RealGM Top 100 List #28

[penbeast0]

Criteria: Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball.

Voting Will End In 2 Days at 10PM EST (note the new time as school is restarting)

Please vote and nominate

Newest addition:

Dwight Howard

4x All-NBA 1st Team
1x All-NBA 3rd Team
3x NBA DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR
3x NBA All-Defensive 1st Team
1x NBA All-Defensive 2nd Team
5x All-STar



Jason Kidd

NBA Champion 2011
5x All-NBA 1st Team
1x All-NBA 2nd Team
4x All-Defense 1st Team
5x All-Defense 2nd Team
10x All-Star
Rookie of the Year 1995


George Gervin

5x All-NBA 1st team
2x All-NBA 2nd team
2x All-ABA 2nd Team
12x All-Star (3 ABA, 9 NBA)
All-Star MVP (1980)
Hall of Fame (1996)


Clyde Drexler

* NBA Champion 1994
* 1x 1st All-NBA
* 2x 2nd All-NBA
* 2x 3rd All-NBA
* 10x All-Star


Gary Payton

NBA Champion (2006)
2× All-NBA First Team Selection
5× All-NBA Second Team Selection
2x All-NBA Third Team Selections
NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1996)
9x 1st Team All-Defense
9× All-Star


Artis Gilmore

ABA MVP 1972
ABA Champion 1975
ABA Playoff MVP 1975
5x All-ABA 1st Team
4x ABA All-Defense 1st Team
1x NBA All-Defense 2nd Team
ABA All-Star Game MVP 1974
5xABA All-Star
6xNBA All-Star
ABA Rookie of the Year 1972
Hall of Fame 2011



John Stockton

2x All-NBA 1st Team
6x All-NBA 2nd Team
3x All-NBA 3rd Team
5x All-Defense 2nd Team
10x All-Star
All-Star MVP (1993)
NBA’s All-Time leader in Assists
NBA’s All-Time leader in Steals
Hall of Fame 2009


Isiah Thomas

2x NBA Champion (1989, 1990)
NBA Finals MVP (1990)
3× All-NBA 1st Team
2x All-NBA 2nd Team
12× All-Star
2x All-Star MVP (1984, 1986)
Hall of Fame (2000)


John Havlicek

* 8x NBA Champion
* Finals MVP (1974)
* 4x All-NBA First Team Selection
* 7x All-NBA Second Team Selection
* 5x NBA All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
* 3x NBA All-Defensive 2nd Team Selection
* 13x AllStar
* Basketball HOF Player (1984)



Rick Barry

* NBA Champion (1975)
* NBA Finals MVP (1975)
* 5× All-NBA First Team Selection
* 1× All-NBA Second Team Selection
* 4× All-ABA 1st Team Selection
* Rookie of the Year (1966)
* NBA All-Star Game MVP (1967)
* 12× All-Star (8 NBA, 4 ABA)
* Voted to the HOF in 1987

[penbeast0]

mystic bb from a list supports:

VOTE
John Stockton

NOMINATE
Reggie Miller

If Jerky Way doesn't post, he supports:

VOTE
Clyde Drexler

NOMINATE
Elvin Hayes

[penbeast0]

Voting Candidates
The PGs are here. John Stockton is as efficient as just chosen Steve Nash and better assists and defense though less scoring. Isiah Thomas and Gary Payton are very similar statistically with Isiah having more team success and Payton having much greater defensive strength. I lean to Stockton and Payton over Thomas -- have traditionally favored Payton but the efficiency both in shooting and in A/TO is tough to argue with and some of the strong pro-Stockton posts have me leaning a little to Stockton at the moment.

Among the wings, Havlicek had a clear defensive edge but wasn't as dominant a scorer as the others, particularly Gervin. Gervin didn't pass the way all the others did. Accolades indicate that contemporary observers were less impressed with Drexler and Pierce and support the Havlicek defensive edge -- Hondo is my favorite here though Pierce is surprisingly strong in adjusted numbers.

