RealGM Top 100 List #35

[penbeast0]

I favor:

a. Artis Gilmore over other bigs left. Maybe McHale but I have questions about his rebounding.

b. George Gervin seems the most impactful wing left, but I like my stars to put in effort on defense. I love Alex English too, but Gervin seemed to draw more attention and have a greater impact. He seemed to have a greater impact than McHale too (leading teams with little support, etc, length of career, etc.) though normally I go for the two-way star first.

c. Gary Payton over other PGs left. More efficient scorer, competent though less assist prone playmaker, better defender than Isiah. Better defense AND better individual offense than Kidd plus better team results (with better talent around him though). Kidd's playmaking in the half court just never seemed enough to make up this gap when he couldn't shoot; when he could shoot from 3, his defensive impact had dropped. Kidd's end of career is a lot better than Payton's, but Payton's peak is higher.

So, Gilmore, Gervin, or Payton. Peak impact, it's Gilmore, longevity it's Gervin, I could go for any of the 3 right now and am open to argument but for now, I will go with:

Vote Gary Payton

[Texas Chuck]

Would love for penbeast or Q to make a post explaining why Gilmore is their favorite of the remaining bigs. I have still a fairly large number of bigs ahead of him which makes me think I' might be missing something. I know one area of concern I have is when the talent was diluted he was dominant but post-merger he was merely very good. I'm also not convinced he's better defensively than Deke, Thurmond, Zo, or Howard. I'd like to hear more about his offense. Obviously I know he shot a ridiculous FG%, but would love some insight on that end as well.

Deke and Glove are the direction Im leaning, but Durant is starting to get interesting. And if Durant is getting attention than I think Dave Cowens should as well. Longevity is a concern, but he has one of the best peaks and primes left. We are talking about a regular MVP candidate and a great 2-way player.

[Clyde Frazier]

I'd like to hear more about his offense. Obviously I know he shot a ridiculous FG%, but would love some insight on that end as well.

Just a quick comment on Gilmore offensively which impressed me a lot. He used his size very well to create space, but it was more about agility than just sheer power. Far more athletic than you'd expect from someone his size as a finisher. As athletic as dwight is, he doesn't have the touch around the rim that gilmore had. He could go up in one fluid motion, absorb contact, and finish off balance without being right at the rim. Dwight had a good series statistically against POR last season, but he was still limited as far as what he was able to do offensively. That bothers me when evaluating him.

[Clyde Frazier]

Also, The way gilmore finished at times reminded me of a center version of Dr. J. I won't deny the afro and ABA ball could be contributing a little bit to that, though…

[john248]

My official vote is for Reggie Miller. He doesn't have an awesome peak. He's as 1-dimensional as it gets being a off-ball shooter, however he was so effective in that single dimension which helped the team. Defense is mediocre though at least understood rotations and put in effort. The argument for him is mainly how consistent he was over the course of his long career scoring between 18-20 ppg at high percentages. Much has already been said on the PC board about Miller's ability to rise in the postseason with some quotes below. Very competitive and a high IQ player.

Due to his off-ball ability, he can play in any offense. Being able to work off screens and run across the court puts a ton of pressure on the defense, and Miller was the best at doing so. While he had comparatively low scoring volume in comparison to other legit 1st options in the RS, Miller did score more in the post season when needed. He was also able to maintain his efficiency while doing so against great defenses of the time. His RS season high is 24.6 ppg, but he averaged more than that 4 times in the post season while having other post seasons fairly close. He wasn't doing this in just a series or 2, but rather over the course of his post season career; no serious sample size issue here. And of course, we're talking about a very clutch player with some rather famous moments. He's able to hit those clutch shots because his shooting is at that elite level. So whether that shot comes closing the game, or the shots come over the course of the 4th quarter, elimination game, a series, or a playoff run, the consistency is rather remarkable. And at how high level it is, more so.

The thing is, Reggie can create his own shot, he just needs screens. Per the rules of the sport, EVERY player in the NBA can set screens for him, and he runs off those screens better than maybe anyone ever. So he's simply not using his dribble to create the shot with bouncing the ball (threat of a drive) and a quick pullup move getting the shot-release high-enough over a defender...instead he's using speed/quickness without the ball to create this kind of shooting space by running his defender through an obstacle course of obstructions.

