense fell off dramatically. They were #1 in the league on defense in their first year in the NBA, but fell to 15th of 22 the next year. Looking at the 4 factors, the big thing that stands out is that their ability to force turnovers went from elite to mediocre. Worth noting that in '76-77 led the league in steals by a wide margin. They had 941 steals, the league average was 768, and only one other team was within a 100 steals from them.

By contrast, in '77-78, they only had 824 steals. Big dropoff, and there were a variety of factors there but has to be noted:

1. Jones leads the team in steals both times. First time with 186, second time with 137. So big dropoff from Jones again correlates clearly with team success.

2. Thompson & Issel combine for 205 steals the first year, and 192 the next. Not a big difference there.

Okay so dropoff in steals - maybe the team had to do that because they couldn't gamble as much? Makes me want to look at blocks. Incidentally, team blocks. What happened there? Well, they also went down, from 471 to 422, which took the team down from very strong to mediocre. Perhaps that relates to something that forced a change in strategy.

Incidentally, who led the team in blocks in '76-77? Jones with 162.
Okay, and who led the team in blocks in '77-78? Jones with 126.

So the team blocks 49 less shots than the previous year, and 36 of those less blocks are caused by Jones blocking less.

Every where we look it seems, we see Jones correlated with team success in Denver.

And then he gets traded to Philly for a much bigger name, and Philly ends up very happy they made the trade, just as Larry Brown bangs his head against the wall in Denver.

I just have a very hard time looking at Jones as a mere role player. His low minutes is a problem, but I do think it's appropriate to look at him as someone who at his best was having pretty huge impact on a per minute basis.

Hold on a second - there's more to the Nuggets transformation.

In 1974, they were +0.1 on offense. In 1975, Jones' rookie year (and Larry Brown's) they were +4.7. The majority of their improvement was on offense. Mack Calvin, for what it's worth, made his 5th consecutive all-star team that year and second consecutive all-nba 1st team...and his stats certainly make it look like it was impossible for him to NOT be having some kind of positive impact. Mike Green also made really nice offensive strides from his 1st to second year (again, you hear me talk about that transition a lot - we see it over and over in players). EDIT They even added Fatty Taylor and Van Breda Kolff to the rotation (not that important, but it wasn't exactly the same team).

In 1976, they lose Mack Calvin and Mike Green (17-9 54% shooting in 75). The rotation again changes slightly and Issell joins while Thompson come in as a rookie. What happens? Denver is again +4.6 on offense and -0.7 on defense (slightly worse on defense than in 75).

What happens in the postseason in 75 and 76 (numbers relative to environment)?

75 PS: +5.7 Ortg +7.1 Drtg!
76 PS: +5.3 Ortg +4.7 Drtg!

So again, we see a team that is succeeding with good offense and not showing much signs of dominant defense. In 77 they join the NBA...

+1.2 Ortg and -3.4 Drtg... No. 1 defense in the league by a good amount. (2000 MP by Paul Silas probably didn't hurt after his history of good defenses and awesome defensive rebounding in Boston.) Also Bobby Jones' minutes go down that year (29.5 mpg) so I find it somewhat difficult to give him a lot of credit for "anchoring" that kind of defense. And for the record, I happen to agree that Jones is one of the better perimeter defensive players ever, we're just trying to gauge his impact here...

They lose to the eventual champion Blazers in 6 games. This time the offense performs right around average versus Portland and the defense holds them down about -4 (consistent with the RS team strengths).

So who was doing what? Well, in 1976 Thompson AND Bobby Jones each received a single MVP vote (5 media members from each market voted, so it's possible that was home bias). He went for 40-10-5 in a critical game against Kentucky. In the FInals, he went for 30 in G1 and 24 in G2...and averaged 26.4 ppg on 61% TS without using the 3-ball!

So when we look at Bobby Jones, how can we attribute a lot of their success in this period to him (and specifically his defensive presence)? You point out what are small correlations between a defensive factor and Jones' role in that factor, and that makes perfect sense to me, because Bobby Jones was good in those areas and those areas count, it's just not the same load as playing 36-40 mpg and being a dominant paint defender (see: Thurmond, Nate).

Finally, I'll just add that just watching the team play, it makes little sense to see Jones as the key guy. Thompson, at the least, can boast the argument that he was a world-class all-around (yes, all-around!) wing player in the Kobe-mold. No, he wasn't as good as peak Kobe or Dr. J or the elite, but that's what this guy did, and he took over key games on offense because of it.