REGULAR SEASON – Gervin is the best scorer but doesn’t have the playmaking
Barry 6.6 reb 4.6ast 24.2pts .525ts%
Havlicek 6.6reb 4.8ast 21.1 pts .491ts%
Drexler 6.5reb 5.9ast 21.7pts .548ts%
Gervin 5.8reb 2.8ast 27.1pts .566ts%
Pierce 5.9reb 3.7ast 21.6pts .569ts%


PLAYOFFS – All perform at a similar or even better rate in their playoffs (in 38-41 mpg)
Barry 6.8 reb 4.5ast 28.7pts .518ts%
Havlicek 7.3reb 4.8ast 23.1 pts .502ts%
Drexler 7.1reb 6.4ast 21.0pts .534ts%
Gervin 7.0reb 2.9ast 27.1pts .560ts%
Pierce 6.5reb 4.0ast 21.4pts .559ts%

ADJUSTED (pace adjusted points and efg adjusted ts%) -- Pierce really is helped by the pace adjustment
Barry (league average 110.2) = 21.9adj ppg (.455 league efg) ..575 adj ts%
Havlicek (league average 112.3) = 18.7adj ppg (.441 league efg) .554 adj ts%
Drexler (league average 106.5) = 20.2adj ppg (.491 league efg) .556adj ts%
Gervin (league average 109.2) =24.7adj ppg (.482 league efg) .585 adj ts%
Pierce (league average 97.0) = 22.0adj ppg (.485 league efg) .584 adj ts%

ACCOLADES -- Havlicek didn't even have All-Def his whole career
Barry – 5x1st, 1x2nd All-NBA, 4x1st All-ABA, Finals MVP, .592 (4th in 75, 4th in 76)
Havlicek – 5x1st, 7x2nd All-NBA, 5x1st, 3x2nd All-Def, Finals MVP, .217 MVP (4th in 72, 5th in 73)
Drexler – 1x1st, 2x2nd, 2x3rd All-NBA, .778 MVP Shares (2nd in 1992)
Gervin – 5x1st, 2x2nd All-NBA, 2x2nd All-ABA, .991 MVP Shares (2nd in 78 and 79, 3rd in 80)
Pierce – 1980 Finals MVP, 1x2nd, 3x3rd All-NBA, .040 MVP Shares (best is 7th in 09)



I still prefer Artis Gilmore to Patrick Ewing or any of the other big men out there despite the various posts on him (almost all of which ignore his ABA prime to focus on his NBA years). Although his NBA career isn't overwhelming for anything but scoring efficiently, still a 20ppg scorer who it the MOST EFFICIENT PLAYER IN NBA HISTORY is pretty damned intriguing.

Tough to compare him to Havlicek or Stockton admittedly but he is the most dominant of the three at his peak -- on the other hand, the others were at peak longer. Havlicek has the wins, Stockton the other great efficiency record plus the all-time greatest assist (and steal) records. Can go any of the three but for now . . .


Vote: John Stockton

[penbeast0]

For the nomination:

PG -- It is between the great playmaking but inefficient even for his era (especially in playoffs) Bob Cousy, and the young gun with 2 great years but only 5 1/2 years total, Chris Paul. Other candidates include the injury prone Kevin Johnson, the surprisingly efficient Chauncey Billups, and possibly Hal Greer or Lenny Wilkens from the 60s or the purely offensive Nate Archibald or Pete Maravich from the 70s. Of them, I'd lean to Billups for the efficiency, the defense, and for helping kick the superstar laden Shaq/Kobe/KMalone/Payton Lakers in the ass.

Wings -- On the wings, the statistical comparisom seems to favor Paul Pierce. Guys like English (better than Nique) are factors but the numbers keep coming up Pierce. I love Moncrief and would take his peak over that of Pierce but 5 good years v. 12 makes me pause. 5 years got Wade in though and Moncrief may be my favorite all time player so . . .

