RealGM Top 100 List #47

[penbeast0]

Three different groups have my attention now:

Players with long, consistent careers . . . mainly wings: English, Dantley, Sam Jones, Vince Carter, etc. Robert Parish would fall into this group, so would Nique. Numbers say Dantley, my head says English, my heart says Jones, and eye test says Carter. Would like to see some comps between these guys.

Players with reasonable but not long careers and some peak seasons: Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Tracy McGrady, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups. Not really feeling this crew but willing to listen.

Players with unreasonably short peaks but who were really extraordinary and special. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, Sidney Moncrief. Walton only had 1 year where he made it to the playoffs as a starter; Hawkins similarly only 1 great year though 1 pretty good year after reinventing his game following his first big knee injury; Moncrief 4-5 good years but not as good as the other two.

Vote: Alex English but willing to change my mind.

[Doctor MJ]

I feel beast's pain here that we're in a lul. I'm busy with work right now and so it's hard for me to contribute when the fire is not already stoked. This is where I think it hurts not having the two part process where first a player has to be nominated, because when we have that, people always have a clear set of guys to compare and argue about when it comes to the actual induction vote.

So I think folks should follow beast's lead here and give their short list, the guys making up their pseudo-nominee list, so we can start seeing some guys names and maybe generate debate there.

I said last time the next 5 guys on my list are Mutombo, Cowens, Reed, Ginobili and KJ. Takes on them would be appreciated.

To make it a bit simpler: If forced to choose Mutombo, Cowens, Reed or any other big still out there, who do you pick and why?

With regards to Ginobili: Where do y'all have him? I could see a wide range because of his limited minutes, but I truly believe when he plays he impacts the game like very few other guys.

With KJ we just get straight to the longevity issue, so who are the longevity candidate that people are screaming out for right now?

Finally: Dantley? Everyone should have thoughts on him. He's too interesting not too. If you haven't dug into him specifically before, do it now, it's one of those key takeaways to have to shape your player comparison philosophy. You may not realize just how amazingly good his numbers are (literally GOAT level).

My default remains Mutombo at this point, but as I've said before I've backed off him a bit, and well, people don't seem to buy him at this point either, so I'm pretty open.

[Moonbeam]

Sorry for missing the vote the last time. Had a mega headache and couldn't face being on a computer/phone.

I hope to take a strong look at Dantley, English, Wilkins, Sam Jones, Cowens, Reed, Hayes, Mutombo, McGrady and Carter. I'll add more about Dantley/English/Wilkins when I get a chance, too.

[Basketballefan]

Kind of suprised to see Ray allen come out of nowhere and take the #46 spot. Its probly 4-5 spots higher than id place him but it seems like a fair spot for him.

I feel like Elvin Hayes, Cousy, iverson and Mcadoo deserve some traction by this point. Alex english , Dantley and Wilkins would be great choices as well.

I wouldnt consider melo before those guys i mentioned, but where would be a good spot for him top 60? What about Melo vs Tmac? I think thats a close one career wise.

[Moonbeam]

Kind of suprised to see Ray allen come out of nowhere and take the #46 spot. Its probly 4-5 spots higher than id place him but it seems like a fair spot for him.

I feel like Elvin Hayes, Cousy, iverson and Mcadoo deserve some traction by this point. Alex english , Dantley and Wilkins would be great choices as well.

I wouldnt consider melo before those guys i mentioned, but where would be a good spot for him top 60? What about Melo vs Tmac? I think thats a close one career wise.

Melo is someone who I wouldn't have had in my top 100 two years ago, but his performances in 2013 and 2014 are enough for me to seriously consider him in the top 75, maybe higher if someone makes a good case. I think I'd put McGrady ahead as his peak is quite a bit higher in my mind and Melo's 11 years aren't enough to overtake him, yet. Another very strong year in 2014-15 and he'll be quite close to TMac, though.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Dominique Wilkins

Finished 2nd in MVP to a prime Bird, Magic, Kareem, Moses, Hakeem and also led the league in scoring and played peak Bird to a standstill in a playoff series. Dude was clutch and took his teams as far as he could.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Tracy McGrady

T-Mac's quality of prime is Kobe-level though much shorter compared to Bryant. In his prime, he combined amazing pick-n-roll play with low turnovers, 3-point shooting, super-high volume/USG%, and solid defense. He never got to prove it really, but I think his game would flourish next to offensive talent.

His final Toronto year shouldn't be discounted either. He was a really good 2-way player with great rebounding and defensive activity.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Dikembe Mutombo, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo, Robert Parish,

Worms: Dennis Rodman

Wings: Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, Paul Arizin, Alex English, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[E-Balla]

Ugh. I'm mad for missing the last vote. I'm voting Tracy McGrady. TL;DR: Best peak left, consistent playoff performer despite never having an extended run, only player left I'd trust to lead a team to a ring without having a great situation, and a 7 year prime is not very short - he's mostly missing support years.