As you said, in 1978 -- probably Thompson's peak -- he finishes 3rd in MVP and Denver has a +1.4 offense but regresses mightily to +0.6 on defense. And it seems pretty fair to say at that point they are a 3-man team, but I won't comment on their defensive structure/scheme out of ignorance. (Although rookie Anthony Roberts looks like he progresses decently on offense.) I just don't see how to value someone who probably is never a top-10 or top-15 player over a guy who has a few years near the top of the heap. (And post 78, we're talking about basically a 26-28 mpg guy.)

[penbeast0]

A quick look at that Nugget info:

74, they were poor, particularly at guard where Al Smith was never much good and supposed team star Warren Jabali succumbed to substance and anger/defiance issues. They added Calvin to Ralph Simpson who gave them 2 decent scorers, but Calvin went from team to team because he was a pure shooter who wasn't a natural point and at 5'11 or so, couldn't guard most guys he faced; Mike Green did transition into a guy with decent stats but he didnt turn into a legit center -- look at the rest of his career -- he was a journeyman with a good jump shot but again, not much defensively nor a great rebounder. Similar to their 74 center, Robish; Beck was the team thug and had been there forever. Maybe Green took a step up but Robisch and Beck didn't "join the rotation," they were given less time. So they added one no-D shooter to a team of them plus a couple of non-scoring defensive specialists in Jan Van Breda Koff and Fatty Taylor (Taylor actually played a much bigger role). So you have no-D shooters at PG (Calvin), SF (Simpson --the team's leading scorer), and C (Green/Robisch) and defensive role player who could also play PG at SG (Taylor) but the big change was Larry Brown and the Jump-and-switch defense which was a big shock to the rest of the league. It used the team's strength, quickness, and avoided the team's weakness, man coverage -- but it took quick bigs with good smarts and that's why Bobby Jones was pretty universally regarded as the team's best player even as a rookie. He was the defensive captain that made the thing work and it created a ton of turnovers (1st in Steals) leading to fast break points for Calvin and SImpson -- Jones had 2 st/g and close to 2bl/g as well. Denver had the best record in EITHER league despite none of the other players making anything of themselves after the merger.

Unfortunately, like many gimmick defenses, it worked less well when teams had time to plan for it and get used to the pressure and they lost to the McGinnis/Daniels Pacers size and strength. The next year they added established stars Issel and Thompson and made it to the finals again with the league's best record but again the switching defense fell pray, this time to Julius Erving's greatest series ever as he abused the switches and hit everything from 25 feet on in.

Last point -- There were already many rumors about Brown being on his way out before the McGinnis/Jones swap though it certainly didn't help. That's just Larry Brown.

[therealbig3]

I can't really see Hill over Carter, personally. Carter was a guy who took on a huge offensive burden in the playoffs...Hill never really did, or at least, wasn't really able to. And Carter's time in NJ gets underrated, while I feel that Hill's prime gets overrated.

And regarding Thurmond...even if he was a bad offensive player...what about the numbers that bastillon posted? Regardless of what he was good at, he had huge impact. Russell was a bad offensive player too (very unimpressive scoring numbers, poor team offenses), but he had such a monstrous impact on defense that it makes him a GOAT candidate. I think it's a similar case with Thurmond, though obviously not as extreme.

[ElGee]

I can't really see Hill over Carter, personally. Carter was a guy who took on a huge offensive burden in the playoffs...Hill never really did, or at least, wasn't really able to. And Carter's time in NJ gets underrated, while I feel that Hill's prime gets overrated.

And regarding Thurmond...even if he was a bad offensive player...what about the numbers that bastillon posted? Regardless of what he was good at, he had huge impact. Russell was a bad offensive player too (very unimpressive scoring numbers, poor team offenses), but he had such a monstrous impact on defense that it makes him a GOAT candidate. I think it's a similar case with Thurmond, though obviously not as extreme.

Agree on Thurmond.

Obviously you are Carter's biggest supporter and have made sound points on him. It's weird, when he first was mentioned I thought "I'm going to have Vince Carter much higher than everyone else." Now I think "I might have Vince Carter lower than everyone else." And I really only disagree with your classifications of him slightly (in the negative direction) unless you are understating it. As it stands, I have Carter at around No. 75. To boot:

I don't happen to think much of his rookie season in the grand scheme of things. In 2000 I do have him as a top-10 player in the league, but it's really low all-nba quality stuff IMO. In 2001 he's slightly better, but it's in the same ballpark...and that's arguably his peak. He's 22nd overall in Ilardi's 03-09 study which really only captures the end of his dropoff and should treat him well. He's +2.4 on offense which is 36th -- 33rd if we remove small minute players. His on/off numbers in NJ reflect someone having positive impact, as his game would suggest.