It is my belief, having watched his career fairly closely and having analyzed it quite a bit, that this is why his offensive game was essentially "resistant" to any kind of defense. (And, NB, the Pacers offense as a whole was too by extension -- Miller's spacing and attention HELPED all the other players.) It doesn't matter if you have a great defensive scheme, or great individual defenders, no one can run through screens, and everyone has a hard time adjusting to that MANY screens when the guy running off them is (a) super smart and crafty and (b) a GOAT-level shooter.

Literally, just about the only time I can remember Reggie being defended well in a series is by the 98 Bulls, and there you had Phil Jackson's philosophy of taking away the opponent's 3 coupled with two of the GOAT perimeter defenders.

Miller is also a better defender than Richmond IMO. Position (draws charges), feisty, smart...look at his results against the top SG's of the 90's or how well the Pacers defended them -- people might find this surprising. He was an underrated defender.

Elimination games 91-02: 25.4 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.4 apg, 1.8 TOpg, 62.2% TS

Miller time baby!
http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/02/mil ... n-offense/

Elgee's post is very interesting. shows you that Reggie was anchoring some amazing playoff offenses despite playing vs high level defenses all the time (Pacers played Knicks 35 times in the playoffs!).

Here are some of Reggie's series:

1993 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 31.5/3/3 on 69% TS
1994 vs Shaq/Penny, 29/3/4 on 68% TS
1994 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 25/2/5 on 58% TS
1995 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 23/4/3 on 58% TS
1995 vs Shaq/Penny 26/3/1 on 67% TS
1998 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 25/2/1 on 61% TS
1998 vs Jordan/Pippen, 17/2/2 on 58% TS
2000 vs Sixers, 26/2/3 on 67% TS
2000 vs NYK, 22/2/2 on 56% TS
2000 vs Lakers, 24/3/4 on 59% TS
2001 vs Sixers, 31/3/2.5 on 61% TS
2002 vs Nets, 24/3/3 on 63% TS

Generally, when Pacers lost, it was because of their defense. Meanwhile Reggie's improvement as an individual coincided with Pacers team improvement...and they improved to all-time levels basically. It's not like Reggie's supporting cast was stacked offensively. Smits was solid post presence, and Mark Jackson was a good point guard, but many great players had better supporting cast players (Drexler, Penny, Kemp, Stockton & Hornacek) and couldn't anchor similarly effective playoff offenses.

So was Reggie Miller 2nd best offensive player of the 90s ?

I've quoted ElGee in my vote for Miller since he explains things nicely (as well as the quotes from therealbig3 and bastillon to support the claim. I like that he calls Miller's offense "resistant" to any kind of defense. And the numbers definitely show in elimination games and in series against strong defenses over his playoff career which include several deep runs.From here, I will just share what I got out of his analysis. We know Miller's singular clutch moments. But those moments happen due to Miller's GOAT shooting, off-ball, high BBIQ, and remarkable consistency...pretty much being "resistant" to any kind of defence. That consistency is shown in those singular clutch shots & 4th quarters, and to more plural moments over a series, over an entire playoff run, through his career, and against any defense.I haven't meantioned his clutch moments all that much simply because I see the consistent play in ANY moment. And those moments happen because Miller can recognize when he needs to take a scoring load and understands situations to give his team a chance to win. Doc MJ has talked about the effectiveness of what his off-ball game does.

I realize I'm weighing playoffs heavily here. He is an outlier though. In the RS, the efficiency is staggering and contributed to winning records. In the PS, volume goes up, at a star level, with little to no effect on his percentages.

I like that he calls Miller's offense "resistant" to any kind of defense. And the numbers definitely show in elimination games and in series against strong defenses over his playoff career which include several deep runs.From here, I will just share what I got out of his analysis. We know Miller's singular clutch moments. But those moments happen due to Miller's GOAT shooting, off-ball, high BBIQ, and remarkable consistency...pretty much being "resistant" to any kind of defence.

john,

Would you mind expounding a bit on why you believe his game is "resistant" to any defense? I'm not sure I'm completely following this idea.

Thanks

People often say that in the postseason the defense gets tougher as they're able to lock in on an opponent, yet despite this, Miller continued to perform, and against the best defense of his era.

With Jordan, you are guessing what he’ll do to embarrass you. With Rice or Indiana’s Reggie Miller, you know the flood is coming, there’s just no sure way to hold it back. ‘With Michael, you wait until he gets the ball, then you go to work because you don’t know what he’s going to do,’ said [Steve] Smith. ‘But Reggie or Glen are running, ducking, moving (to get open) so you’ve got to work before they get the ball.’