[RSCD3_]

The only person id vote over TMAC is Vince but I'm on the fence can someone give me a reason why Carter has provided more career impact and how they differ besides scoring


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[tsherkin]

I'll open up with a vote for Alex English. I've said my piece on him before, but in brief, I think he had a great mix of offensive skills, a pretty well-rounded offensive game and a nice, long run performing at a consistent baseline level of excellence. Even when you factor in pace, I think he stands up pretty well against anyone left.

Now, for the discussion component....

I said last time the next 5 guys on my list are Mutombo, Cowens, Reed, Ginobili and KJ. Takes on them would be appreciated.

Reed, I've got growing respect for, if only because I think I've been underrating him defensively. I still don't think overly well of his offense.... compared to his well-known positional peers, anyway. He just doesn't stand out that much. Some of it is Holzman's offense not breeding a lot of flowery individual stats, surely, but I just can't see it beyond that based on what he did and what footage I've seen. But defensively? I think I'd take Reed over Cowens, who really wasn't as hot as his scoring averages indicate, and may not have been a brilliant MVP choice.

Think I'd take Mutombo ahead of Reed, though, because I opine that you better be bloody marvelous if you're going to volume score from the 4 or 5, and Reed wasn't. Mutombo was, of course, a dominant rebounder and an ATG defender, while sufficiently not-terrible on offense to get by.

With regards to Ginobili: Where do y'all have him? I could see a wide range because of his limited minutes, but I truly believe when he plays he impacts the game like very few other guys.

High impact, low minutes, not fantastic health, but still decent longevity in that role. Blew it for the Spurs in 2013, but they still could have won if Duncan had shot 50% on his last two tip-in chances, so I can't kill him for it that badly. Perhaps the ultimate 6th Man type. Really good. Not someone I'm considering soon, though, not with too many other guys who were more substantial contributors at a level not so far away as to elevate Ginobili above them. Really impressed with his game, though, and he's been a key part of the Spurs every-now-and-then pseudo-dynasty over the past decade.

Finally: Dantley? Everyone should have thoughts on him. He's too interesting not too. If you haven't dug into him specifically before, do it now, it's one of those key takeaways to have to shape your player comparison philosophy. You may not realize just how amazingly good his numbers are (literally GOAT level).

Remarkable numbers, but some of the stuff Moonbeam has posted has me thinking about all of the things which made me leery of him in the first place: high time-of-possession, not so amazing passing, etc, etc. Independent of this project, his performance was truly remarkable given his physical tools, you know? He's one of those weird cases where you'd expect him to have done so much more based on his ridiculous, insane numbers, but it just doesn't seem to line up with what others have done.

Interesting players, all. Vince is still on my mind, of course, as is Nique. Squid is always an excellent mention once the obvious players are out of the way.

Not that I expect him to gain traction for 20 or 30 spots, but I figure I'll put up Paul Pressey's name for the sake of relevance to the evolution of the game, and being a quality guy on those Bucks teams.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Robert Parish (for now)

Parish was an entirely fine two-way player. Very good (at times even excellent??) rebounder, very good offensive big, and also a very capable defender, especially early in his career.
During his first SEVEN seasons in the league he never averaged less than 2.8 blocks per 100 possessions (and as high as 4.4). In both ‘79 and ‘81 he was 4th in the league in bpg despite playing just 31.7 and 28.0 mpg, respectively. Was 5th in ‘82 while playing just 31.7 mpg. He had a cumulative DRtg of ~97-98 in that seven-year span. He led the league in DRtg in ‘79; had a DRtg in the top 8 four times during that 7-year span, three times in the top 3.

Offensively, he was a 7-footer who could run the floor reasonably well, a very competent finisher at the rim (making him somewhat functional in transition), was an excellent low-post scorer, and also had a tiny bit of range (out to 11-13 feet, at least). Was an entirely decent FT-shooter for a big-man (72.1% for his career).
The only reason he was averaging just 16-20 ppg during his prime was because he was playing on an extremely stacked team thru most of it. I have no doubt Parish could have avg 23-25 ppg on decent efficiency for a less talent-laden club.

While I don’t think Parish could have been “the man” on a contender, I think we’re well past the point on the list where that is necessarily a consideration. Especially when one has the kind of longevity that Parish had: he had a prime that lasted 13 years (>1,000 rs games), 5 additional seasons as a role player of varying (but certainly relevant) value, and only 3 seasons (years 19-21) that were of minimal value.