But 02 and 03 are basically lost to me due to injury. (03 he's at least there at the end)

What's left is 04-07, and I'm not sure he does play his best basketball in New Jersey. You make a compelling case that he does, but (a) he's playing with Kidd and (b) the rules are different to make him look statistically more favorable. Not saying it's a bad stance, but how much better was he in NJ than in Toronto at his best? He looks excellent in the PS but I watched those series against Indy and the sometimes Shaq-less Heat and thought he played well, but nothing otherworldly. (eg Decent game 1 and they win with a 107 ORtg, he blows up in G3 and they post a 101 ORtg.)

I wonder how others compare 06 Carter to Allen and Iverson? I'm open to an argument there that would move him up for me...but at the end of the day I'm not wild about drafting Carter. Never liked his defense, he has some injury problems, and there are many all-around wings I would want on a team ahead of him, although at least he has a decent outside shot.

[Doctor MJ]

Hold on a second - there's more to the Nuggets transformation.

In 1974, they were +0.1 on offense. In 1975, Jones' rookie year (and Larry Brown's) they were +4.7. The majority of their improvement was on offense. Mack Calvin, for what it's worth, made his 5th consecutive all-star team that year and second consecutive all-nba 1st team...and his stats certainly make it look like it was impossible for him to NOT be having some kind of positive impact. Mike Green also made really nice offensive strides from his 1st to second year (again, you hear me talk about that transition a lot - we see it over and over in players). EDIT They even added Fatty Taylor and Van Breda Kolff to the rotation (not that important, but it wasn't exactly the same team).

In 1976, they lose Mack Calvin and Mike Green (17-9 54% shooting in 75). The rotation again changes slightly and Issell joins while Thompson come in as a rookie. What happens? Denver is again +4.6 on offense and -0.7 on defense (slightly worse on defense than in 75).

What happens in the postseason in 75 and 76 (numbers relative to environment)?

75 PS: +5.7 Ortg +7.1 Drtg!
76 PS: +5.3 Ortg +4.7 Drtg!

So again, we see a team that is succeeding with good offense and not showing much signs of dominant defense. In 77 they join the NBA...

+1.2 Ortg and -3.4 Drtg... No. 1 defense in the league by a good amount. (2000 MP by Paul Silas probably didn't hurt after his history of good defenses and awesome defensive rebounding in Boston.) Also Bobby Jones' minutes go down that year (29.5 mpg) so I find it somewhat difficult to give him a lot of credit for "anchoring" that kind of defense. And for the record, I happen to agree that Jones is one of the better perimeter defensive players ever, we're just trying to gauge his impact here...

They lose to the eventual champion Blazers in 6 games. This time the offense performs right around average versus Portland and the defense holds them down about -4 (consistent with the RS team strengths).

So who was doing what? Well, in 1976 Thompson AND Bobby Jones each received a single MVP vote (5 media members from each market voted, so it's possible that was home bias). He went for 40-10-5 in a critical game against Kentucky. In the FInals, he went for 30 in G1 and 24 in G2...and averaged 26.4 ppg on 61% TS without using the 3-ball!

So when we look at Bobby Jones, how can we attribute a lot of their success in this period to him (and specifically his defensive presence)? You point out what are small correlations between a defensive factor and Jones' role in that factor, and that makes perfect sense to me, because Bobby Jones was good in those areas and those areas count, it's just not the same load as playing 36-40 mpg and being a dominant paint defender (see: Thurmond, Nate).

Finally, I'll just add that just watching the team play, it makes little sense to see Jones as the key guy. Thompson, at the least, can boast the argument that he was a world-class all-around (yes, all-around!) wing player in the Kobe-mold. No, he wasn't as good as peak Kobe or Dr. J or the elite, but that's what this guy did, and he took over key games on offense because of it.

As you said, in 1978 -- probably Thompson's peak -- he finishes 3rd in MVP and Denver has a +1.4 offense but regresses mightily to +0.6 on defense. And it seems pretty fair to say at that point they are a 3-man team, but I won't comment on their defensive structure/scheme out of ignorance. (Although rookie Anthony Roberts looks like he progresses decently on offense.) I just don't see how to value someone who probably is never a top-10 or top-15 player over a guy who has a few years near the top of the heap. (And post 78, we're talking about basically a 26-28 mpg guy.)

