RealGM Top 100 List #60

[penbeast0]

PG: Never been sold on Cousy but you have to consider him here. Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys. Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left.

Wings: Sam Jones and Vince Carter had long outstanding careers though Sharman and Greer were considered better than Sam Jones in their peaks but the numbers for Jones look better, Arizin is the other main 50s guy. . Nique is a step down with his efficiency and defensive issues. Sidney Moncrief may be the 3rd greatest 2 guard ever . . . for 4 years, but his injuries limit his career value.

Best bigs left: My favorite is Mel Daniels with his 2 ABA MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, and Bob McAdoo for short peak guys . . . in that order for me I would guess. McAdoo, Neil Johnston, Amare, Issel, Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play defense are problematic for me. Ben Wallace, Nate Thurmond, or the Worm also could come up here as well as guys like DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, etc., even Zelmo Beaty and Yao Ming. Lots of names to consider.

Vote: Sidney Moncrief -- very short peak but gives you GOAT man defense and superefficient 20ppg scoring. His peak is at least 1/4 of Walton's peak in my opinion and with Walton only staying reasonably healthy to the playoffs once as a starter, I'd rather take my chances on a 5 year ride with the Squid. He lost out to the Bird Celtics or (when he beat them) the fo fo fo Moses/Erving Sixers during the era of superteams and his playoffs are mixed -- he abused a young Michael Jordan's defense and had some monster runs but also some weak ones -- though his defense shut down several opposing scorers even in the weaker offensive runs.

[Owly]

First thoughts (having had Lanier in after backing him for a while, I'll need to have a think about who next)...

Wilkins gets consideration based on a big, productive, career (though D not a strength, and playoffs somewhat of an issue, but better longevity than 80s SFs already in and was on some very good (one year, SRS) teams so comparable to Iverson too (with teams that did better, SRS wise at least, though with better talent too).

Manu has the best per minute peak left on the board amongst plausible candidates and fit well and had an impact on a good team. Minutes is the obvious issue here. Still I think I'm leaning towards him.

Then maybe Marion, Nance and Carter. I subjectively I really like the athletic, across the boxscore contributors partly because of personal preference and aesthetics partly because I figure they're pretty portable (though some question Marion with regard to SSoL, though he was good before Nash and D'Antoni). But Carter has a strong peak for a 2/wing, and though he didn't maintain peak levels he has managed to stay valuable.

[Quotatious]

Vote: Vince Carter

It was between Wilkins and Carter for me, but I just prefer Vince's game. Especially his playmaking seems to be clearly better than Nique's, and he was a slightly more efficient scorer, era-relative. Better defender, too (actually, VC usually seemed like a slightly above average defender to me - at least man defender), and RAPM seems to back it up. I also like 2001 Carter over any version of Wilkins. Advanced stats are pretty close, no major edge for one player or the other (generally, Carter looks better by some metrics, Wilkins in the other). Neither was a good playoff performer.

Honestly, I prefer Carmelo's game over Dominique's, but Anthony just doesn't have the longevity yet (his prime is already almost as long as Nique's, but he doesn't have post-prime contributions, unlike Nique - I expect Melo to finish with a better career, though).

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Dominique Wilkins

The guy was a scoring machine and as clutch as you can get. Was good on both ends of the floor and if you disagree watch game 7 of the Hawks and Celtics where Tommy Heinsohm recognizes his defense. Led the league in scoring and finished 2nd in MVP voting when most top stars were at there peaks.

[trex_8063]

Wanted to revisit the comparison I'd made of Wilkins vs. English (who was voted in at #54).....

