RealGM Top 100 List #43

[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 (Monday 9/12) at 10PM EST

Please vote and nominate

Newest addition:

Kevin Johnson

4x2nd Team All-NBA
1x3rd Team All-NBA
NBA Most Improved Player 1989
3xAll-Star

Sidney Moncrief

1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x Defensive Player of the Year
4x All-Defense 1st Team
1x All-Defense 2nd TEam
5x All-Star

Alonzo Mourning

NBA Championship 2006
1x All-NBA 1st Team
1x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x Defensive Player of the Year
2x All-Defense 1st Team
7x All-Star


Bob Cousy

Hall of Fame 1971
MVP 1957
10x All-NBA 1st Team
2x All-NBA 2nd Team
6x NBA Champion
13x All-Star

Chris Paul

1x1st Team All-NBA
1x2nd Team All-NBA
1x3rd Team All-NBA
1x1st Team All-Defense
2x2nd Team All-Defense
Rookie of the Year 2006
5xAll-Star

Willis Reed

2x NBA Champion
Hall of Fame 1982
MVP (1970)
1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-Def 1st Team
7x All-Star
Rookie of the Year (1965)

Allen Iverson

MVP (2001)
3x All-NBA 1st Team
3x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-NBA 3rd Team
11x All-Star
Rookie of the Year (1996)

Dave Cowens

Hall of Fame 1991
2x NBA Champion
MVP 1973
3x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-Def 1st Team
2x All-Def 2nd Team
Rookie of the Year 1971
7x All-Star


Elvin Hayes

Hall of Fame (1990)
NBA Champion (1978)
3× All-NBA First Team Selection
3× All-NBA Second Team Selection
2x All-Defense Second Team Selections
12× All-Star

[penbeast0]

Voting Candidates
We have three PGs on the board. Chris Paul has only played 5 years in the NBA and only 2 really peak years but those two were as impressive as any small guard who has ever played in the NBA. Kevin Johnson had great numbers and played on some very good Phoenix teams although he never won a title but he has less accolades than Paul. Bob Cousy, on the other hand, has 6 rings, 10 1st team All-NBA awards, an MVP, and was the games first great playmaker (Bob Davies possibly excepted). The trouble is that Cousy's own coach dismissed his defense as poor and his shooting crashed in the playoffs during the championship years so you are basically putting him in as an assist machine which he was for his era. Paul has better peak numbers than KJ but when you look at how elite the teams are, KJ's Phoenix teams were far more likely to be elite, even before Barkley joined them so I lean to KJ over Paul.

Allen Iverson and Sidney Moncrief couldn't be more different for two guys who play the same position. Iverson the super high volume, long running but inefficient, undersized, bad practice, streetball superstar with huge press; Moncrief the good volume, superefficient, the greatest man defender in NBA history with excellent ballhandling and rebounding as well but one who played only 5 peak years before his body collapsed and those were in a small market with good, not great support during the years of the Showtime Lakers, Bird Celtics, and Moses/Dr.J Sixers so they never broke through to a title.

Then you have the bigs. Cowens and Reed were early 70s stars with reasonably short careers and not great stats but who were recognized as MVP's for their leadership and hard nosed play. Alonzo Mourning is similar but without the championships. Elvin Hayes is stronger statistically than any of them and also a 70s champion although known as a whiner more than a leader. The question is whether the intangibles for Cowens, Reed, and Zo outweight the longevity and bigger numbers of Elvin Hayes since only Zo really has any sort of efficiency edge on the Big E. I lean to Hayes of these 4 bigs.

Vote: So, short peak, it's Moncrief over KJ; long peak it's Hayes but like most voters I'm not completely sold on the Big E. Moncrief's team was good offensively (2 top 6 years in his 5 year prime) and elite defensively (4 times out of 5 in top 2 defensively) despite rotating big men soI will tentatively vote for Sidney Moncrief, he was just that terrific for his short 5 year stretch.