While he couldn’t have been #1 on a contender, he certainly could have been the #1 on a 40-45 win playoff participant. And he could have been the #2 on a contender. Indeed, he WAS either the 2nd or 3rd best player on MULTIPLE contenders.
He’s got one ring as the clear #2, another as---at worst---the #2B, a third ring as the clear #3, and then a 4th ring as a limited-value bench player.

During his peak in the early 1980’s, he was 7th in MVP voting in ‘81, 4th in MVP voting in ‘82.

A look at his prime production…….
Robert Parish (‘79-’91) (13 years: 1022 rs games!)
Per 100 (rs): 25.8 pts, 15.6 reb, 2.5 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.5 blk with 3.6 tov @ 58.4%
PER 20.2, .168 WS/48, 113 ORtg/102 DRtg (+11) in 32.4 mpg
Playoffs: (didn’t have this data previously harvested, and per 100 data windows currently not working on bbref).....but he avg 16.2 ppg/9.8 rpg/1.3 apg/1.8 bpg/2.3 tov @ .551 TS%
PER 16.5, .121 WS/48 in 34.9 mpg

Robert Parish (full career)
Per 100 (rs): 24.6 pts, 15.5 reb, 2.3 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.5 tov @ .571 TS%
PER 19.2, .154 WS/48, 111 ORtg/102 DRtg (+9) in 28.4 mpg
**And note this is over 21 years, 1611 rs games (more than any other player in history)
Per 100 (playoffs): 22.6 pts, 14.2 reb, 1.9 ast, 1.2 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.1 tov @ .547 TS%
PER 16.6, .121 WS/48, 109 ORtg/105 DRtg (+4) in 33.6 mpg

Career rs WS: 147.0 (#21 all-time)
Career playoff WS: 15.6 (#32 all-time)
9-Time NBA All-Star
2-Time All-NBA (1 - 2nd, 1 - 3rd)

That’s an awful lot of career value, imo.

If the support for Parish just isn't there yet, other guys I'd be more than content to switch my vote to if more support exists for them include: Elvin Hayes, Bob Cousy, Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkins or Alex English, or maybe Dave Cowens. EDIT: I'd not object to TMac at this point, too. I reserve the right to make a strategic switch of vote as a consensus emerges; but for now, I’m once again putting the feeler vote for Parish out there.

[trex_8063]

With regards to Ginobili: Where do y'all have him? I could see a wide range because of his limited minutes, but I truly believe when he plays he impacts the game like very few other guys.

High impact, low minutes, not fantastic health, but still decent longevity in that role. Blew it for the Spurs in 2013, but they still could have won if Duncan had shot 50% on his last two tip-in chances, so I can't kill him for it that badly. Perhaps the ultimate 6th Man type. Really good. Not someone I'm considering soon, though, not with too many other guys who were more substantial contributors at a level not so far away as to elevate Ginobili above them. Really impressed with his game, though, and he's been a key part of the Spurs every-now-and-then pseudo-dynasty over the past decade.

This is more or less how I feel about him too. I'm much more impressed with his career value now than I was two years ago (not that he's done so much in those two years, it's just I didn't fully appreciate the impact he's had). But still, there's at least ~10 guys I'd like to see voted in before I'll be giving him serious consideration. He's a 60-65 guy to me.

[john248]

Just going to cast my vote for Pau Gasol. He's got a strong decade's worth of play as an 18/9/3.5/1.5, 110+ ORTG guy. Lakers 3 Finals years were especially impressive with 22+ PER, .220+ WS/48, and his rebounding picked up too. The championship years, he posted a 124 and 126 ORTG in the playoffs. Good post player, solid mid-range shooter, great passer for his position...much to like about his offensive game where he can pair with any #1 wing option. Spent the majority of his time at center with the Lakers and did very well there going against Dwight and KG. 09 Finals: 19/9/2/2, 65%TS, 132 ORTG, defending Dwight pretty well; 10 FInals: 19/12/4/3, 56%TS, 122 ORTG. 2011 playoffs was rough since Dirk did a number on him...defended Pau's face-ups and torched him on the other end.

I know his Memphis years get dismissed or not talked about since they were a 1 round and out team and much of his career success came with the Lakers. He was still a good primary option but simply was just a great secondary option. At this point in this project, my thoughts in regards to Pau here is that I'd much rather have the ideal #2 who has a team impact on offense rather than a better #1 who has some flaws such as not being a strong #1 or not being able to slide into a secondary role. Lakers were 3 games ahead of the #9 seed at the time of the trade then went 22-4 after. He also came into the triangle and excelled quickly which some players never quite do (Payton). Part of this is his high BBIQ and his skill set which we all know. Fundamentally sound player in the high and low post. Able to read defenses, make the pass, keep turnovers to a minimum, held the ball high. Much tougher to stop this style. Really, seeing him in the triple post was really something just so sweet to see.