Prime English (‘81-’89)
PER 21.2, .139 WS/48 in 36.6 mpg
77.5 WS, cumulative VORP: 28.9

Prime Wilkins (‘86-’94)
PER 23.2, .173 WS/48 in 37.4 mpg
89.6 WS, cumulative VORP: 32.8


Career English
Per 100 poss (rs): 30.2 pts, 7.7 reb, 5.1 ast, 1.3 stl, 1.0 blk, 3.4 tov @ .550 TS%
19.9 PER, .127 WS/48, 111 ORtg/110 DRtg (+1) in 31.9 mpg
100.7 rs WS
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 31.1 pts, 7.0 reb, 5.5 ast, 0.9 stl, 0.6 blk, 2.7 tov @ .556 TS%
19.9 PER, .129 WS/48, 116 ORtg/115 DRtg (+1) in 35.7 mpg
6.5 playoff WS

Career Wilkins
Per 100 poss (rs): 34.7 pts, 9.3 reb, 3.5 ast, 1.8 stl, 0.8 blk, 3.5 tov @ .536 TS%
21.6 PER, .148 WS/48, 112 ORtg/108 DRtg (+4) in 35.5 mpg.
117.5 rs WS
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 33.8 pts, 8.9 reb, 3.4 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.8 blk, 3.6 tov @ .510 TS%
18.7 PER, .079 WS/48, 106 ORtg/112 DRtg (-6) in 38.8 mpg
3.6 playoff WS

So Nique looks better in the rs, English looks better in the playoffs (though neither made a huge playoff imprint in their careers, nor has a particularly sizeable playoff game sample size).


As a scorer….
I think English’s reputation as a scorer is perhaps a little inflated by the pace and focus on offense that existed on Doug Moe’s Nuggets. During English’s tenure in Denver (third of ‘80 season, then ‘81-’90), the Nuggets had the league’s fastest pace every single year from ‘81 thru ‘89 (sometimes by >5 over the 2nd-fastest team!), and were 2nd in pace in ‘90. Consequently, if you adjust for his numbers for pace, things come back to Earth a little.

English’s best year as a scorer was probably either ‘86 (35.9 pts/100 possessions on +2.15% to league TS%) or ‘82 (30.2 pts/100 poss on TS% +5.75% to league).
Dominique’s best year as a scorer was ‘93 (39.4 pts/100 poss on TS% +3.4% to league).

Prime English (‘81-’89):
32.6 pts/100 poss, +1.9% to league TS%
career: 30.2 pts/100 poss, +1.65% to league TS%
Prime Wilkins (‘86-’94): 36.9 pts/100 poss, +0.8% to league TS%
career: 34.7 pts/100 poss, +/- 0% to league TS%

Couple other measures (career rs stats, fwiw):
Pts/Missed FGA: English--- 2.468, Wilkins--- 2.29
Pts/Turnover: English---- 8.97, Wilkins--- 9.99

So Nique’s obv right there with him as a scorer, possibly marginally better, imo.


Passing/playmaking
This one clearly goes to English. Career per 100 possessions: 5.1 ast vs. 3.4 tov; whereas Wilkins is 3.5:3.5.


As a defender….
My memory doesn’t place one firmly ahead of the other on defense. By reputation, English seems the better defender by a small margin (although he’s FAR from a noteworthy defender).

What data we have (admittedly not overly reliable) doesn’t support any sort of defensive edge for English, however. English has a career DBPM of -1.2; Nique’s is marginally better at -1.0. As mentioned above English has a career DRtg of 110 (+4.0 to league over same years; “+” being bad in DRtg). Nique’s is better at 108 (+0.7 to league).

Yeah, I mentioned the lack of focus for defense of those Nuggets teams which could contribute to Nique appearing better defensively (by the numbers). But fwiw, in spite of this Nique also appears comparable (maybe marginally better) on offensive too: English has a career ORtg of 111 (+4.6 to league); Nique’s is 112 (+4.7 to league). English’s career OBPM is +2.9; Nique’s is +3.3.
fwiw, career stl and blk per 100: English--- 1.3/1.0; Nique--- 1.8/0.8

I know, I know: none of these are particularly accurate actual indicators of defensive impact, but it’s all we have aside from the eye-test (I'd watched a couple Hawks games from the early 90's, fwiw; Wilkins did not appear a stand-out---"stand-out" in a bad way, I mean---in either of those games). So just putting it out there.