[penbeast0]

For the nomination:

PG -- I favor the surprisingly efficient Chauncey Billups, over hatchet faced Lenny Wilkens from the 60s or the purely offensive Nate Archibald or Pete Maravich from the 70s.

Wings -- On the wings, there are still great scorers left . . . I like Alex English's consistency and Ray Allen's 3 point shooting over the more spectacular but less consistent Bernard King, Mark Aquirre, or David Thompson, or the statistically most efficient Adrian Dantley. Paul Arizin, Sam Jones, and Hal Greer also should come into play reasonably soon and I am interested in how they match up to the likes of English or Allen but for now I lean English.

Big Men -- At PF, 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. On the offensive end, Amare Stoudamire and Chris Webber just have too many issues to rank above Jones or Rodman. Actually comparing these guys to the other big men left, I would have to suck it up and go with Rodman despite my dislike for what he did in San Antonio. He's a punk but his rebounding is GOAT level and his post defense excellent (earlier in his career he defender out on the floor well too but he gave up doing that to pad his rebounding totals, another reason I don't like him . . . but it's hard to argue with his level of success).

The centers left all have some issue with their games. Neil Johnston and Mel Daniels played against inferior competition during their primes and were more limited besides. 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 are lesser scoring Wes Unseld and Dikembe Mutombo who were consistent players for years; Unseld brings GOAT picks and outlet passing, Deke great shotblocking. Finally, Bill Walton had one great year (not that much better than Wes Unseld's MVP 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 most of the above named players. I can't see taking any of them ahead of Rodman, moron that he was; just had too much success and was too unique a rebounder.

English v. Rodman is the classic good v. bad as English was a perpetual good citizenship nominee but I think rebounding and interior defense win more championships than versatile and efficient wing scoring.

Nominate The Worm.

[ronnymac2]

http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/news/Graham_Bensinger_InDepth/26623703#news/Graham_Bensinger_InDepth/26623703

Awesome interview with Dennis Rodman. Watch all of the videos to get some real perspective on The Worm- or get more confused about him than ever.

[Fencer reregistered]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=1980

By the stats, they look pretty close. I'd give the edge to Cowens per game; per 36 minutes I'm not so sure.

Some notes on that page:

* I left out Cowens' Milwaukee season. That neatly gives them 10 seasons each.
* Both guys straddle the breakpoint for offensive and defensive rebounds being tabulated separately.
* Their careers didn't exactly span the same decade. I suspect that worked out to Cowens' benefit.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=1978 includes Unseld, too -- all 13 seasons in his case. Except for volume scoring, his numbers look pretty comparable too.

Now add in Rodman's 14 seasons, and we still have pretty comparable numbers:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y4=2000

I makes those vague judgments on the assumption that offensive rebounding, steals, and TOs are all really important because they amount to extra possessions.

If we assume that Rodman and Unseld were the best of the two away from the stat sheet, due to defense, probably we should be nominating them soonish.

Add in Zo's 10 pre-kidney seasons, and he's looking very competitive with those guys too:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y5=2002

That's not counting his superiority in blocks, which are illustrative of a very strong defensive contribution for him too.

Yikes. Sorting out the big men will not be easy.

OK. Nominate Rodman. Wait for discussion before casting an actual vote.

[therealbig3]

Vote: Chris Paul

Best peak out of the nominees.

Nominate: Ray Allen

I don't buy Rodman over Allen. As people have said, the gap between Allen and Miller is small, and if that's true, I don't see how Allen ends up being ranked under Rodman, because I have Miller clearly ahead of Rodman.

Allen is a slightly poorer Reggie Miller in terms of scoring, and he's the more proven on-ball facilitator and defender imo. He's got that same effect of "putting pressure on a defense" that Miller did.