Big Men -- The bigs left all have some issue with their games. Zo had health issues and was always a step behind the best like Shaq/Robinson/Duncan/etc. Willis Reed and Wes Unseld weren't as individually dominant and broke down faster too, while Neil Johnston and Mel Daniels played against inferior competition during their primes and were more limited besides. Dave Cowens was an inefficient scorer and not a great help defender though a super hustle guy. Bob McAdoo while his 5 year peak is spectacular, didn't play big man defense and his teams didn't dominate; Bob Lanier and Walt Bellamy had nice numbers but their teams weren't that much either and Detroit with Lanier sucked defensively for 9 of Lanier's 10 prime years which I consider pretty bad. Finally there is Dikembe Mutombo who was a great shot blocker and consistent player for years. Finally, Bill Walton had one great year but every other year he broke down and left the Portland and San Diego teams which had built around him destroyed until he made another 1 year comeback as a top reserve. I wouldn't choose a one in eight shot at catching lightning in a bottle at the expense of a virtually guaranteed team crash the other seven over any of the above named players.

At PF, McHale didn't rebound as well but has terrific efficiency and very good defense. Hayes does rebound that well but was inefficient and a jerk, and Bobby Jones and Dennis Rodman may be the greatest pair of defensive forwards but Jones, while extremely efficient, didn't score or rebound that much while Rodman had no offense and for 1/2 his career, left his man at times to pad his rebounding stats at the team's expense. All four should be coming up soon though along with most of the mentioned centers.

So, Billups v. Moncrief (Pierce) v. McHale (Zo) . . . All except Pierce are short peak guys, I think Moncrief peaks the highest over a 5 year stretch . . . but for now will say Billups to start some debate on him.

NOMINATE -- Chauncey Billups

[drza]

Few random thoughts while I have a second:

Walton is going to get a little bump up for me based on the medicine discussion. I tentatively have him 49...so I'm not going to be nominating him soon regardless. That said, Walton may literally be the most valuable player in NBA history (maybe with Russell as well). His fit on that team, at that time, with Ramsay's philosophy, was such a make or break deal for Portland. And then consider:

-Walton's backups played so admirably in replacing him they even had 20-20 games and they STILL had that decline. Further evidence that impact isn't consistently equatable to raw box stats, and can vary greatly.

-Portland was +9.3 MOV with Walton. That would match the 87 Lakers for 11th best all-time...only the Blazers did it in a parity driven league, in the two-year stretch of there was ONE sub-4 SRS team and one other plus-4 SRS team in each season. Does that make it more impressive or less impressive? For me, I find it *incredibly* impressive when someone stands out from heavy competition...be it in tennis, football, or the NBA (eg the 09 Cavs don't strike me as 9 SRS team in a more competitive conference...)

See, this right here is why I'm tempted to nominate Walton soon. Penbeast had an EXCELLENT point about how much of a let down it was to his teams when they built entirely around Walton, only to have him get hurt. Had to be like sucking the air out of a building, just deflating.

However.

Walton was very arguably the BEST player in the NBA for those few years, with quite possibly GOAT level impact. Beautiful basketball. Taking an average team and making a historic champion out of them.

When he was healthy.

Walton was also very arguably the most brittle player in NBA history over the course of his career. And, even if I give Walton a few more games and a couple of more completed seasons due to the medicine discussion, he still wasn't healthy very often. That's understood.

However.

If I were a GM...and someone came to me with this offer:

"I'll give you the best player in the NBA, one of the best in history, and if you surround him with just reasonable talent there's an excellent chance that you have the best team in the NBA. But there's a catch. You only get this player for 6 years, and there's only a 50/50 shot that he'll make it through any given season healthy enough for that title run. After that, you can have him for another 5 years as a super 6th man, still only a 50/50 shot that he gets through the year healthy."

or

"I'll give you another player that is consistently somewhere between the 8th and 15th best player in the league, that will be reasonably healthy almost every year, and you can have him for the next dozen years."