Specific to the statement of being "resistant" to any defense, prior to the 2000 NBA Finals, Shaquille O'Neal said that “Reggie’s not really the kind of guy you can stop.” This is an NBA player saying this at the time, not an internet poster years after the fact, so it isn't a matter of revisionism. The 2000 Lakers were the best defensive team in the league, first in the league in defensive efficiency (98.2) and opponents’ field-goal percentage (41.6%), and Miller averaged 24.3 points on 58.8 percent true shooting against them in the Finals, 27.8 points on 47.7 percent shooting and 65.5 percent true shooting after an aberrational Game 1. Which, interestingly enough, is the exact opposite of what Ray Allen did in the 2010 NBA Finals against the Lakers (4th in the league in defensive efficiency [103.7], 26th out of 30 teams in opponents' field-goal percentage [44.6%]), in which he had the one hot game, but outside of the aberrational Game 2 shot 31.4 percent, 13.3 percent from behind the arc, averaging 11.7 points on 43.7 percent true shooting, and averaged 14.6 points on 36.7 percent shooting, 29.3 percent shooting from beyond the arc and 50.5 percent true shooting overall.

Others have posted Miller's numbers against the top defenses of his era, which I have, but I'll let somebody who's actually campaigning for him do it if they're so inclined. But I will repost this:

The New York Knicks, under Pat Riley, were easily, the best defensive team of the 90s. TMACFORMVP already ran the numbers:

91-92: Second in opponents points, fifth in opponents FG%
92-93: First in opponents points, first in opponents FG% (Knicks held opponents to .421 FG%, and the next closest team were the Bulls who held their opponents to an average .450 FG%. That's dominance defensively overall ALL their peers)
93-94: First in opponents points, first in opponents FG%
94-95: Second in opponents points, first in opponents FG% (including another 2% lead over 2nd place team)

A way of proving how great the Knicks were on defense is by looking at they defended at worst the second greatest playoff performer of all time, Michael Jordan.

A myth has grown that prime Jordan destroyed the Knicks in the playoffs the way he did Phoenix and other teams. This is inaccurate.

The NY Knicks, under Riley, were the only team during Jordan’s prime that were able to affect his production during the post-season.

MJ’s suffered decreases in most statistical areas against the Knicks in the playoffs during his prime.

MJ’s production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         32.49, 6.54, 6.14, 2.64, 1.03, 2.62, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 36.18, 6.71, 6.04, 2.07, 0.68, 3.07, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 29.91, 5.59, 5.22, 1.81, 1.02, 2.91, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531

MJ’s, per 40 minutes, production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         34.31, 6.90, 6.48, 2.79, 1.09, 2.77, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 35.18, 6.52, 5.87, 2.01, 0.66, 2.98, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 28.23, 5.27, 4.93, 1.71, 0.96, 2.74, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531


The Knicks were also the most successful team against Chicago. Riley led Knicks met the Chicago Bulls (w/Jordan) 13 times in the playoffs. The Bulls went 8-5, vs everyone else they went 22-6 during that span. This is despite having only an average offense. All their success came from their defense.

In 1993, Jordan struggled against the Knicks, 32.2 points on 40 percent shooting and 52.2 percent true shooting. Miller lit the same team up, to the tune of 31.5 points on 53.3 percent shooting from the floor, 52.6 percent shooting from beyond the arc on 4.8 attempts per game, 94.7 percent shooting from the line, 60.0 percent effective shooting and 68.7 percent true shooting. “Miller had a tremendous series,” wrote Clifton Brown of The New York Times (May 7, 1993). As sp6r=underrated said, those Knicks were the only team during Jordan’s prime that were able to affect his production during the post-season, yet Miller continually raised his production against the same team. The same team that was able to limit the production of the consensus GOAT was unable to do the same to Miller, an example of his "resistance" to elite defense. John Starks, who guarded both, said:

NBA Africa: You played against some of the best players in NBA history. Who was the most difficult for you to play against?

Starks: The hardest player to guard was Reggie Miller because he ran a lot. Michael Jordan obviously was the toughest of the tough, but he was easy to guard from a standpoint that he was not going to run off a lot of picks. He was just going to pretty much get the ball, set you up and ask “can you stop me?” You know, those two guys right there were probably the most difficult players for me to defend.