[ElGee]

vote: Chris Paul
nominate: Bob Lanier

Going to switch to Allen if Lanier has no traction...however why is no one talking about Lanier? Just using a cursory glance (and I encourage analysis deeper than this, obviously, but how do you now start w Lanier...):

Win Shares
Lanier 117
Rodman 90
Cowens 86
Reed 75

MVP Shares
Cowens 1.33
Reed 1.07
Lanier 0.50
Rodman 0.04

Pace Adjusted Stats (per 75)
Lanier 22/10/3 +7%
Cowens 16/14/3 +0%
Reed 18/12/2 +4%
Rodman 10/18/2/ +4%

And Lanier did it a year or two longer than Reed and Cowens.

[therealbig3]

vote: Chris Paul
nominate: Bob Lanier

Going to switch to Allen if Lanier has no traction...however why is no one talking about Lanier? Just using a cursory glance (and I encourage analysis deeper than this, obviously, but how do you now start w Lanier...):

Win Shares
Lanier 117
Rodman 90
Cowens 86
Reed 75

MVP Shares
Cowens 1.33
Reed 1.07
Lanier 0.50
Rodman 0.04

Pace Adjusted Stats (per 75)
Lanier 22/10/3 +7%
Cowens 16/14/3 +0%
Reed 18/12/2 +4%
Rodman 10/18/2/ +4%

And Lanier did it a year or two longer than Reed and Cowens.

Well, in a previous post you made about Lanier, you basically concluded that he was not a negative on defense, and he was a very good offensive player. So basically, Lanier's impact comes on the offensive side of the ball, and it's hard for me to say a big man's offense is more impactful than a good perimeter player's, like a Ray Allen.

[lorak]

Vote: Chris Paul

Best peak out of the nominees.

I'm confused. In last thread you voted Miller because of longevity. Now longevity doesn't matter, but peak... (and BTW "Best peak out of the nominees." was also true in last thread, so CP should be voted over Miller in previous thread)

[therealbig3]

BTW, here's what Allen does against elite defenses in the playoffs:

In the 01 playoffs, through 18 games, the Bucks faced a top 10 defense every round they played; here's Allen's averages through those playoffs:

25.1 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 6.0 apg, .613 TS%

Against the Spurs in 05:

21.5 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 2.8 apg, .534 TS%

His numbers in this series were skewed down because of only playing 13 minutes in game 1.

Against Detroit in 08:

17.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.0 apg, .585 TS%

Against LA in 08:

20.3 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 2.5 apg, .708 TS%

Against Orlando in 09:

13.1 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 3.1 apg, .452 TS% (tough series)

In 2010, the Celtics faced a top 10 defense every round. Allen's numbers that year in the playoffs (24 games):

16.1 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 2.6 apg, .570 TS%

Against Miami in 2011:

16.4 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.6 apg, .661 TS%


Overall career numbers against top 10 defenses in the playoffs (72 games):

19.0 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, .586 TS%

Keep in mind that most of the playoff games he's played against elite defenses has come as a Celtic, when he's no longer THE main guy on offense...earlier in his career, he showed he could still light up great defenses as the main focal point.

Regardless, you can see that Allen's averages stay pretty consistent with his overall career playoff averages against elite playoff defenses. Not saying it's like Reggie Miller's playoff trend, but it's pretty impressive regardless imo.

[therealbig3]

Vote: Chris Paul

Best peak out of the nominees.

I'm confused. In last thread you voted Miller because of longevity. Now longevity doesn't matter, but peak... (and BTW "Best peak out of the nominees." was also true in last thread, so CP should be voted over Miller in previous thread)

Well Paul and Miller are pretty much toss-ups for me...but I voted Miller because I thought his longevity was just too much to ignore. And it's not like he didn't have a peak that matched up with the other nominees, Chris Paul not included.

With Miller voted in, there's nobody left who really has a meaningful longevity advantage on Paul (other than Hayes, who I think was nominated too early), and he clearly has the best peak.

From the beginning, I've been partial towards the slightly lesser players with the considerably better longevity.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Chris Paul

Nominate: Bob McAdoo


I could see Paul over Reed and Cowens and Iverson. I'll tentatively go with that for now.

McAdoo deserves to be in.