Further, I think there may be some things to suggest Wilkins' reputation as a poor defender is a touch overblown. Here's a look at some Hawk team defenses during Nique's prime and the personnel involved:

‘86: 6th/23 in DRtg, 7th/23 in opp eFG%
‘87: 2nd/23 in DRtg, 1st/23 in opp eFG%
‘88: 14th/23 in DRtg, 6th in opp eFG%
--->Primary squad in above years: Wilkins, Rivers, Willis, Rollins, Levingston, A.Carr, Koncak, Wittman.
Obv Tree Rollins was a noteworthy rim-protector, but he was only playing 23-24 mpg in those years. Rivers was a good perimeter defender, but not on the level of a Cooper, Moncrief, or Payton. Levingston is a reasonably tough man defender, but not off the charts (only playing ~24 mpg, too). Willis was at best a "decent" man defender, but not a good rim/help-defender. Koncak was a lumbering/slow, at best an "OK" shot blocker. Wittman's a meh defender, Carr was outright lazy on defense. And of course, no one is on the court more than Wilkins.
idk, looking at who the supporting cast was, it's somewhat hard to believe they'd be capable of even a top 10 defense (much less a #2 defense) with this crew if Wilkins was indeed a legendarily bad/lazy defender.
‘89: 9th/25 in DRtg, 9th/25 in opp eFG%
--->the one good rim-protector (Rollins) is now gone, as is Wittman. They've been replaced by Reggie Theus and a post-prime Moses Malone (neither of whom is a particularly noteworthy defender).....yet they still finish 9th of 25 defensively. Again, it seems hard to believe that's possible if Wilkins is as bad defensively as his reputation around here would suggest.
‘90: 25th/27 in DRtg, 26th/27 in opp eFG%
--->This is the first poor defensive team of Wilkins' prime. Rivers misses 34 games, and Spud Webb and John Battle taking on larger roles in backcourt. Perhaps it's around this point that Wilkins begins holding back/conserving on the defensive end (perhaps where his reputation comes from)??? Because we do start to see some sub-par defenses for the next few years.
‘91: 21st/27 in DRtg, 26th/27 in opp eFG%.
--->Bob Weiss has taken over as HC (for Fratello).
‘92: 16th/27 in DRtg, 21st/27 in opp eFG%
--->Moses Malone and Doc Rivers are now gone. Stacey Augmon, Blair Rassmussen, and limited role (older) Mo Cheeks added; also R.Robinson is a starter now.
‘93: 23rd/27 in DRtg, 26th/27 in opp eFG%.
---->Mookie Blaylock added is added, but despite his rep, the team D takes a little dip.
‘94: 4th/27 in DRtg, 7th/27 in opp eFG%.
---->Lenny Wilkens takes over as HC. Bench players Craig Ehlo and Andrew Lang acquired. Primary starters are Mookie, Augmon, Wilkins, Willis, and Jon Koncak. Looking at this line-up, one has to figure the perimeter players are the driving force behind this top 5 defense.
*Wilkins did miss some games as a Hawk in both '92 and '94.

As a rebounder….
English: Career-best reb/100 poss was 11.6, career avg per 100 was 7.7. Career best TRB% was 13.4% (twice); career avg 9.0%.
Wilkins: Career-best per 100 reb was 11.6 (not counting his monstrous 15.2 in ‘99, due to just 27 game sample at <10 mpg), career avg per 100 was 9.3. Career best TRB% 13.0% (again not counting ‘99), career avg was 10.4% (has edge in both ORebs and DRebs).

So there appears to be a small but clear edge for Wilkins.