Good points worth bringing up.

I think the thing I keep thinking about is you saying "How can a guy playing that little have such a big impact?", but me thinking about his major drop off in blocks & steals as those happen to be exactly the areas dropping off when the defense changes from all-world to mediocre. I mean, I get that Jones isn't doing everything himself out there, but I'm talking about a pretty huge team drop off in defense here and the most obvious change comes from a decrease in production from the player considered to be the team's defensive star and a lock for defensive accolades each year.

It really cries out for some other theory because as it stands it just makes you realize that regardless of the amount of minutes Jones was playing, he was getting quite a lot of amount of blocks and steals that the team clearly couldn't get without him, and that getting turnovers was the only of the 4 components of defense that Denver was really, really good at. That kind of correlation, even if you say that Jones could only have that impact with the help of his teammates, how can you not give a lot of credit to Jones?

So we have evidence of strong correlation to team success with Jones, we have him comparable peak WS number to Thompson, and much bigger career numbers, we've got the fact that the team's rise to elite status came without Thompson and left with Thompson still doing his thing.

None of this makes me say "Jones was the true star of the team. Thompson was a stat hog.", but nor do I think it makes sense to talk about Jones as if he's just a Battier/Collison-level role player. Jones was doing something truly unique here.

[penbeast0]

Yeah, that's what I felt like when ElGee started pushing Marques Johnson. I'm used to being the only one that brings him up and suddenly people are talking about him as one of the top 50 of all time and I'm the guy saying . . . Whoa! He was good but are we really talking about him this early?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Robert Parish

I'm more comfortable with his all around game than what I get from Thurmond.

Now obviously I've got Russell as my GOAT so I believe that a 60s era center can theoretically have jurassic-size impact on defense. However, I'm convinced of that because of what I see the Celtics have done. We simply don't see the same thing with Thurmond. I believe he was a superb defensive center, and probably the best man defender of the biggest bigs in history, but much of Russell's impact came from having swingman-levels of agility which I simply don't think Thurmond had.

I think good points have been made that Thurmond's shooting efficiency wasn't actually THAT terrible, but the fact remains that I simply don't want someone on my team scoring 20 points unless he's, y'know, quite good at it. Of course, it's hard to know the right way to judge a player based on what could simply considered a poor coaching strategy, and in general this doesn't bother me that terribly. I still don't see a clear edge of Thurmond over someone like Mutombo, and I prefer a strong offensive and defensive player who can play a variety of options with strong longevity like Parish.

Nominate: Tiny Archibald

This is real tough, but I feel like I have to at least say this at some point:

The year Tiny led the league in points and assists, the team led the league in offensive efficiency. You don't hear about this because the team overall was bad, and that overall factor makes you wonder if the offense was "legit", but it's a mind-blowing enough thing that it needs to be discussed. It's really without question the most "Whoa" peak thing around among players not yet nominated, and since Tiny is in the discussion right now, I'll get behind him at least for the moment.

[therealbig3]

I can't really see Hill over Carter, personally. Carter was a guy who took on a huge offensive burden in the playoffs...Hill never really did, or at least, wasn't really able to. And Carter's time in NJ gets underrated, while I feel that Hill's prime gets overrated.

And regarding Thurmond...even if he was a bad offensive player...what about the numbers that bastillon posted? Regardless of what he was good at, he had huge impact. Russell was a bad offensive player too (very unimpressive scoring numbers, poor team offenses), but he had such a monstrous impact on defense that it makes him a GOAT candidate. I think it's a similar case with Thurmond, though obviously not as extreme.

Agree on Thurmond.

Obviously you are Carter's biggest supporter and have made sound points on him. It's weird, when he first was mentioned I thought "I'm going to have Vince Carter much higher than everyone else." Now I think "I might have Vince Carter lower than everyone else." And I really only disagree with your classifications of him slightly (in the negative direction) unless you are understating it. As it stands, I have Carter at around No. 75. To boot:

I don't happen to think much of his rookie season in the grand scheme of things. In 2000 I do have him as a top-10 player in the league, but it's really low all-nba quality stuff IMO. In 2001 he's slightly better, but it's in the same ballpark...and that's arguably his peak. He's 22nd overall in Ilardi's 03-09 study which really only captures the end of his dropoff and should treat him well. He's +2.4 on offense which is 36th -- 33rd if we remove small minute players. His on/off numbers in NJ reflect someone having positive impact, as his game would suggest.