It'd feel like a deal with the devil, but I think I just might take player A. Given a reasonable cast, that gives me at least a couple of legit shots at a championship over a decade. It also guarantees me several years of heartache, but I have a legit shot to WIN. With player B, unless I somehow get another chance at that super-elite player to put him next to, my yearly goal is glass-ceilinged at playoffs. That's safe. Secure. I probably keep my job. I'm the 80s Milwaukee Bucks, the 90s Pacers, the 2000s Nuggets.

But man. I'd rather take that shot at the moon. I'd rather a decade of highs and lows where I look back and can hang my hat on those 1 or 2 magical title runs (surrounded by years of frustration) than 9 straight 50-win seasons that were always over sometime in May and that, really, no one will remember.

*Caveat, I know players don't win titles, teams do. I'm giving the example of the same team, average-to-above average support, and what they could do when given a best player that was either the best in the league (when healthy) or "just" a consistent All Star. Considering that the vast majority of teams can only hope for that level of support from players 2-through-15, I think this situation is fairly scalable to most situations. And given that, even a cracked Walton-type probably gives me a better shot at winning a ring in a given decade than a consistently healthy Reggie Miller. Or at least, that's how I'm feeling right now. Still plenty of time for that to change...

[therealbig3]

Hmm, I'm pretty confused with Gilmore right now. I originally had him practically tied with Ewing, but recent posts about him having a lower impact than you'd expect have kind of gotten me thinking about him. I think one poster pointed out how he's been on some of the worst defensive teams in the league, even though he was being presented as a dominant two-way center. He was also TO-prone.

I'd like more discussion on Gilmore vs Barry vs Havlicek, because those are the next three guys on my list right now.

But:

Nominate: Pierce

I think a lot of the reluctance to nominate him stems from preconceptions. Statistically, he should have been nominated already.

How exactly does Billups have an argument over Pierce? How exactly does Billups even enter the discussion for a possible top 40 spot? He's a very efficient scorer...but he doesn't score on high volume (generally around 16-18 ppg), his rebounding is nothing special, and he's not a great playmaker. His reputation as a clutch player is also kind of overrated. He's also an overrated defender, simply because he played for dominant defensive teams. He doesn't approach the leaders in either one of the multi-year RAPM studies, and his defensive impact for both of those studies measures out as a negative.

[penbeast0]

...Walton was very arguably the BEST player in the NBA for those few years, with quite possibly GOAT level impact. Beautiful basketball. Taking an average team and making a historic champion out of them.

When he was healthy.

Walton was also very arguably the most brittle player in NBA history over the course of his career. And, even if I give Walton a few more games and a couple of more completed seasons due to the medicine discussion, he still wasn't healthy very often. That's understood.

However.

If I were a GM...and someone came to me with this offer:

"I'll give you the best player in the NBA, one of the best in history, and if you surround him with just reasonable talent there's an excellent chance that you have the best team in the NBA. But there's a catch. You only get this player for 6 years, and there's only a 50/50 shot that he'll make it through any given season healthy enough for that title run. After that, you can have him for another 5 years as a super 6th man, still only a 50/50 shot that he gets through the year healthy."

or

"I'll give you another player that is consistently somewhere between the 8th and 15th best player in the league, that will be reasonably healthy almost every year, and you can have him for the next dozen years."

It'd feel like a deal with the devil, but I think I just might take player A. Given a reasonable cast, that gives me at least a couple of legit shots at a championship over a decade. It also guarantees me several years of heartache, but I have a legit shot to WIN. With player B, unless I somehow get another chance at that super-elite player to put him next to, my yearly goal is glass-ceilinged at playoffs. That's safe. Secure. I probably keep my job. I'm the 80s Milwaukee Bucks, the 90s Pacers, the 2000s Nuggets.

But man. I'd rather take that shot at the moon. I'd rather a decade of highs and lows where I look back and can hang my hat on those 1 or 2 magical title runs (surrounded by years of frustration) than 9 straight 50-win seasons that were always over sometime in May and that, really, no one will remember.