It isn't to be construed that Miller was better, and anyone who takes offense to it in that way is missing the point. Miller's style made him a tougher matchup, and to refer back to the above quoted article, with Miller you knew what was coming, but “there’s just no sure way to hold it back.” This was said at the time, so it isn't a matter of revisionism. (Which is the entire point of paying attention to what's said about players at the time they're actually playing.)

When you are one of the GOAT shooters, you can score from all over the court. Covering the 3-point line is roughly 75-feet of territory. Covering the rim is only a few feet of territory. It's not a weakness in the Knicks defense, but a strength in Miller.

TheRegul8r with a great response. Thanks for sharing part of your catalog of historical quotes.

Anyone would like to explain to me why Reggie should be ranked over Gervin? Other than longevity, I don't really see any good arguments for Miller. Well, playoff success, too, but Iceman was a very good playoff performer, I wouldn't say Reggie was really better than him in this regard. More decorated? Yes. Better player who helps you win more games? Not really. Reggie was more efficient, but his scoring volume, shot creation abilities and usage% doesn't even compare to Gervin's.

Miller is far more portable. I'd value Gervin's on-ball scoring more if he were better at making his teammates better since he had the ball in his hands more. As it is since his usage was high and on-ball, I don't see much value in his ability to create for teammates which would've been what separated the 2. Also, they're just creating their shots differently. It's not like Miller was a spot up shooter; he was awesome off-ball running screens to create a shot for himself. Those clutch moments we all have watched don't happen if Miller wasn't able to do that. Miller has the efficiency advantage as you've said; part of that is also being able to draw fouls better. Gervin's lack of longevity was he refused to come off the bench at the end of his career like Havlicek. Meanwhile, Miller's game aged far more gracefully. At age 34 near the end of his prime, he was a part of a team that went to the Finals...whereas Gervin was retired by 33. No real point in talking about their defense. Tough for me to side with Gervin any way you slice it. The volume isn't much of a argument to me considering Gervin wasn't on any deep teams with the Spurs. Hell, the Midwest division was especially weak. Just how much does that volume start coming into play on deeper teams? Or better yet, let me quote this:

2-When you look at Gervin's volume, and relative efficiency advantage (+4.3 over lg avg TS%)

...

The only way anyone can make a case for Gervin would rely upon the fact he carried a weak team offensively and his numbers didn't reflect his true offensive ability as a result of the load. The problem with this is that he'd have to be so much more efficient with a better cast to make up for his relative weaknesses that it's just not possible. He'd need to make up maybe a 4 pt Drexler difference with even more efficiency and his current extra 5% of USG alone. He'd need to be more relatively efficient than Jordan (+5.4 TS). He'd need to be almost as efficient as Reggie Miller (off the charts +9.3) at ridiculously high usage. Nope.

I have some sympathy for Gervin's lack of support, but by late 70s/early 80s standards of haves and have nots, it wasn't awful. The Spurs played in some really awful divisions. Total number of +1 SRS division rivals in Gervin's first 7 years in the league: 4. Cutting the list further, the total number of +2 SRS division opponents in those 7 years: 1. The Spurs were a 50ish win team often playing a soft schedule with one superstar and a limited group of good players (Silas, Kenon, Gilmore for a bit, some others), but not a ton of help. Roll him out there with that kind of support in the WC during Drexler's time at the same age, and he'd miss the postseason more often than he made it and would never have gotten out of the first round. Put him on a team with better help, and I'm not sure that he could do the other things to make up for the loss of volume. His skill curve was such that I don't think he'd become much more efficient with fewer shots either. He wasn't a catch and shoot guy. Didn't matter if he took 20 shots a night or 30, he created them and was efficient hitting high degree of difficulty shots and easy ones alike.