But 02 and 03 are basically lost to me due to injury. (03 he's at least there at the end)

What's left is 04-07, and I'm not sure he does play his best basketball in New Jersey. You make a compelling case that he does, but (a) he's playing with Kidd and (b) the rules are different to make him look statistically more favorable. Not saying it's a bad stance, but how much better was he in NJ than in Toronto at his best? He looks excellent in the PS but I watched those series against Indy and the sometimes Shaq-less Heat and thought he played well, but nothing otherworldly. (eg Decent game 1 and they win with a 107 ORtg, he blows up in G3 and they post a 101 ORtg.)

I wonder how others compare 06 Carter to Allen and Iverson? I'm open to an argument there that would move him up for me...but at the end of the day I'm not wild about drafting Carter. Never liked his defense, he has some injury problems, and there are many all-around wings I would want on a team ahead of him, although at least he has a decent outside shot.

Well, how much does playing with Kidd help Carter? What's interesting to me is that when Kidd was being considered, his detractors were saying how he doesn't really lead great offenses, because he's not a great scorer, nor is he a great halfcourt offensive player in general. So if that's true, why would his presence now be used to detract from Carter? And when I watched him play, Carter never relied on Kidd to help him generate offense. Carter was not a guy who liked to run out on the break (weird, because when he did, he was one of the best open court players of all time), and Carter liked to iso and create for himself in the half court. Sure, there were some highlight reel alley oops between them, but it's not like scoring was so much easier for Carter now that Kidd was around...especially past his prime Kidd who at that point was especially no longer a threat to score a lot. RJ was there, and he helped, but his game didn't fit that well with Carter's. Overall, it was pretty much a unipolar offense that ran through Carter.

And after the trade to NJ in 05, he played the best basketball he had ever played. His raw numbers during that time was around 28/6/5 on 56% TS. It was mainly his explosion that got the Nets into the playoffs that year. And he played well in the playoffs too, despite low efficiency scoring, considering that he played against a dominant Heat team that had Wade emerging as a superstar. RJ was injured and didn't play that well, and Kidd, again, wasn't really a threat to score, so that he could alleviate the pressure off him. I think this gets overlooked, because the first 20 games with Toronto bring his overall averages down for the season.

And in 06, Carter has an All-NBA caliber 06, with a fantastic playoff run. Clearly his best individual playoffs actually, and I remember that I picked him as the best playoff player through the first round. Overall for that playoffs, he put up 30/7/5 on 56% TS. That's pretty dominant stuff, and Wade is greatly praised for his playoff run, but compare him and Carter head to head in their series:

Wade: 27.6 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 6.6 apg, .598 TS%
Carter: 30.2 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, .554 TS%

Carter was holding his own against Wade, who had a very dominant overall playoff run, and is considered by some to be the best overall player that year.

Carter's 07 was arguably his best all-around regular season, although he was disappointing that year against the Cavs in the playoffs.

And I don't think his 08 and 09 should be ignored. He was still the best player on the team, and he was still the guy they ran the offense through, and he was still a 21/6/5 type player. The team was crap, which is why they didn't go anywhere, but Carter was still carrying that offense...I don't want to say losing Carter was the sole reason why the Nets went from a 34 win team to a 12 win team...but it pretty clearly is the main reason imo.

Compared to Allen in 06, this was Allen's regular season peak imo, and so he was better than Carter during the regular season...but not by terribly much, and like I said, Carter had a huge playoffs, while Allen didn't get a chance to play. It's a similar case with Iverson.

And regarding Carter's numbers looking better because of rule changes, you're basically talking about his efficiency, it's true, his raw efficiency went up, but it's not like it was masking an inefficient player, he was pretty much around league average with the Nets.

And I don't really see the injury concerns...he was injured for 2 seasons, and then never played less than 73 games in a season during his prime.

I'm seeing an All-NBA player in 00, 01, 05, 06, and 07, and a fringe All-NBA player in 08 and 09. He was a good playoff performer, who was capable of carrying big offensive loads, a strong rebounder for his position, an underrated passer, and to be honest, I never got the impression that he was a poor defender...not great, but not bad either. Definitely better than Iverson, FWIW.