*Caveat, I know players don't win titles, teams do. I'm giving the example of the same team, average-to-above average support, and what they could do when given a best player that was either the best in the league (when healthy) or "just" a consistent All Star. Considering that the vast majority of teams can only hope for that level of support from players 2-through-15, I think this situation is fairly scalable to most situations. And given that, even a cracked Walton-type probably gives me a better shot at winning a ring in a given decade than a consistently healthy Reggie Miller. Or at least, that's how I'm feeling right now. Still plenty of time for that to change...

But that's not the offer. The offer is 8 years with ONE YEAR MAKING IT TO THE PLAYOFFS plus 1 year as a reserve for someone else after you have suffered through the 8 as Walton showed zero loyalty to the Clippers who had payed him all-star money to sit and home and smoke pot during the playoffs for 4 years just as he showed no loyalty to Portland when his first contract ran out. Walton is great when he played but he didn't play several years or half the time or anything. He played through the season as a starter ONCE. If he had several years, even 3 or 4 fully healthy with only the one ring plus the ring as a reserve I could see him getting nominated here but he didn't. He had one great year and screwed you up for 7 straight . . . and there's no guarantee that you catch lightning in a bottle that one year like Portland did.

That's just not enough for a top 50 player.

[Fencer reregistered]

Nominate: Pierce

I think a lot of the reluctance to nominate him stems from preconceptions. Statistically, he should have been nominated already.

To the eye test, I'd say Pierce made a huge difference to his team, with very different sets of teammates. Hopefully the stats back that up. He had teammates good enough to win a championship with. He had teammates good enough to make some playoff noise with. He had pathetic teammates. In every case, he seemed like a huge difference maker.

What's more, it's hard to think of a configuration of players you could add Pierce to where that would NOT be true, at least on any actual team in league history. Ball-dominant scoring? Sure. Off-the-ball scoring? Sure. Defense? Sure? Crash the boards? Not Bayloresque -- but even so, sure.

It could be argued the same is true of TMac (but with much lower scoring efficiency and less longevity). The same could be argued of a couple of bigs we haven't nominated yet (Cowens, perhaps McHale). But on the whole, Pierce has been an outstanding, versatile, long-lived, championship-winning player, and there aren't many of those left un-nominated.

And yes, Laimbeer -- when you're ready to make the case for Dumars, I'm likely to be convinced. But Pierce is well ahead of him in scoring and longevity alike.

[ThaRegul8r]

But that's not the offer. The offer is 8 years with ONE YEAR MAKING IT TO THE PLAYOFFS plus 1 year as a reserve for someone else after you have suffered through the 8 as Walton showed zero loyalty to the Clippers who had payed him all-star money to sit and home and smoke pot during the playoffs for 4 years just as he showed no loyalty to Portland when his first contract ran out. Walton is great when he played but he didn't play several years or half the time or anything. He played through the season as a starter ONCE. If he had several years, even 3 or 4 fully healthy with only the one ring plus the ring as a reserve I could see him getting nominated here but he didn't. He had one great year and screwed you up for 7 straight . . . and there's no guarantee that you catch lightning in a bottle that one year like Portland did.

That's just not enough for a top 50 player.

See, that's exactly my problem with Walton as far as all-time ranking. He simply wasn't healthy long enough.

[penbeast0]

Why Billups? Eye test for me says very good defender and much better at running an offense than the numbers indicate. In Detroit he was the main man on a championship team (as much as Nash was the main man in Phoenix when Marion led the team in scoring, rebounding, and was the best defender besides) and after several years of his Pistons overachieving, he went to Denver and improved that team, possibly even New York (though Denver improved more so that's a very shaky argument). Add to that his great efficiency numbers, his ability to play with off the ball with ball dominant stars as well as run an offense, and his stretch the floor shooting from three and he comes up as interesting.

I would like to hear more about his statistical shortcomings though; I've changed my opinion on several players here because of great posts. And yeah, have no problem changing my nomination, it is written in very light pencil.