This is my quick and dirty list going into the 50s which I think are all the guys mentioned so far.

40. Pau Gasol
41. Kevin McHale
42. Ray Allen
43. Dikembe Mutombo
44. Elgin Baylor
45. Tracy McGrady
46. Robert Parish
47. Willis Reed
48. Dave Cowens
49. Manu Ginobili
50. Kevin Johnson

[Moonbeam]

I'll talk a bit more about Dantley when I get a chance. I should add that he is my all-time favorite player. He is the reason I became passionate about basketball, as I started watching at age 6 during his first season with the hometown Pistons. Did I dress up as him for Halloween when I was 8? You'd better believe I did! Did I sob into my mother's arms at the news of his trade, and swear to always hate the Pistons thereafter, also at age 8? Bingo. That's why I became a Portland fan, and while I have since forgiven the Pistons, my long-time allegiance to Portland from then on has stayed with me. So bear that in mind.

Here is a link to some analysis in comparison with Alex English and Dominique Wilkins in the last thread, including outlining simple metrics called Score+ and PosScore+ to combine scoring volume and efficiency.

Let me add that I have now expanded the Score+ Spreadsheet to include all seasons from 1952 onward, and I have added career leaders as well. Dantley comes out as the career leader in Score+, PosScore+ and a version comparing volume x efficiency with team expectations called TeamScore+. Al Cervi shows up ahead in the spreadsheet because I included all Hall of Famers, but I imagine if we had minutes recorded for his first 2 NBA seasons, he would fall behind. The data for him is based on his last 2 years in the league, in which he averaged 12.4 MPG. So yeah, I think Dantley has a great case to be considered one of the top 10 scorers in professional basketball history.

To continue the Dantley/English/Wilkins comparison, it appears there is some breaking of the transitive property happening with H2H comparisons. I'd say Dantley gets the better of English, English gets the better of Wilkins, and Wilkins gets the better of Dantley:

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W  L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel   RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
Dantley  1979    4  0  +8.40  23.75  +6.42   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1979    0  4  -8.40  13.50  -2.54   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Dantley  1980    1  1  +2.17  36.50  +8.51   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1980    1  1  -2.17  12.00  -2.93   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Dantley  1981    4  2  +5.88  40.83 +10.18   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1981    2  4  -5.88  20.83  -2.98   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Dantley  1982    3  3  +4.26  42.00 +11.67   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1982    3  3  -4.26  26.50  +1.11   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Dantley  1983    1  0  +6.80  43.00 +12.27   NA    NA    NA    NA   .8783 +.2170
English  1983    0  1  -6.80  25.00  -3.37   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5315 -.0297
Dantley  1984    6  5  -3.06  33.64  +3.03   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6725 +.0205
English  1984    5  6  +3.06  27.91  +1.48   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5911 +.0214
Dantley  1985    3  8  -1.38  23.18  -3.40   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6452 +.0380
English  1985    8  3  +1.38  27.82  -0.11   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5625 +.0013
Dantley  1986    2  2  -1.96  30.75  +0.92  5.50 +0.30  4.25 +0.78  .6364 +.0078
English  1986    2  2  +1.96  29.75  -0.05  5.50 +0.50  4.00 +0.05  .5399 -.0218
Dantley  1987    2  0  +8.85  22.00  +0.49  6.50 +2.40  2.50 +0.50  .6773 +.0632
English  1987    0  2  -8.85  33.00  +4.40  4.00 -0.20  5.00 -0.15  .5548 +.0054
Dantley  1988    1  1  -3.14  24.00  +4.00  4.00 +0.71  1.50 -0.98  .6961 +.0770
English  1988    1  1  +3.14  33.00  +8.00  6.00 +1.34  5.50 +0.79  .6425 +.1080
Dantley  1989    1  1  +6.70  22.50  +2.24  5.50 +0.56  2.50 -0.02  .5575 +.0111
English  1989    1  1  -6.70  14.50 -12.02  4.00 +0.02  2.50 -2.17  .3607 -.1704
Dantley  1990    1  1  -3.36  16.50  +1.79  6.50 +2.68  1.00 -0.78  .5222 -.0334
English  1990    1  1  +3.36  20.00  +2.09  5.50 +1.93  5.00 +2.19  .4617 -.0600
Dantley  Total  29 24  +1.26  30.68  +3.82  5.58 +1.16  2.67 +0.05  .6558 +.0318
English  Total  24 29  -1.26  24.91  -0.20  5.08 +0.68  4.33 +0.13  .5571 -.0009