Great player despite his deficincies all things considered, and one of the most fun to watch ever, but no way was he as good as Drexler

Stats per/100 ... Seasons past 1st round in prime.
94 30.7/4.1/4.8, 63.6% TS, 123 ORTG, .212 ws/48
playoffs 35.2/3.5/4.6, 58.1% TS, 120 ORTG, .236 ws/48

95 31.8/4.2/4.8, 62.5% TS, 123 ORTG, .204 ws/48
playoffs 37.3/5.2/3.1, 63.2% TS, 125 ORTG, .197 ws48

98 30.8/4.5/3.3, 61.9% TS, 121 ORTG, .206 ws/48
playoffs 28.6/2.5/2.9, 58.8% TS, 116 ORTG, .151 ws/48

99 28.6/4.2/3.5, 59% TS, 119 ORTG, .172 ws/48
playoffs 30.3/4.4/5.9, 55.5% TS, 117 ORTG, .188 ws/48

00 25.4/4.1/3.2, 60.3 %TS, 118 ORTG, .162 ws/48
playoffs 31.9/3.2/3.6, 59.6% TS, 122 ORTG, .195 ws/48

[RSCD3_]

I'll be once again voting for Kevin Durant

Spoiler:

Second highest peak on the board

3 time MVP runner up

MVP over prime LeBron

Led his team to the finals in only his 5th year by beating the only 3 WCF champions since 1999 going 12-4

Great scoring finals 30+ ppg on 55 % shooting, he was one dimensional but that one dimension is just so good as that was against a top Miami defense

Elite scorer more valuable in that department than anyone left on this list ( English, Baylor or Gervin )

Underrated man defender because of length and long space eating strides

GOAT Level month of January - probably a top 8 month of all time ( RS )

Played 7 years but 5.5 seasons of high impact and 4 near MVP or MVP level seasons

Arguably highest peak left, and the only other contender had only around 3 impact seasons (Walton)

Edit: Runoff Vote Artis Gilmore

I value Artis's defense a little more than Isiah's and His offense is a slight positive vs Thomas whose impact wasn't anything special.

Meaningful Longevity is about the same and I think Artis' peak ability to change a game defensively and score well wins this comparison for me.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[RSCD3_]

Id also like to know why LeBron was getting top 20 consideration after 2011 ( on the previous list ) ( 8 seasons ) but Durant has been so knocked on longevity here.

Did a lot more people value peaks stronger?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

Would love for penbeast or Q to make a post explaining why Gilmore is their favorite of the remaining bigs. I have still a fairly large number of bigs ahead of him which makes me think I' might be missing something. I know one area of concern I have is when the talent was diluted he was dominant but post-merger he was merely very good. I'm also not convinced he's better defensively than Deke, Thurmond, Zo, or Howard. I'd like to hear more about his offense. Obviously I know he shot a ridiculous FG%, but would love some insight on that end as well.

Deke and Glove are the direction Im leaning, but Durant is starting to get interesting. And if Durant is getting attention than I think Dave Cowens should as well. Longevity is a concern, but he has one of the best peaks and primes left. We are talking about a regular MVP candidate and a great 2-way player.

At his peak he was probably Dwight Howardish defensively, not as good as Mutombo or Thurmond, but with much better size than Zo who seemed to have trouble with true 7 footers (as his main rival was Shaq, that impression may be a bit shaky). In the NBA, if you watch Chicago with him, they seem to use him in a pretty low post on both offense and defense; in Kentucky, he played higher and seemed much more mobile on both ends. Of course, playing a mid post then trying to move for baskets in Kentucky, his percentages were appreciably lower so Chicago's change of style did seem to help him generate that GOAT efficiency level; but overall, he doesn't seem nearly as intimidating defensively and it's harder to get the ball to him offensively. There were apparently knee issues that led to the Bulls making this change if I remember but not sure to what degree that changed his game. He still had a good year or two in Chicago defensively by the numbers then seemed to tail off or lose interest leading to my changing my mind and favoring Ewing over him (and eventually to his final years when he became even more of a stationary vertical defender in the low post).

The difference between Artis and the other players you name is that even in Chicago, Artis was an outstanding offensive center similar to Dwight in Orlando and he kept it up for a long time. Compared to the others offensively, it's no contest. Dwight is comparable for peak scoring but hasn't kept it up as long, Mutombo even in his best years scored less and generally less efficiently than Artis in his lesser years, and Thurmond was so ridiculously inefficient with that ugly turnaround (like a poor man's Elvin Hayes) that he hurt his team every time he shot and he shot a lot averaging 20ppg on less than .500 efficiency in his peak . . . as a post up center. Add to that the playmaking numbers that we have which show, even in Chicago, Artis generally averaged more assists and less turnovers than the other 3 and you see a picture emerging of a very good, sometimes dominant offensive player.

