RealGM Top 100 List #61

[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 had a long outstanding career 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.

[Quotatious]

Vote: Paul Arizin

One of the best players of his era, #1 option on a championship team (or 1A/1B with Neil Johnston - Johnston was better in the RS, Arizin in the playoffs), efficient scorer for his era, on a pretty high volume, solid rebounder (and defender, based on what I've read), generally seems like a really good playoff performer. Long enough prime (9 seasons, plus solid contributions as a rookie - likely would've been more if not for military service in the midst of his prime).

Also, FWIW, he's a pretty important historical figure - pioneered the jump shot.

Arizin seems like a bit better all-around player than Dominique Wilkins, who's the next guy on my list. Neither was a good playmaker, but Arizin's defense was likely superior, and so was his scoring efficiency and playoff career. Better player relative to the era they played in. Nique has a longevity edge, but their primes were very similar, in terms of length (Wilkins played about 1.5 more seasons at his prime level, and he certainly had more non-prime contributions, but longevity isn't the most important thing, when it's IMO clear enough that Arizin was a superior player than Wilkins, for their time).

[trex_8063]

Some comparisons of Nique to other swingmen, Alex English (voted in at #54) and Vince Carter (voted in #60).

Prime English (‘81-’89)---733 rs games
RS
Per 100 possessions: 32.5 pts, 6.9 reb, 5.6 ast, 1.3 stl, 0.9 blk, 3.4 tov @ .557 ts% (+1.9% to league)
PER 21.2, .139 WS/48, 113 ORtg/111 DRtg (+2) in 36.6 mpg
Playoffs
Per 100 possessions: 31.5 pts, 6.8 reb, 5.8 ast, 0.8 stl, 0.5 blk, 2.7 tov @ .547 ts%
PER 19.7, .120 WS/48, 115 ORtg/115 DRtg (+/- 0) in 38.3 mpg

Prime Carter (‘00-’07)--571 rs games
RS
Per 100 possessions: 34.7 pts, 7.6 reb, 5.9 ast, 1.8 stl, 1.1 blk, 3.4 tov @ .536 ts% (+1.1% to league)
PER 22.2, .158 WS/48, 109 ORtg/105 DRtg (+4) in 37.8 mpg
Playoffs
Per 100 possessions: 33.3 pts, 8.9 reb, 6.8 ast, 1.9 stl, 1.1 blk, 3.5 tov @ .516 ts
PER 21.4, .143 WS/48, 107 ORtg/104 DRtg (+3) in 42.2 mpg

Prime Wilkins (‘86-’94)---663 rs games
RS
Per 100 possessions: 36.9 pts, 9.3 reb, 3.8 ast, 1.9 stl, 0.8 blk, 3.4 tov @ .544 ts% (+0.8% to league)
PER 23.2, .173 WS/48, 114 ORtg/109 DRtg (+5) in 37.4 mpg
Playoffs
Per 100 possessions: 36.1 pts, 8.3 reb, 3.7 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.9 blk, 3.6 tov @ .509 ts%
PER 19.5, .081 WS/48, 107 ORtg/113 DRtg (-6) in 39.8 mpg


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, VORP 34.6, BPM +1.6
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 Carter
Per 100 poss (rs): 31.2 pts, 7.6 reb, 5.7 ast, 1.7 stl, 1.0 blk, 3.2 tov @ .538 ts%
20.0 PER, .141 WS/48, 109 ORtg/106 DRtg (+3) in 34.2 mpg
115.7 rs WS, VORP 50.5, BPM +3.1
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 30.4 pts, 8.4 reb, 5.8 ast, 1.8 stl, 0.9 blk, 3.2 tov @ .514 ts%
PER 19.0, .128 WS/48, 106 ORtg/105 DRtg (+1) in 38.1 mpg
6.8 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, VORP 41.1, BPM +2.3
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

Nique generally the most impressive looking of the three in the rs, though the least impressive in the ps. The post-season woes are less relevant within the confines of this comparison (to English and Carter), because NONE of the three has a huge imprint on NBA playoff history.