Code: Select all

Player   Year    W  L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel   RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
Dantley  1984    1  1  -3.89  19.50 -11.11   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5110 -.1410
Wilkins  1984    1  1  +3.89  23.00  +1.40   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5615 +.0303
Dantley  1986    1  0 +17.80  41.00 +11.17  5.00 -0.20  2.00 -1.47  .7801 +.1515
Wilkins  1986    0  1 -17.80  31.00  +0.67  7.00 -0.92  4.00 +1.36  .6151 +.0791
Dantley  1987    5  4  +4.25  17.11  -4.40  4.11 +0.01  1.89 -0.11  .5478 -.0664
Wilkins  1987    4  5  -4.25  24.78  -4.26  7.44 +1.19  2.11 -1.19  .5031 -.0396
Dantley  1988    2  2  +5.23  14.25  -5.75  2.25 -1.04  1.75 -0.73  .6345 +.0154
Wilkins  1988    2  2  -5.23  27.25  -3.48  5.25 -1.19  2.25 -0.62  .5236 -.0102
Dantley  1989    3  2  +1.35  11.00  -7.76  2.60 -1.51  0.80 -1.47  .4964 -.1062
Wilkins  1989    2  3  -1.35  19.00  -7.24  6.00 -0.91  1.80 -0.84  .4731 -.0552
Dantley  1990    1  0  +8.20  15.00  +0.29  5.00 +1.18  1.00 -0.78  .6843 +.1287
Wilkins  1990    0  1  -8.20  16.00 -10.73  5.00 -1.51  2.00 -0.50  .3914 -.1647
Dantley  Total  13  9  +3.82  16.41  -5.10  3.45 -0.53  1.55 -0.68  .5707 -.0459
Wilkins  Total   9 13  -3.82  23.64  -4.35  6.50 -0.05  2.15 -0.83  .5071 -.0303


Code: Select all

Player   Year   W  L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel    RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
English  1983   1  1  +5.51  33.00  +4.63    NA    NA    NA    NA   .5749 +.0138
Wilkins  1983   1  1  -5.51  19.50  +2.01    NA    NA    NA    NA   .5540 +.0300
English  1984   2  0 +12.19  31.00  +4.57    NA    NA   6.50 +1.55  .5170 -.0527
Wilkins  1984   0  2 -12.19  35.00 +13.40    NA    NA    NA    NA   .5524 +.0212
English  1985   2  0 +14.81  28.00  +0.07    NA    NA    NA    NA   .5299 -.0313
Wilkins  1985   0  2 -14.81  19.50  -7.87    NA    NA    NA    NA   .4254 -.0887
English  1986   1  1  +3.20  35.50  +5.70   6.00 +1.00  4.00 +0.05  .6413 +.0796
Wilkins  1986   1  1  -3.20  19.00 -11.33   6.00 -1.92  3.00 +0.36  .3955 -.1405
English  1987   0  2  -1.68  29.00  +0.40   2.00 -2.20  4.00 -1.15  .5668 +.0175
Wilkins  1987   2  0  +1.68  24.00  -5.04   4.00 -2.25  4.00 +0.70  .5249 -.0178
English  1988   1  1  -1.80  27.00  +2.00   1.50 -3.16  3.50 -1.21  .5542 +.0196
Wilkins  1988   1  1  +1.80  33.50  +2.77   5.50 -0.94  1.50 -1.37  .5885 +.0547
English  1989   1  0 +12.95  25.00  -1.52   8.00 +4.02  3.00 -1.67  .4433 -.0878
Wilkins  1989   0  1 -12.95  37.00 +10.76  14.00 +7.09  3.00 +0.36  .5937 +.0654
English  1990   1  1  -0.43  16.00  -1.91   2.50 -1.08  4.00 +1.19  .5952 +.0736
Wilkins  1990   1  1  +0.43  35.50  +8.78   7.50 +0.99  3.00 +0.50  .6564 +.1003
English  Total  9  6  +5.10  28.27  +1.96   3.56 -0.76  4.27 -0.07  .5571 +.0046
Wilkins  Total  6  9  -5.10  27.27  +1.08   6.67 -0.13  2.89 +0.08  .5377 -.0036


Including other top SFs Bird, Erving, Marques Johnson, Aguirre, King, and Worthy, here is how is looks, though this is not fair to Wilkins, as his best years are probably 90-94 so I should also be including players like Mullin and Pippen in that scenario, but anyway...