[drza]

At PF, McHale didn't rebound as well but has terrific efficiency and very good defense. Hayes does rebound that well but was inefficient and a jerk, and Bobby Jones and Dennis Rodman may be the greatest pair of defensive forwards but Jones, while extremely efficient, didn't score or rebound that much while Rodman had no offense and for 1/2 his career, left his man at times to pad his defensive stats at the team's expense.

Rodman is another guy that is seriously in play with me right now for the nomination. And a lot of that stems from that mega Rodman website that DocMJ linked in the last thread (Here's the link for the part that talks about Rodman's impact on scoring differential in seasons with missed games, similar to what ElGee does with his In/Out measure: http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1143 . From here, if you're curious, you can link to the other components of this guys pro-Rodman argument).

Anyway, cliff notes version of the argument for Rodman:

* He is to rebounds as Stockton is to assists, putting up outlier marks that will likely never be broken.

*Rodman is also a multiple Defensive Player of the Year winner, one of the best defenders in history

*Regardless of his head-casedness and/or the thought that he may have stat-padded rebounds, his impact proof is in the pudding. He consistently shows up as having a huge positive effect on his team when on the court that is missing when he's gone, which is how he ended up #1 on that guys' in/out list of eligible players who have missed sufficient games in a year since 1986.

*Based on the huge and overlooked impact that this guy claims to measure, it is therefore no coincidence that Rodman's teams won 5 titles. Essentially, this guy makes the "Rodman is a mini Russell" argument that I was hoping someone would give me for Isiah last thread.

All in all, he makes a pretty convincing case. At least enough that Rodman's currently on my nomination radar.

[drza]

But that's not the offer. The offer is 8 years with ONE YEAR MAKING IT TO THE PLAYOFFS plus 1 year as a reserve for someone else after you have suffered through the 8 as Walton showed zero loyalty to the Clippers who had payed him all-star money to sit and home and smoke pot during the playoffs for 4 years just as he showed no loyalty to Portland when his first contract ran out. Walton is great when he played but he didn't play several years or half the time or anything. He played through the season as a starter ONCE. If he had several years, even 3 or 4 fully healthy with only the one ring plus the ring as a reserve I could see him getting nominated here but he didn't. He had one great year and screwed you up for 7 straight . . . and there's no guarantee that you catch lightning in a bottle that one year like Portland did.

That's just not enough for a top 50 player.

See, that's exactly my problem with Walton as far as all-time ranking. He simply wasn't healthy long enough.

I'm not sure if you read the last thread or not, but Pen and I had a fairly in depth exchange about this very issue. And this was my point:

*The OP specifically tells us that we are supposed to consider how era affected a player's output

*I've specifically seen folks in this project make the case that Russell's impact was artificially increased because of the lack of offensive sophistication and possibly athleticism of 50 years ago compared to today.

*I've specifically seen the argument made that Cowens' MVP is weaker because the leagues were watered down and/or the racial circumstances of the times.

*EVERYONE tries to pace and/or team normalize the various box score stats produced in different eras to make comparisons on a level playing field.

*So if that's what we're doing in this project, normalizing as best we can across eras, then I should be able to make the case that with modern medicine Walton would have been able to play a few more games, finish a few more seasons. I'm not arguing that he'd suddenly be an iron man, but I think it very realistic that he makes it through another few seasons with the availability to play in the postseason.

As I said, Penbeast and I already had a discussion about this and dug our feet into our position. I don't know that I'm going to necessarily nominate Walton now, but if I do, I definitely am going to be giving him a bit of a medical benefit of the doubt. Within the parameters of this project as laid out, I think that's a perfectly valid thing to do. Of course, no one else has to do it. This is just my logic, and I've spelled it out as best I can.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote Havlicek
Nominate Pierce

Rick Barry is basically the draftee sitting in the green room forever at this point... I believe he was the 24th or 25th nominee

Still, I like Havlicek over him after mowing it over. Both guys are shooters, passers - the question is whether Barry really does that much more offensively than Havlicek or whether he just SHOOTS more. I'm leaning towards the latter, giving the edge to Havlicek for the defense and attitude he brings