He also had the same problem in Chicago that Jordan had coming in; scorers like Orlando Woolridge and Reggie Theus that (a) didn't play defense and (b) needed their shots. Since they had the ball in their hands earlier in the count, Artis didn't get as many shot attempts despite his efficiency; his hands were better than Mutombo's (not sure about the other two). This ties into the one of the main negatives about Gilmore; even in the ABA, except for 1975 where Hubie Brown basically talked him into putting the team on his shoulders and being the man (to the detriment of Dan Issel who had his worst year in that championship season), he was a shy person who didn't call for the ball or play with a great deal of aggression other than his dunks. He was called "passive" on the court and was rarely lauded for his court intelligence or leadership skills.

So, a very good, sometimes dominant help defender with great size and athleticism, a very good, sometimes dominant post scorer strong enough to get position on almost anyone, better at passing out of the post than the 3 players who you are considering his competition, but with a rep for passivity except in 1975 where he seemed to break out before retreating again into being a 2nd option in Chicago.

[Owly]

Would love for penbeast or Q to make a post explaining why Gilmore is their favorite of the remaining bigs. I have still a fairly large number of bigs ahead of him which makes me think I' might be missing something. I know one area of concern I have is when the talent was diluted he was dominant but post-merger he was merely very good. I'm also not convinced he's better defensively than Deke, Thurmond, Zo, or Howard. I'd like to hear more about his offense. Obviously I know he shot a ridiculous FG%, but would love some insight on that end as well.

Deke and Glove are the direction Im leaning, but Durant is starting to get interesting. And if Durant is getting attention than I think Dave Cowens should as well. Longevity is a concern, but he has one of the best peaks and primes left. We are talking about a regular MVP candidate and a great 2-way player.

How good is very good though? How far was Moses above him for instance? Obviously WS is the most favourable metric but take out the ABA dominance and level the playing field, how does he compare in his 27 and older years ...

http://bkref.com/tiny/bPtf3

Even by PER (amongst players on that page, and I suspect there aren't any present serious contenders or should be contenders that would beter his PER) for that span he's 36th and most of those above him who haven't been voted in already have something like 10000 less minutes (which means both less career impact, and that their career average isn't being dragged down as his is by mid-late 30s years).

As a fan I like Cowens (and Gilmore) but team success aside, there are concerns (longevity - especially versus someone like Gilmore - and pedestrian metrics even if he was a beyond the boxscore impact type of guy).

With Artis I think people (at least previously; historical rankings wise he has fared poorly and he wasn't in the HoF until recently; though obviously here, based on the last project at least, he's respected) had underrated him based on not seeing how dominant he was in the ABA (MVP over Erving and Barry for instance, see the metrics too) a sense of dissappointment that he wasn't Wilt or Jabbar ("He's so big, he should dominate more" type reasoning, ignoring what he did), Chicago not being a contender on his arrival (he arrived at exactly the wrong time and was just good enough by himself to keep them from adding a star in the draft) and in some circumstances people hearing "Rigor Artis" and assuming that this was a name given for his whole career, when from what I can tell it's a late career (last year only?) thing.


As previously I'm thinking Durant/Gilmore. May not have time to make a considered choice though.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Took a franchise that had never won to a championship. Not sure how many others can say that.

In all seriousness, 1990 Finals MVP with one of the great performances by a PG ever. The legendary Game 6 3rd quarter against LA in 1988. 16 points in like, 94 seconds against New York. 24-10 in the playoffs from 1984-1987. Feisty competitor. Iron will (look how far I've fallen...SMH). He just wanted to win.

[Quotatious]

Would love for penbeast or Q to make a post explaining why Gilmore is their favorite of the remaining bigs. I have still a fairly large number of bigs ahead of him which makes me think I' might be missing something. I know one area of concern I have is when the talent was diluted he was dominant but post-merger he was merely very good. I'm also not convinced he's better defensively than Deke, Thurmond, Zo, or Howard. I'd like to hear more about his offense. Obviously I know he shot a ridiculous FG%, but would love some insight on that end as well.

I totally understand your concerns about Gilmore's decline once he entered the NBA, but it's not THAT big of a deal for me, because for example even a top 15 level player like Dr. J, also declined in terms of his numbers. The league post merger was obviously much stronger than either the NBA or ABA pre-1976-77, and even then, Gilmore was the third, at worst 4th best center in the game after prime KAJ, Moses, and also worse than Walton in 1977 and 1978. Other than that, he's IMO better than any center before Hakeem burst onto the scene in the mid 80s (yeah, better than Parish, who I think was very good, too).