Adrian Dantley:

As you might expect, Dantley has the largest scoring margin of the 9 players considered here, outgunning his opponents by over 3 PPG on nearly 8% better TS. Team success in Utah was predictably poor (particularly 1985 and 1986), though not relative to SRS expectations. In fact, his teams tended to outperform their SRS expectations against this set of opponents. Most surprising may be that his opponents' scoring average was more than a point less than their respective season averages overall, and while his time in Detroit did contribute to that, his opponents weren't going crazy on him in Utah, even prior to the Jazz becoming good on defense in 1983. He loses out on rebounds and assists, though I imagine this is somewhat distorted by the fact the data is mostly available after he assumed a reduced role in Detroit and Dallas.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS     Rel
Dantley  1977    2   1  +9.35  19.00 -1.31   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1977    1   2  -9.35  14.67 -6.92   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1978    8   3  +0.86  21.64 +0.29   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1978    3   8  -0.86  18.82 -2.47   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1979    9   4  +3.69  20.92 +3.59   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1979    4   9  -3.69  18.08 -2.96   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1980    4   7  +0.88  27.82 -0.17   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1980    7   4  -0.88  21.91 +0.57   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1981    6  10  +3.14  34.69 +4.04   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1981   10   6  -3.14  21.44 -1.22   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1982    8  14  +0.36  33.36 +3.03   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1982   14   8  -0.36  23.45 +1.21   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1983    2   3  -4.60  32.40 +1.67   NA    NA    NA    NA   .7066* +.0453
Top SFs  1983    3   2  +4.60  26.80 +2.86   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5618* +.0052
Dantley  1984   12  18  -2.63  31.13 +0.53   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6495  -.0025
Top SFs  1984   18  12  +2.63  24.07 +0.17   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5593  -.0108
Dantley  1985    8  16  +0.45  25.21 -1.37   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6092  +.0019
Top SFs  1985   16   8  -0.45  24.42 -0.32   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5601  +.0019
Dantley  1986    5  17  -0.68  29.18 -0.65  6.00 +0.80  3.82 +0.34  .6256  -.0030
Top SFs  1986   17   5  +0.68  20.95 -2.28  5.82 -0.09  3.73 -0.20  .5434  -.0221
Dantley  1987   18  13  +5.17  20.68 -0.83  4.29 +0.19  2.03 +0.03  .6055  -.0087
Top SFs  1987   13  18  -5.17  24.29 -1.57  7.03 +0.35  4.52 -0.24  .5360  -.0313
Dantley  1988   19  17  +0.08  20.00 +0.00  3.69 +0.40  2.06 -0.42  .6187  -.0003
Top SFs  1988   17  19  -0.08  22.00 -2.38  6.94 +0.56  4.36 +0.06  .5432  -.0284
Dantley  1989   11   6  +5.00  19.53 +0.38  3.71 -0.62  1.82 -0.52  .6050  +.0243
Top SFs  1989    6  11  -5.00  21.00 -1.63  6.12 +0.51  3.00 -0.49  .5164  -.0211
Dantley  1990    3   4  +1.63  18.57 +3.86  4.29 +0.46  1.00 -0.78  .6088  +.0532
Top SFs  1990    4   3  -1.63  20.29 -1.07  5.43 +0.36  4.43 +0.93  .5136  -.0382
Dantley  Total 115 133  +1.24  25.52 +0.64  4.35 +0.27  2.29 -0.18  .6245  +.0033
Top SFs  Total 133 115  -1.24  22.31 -1.13  6.53 +0.36  4.08 -0.10  .5458  -.0179


Alex English:

English's scoring is right on par with that of his opponents, but on 5% worse efficiency. I imagine a lot of that can be chalked up to Denver's poor team defense throughout his time there. Like Erving and Dantley, his rebounding and playmaking abilities are probably undersold by the totals, although he enjoys an edge in assists even in his later years. Team success was quite variable, with 1985 shining as expected, but 1987 looking particularly troublesome.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
English  1979    5  10  +0.29  14.80 -1.24   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1979   10   5  -0.29  21.27 -0.66   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1980    2  10  -1.80  13.17 -2.83   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1980   10   2  +1.80  23.75 -0.60   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1981    7  10  -0.87  22.00 -1.81   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1981   10   7  +0.87  29.82 +4.80   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1982   12   9  -1.04  26.14 +0.75   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1982    9  12  +1.04  30.43 +6.60   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1983    6  10  +0.08  27.94 -0.43   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5331 -.0281
Top SFs  1983   10   6  -0.08  24.56 +1.62   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5754 +.0232
English  1984   13  19  +0.44  26.88 +0.45   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5713 +.0016
Top SFs  1984   19  13  -0.44  27.63 +2.11   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6273 +.0274
English  1985   22  16  +0.26  27.92 -0.00   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5743 +.0131
Top SFs  1985   16  22  -0.26  22.47 -0.48   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5983 +.0273
English  1986   14  10  +2.42  28.63 -1.18  4.63 -0.38  4.13 +0.17  .5399 -.0218
Top SFs  1986   10  14  -2.42  23.04 -0.47  7.00 +0.96  3.63 -0.18  .5722 -.0059
English  1987    2  18  -8.07  27.35 -1.25  3.80 -0.40  3.80 -1.35  .5493 -.0001
Top SFs  1987   18   2  +8.07  25.05 +2.27  5.45 -0.14  3.65 +0.52  .6394 +.0701
English  1988   13  10  -0.80  26.00 +1.00  4.78 +0.12  4.61 -0.10  .5374 +.0028
Top SFs  1988   10  13  +0.80  22.13 -1.81  5.74 +0.17  3.52 -0.12  .5757 +.0187
English  1989    6   8  -2.06  23.79 -2.74  4.29 +0.31  4.86 +0.19  .4797 -.0514
Top SFs  1989    8   6  +2.06  24.07 +3.65  6.14 +0.80  4.64 +1.29  .5658 +.0204
English  1990    4   8  -2.26  16.00 -1.91  3.25 -0.33  2.92 +0.10  .4737 -.0480
Top SFs  1990    8   4  +2.26  21.83 +0.13  8.17 +2.05  4.08 +0.16  .5944 +.0349
English  Total 106 138  -0.85  24.70 -0.62  4.26 -0.15  4.13 -0.23  .5458 -.0082
Top SFs  Total 138 106  +0.85  24.77 +1.33  6.38 +0.65  3.82 +0.25  .5982 +.0269