Contribution to team success….
In the last thread, as part of supportive argument for English, compliment was paid to the #1 offense of the ‘82 Nuggets, and English’s role in producing it. But again, let’s not lose site of the fact that philosophy of that team under Moe was offense over defense: the ‘82 Nuggets were also ranked 23rd of 23 defensively, and were just a 0.13 SRS team overall. The ‘81 Nuggets (also #1 offensively), were 22nd/23 defensively, and a -0.95 SRS team overall.

Career cumulative VORP favors Nique: 41.1 to 35.0 (despite him having a slightly shorter career).
Career avg BPM favors Nique: 2.3 to 1.7.

Wilkins career team records: 626-573 (.522) [Active: 568-506 (.529) Inactive: 58-67 (.464)]
Wilkins career playoff records: 23-36 (.390)
*10 seasons in playoffs, though only 3 times past 1st round, and never as
far as a conference finals.
Perhaps his shining team season: ‘87--->headed a team with supporting cast of Doc Rivers and a young Kevin Willis (where the 4th-best player was probably Randy Whitman), and led them to a 57-25 record, 2nd-best SRS, and ECSF.

English career team records: 620-608 (.505) [Active: 604-589 (.506) Inactive: 16-19 (.457)]
English career playoff records: 29-41 (.414)
*10 seasons in playoffs, 5 times past 1st round, 1 time as far as conference
finals.
Probably crown jewel of leadership: ‘85--->52-30 rs record, 7th-best SRS, made it to WCF (English played great in playoffs that year); primary supporting cast was Fat Lever, Calvin Natt, Wayne Cooper, 36-year-old Dan Issel (when should he be coming up in discussion, btw?).

So idk…..seems pretty close there, too.


Longevity/Durability
Obviously English was a bit more durable, but for overall longevity, I think it’s very nearly a wash: Nique came into the league an immediate big-minute effective player. English, otoh, was sort of a late bloomer, his first two seasons really adding very little to his overall career value. So although English played approximately a half-season more, amounting to 119 more rs games, Nique’s instant impact puts him very very close in overall longevity. Both had ~9-year primes, too.

So overall it looks very very close to me. tbh, I'd maybe give the small edge to Wilkins.
Vote for #60: Dominique Wilkins.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Wanted to revisit the comparison I'd made of Wilkins vs. English (who was voted in at #54).....

Prime English (‘81-’89)
PER 21.2, .139 WS/48 in 36.6 mpg
77.5 WS, cumulative VORP: 28.9

Prime Wilkins (‘86-’94)
PER 23.2, .173 WS/48 in 37.4 mpg
89.6 WS, cumulative VORP: 32.8


As a defender….
My memory doesn’t place one firmly ahead of the other on defense. By reputation, English seems the better defender by a small margin (although he’s FAR from a noteworthy defender).

What data we have (admittedly not overly reliable) doesn’t support any sort of defensive edge for English, however. English has a career DBPM of -1.2; Nique’s is marginally better at -1.0. As mentioned above English has a career DRtg of 110 (+4.0 to league over same years; “+” being bad in DRtg). Nique’s is better at 108 (+0.7 to league).

Yeah, I mentioned the lack of focus for defense of those Nuggets teams which could contribute to Nique appearing better defensively (by the numbers). But fwiw, in spite of this Nique also appears comparable (maybe marginally better) on offensive too: English has a career ORtg of 111 (+4.6 to league); Nique’s is 112 (+4.7 to league). English’s career OBPM is +2.9; Nique’s is +3.3.
fwiw, career stl and blk per 100: English--- 1.3/1.0; Nique--- 1.8/0.8

I know, I know: none of these are particularly accurate actual indicators of defensive impact, but it’s all we have aside from the eye-test (I'd watched a couple Hawks games from the early 90's, fwiw; Wilkins did not appear a stand-out---"stand-out" in a bad way, I mean---in either of those games). So just putting it out there.