I generally agree with penbeast's post (and I'm sure he saw a lot more games of Gilmore than me). I have no problem if someone wants to put Mutombo, Howard, Mourning or Thurmond ahead of him, defensively. Still, his body of work is impressive enough that's he's IMO a fringe top 15 defensive player of all-time (anchored the best or second best defense in the ABA, every year, and also the 2nd best in the NBA in 1977). I can totally see why you prefer Mutombo - he's a top 5 GOAT defender, and a pretty competent finisher who can give you about 11-13 PPG in his prime, with very good longevity, but honestly, the reason why I'd take Gilmore over him is that I think Gilmore was more of an MVP caliber player (even if just in the ABA), because even though he was a bit worse defensively (although still great), he was much better offensively, could be your #1 option (he wasn't really great in that role because of his poor hands, but decent enough), which basically makes him a Dwight/Zo level player, and Mutombo is IMO clearly a level below. Both Howard and Mourning were arguably the #2 player in basketball at their peaks (actually Howard was arguably #1 in 2011), Gilmore was definitely the second best after Doc, in the ABA, in mid 70s, and top 5, taking both NBA and ABA into account. Dikembe may've been a top 10 player in a season or two, but generally just top 15 (to be fair, he would've been top 10 in the ABA, very easily, probably even top 5, but still not the same caliber of player due to his clearly inferior two-way play). I usually disregard accolades, but Howard finished in the top 5 in MVP voting 4 times in his career, and he's 30th all-time in career MVP shares, Mourning finished 2nd in 1999 and 3rd in 2000, and he's 33rd all-time in career MVP shares. Gilmore won the ABA MVP as a rookie in 1972. Mutombo received any votes just once in his career, finishing 13th in 1997. Looking at our RPOY project, Howard and Mourning are both top 40, Gilmore just outside of it, and Deke never received any votes. I think it clearly shows that Howard, Mourning and Gilmore were superstars, while Mutombo, despite his amazing defensive impact, was much lower than that, because you couldn't really depend on him to be your #1 offensive option. Honestly, I see Mutombo on a very similar level as Parish (not sure where exactly I'd rank them, probably borderline top 50, but still not sure (definitely not as early as top 40, though).

BTW - why is Gilmore a better candidate than Howard and Mourning, if he wasn't really better than them, in their respective primes? The answer is longevity - Artis played nearly twice as many All-Star caliber seasons as Mourning (8) or Howard (8 or 9), and about 45000-50000 minutes, basically twice as many as Dwight/Zo.

As far as Howard/Mourning vs Mutombo, I have to put Howard and Mourning higher, because even though Dikembe played 2 or 3 more seasons at his prime level, he wasn't really in the same class as these two guys, in their primes. It's not a really big difference (probably about 10 spots, maybe even just 8, or so), but still pretty clear (Howard and Mourning are somewhere in the early/mid 40s, for me).

[Basketballefan]

Id also like to know why LeBron was getting top 20 consideration after 2011 ( on the previous list ) ( 8 seasons ) but Durant has been so knocked on longevity here.

Did a lot more people value peaks stronger?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Thats because LBJ was far better than KD through 7-8 seasons. Plus different voters.

[Quotatious]

Miller is far more portable. I'd value Gervin's on-ball scoring more if he were better at making his teammates better since he had the ball in his hands more. As it is since his usage was high and on-ball, I don't see much value in his ability to create for teammates which would've been what separated the 2. Also, they're just creating their shots differently. It's not like Miller was a spot up shooter; he was awesome off-ball running screens to create a shot for himself. Those clutch moments we all have watched don't happen if Miller wasn't able to do that. Miller has the efficiency advantage as you've said; part of that is also being able to draw fouls better. Gervin's lack of longevity was he refused to come off the bench at the end of his career like Havlicek. Meanwhile, Miller's game aged far more gracefully. At age 34 near the end of his prime, he was a part of a team that went to the Finals...whereas Gervin was retired by 33. No real point in talking about their defense. Tough for me to side with Gervin any way you slice it. The volume isn't much of a argument to me considering Gervin wasn't on any deep teams with the Spurs. Hell, the Midwest division was especially weak. Just how much does that volume start coming into play on deeper teams? Or better yet, let me quote this:

Okay, certainly makes sense. Thanks for the response. I totally respect your opinion, but I'd still take Gervin because of his vastly superior shot creation abilities and actually elite volume scoring. Sure, you can say that volume scoring has no inherent value, but Gervin was actually both very efficient AND impactful (Spurs were a fixture as the 2nd or 3rd best offensive team in the NBA in his prime, that's a bit better than the 90s Pacers - Indiana had the best offense in the league in 1999 and 2000, and 4th best in 1998, but other than that, they never made the top 5 again (a few top 10 finishes though, to be fair).