Dominique Wilkins:

Nique had a predictable scoring edge of nearly 3 PPG (though interestingly both his scoring AND his opponents' scoring was down over a point on season averages) on an equally predictable efficiency deficit of nearly 4% TS. The rebounding and assist stats are more relevant here as they encompass a larger part of his career, and the rebounding advantage and assist deficit that is shown is also largely expected. His teams were outperformed to the tune of over a point per game based on SRS expectations (worst of all 9 players considered here), and only in 1987 and 1991 did they post at least 1 more win than opponents.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
Wilkins  1983   10  18  -2.96  15.32 -2.17   NA    NA    NA    NA   .4727 -.0513
Top SFs  1983   18  10  +2.96  23.82 +0.90   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5561 -.0011
Wilkins  1984   15  17  +1.62  20.75 -0.85   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5029 -.0283
Top SFs  1984   17  15  -1.62  22.19 -1.24   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5608 -.0102
Wilkins  1985    3  15  -2.60  28.78 +1.41   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5187 +.0046
Top SFs  1985   15   3  +2.60  28.61 +3.00   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5671 -.0053
Wilkins  1986    9  15  -2.06  28.96 -1.38  7.25 -0.67  3.00 +0.36  .5295 -.0064
Top SFs  1986   15   9  +2.06  23.38 -0.35  6.42 -0.94  4.67 -0.43  .5672 -.0041
Wilkins  1987   14  10  -1.40  28.50 -0.54  6.25 -0.00  3.25 -0.05  .5258 -.0169
Top SFs  1987   10  14  +1.40  22.04 -1.28  5.63 -0.03  4.08 +0.10  .5557 -.0333
Wilkins  1988   11  16  -1.15  29.63 -1.10  6.11 -0.32  2.33 -0.54  .5190 -.0148
Top SFs  1988   16  11  +1.15  19.96 -4.66  4.78 -1.70  3.78 -0.74  .5525 -.0331
Wilkins  1989    6   9  -3.80  25.07 -1.17  7.00 +0.09  2.33 -0.30  .5368 +.0085
Top SFs  1989    9   6  +3.80  15.80 -3.97  3.93 -0.69  2.93 -0.19  .5307 -.0275
Wilkins  1990    4   9  -0.16  23.23 -3.49  5.08 -1.44  2.15 -0.35  .5294 -.0267
Top SFs  1990    9   4  +0.16  20.54 -0.95  6.00 -0.20  4.00 -0.84  .6291 +.0799
Wilkins  1991    5   3  +3.92  24.13 -1.81  7.50 -1.54  2.63 -0.65  .5538 -.0012
Top SFs  1991    3   5  -3.92  17.75 -5.27  5.00 -1.68  5.63 -0.12  .4939 -.0353
Wilkins  1992    2   1  +7.93  27.00 -1.07  7.33 +0.31  4.33 +0.57  .5335 -.0181
Top SFs  1992    1   2  -7.93  16.00 -4.09  5.00 -3.31  5.00 -1.09  .5017 -.0255
Wilkins  1993    1   1 -15.04  26.00 -3.87  8.50 +1.71  3.00 -0.20  .6366 +.0664
Top SFs  1993    1   1 +15.04  17.50 +2.61  3.50 +0.49  3.50 +0.11  .6034 +.1091
Wilkins  Total  80 114  -1.17  24.71 -1.17  6.54 -0.43  2.72 -0.17  .5192 -.0151
Top SFs  Total 114  80  +1.17  21.91 -1.27  5.32 -0.90  4.09 -0.39  .5590 -.0094


[penbeast0]

I'll open up with a vote for Alex English. I've said my piece on him before, but in brief, I think he had a great mix of offensive skills, a pretty well-rounded offensive game and a nice, long run performing at a consistent baseline level of excellence. Even when you factor in pace, I think he stands up pretty well against anyone left.