Further, I think there may be some things to suggest Wilkins' reputation as a poor defender is a touch overblown. Here's a look at some Hawk team defenses during Nique's prime and the personnel involved:

‘86: 6th/23 in DRtg, 7th/23 in opp eFG%
‘87: 2nd/23 in DRtg, 1st/23 in opp eFG%
‘88: 14th/23 in DRtg, 6th in opp eFG%

--->the one good rim-protector (Rollins) is now gone, as is Wittman. They've been replaced by Reggie Theus and a post-prime Moses Malone (neither of whom is a particularly noteworthy defender).....yet they still finish 9th of 25 defensively. Again, it seems hard to believe that's possible if Wilkins is as bad defensively as his reputation around here would suggest.
‘90: 25th/27 in DRtg, 26th/27 in opp eFG%
--->This is the first poor defensive team of Wilkins' prime. Rivers misses 34 games, and Spud Webb and John Battle taking on larger roles in backcourt. Perhaps it's around this point that Wilkins begins holding back/conserving on the defensive end (perhaps where his reputation comes from)??? Because we do start to see some sub-par defenses for the next few years.
Vote for #60: Dominique Wilkins.

.
I had a worse impression of English as a defender than I did of Wilkens as a defender but that may have been because of their teams.

I have a hunch that Wilkins bad defensive reputation may have been in his first few years. I have a vague recolection of that. Wilkins might have quit playing defense later in the early 1990s after years of grinding under Fratello got tedious.

In the mid to late 1980s I think Wilkins was playing good defense at least against the Celtics which was my vantage point on the NBA.

When Bird scored well against Wilkins it wasn't because Wilkins was doing anything wrong. I think Wilkins style of play and the attention Wilkins got for his posterizing slam dunks may have made other players want to play well against Wilkins to say "see, Wilkins isn't better than me he is just a show off".

Today the Eastern conference is not respected. In the time of English and Wilkins it was the Western Conference that had a reputation of being soft and not playing defense. The Eastern conference had more better basketball teams.

Celtics vs Nuggets games seemed like no defense games. The Celtics did not need to play defense because the Nuggets were not going to play defense. That did change when Lever, Natt and Cooper joined the Nuggets.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

http://deadspin.com/the-famous-dominiqu ... -509385641
OK Wilkins does look bad defensively on a few plays defending Bird. What Wilkins does offensively in this game is great and it is jump shots not dunks. For those who think Bird is a small forward, notice that it is McHale trying to defend Wilkins.

[Clyde Frazier]

http://deadspin.com/the-famous-dominique-wilkins-larry-bird-game-7-duel-jus-509385641
OK Wilkins does look bad defensively on a few plays defending Bird. What Wilkins does offensively in this game is great and it is jump shots not dunks. For those who think Bird is a small forward, notice that it is McHale trying to defend Wilkins.

Not looking to get into the "bird was really a PF" debate, but I'm not sure how pointing to a PF in McHale guarding nique implies that bird wasn't a SF. There's no gray area on McHale being a PF.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Owly]

http://deadspin.com/the-famous-dominique-wilkins-larry-bird-game-7-duel-jus-509385641
OK Wilkins does look bad defensively on a few plays defending Bird. What Wilkins does offensively in this game is great and it is jump shots not dunks. For those who think Bird is a small forward, notice that it is McHale trying to defend Wilkins.

Not looking to get into the "bird was really a PF" debate, but I'm not sure how pointing to a PF in McHale guarding nique implies that bird wasn't a SF. There's no gray area on McHale being a PF.

Yeah McHale, was the PF, he just defended the best offensive player by that point in their careers.

I have a hunch that Wilkins bad defensive reputation may have been in his first few years. I have a vague recolection of that. Wilkins might have quit playing defense later in the early 1990s after years of grinding under Fratello got tedious.

Playing D got tedious? And you're advocating this guy? Maybe that's a slip of the tongue but getting tired of playing D is like being tired of winning, it's a terrible sign.

Grading on a 6 point scale (D, C, B, A, AA, AAA, with some leeway in terms of pluses and minuses) the Barry scouting Bible/Handbooks gave him (I'll give the year of the prior season to publication, for clarity, rather than the year in the title was the year being nominally previewed)

89: C
90: B-
91: B+
92: B

This fits with my perception of him as broadly average or slightly worse.