[lukekarts]

It's still a crime Willis Reed isn't in there yet; and a guy like Reggie Miller is. Yeah Reggie had a great long career; but I can't fathom why anyone would want a good player who can't lead a team to titles for 15 years, over a great player who despite only being great for a handful of seasons, was capable of winning titles.

Vote: Willis Reed

Nominate: Dennis Rodman, for being arguably the greatest complimentary player of all time.

[penbeast0]

Vote: Chris Paul

Best peak out of the nominees.

Nominate: Ray Allen

I don't buy Rodman over Allen. As people have said, the gap between Allen and Miller is small, and if that's true, I don't see how Allen ends up being ranked under Rodman, because I have Miller clearly ahead of Rodman.

Allen is a slightly poorer Reggie Miller in terms of scoring, and he's the more proven on-ball facilitator and defender imo. He's got that same effect of "putting pressure on a defense" that Miller did.

OF course so did Alex English only he was a better scorer and defender than Ray Allen and nearly as efficient, although he didn't have the 3 point shot. How is Allen better than English at those things you were talking about other than 3 point shooting?

Oh, and if you count defense, Moncrief has a higher peak than Chris Paul (of course I've argued this one out ad nauseum so wont go on)

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Bob Cousy (8x champion, 1x league mvp)
Nominate: Anfernee Hardaway

[Fencer reregistered]

One more thing on the bigs:

Reed had Frazier, who we long ago voted in (probably a bit high).
Cowens had Havlicek, who's in.
Unseld had Hayes, who has been nominated long before him.
Zo, who didn't get all that close to a championship in his time, also didn't have a teammate of that quality.

That said, my vote is Bob Cousy. Sure, Chris Paul is objectively a better player. But Cousy's individual accomplishments -- as opposed to ring count -- on and off the court, are far greater than Paul's.

And regarding the "Cousy's coach said he was a poor defender" narrative, is that a real assessment in his prime or later, or is it just shooting-from-the-hip/motivational/casual/overstated/whatever?

[Fencer reregistered]

To quote a prior argument that Cousy's impact on the course of the game was so massive it should be viewed as more than just a tiebreaker.

1. He was The One Most Visible Star of the game pre-shot-clock -- i.e., a Bird/Magic/Jordan role in popularizing the game.

2. Not all evolutions and improvements of the game have individual guys clearly associated with them as pathbreakers who showed the way. Thus, VERY few other players influenced others as much as Cousy did.

3. For good or ill, Cousy founded and was the driving force behind the player's union. Even if you agree with me that that's not important for our purposes here, it's a plausibility argument that he was the sort of person of whom it could be said ...

4. ... he was the most instrumental white player in helping African-Americans be comfortable (enough to get by) in the league, by a wide margin.

To remind you of my analysis on the last one, the Celtics were a huge part of showing that you needed African-Americans to win; that part is well-documented. Beyond that, when one's enough of a Celtics fan to listen to nuances of team history from the old days, it becomes clear that among white players, Cousy was the great leader in that regard. I'm not saying the others were racists (Tommy Heinsohn might have been a bit, but he was such a nice guy that I would be shocked if it were ever serious or nasty). Rather, I'm saying the one who directly reached out to support his teammates through the racial rough spots was Cousy. There are stories telling of that; also, that was his personality (e.g. because he was a labor-leader kind of guy, and also because he was a PG/quarterback type).

[ElGee]

It's still a crime Willis Reed isn't in there yet; and a guy like Reggie Miller is. Yeah Reggie had a great long career; but I can't fathom why anyone would want a good player who can't lead a team to titles for 15 years, over a great player who despite only being great for a handful of seasons, was capable of winning titles.

Vote: Willis Reed

Nominate: Dennis Rodman, for being arguably the greatest complimentary player of all time.

Is it a crime about 30 players have been voted over Bill Walton even thought they couldn't lead a team to a title as well as him at their peak?

Titles are team accomplishments -- no one single player is responsible and it's dependent on team, so obviously you can help a team win a title less than peak Walton and still win...It's probability -- in a 10 year period, having a guy help you win a title slightly gives you a better overall chance to win a title than one great season. I think you intuitively believe that or else this post would be about Walton, not Reed.