Have nominated Pierce last 3-4 threads. Really like his all around game

[Dr Positivity]

If I were a GM...and someone came to me with this offer:

"I'll give you the best player in the NBA, one of the best in history, and if you surround him with just reasonable talent there's an excellent chance that you have the best team in the NBA. But there's a catch. You only get this player for 6 years, and there's only a 50/50 shot that he'll make it through any given season healthy enough for that title run. After that, you can have him for another 5 years as a super 6th man, still only a 50/50 shot that he gets through the year healthy."

But that's not Walton. You don't get a 50/50 chance of elite Walton after 77. You get a 0% chance of it.

The choice is ONE year to win the title with Walton or 11 years to win it with Pierce, or 6 with McGrady or whatever. I think there's an argument that Walton's 1 year gives you a better chance to win a title than some other top 60 players, but I'm not ready to make that leap with him here yet.

Can someone confirm whether Walton would've been around for the playoffs in 76 if they made it? Though considering how hard it is to make the playoffs with your star playing 51 Gs, and Walton was pre prime anyways, I suppose it's not a big difference

[ronnymac2]

Still, I like Havlicek over him after mowing it over. Both guys are shooters, passers - the question is whether Barry really does that much more offensively than Havlicek or whether he just SHOOTS more. I'm leaning towards the latter, giving the edge to Havlicek for the defense and attitude he brings

Why do you think Barry shooting more is the only difference?

Even if it is the only difference, how is that not a major advantage for Barry considering the results he got in terms of both team offensive rating and winning as the undisputed offensive anchor?

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Rick Barry

Nominate: Bob McAdoo

McAdoo for now...

[lorak]

Where do you all have Iverson? And how he looks in comparison with McAdoo?

vote: Barry

[lorak]

he went to Denver and improved that team,

Nuggets 2008 +3.74 SRS
Nuggets 2009 +3.13 SRS

In details: 2009 Nueggets were worse offensively (+2.1 ortg) than 2008 (+2.5). They however improved on defense (-1.5 drtg vs -1.2 in 2008), but it's very doubtful that Billups was responsible for improvement on defensive end. It's rather Andersen's effect who replace undersized Najera under the basket.

[Fencer reregistered]

Vote Havlicek
Nominate Pierce

Rick Barry is basically the draftee sitting in the green room forever at this point... I believe he was the 24th or 25th nominee

Still, I like Havlicek over him after mowing it over. Both guys are shooters, passers - the question is whether Barry really does that much more offensively than Havlicek or whether he just SHOOTS more. I'm leaning towards the latter, giving the edge to Havlicek for the defense and attitude he brings

Have nominated Pierce last 3-4 threads. Really like his all around game

Put me down for

Vote Havlicek
Nominate Pierce

again too.

I go for longevity over peak, all-around contribution to winning over offense, and good intangibles over bad, so Havlicek over Barry is pretty straightforward for me.

As for Pierce -- these threads have convinced me that the guy is chronically under-appreciated, in a big way. The wings of whom one could say they were comparable to Pierce at both ends of the floor AND have some other advantages over him have been nominated long ago, except for the ones with significant longevity deficiencies or the like.

Heck, there are people actually voting for Barry on the list, and he wasn't the two-way player Pierce is.

True, Pierce isn't quite the athlete/playmaker some of the other wings are (I suspect that goes together -- he has more strength than they do, LBJ excepted, but is a little stiffer). But if he were, and also had his shooting, footwork, defense, longevity, etc., he'd be a legitimate candidate to have gone on the list at least at the Baylor/Pippen level, and perhaps higher.

[lorak]

1) Adrian Dantley, Ricky Davis and Mark Blount were among the most negative impacts in both measures.

In Dantley's case numbers are skewed, because data is from 3 AD's seasons including two of his last 3 in the NBA.
And of course in most of these games he was replaced by Rodman, so it also affected the results.