The Hollander handbooks don't seem to ever mention him as notable on that end.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

http://deadspin.com/the-famous-dominique-wilkins-larry-bird-game-7-duel-jus-509385641
OK Wilkins does look bad defensively on a few plays defending Bird. What Wilkins does offensively in this game is great and it is jump shots not dunks. For those who think Bird is a small forward, notice that it is McHale trying to defend Wilkins.

Not looking to get into the "bird was really a PF" debate, but I'm not sure how pointing to a PF in McHale guarding nique implies that bird wasn't a SF. There's no gray area on McHale being a PF.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I don't really want to sidetrack this thread onto my pet peeve but when you have 3 off the 10 best power forwards in the game but don't have a top 50 small forward what you either play a power forward out of position or make a trade. Yes McHale was a power forward but Bird and Maxwell were also power forwards.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I have a hunch that Wilkins bad defensive reputation may have been in his first few years. I have a vague recolection of that. Wilkins might have quit playing defense later in the early 1990s after years of grinding under Fratello got tedious.

Playing D got tedious? And you're advocating this guy? Maybe that's a slip of the tongue but getting tired of playing D is like being tired of winning, it's a terrible sign.

Grading on a 6 point scale (D, C, B, A, AA, AAA, with some leeway in terms of pluses and minuses) the Barry scouting Bible/Handbooks gave him (I'll give the year of the prior season to publication, for clarity, rather than the year in the title was the year being nominally previewed)

89: C
90: B-
91: B+
92: B

This fits with my perception of him as broadly average or slightly worse.

The Hollander handbooks don't seem to ever mention him as notable on that end.

Fratello basketball was not a fun style of basketball.

On bad mediocre teams in the 1980s many players slacked off on defense during the regular season. That still happens but I think the overall defensive effort during the regular season has improved in the current era compared to the 1980s.

Wilkins may not have like playing defense but I think he did play decent defense for a while.Wilkens certainly had the physical ability to play defense.

Wilkens had to score for the Hawks. Wilkins had to save energy for offense.

English played on teams with plenty of other good scoring options. In my mind English was an inferior defender to Wilkins. But Alex English is already on the list.

[Quotatious]

I feel like I may change my vote to Paul Arizin. Era-relative, seems like a superior player than both Carter and Wilkins, good enough longevity (basically a 9-year prime, roughly the same as theirs, but Arizin had to serve in the military in the midst of his prime, missed two seasons - 1952-53 and '53'-'54). Pretty efficient scorer for his era, good rebounder, ballhandler, and I've even heard some good things about his defense. Obviously it's very hard to verify that stuff, having very little footage, but he was also a strong playoff performer, unlike VC and Nique.

Still not 100% sure, but there's a strong possibility that I'll vote for Arizin instead of Carter here.

[Clyde Frazier]

Happened upon Detlef Schrempf earlier… and i’d say he has a good case for the top 100 (hasn’t been voted in for any of the past projects as far as I can tell):

PRIME RS 90-98
17 PPG, 7.4 RPG, 4.1 APG, .9 SPG, .3 BPG
50.3% FG, 39% 3PT, 81.2% FT, 60% TS
.173 WS/48 119/107 OFF/DEF RTG

PRIME PS 90-98
17.1 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 3.3 APG, .7 SPG, .2 BPG
47.3% FG, 38.7% 3PT, 81.3% FT, 57.3% TS
.105 WS/48, 111/111 OFF/DEF RTG

He was the definition of solid production throughout his career. Yeah, his production dips a bit in the playoffs, but nothing that brings up any red flags. Even in his 17th season, he was still a good per minute / possession contributor in POR’s WCF run.

[SactoKingsFan]

Think most would leave him out, but IMO Detlef definitely has a solid case to make the top 100. He'll probably end up in the 85-90ish range on my ATL.