[penbeast0]

ok, now compare Carter to Adrian Dantley who isn't nominated yet . . . or Hal Greer (relative to league rather than relative just to Oscar and West) . . . or David Thompson . . . or Glen Rice or Detlief Schrempf or . . . I see him as a very good player but not setting himself apart from the other very good players left

[therealbig3]

ok, now compare Carter to Adrian Dantley who isn't nominated yet . . . or Hal Greer (relative to league rather than relative just to Oscar and West) . . . or David Thompson . . . or Glen Rice or Detlief Schrempf or . . . I see him as a very good player but not setting himself apart from the other very good players left

I don't see the problem here, none of those guys had the all-around game that Carter did, nor did they have to carry an offense as much as Carter. And it's not like Carter hasn't had a big impact, he does well in the APM studies, he does well based on ElGee's SIO numbers, and you can clearly see the Nets (don't know much about the Raptors) struggle a lot without him. He's not simply a big numbers, no impact guy. He's a big numbers, big impact guy.

I mean, how much did Pierce, Iverson, and Allen set themselves apart from Carter? In fact, I don't know if Iverson should be ranked ahead of Carter. Those guys went a long time ago, and people are still debating whether Carter deserves to be here at this point, even though in his prime, he wasn't that far off from them at all (and plenty of people thought him and Iverson were a level above Pierce and Allen). I feel like more than basketball is being considered with Carter here, namely his "soft", "choker", "whiner" reputation. But he was durable, productive, and stepped his game up in the playoffs. He never was an off-court problem in NJ, and the Toronto situation can be overblown...from what I've read and heard, the Toronto front office and media are just as much to blame as he is for how that went down.

[penbeast0]

3-way tie. I guess I will come off my nominations for Thurmond for the vote; adding Doctor MJ gives the nomination to Tiny

VOTE:

Dolph Schayes – penbeast0

Robert Parish – lukekarts

Grant Hill – JordansBulls, ElGee

Vince Carter – Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2

Nate Thurmond – therealbig3, DavidStern



NOMINATE:

Chauncey Billups – penbeast0

James Worthy – lukekarts, DavidStern

Shawn Kemp – JordansBulls, therealbig3

Tiny Archibald – Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2, Doctor MJ

David Thompson -- ElGee

[lorak]

I
And regarding Thurmond...even if he was a bad offensive player...what about the numbers that bastillon posted?

That numbers could be tricky and only in one season (1967) he seems to have really big impact on very good team. On two other occasions he had good with/without numbers but team even with him was below average! So yeah, he made bad teams better, but they still were worse than average. He also almost never anchored very good defensive teams, Russelll ALWAYS anchored very good or great defensive teams even when he played with Bob Cousy and Tom Heinsohn.

[therealbig3]

I
And regarding Thurmond...even if he was a bad offensive player...what about the numbers that bastillon posted?

That numbers could be tricky and only in one season (1967) he seems to have really big impact on very good team. On two other occasions he had good with/without numbers but team even with him was below average! So yeah, he made bad teams better, but they still were worse than average. He also almost never anchored very good defensive teams, Russelll ALWAYS anchored very good or great defensive teams even when he played with Bob Cousy and Tom Heinsohn.

Lol, which is why Russell is #2 and Thurmond just went at #65

Clearly, Thurmond isn't as good as Russell...but he plays a similar way, and he impacts the game in a similar way...just not close to the same extent. KG almost never anchored dominant defensive teams either, but we know that the reason for that is before he went to Boston, he never had the personnel or coaching around him to do so. We know his individual impact was huge, and I think it's the same way with Thurmond.

And based on his numbers:

Thurmond 1967 (16g) 12.7 to 5.4
Thurmond 1968 (31g) 10.5 to 3.4
Thurmond 1969 (12g) 8.4 to -0.4
Thurmond 1970 (40g) 5.8 to -1.6

It looks like Thurmond single-handedly took a poor team and turned them into a good team on two different occasions (67 and 68). Not sure how good +5.4 and +3.4 is, but I'm assuming that's pretty good, but not elite (It would be pretty crazy if he took an otherwise -7.3 team into elite territory).

[lorak]

Do you know that when he left Warriors they became better? Or that after his rookie year, when he started playing around 41 MPG Warriors became worse (that's also the same year when they became really, really bad on offense: -6.6 ortg!)?
Also, who was starting in place of Thurmond when he missed games? Maybe that would explain those with/without numbers? Or what was the pace (Elgee posted only ppg, not ortg!)? What quality of opponents?

I voted for Thurmond, but I question his overall impact as being huge positive. He was great man to man defender, much worse, but still very good team defender and horrible offensive player. His impact was closer to Ben Wallace than Bill Russell (who was also better offensive player than Thurmond).