[colts18]

Kevin Johnson's impact in his prime 89-97.

89:
Suns: +5.3 Ortg above LA, 2nd, 55 wins
Johnson: 20-12, .597 TS%

90:
Suns: +5.0 Ortg, 3rd, 54 wins
Johnson: 23-11, .585 TS%

91:
Suns: +4.7 Ortg, 4th, 55 wins
Johnson: 22-10, .604 TS%

92:
Suns: +3.9 Ortg, 5th, 53 wins
Johnson: 20-11, .561 TS%

93: Add Barkley
Suns: +5.3 Ortg, 1st, 62 wins
Johnson: 16-8, .576 TS%

94:
Suns: +5.4 Ortg, 1st, 56 wins
Johnson: 20-10, .566 TS%

95:
Suns: +6.2 Ortg, 3rd, 59 wins
Johnson: 16-8, .561 TS%

96:
Suns: +2.7 Ortg, 7th, 41 wins
Johnson: 19-9, .617 TS%

97: No Barkley
Suns: +2.6 Ortg, 6th, 40 wins
Johnson: 20-9, .631 TS%

Average: Suns, +4.6 Ortg above League Average, 3.6 average finish in O rtg, 52.8 wins. To put the +4.6 number into perspective, it would be the equivalent of finishing 2nd in the NBA last season in O rating. But Johnson did that for 9 years. Suns finished in the top 5 7 out of 9 years and Top 3 5 out of 9 years.

Johnson did have Barkley for 4 years and it helped, but the average numbers in the non-Barkley years are +4.0 Ortg and 4.3 finish in O rating, 51.4 wins. That is about the equivalent of last year's Thunder and Rockets.

[Dr Positivity]

I just don't see the argument for Paul or Cousy over Kevin Johnson, the guy we just nominated.

Cousy - Is there a single thing KJ isn't better at? Cousy is to KJ as Bob Pettit is to Dirk. Yes - there's some room for 'how good they were for their time'. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to say KJ for his time actually had as much impact as Cousy in his looking at the subaverage shooting %s, bad Celtics ORTGs compared to elite DRTGs, and impact when he left. Just as Dirk in his time's impact matched Pettit in his. What's left then is the fact that KJ and Dirk are CLEARLY the better basketball players than their counterparts. If you look at what they can do on a court, it's not even a question because they're doing a lot of the same things, but are better at it.

Paul - Paul's argument rests on 08 and 09's value where he's the 21-22ppg, 11-12apg .60 TS% player. Just how much better is Paul's 08 and 09 than KJ's 90 and 91? KJ put up 22ppg, 10-11apg, .59-.60 TS% and led both a better offense and better overall team than Paul's. Both were really good in the PS the first year and sucked in a short run in the second. Forget PER because if you believe in Paul's superiority there on it alone based on pace adjustment, you might also believe Paul is better than Magic and prime Billups is better than Nash and Stockton. Paul is the better player in those seasons - He turned it over slightly less, rebounded a bit more, and had big steal numbers. But if you think they're even remotely close those seasons, then you can't take Paul over KJ on the ATL. Because the rest of KJ's career blows Paul's out of the water. You get 3 more 20/10 years (89, 92, 94) and then has injury plagued RS years but is all-star caliber in the PS in 93, 95, 96 (he was horrible in the 97 PS). Paul has two pre prime years and the 2011 season. Non 90/91 KJ vs non 08/09 Paul is a blowout. You have to really think Paul's 22/11 was *that* much better than KJ's to take Paul here. I just think they're too close in regular stats and KJ's ORTG and team results look so good that I can't say Paul is anything but a little better than KJ those years. Preferring the massive PER/WS gap is relying on pace factor in PER, which we know has a really shoddy history with PGs because fast paced PGs should not have their value lowered for it but do (ie Magic, Nash, Stockton vs Billups, Paul)