I understand the portability argument, but I'm a firm believer that Gervin could've led a team to a title if he had the right supporting cast, as the unquestioned lead dog on offense. It's true that he didn't create well for others, but he was such a great scorer that his "selfish" style of play still translated very well to successful team performances, offensively. Neither was a good all-around player, so Reggie didn't really do anything better than the Iceman, except for 3-point shooting (to be fair, Gervin was able to make that shot on a decent percentage for his era, when he wanted to, like 1980, when he shot 31.4% on 1.3 attempts, but first of all, it was introduced in the midst of his prime, and second, Iceman himself admits that he didn't shoot threes because that shot was the lowest percentage shot in basketball, and two, he was really great with a midrange jumper, 18-20 footer).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzTeszStPVs[/youtube]

Here's a fun interview with the Iceman, and he says the same thing that I just said about his shot selection.


Anyway, I really like the fact that Miller is getting traction here, and I admit that I didn't give him enough credit (I ranked Gervin at 37 on my pre-list, Miller at 52, just behind Ray Allen). I still think that Ray and Reggie are extremely close, and I'd still rank a few more wings ahead of them (Pierce, Durant, probably also McGrady), but your post (and all of the posts that you quoted, like ElGee's, bastillon's etc.) are very interesting, and a great food for thought, I admit that. Good job. Really, I can see moving Reggie a few spots higher, but will have to read and think more about him.

[Clyde Frazier]

Whoops

[penbeast0]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Took a franchise that had never won to a championship. Not sure how many others can say that.

In all seriousness, 1990 Finals MVP with one of the great performances by a PG ever. The legendary Game 6 3rd quarter against LA in 1988. 16 points in like, 94 seconds against New York. 24-10 in the playoffs from 1984-1987. Feisty competitor. Iron will (look how far I've fallen...SMH). He just wanted to win.

Arnie Rizen or Bob Davies
Paul Arizin or Neil Johnston
Dolph Schayes

Elvin Hayes or Wes Unseld
Gus Williams or Jack Sikma

For a start . . .

[Basketballefan]

How do you guys feel about Kevin Mchale? I feel like he's a worthy candidate for this spot. Great post game, excellent defender and an important piece of 3 championships.

This is not a vote by the way but want opinions.

[tsherkin]

How do you guys feel about Kevin Mchale? I feel like he's a worthy candidate for this spot. Great post game, excellent defender and an important piece of 3 championships.

This is not a vote by the way but want opinions.

A little high for a guy who was a complementary player benefiting a lot from single coverage. Should get some love soon, since he was phenomenal at what he was asked to do. Slightly overplayed passing issues (he was a finisher, not really asked to make a lot of plays), good defender and scored on excellent efficiency.

He was good, but more top 50 than top 40, IMO.

[trex_8063]

Id also like to know why LeBron was getting top 20 consideration after 2011 ( on the previous list ) ( 8 seasons ) but Durant has been so knocked on longevity here.

Did a lot more people value peaks stronger?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Lebron had already had TWO seasons ('09 and '10) which were easily and clearly superior to anything Durant has done thus far, plus at least one other season ('08) which was at least comparable to Durant's best. Plus, as you noted, he had eight seasons under his belt to Durant's current seven.
EDIT: Even pre-peak, Lebron was muuuch better thru his first two seasons than Durant, as well.

Based on those THREE factors, 2011 Lebron SHOULD find a ranking at least 14-16 spots ahead of current KD.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Took a franchise that had never won to a championship....

JordansBulls (the RealGM poster, i mean)????

I'm having an invasion of the body snatchers moment here.

[DQuinn1575]

Miller is far more portable.

How can a guy who played one role for one team be considered far more portable?

A great player, but portable should apply to someone who could fill different roles or adapt.