Now, for the discussion component....

I said last time the next 5 guys on my list are Mutombo, Cowens, Reed, Ginobili and KJ. Takes on them would be appreciated.

Reed, I've got growing respect for, if only because I think I've been underrating him defensively. I still don't think overly well of his offense.... compared to his well-known positional peers, anyway. He just doesn't stand out that much. Some of it is Holzman's offense not breeding a lot of flowery individual stats, surely, but I just can't see it beyond that based on what he did and what footage I've seen. But defensively? I think I'd take Reed over Cowens, who really wasn't as hot as his scoring averages indicate, and may not have been a brilliant MVP choice.

Think I'd take Mutombo ahead of Reed, though, because I opine that you better be bloody marvelous if you're going to volume score from the 4 or 5, and Reed wasn't. Mutombo was, of course, a dominant rebounder and an ATG defender, while sufficiently not-terrible on offense to get by.

With regards to Ginobili: Where do y'all have him? I could see a wide range because of his limited minutes, but I truly believe when he plays he impacts the game like very few other guys.

High impact, low minutes, not fantastic health, but still decent longevity in that role. Blew it for the Spurs in 2013, but they still could have won if Duncan had shot 50% on his last two tip-in chances, so I can't kill him for it that badly. Perhaps the ultimate 6th Man type. Really good. Not someone I'm considering soon, though, not with too many other guys who were more substantial contributors at a level not so far away as to elevate Ginobili above them. Really impressed with his game, though, and he's been a key part of the Spurs every-now-and-then pseudo-dynasty over the past decade.

Finally: Dantley? Everyone should have thoughts on him. He's too interesting not too. If you haven't dug into him specifically before, do it now, it's one of those key takeaways to have to shape your player comparison philosophy. You may not realize just how amazingly good his numbers are (literally GOAT level).

Remarkable numbers, but some of the stuff Moonbeam has posted has me thinking about all of the things which made me leery of him in the first place: high time-of-possession, not so amazing passing, etc, etc. Independent of this project, his performance was truly remarkable given his physical tools, you know? He's one of those weird cases where you'd expect him to have done so much more based on his ridiculous, insane numbers, but it just doesn't seem to line up with what others have done.

Interesting players, all. Vince is still on my mind, of course, as is Nique. Squid is always an excellent mention once the obvious players are out of the way.

Not that I expect him to gain traction for 20 or 30 spots, but I figure I'll put up Paul Pressey's name for the sake of relevance to the evolution of the game, and being a quality guy on those Bucks teams.

Pressey over Sidney Moncrief and Marques Johnson? Really? I'd be shocked if Pressey makes the top 100.

[Quotatious]

Pressey over Sidney Moncrief and Marques Johnson? Really? I'd be shocked if Pressey makes the top 100.

I wouldn't even take Pressey over Terry Cummings.

[tsherkin]

Pressey over Sidney Moncrief and Marques Johnson? Really? I'd be shocked if Pressey makes the top 100.

Well, no. First of all, I voted for English in the first line of my post, and I mentioned Moncrief before I mentioned Pressey. I was just throwing his name out there to spur discussion, per Doc's post.

[Texas Chuck]

I think its about time to start dealing with one of the most polarizing players of all-time: Dennis Rodman.

To the good--

Major contributor to 5 champions
GOAT level rebounder
Very good and very versatile defender. Only guy to seriously defend both PG's and centers at various points in his career and every position in between and to do so at a high level. Was asked to guard everyone from Magic to Bird to Mike to Mailman to Shaq.
Underrated offensive player. Great O-rebounder, great screen-setter, moved well without the ball, smart passer

To the bad--
GOAT level as a distraction
was not a scorer
poor FT shooter
missed a large number of games in his mid 30's


I'm high on Rodman. Not quite ready to vote for him ahead of Deke or Cowens, but I like him as an elite supporting player over some of the weaker lead-dog wings like T-Mac, Vince, English etc.

[Texas Chuck]

Official Vote: Mutombo

Most defensive impact left on the board.
Great rebounder
Good offensive player
Big part of some playoff success(01 Philly he was at least as valuable as AI, #8 Den over #1 Sea, etc)

[lukekarts]

VOTE: Willis Reed

Justification to follow...Until then, this is not a valid vote