Couple other measures of scoring efficiency (career rs stats, fwiw):
Pts/Missed FGA: English--- 2.468, Wilkins--- 2.29, Carter--2.182
Pts/Turnover: Wilkins--- 9.99, Carter---9.89, English---- 8.97
====>The amalgamation of these two alone could actually suggest that Nique's the most efficient scorer of the three, by the tightest of margins. And this on higher volume than either English or Carter.

Nique's the least impressive as a play-maker, but clearly the most impressive as a rebounder.

Had posted some other stuff in last thread to suggest that maybe Nique's rep as a poor defender is a tiny bit exaggerated, but am not going to repost here.

At any rate, the above (imo) pretty clearly indicates he's right there with these guys. And again, these are not comparisons to players still on the table; this is compared to guys already voted in.
Take that as an urging toward internal consistency if you wish, or simply take it as suggestion that Nique more than qualifies for the position currently being considered.

My vote for #61: Dominique Wilkins.

[tsherkin]

Vote: Dominique Wilkins

I was too indecisive to vote for him in the run-off, to be honest, but I think this is a reasonably good place to put him. I often had questions about his D and his playmaking when in comparisons with many of the guys who went before, but he was a pretty solid player, particularly during his 4-year peak run, and NI think that it's a reasonable spot at which to recognize that.

[SactoKingsFan]

Sticking with Grant Hill since he peaked higher and had more of an all around game and versatile skill set than Nique and Carter. Although Hill has relatively poor prime longevity, you still get 5 elite seasons, a very portable skill set and excellent role player seasons in PHO which when added to a great rookie season and 5 top 5-10 seasons gives Hill decent longevity. I don't think any of the candidates being discussed have a clear edge over Hill.

Vote: Grant Hill


Sent from my LG G2

[Joao Saraiva]

Some comparisons of Nique to other swingmen, Alex English (voted in at #54) and Vince Carter (voted in #60).

Prime English (‘81-’89)---733 rs games
RS
Per 100 possessions: 32.5 pts, 6.9 reb, 5.6 ast, 1.3 stl, 0.9 blk, @ .557 ts% (+1.9% to league)
PER 21.2, .139 WS/48, 113 ORtg/111 DRtg (+2) in 36.6 mpg
Playoffs
Per 100 possessions: 31.5 pts, 6.8 reb, 5.8 ast, 0.8 stl, 0.5 blk, 2.7 tov @ .547 ts%
PER 19.7, .120 WS/48, 115 ORtg/115 DRtg (+/- 0) in 38.3 mpg

Prime Carter (‘00-’07)--571 rs games
RS
Per 100 possessions: 34.7 pts, 7.6 reb, 5.9 ast, 1.8 stl, 1.1 blk, 3.4 tov @ .536 ts% (+1.1% to league)
PER 22.2, .158 WS/48, 109 ORtg/105 DRtg (+4) in 37.8 mpg
Playoffs
Per 100 possessions: 33.3 pts, 8.9 reb, 6.8 ast, 1.9 stl, 1.1 blk, 3.5 tov @ .516 ts
PER 21.4, .143 WS/48, 107 ORtg/104 DRtg (+3) in 42.2 mpg

Prime Wilkins (‘86-’94)---663 rs games
RS
Per 100 possessions: 36.9 pts, 9.3 reb, 3.8 ast, 1.9 stl, 0.8 blk, 3.4 tov @ .544 ts% (+0.8% to league)
PER 23.2, .173 WS/48, 114 ORtg/109 DRtg (+5) in 37.4 mpg
Playoffs
Per 100 possessions: 36.1 pts, 8.3 reb, 3.7 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.9 blk, 3.6 tov @ .509 ts%
PER 19.5, .081 WS/48, 107 ORtg/113 DRtg (-6) in 39.8 mpg