Here's the thread where I asked if posters considered Detled a top 100 player:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1342087

Sent from my LG G2

[RSCD3_]

Vote: Vince Carter

A great 1B or 2nd option on offense, and he has great portability ( would benefit from size and athleticism in earlier time periods and todays spacing and rule changes would make him a lot more dangerous when driving )

Above average defense and a very good playmaker, very good longevity

[Notanoob]

Bill Walton
Super-short peak, but one of the best players ever. Great at every facet of the game. One of the best passing C's of all time, excellent rebounder and defender, extremely high-effort guy. Took a title away from Dr.J and won an MVP over prime Kareem. I know his career was basically 3 season long, but he was just on another level from the guys left in the discussion as a player

[Moonbeam]

I'll throw another vote out there for Sam Jones, though it doesn't seem like he has much support at this point. Maybe it's just winners bias (though I try to avoid that), but I feel he was a big contributor to the Celtics' dynasty. He appeared to have some big scoring performances in series-clinching (and sometimes championship clinching) wins in close series.

Lots of good candidates, though. Moncrief is enticing, as are Wilkins, Carter, Thurmond (flpiii where are you?!) and Ginobili.

Arizin is a great mention as well. Looking at his numbers, they seem quite good.

[Joao Saraiva]

I've been voting for Dennis Rodman, but it seems like he's not getting any traction at this point. In what range do you guys think he should rank?

If he doesn't get any traction I would like to vote for Vince Carter, Manu Ginobili or Bill Walton. But I'd like to know 1st where do you guys think he'll rank.

[penbeast0]

I think Rodman will go in this next group, somewhere between this one (60) and 75. He turned a lot of people off with his antics but his impact is pretty clear. Whether he belongs above Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bobby Jones, and/or Dave DeBusschere as the next defense focused star is something you might want to do a good comparative analysis on; particularly against Thurmond who also seems to have some traction here.

[Owly]

I've been voting for Dennis Rodman, but it seems like he's not getting any traction at this point. In what range do you guys think he should rank?

If he doesn't get any traction I would like to vote for Vince Carter, Manu Ginobili or Bill Walton. But I'd like to know 1st where do you guys think he'll rank.

Rodman has a huge range in terms of where he can go/rank all time. Dave Berri said he was better per minute than MJ (may have been '96 specific but in any case ...)

Or similar

While I may not be ready to conclude that, yes, in fact, Rodman would actually be a more valuable asset to a potential championship contender than Michael freaking Jordan, I don’t think the opposite view is any stronger

On the other hand conventional boxscore metrics aren't huge fans, some accolades are pretty negative (twice third-team, only twice an all-star) and the negative intangiable issues are enough to have others slide him way down their lists.

I've mentioned the apparent unwillingness to score (despite so many offensive rebounds and putback opportunities) and intangiable issues with late-model Rodman, I'll add another concern, portability. If he's super focused on rebounding, and your team is already strong in that area how much will he add? He'll rebound a lot, but would he just be canibalizing them. There's D but does that even mitigate his absence of scoring threat (and if by much)?

There's just times when he seems to go out of his way to criticize teammates. He just seemed to be all about himself and generating publicity, which meant whilst he could still be very good, you couldn't rely on it.

I'd rather have a Bobby Jones type with great D, solid rebounding, very good passing, high BBIQ and a great chemistry guy. I'd go for similar if more slightly more offensive minded non-1st option boxscore stuffers like Nance and Marion, a full career of early or transition Rodman would be great, but as it is there's just that risk that you end up moving him for cents on the dollar because his position in untenable.

I'm torn because there's versions I really like and I know boxscore underestimates early Rodman. Just presently I'm not confident of the postive, reliable impact in later years.

On Random other topics discussed
Sam Jones: I'd like to be supporting him (and Sharman, maybe Howell), particularly because I think the non-Russell Celtics don't get enough credit, and because I think maybe Boston's style deflated their offensive numbers (efficiency wise). I just need to find a way to give him sufficient credit for what he did because my boxscore combo stuff (peak and career doesn't find him that great) though in his defense 1) they find him the 2nd best SG of the 60s, best if you count West as a pg; 2) they don't factor in the playoffs where he was stronger; 3) some measures (all career cumulative metrics, because players just had shorter careers back then; the faux EWA I used in particular because it skews against older players because the guy who calculated it thought older eras were worse). Anyway I wish I had a set of numbers I was happier with and could then do the subjective adjustments myself (e.g. era), but certainly I'd like to see him in soon.

Detlef: Obviously it depends on how others vote (if there's a guy you have as the 55th best player who hasn't got in, even if you think Detlef is say 70, you might well never vote for him) but I would think he's certainly well worthy of consideration. From what I've read he was super competitive and really wanted to win, he's a good passer, scored efficiently, spaced the floor, could play two positions comfortably (and I've read stuff at the time suggesting 3-4 position range though SG or C would be pinch hitting and clearly sub-optimal). There's probably not a huge difference between 80 and 120 and difference is in value would vary with criteria emphazed and specific context.

Arizin: Not to take away from what he actually was, but to me he's a huge what if guy. His best metrics are arguably rivaling Mikan's dominance in '52 and then, at 23 he get's drafted in military service, and never quite hits those peaks again. Maybe it's the league getting better or whatever but that 25.5 PER, .261 WS/48; 14.8 OWS season ... imagine that trajectory, even just maintaining that ...

Anyway as it is he has that year and 5 other very good (but not close to that one) seasons. I don't really know what to do with that ... hmmmmm

Walton: Not on my radar. Even if you don't factor in hurting teams with his salary or complaints about his comittment to the game attitude etc, even if you're not fussy about playoffs, he basically gives you two 2050 minute-ish seasons of very good, portable (but not amazing box-score wise) play and then only bits and pieces here and there. It's just not enough unless I was using criteria that (a) very heavily emphasized single year peak in a non-boxscore, playoffs weighted sort of way; (b) didn't use factors which are outside a players control (which I understand, but you can't take too far or otherwise taking it to it's logical conclusion you can't factor in players superior hand-eye coordination, you have to zero that out and just say who tried hardest) and/or (c) allowed hypotheticals and didn't think Walton's injury issues were chronic and predating him becoming a pro. Anyway as I say, not under consideration with my present criteria at this point.

Dominique: I'm seriously considering him here but ...
If he was just slacking on D in the RS fine but then his PS numbers suggest - even if he was then making an effort on D in the playoffs, doing so was negated by his drop off in offensive/boxscore production, so he couldn't/didn't maintatin both. And his boxscore numbers don't suggest increased defensive production in the playoffs (though these numbers are of course imperfect).

Obviously he had some impressive physical tools for D, but that only further led to opinions such as those Penbeast has highlighted (in mitigation/explanation: there are different types of athleticism, being able to leap high in one circumstance doesn't mean you'll be able to leap high, quickly in another). Now as I've said I'm not as down on him on that, and I've expressed views that he clearly wasn't a road block preventing a good team D, and that he could raise his game on D. Still I'm not persuaded as has been suggested that he was a good defender.

I'm not persuaded he should be in just because English is because English isn't the competition. Nor is Dantley or Drexler or any other possible comparison anchor. The competition is the rest of the field.

The playoffs is definitely an (the?) issue for him.

Thurmond: Another tricky one because he's not a boxscore player. I guess the strongest cases for him are the jobs he did on the great centers (Jabbar, Chamberlain) and perhaps a player-anchoring type argument that given the same circumstances he might have been able to provide a reasonable facsimilie of Russell (though obviously this depends on whether you believe that to be true and how much you weigh hypothetical/counterfactual type arguments).



My inclination is to vote Manu, but I'm not super confident on it. Unless I come back with something more solid, I guess I'm abstaining for the moment.