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, VORP 34.6, BPM +1.6
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 Carter
Per 100 poss (rs): 31.2 pts, 7.6 reb, 5.7 ast, 1.7 stl, 1.0 blk, 3.2 tov @ .538 ts%
20.0 PER, .141 WS/48, 109 ORtg/106 DRtg (+3) in 34.2 mpg
115.7 rs WS, VORP 50.5, BPM +3.1
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 30.4 pts, 8.4 reb, 5.8 ast, 1.8 stl, 0.9 blk, 3.2 tov @ .514 ts%
PER 19.0, .128 WS/48, 106 ORtg/105 DRtg (+1) in 38.1 mpg
6.8 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, VORP 41.1, BPM +2.3
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

Nique generally the most impressive looking of the three in the rs, though the least impressive in the ps. The post-season woes are less relevant within the confines of this comparison (to English and Carter), because NONE of the three has a huge imprint on NBA playoff history.


Couple other measures of scoring efficiency (career rs stats, fwiw):
Pts/Missed FGA: English--- 2.468, Wilkins--- 2.29, Carter--2.182
Pts/Turnover: Wilkins--- 9.99, Carter---9.89, English---- 8.97
====>The amalgamation of these two alone could actually suggest that Nique's the most efficient scorer of the three, by the tightest of margins. And this on higher volume than either English or Carter.

Nique's the least impressive as a play-maker, but clearly the most impressive as a rebounder.

Had posted some other stuff in last thread to suggest that maybe Nique's rep as a poor defender is a tiny bit exaggerated, but am not going to repost here.

At any rate, the above (imo) pretty clearly indicates he's right there with these guys. And again, these are not comparisons to players still on the table; this is compared to guys already voted in.
Take that as an urging toward internal consistency if you wish, or simply take it as suggestion that Nique more than qualifies for the position currently being considered.

My vote for #61: Dominique Wilkins.

I like your reasons. I'm convinced about Dominique. My vote goes for Dominique Wilkins.

[ronnymac2]

Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace are on my mind right now. I would give Nate the edge, but to be honest, I'm not sure if I prefer him defensively over Big Ben. I mean, Thurmond is the GOAT man defender vs. low post centers (that's probably the worst part of Ben's defensive repertoire btw), but Big Ben put together elite defensive rebounding with insane blocks/steals/pick-n-roll D/rim protection activity and somehow didn't foul as much as guys like Mutombo, Mourning, Olajuwon, Ewing, and Robinson. He's basically what we think Anthony Davis can become on defense.

From 2001-2007, Ben Wallace averaged 8.7 defensive rebounds (27.6 defensive rebound rate), 2.7 blocks, 1.6 steals, and just 2.2 fouls in 36.3 minutes per game. Here is where his teams ranked defensively over that span:

2001 — 8th
2002 — 8th
2003 — 3rd
2004 — 2nd (GOAT level over last parts of REG SEA and Playoffs)
2005 — 5th
2006 — 3rd
2007 — 1st

Is Nate's global defensive impact that damn good? I'm not sure. Not ready to vote yet.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman

Wings: Paul Arizin, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[ceiling raiser]

Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace are on my mind right now. I would give Nate the edge, but to be honest, I'm not sure if I prefer him defensively over Big Ben. I mean, Thurmond is the GOAT man defender vs. low post centers (that's probably the worst part of Ben's defensive repertoire btw), but Big Ben put together elite defensive rebounding with insane blocks/steals/pick-n-roll D/rim protection activity and somehow didn't foul as much as guys like Mutombo, Mourning, Olajuwon, Ewing, and Robinson. He's basically what we think Anthony Davis can become on defense.

From 2001-2007, Ben Wallace averaged 8.7 defensive rebounds (27.6 defensive rebound rate), 2.7 blocks, 1.6 steals, and just 2.2 fouls in 36.3 minutes per game. Here is where his teams ranked defensively over that span:

2001 — 8th
2002 — 8th
2003 — 3rd
2004 — 2nd (GOAT level over last parts of REG SEA and Playoffs)
2005 — 5th
2006 — 3rd
2007 — 1st

Is Nate's global defensive impact that damn good? I'm not sure. Not ready to vote yet.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman

Wings: Paul Arizin, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Deron Williams, Mark Price

The Nate vs Big Ben comparison is interesting. Looking forward to the conversation (couple of posts from awhile back viewtopic.php?p=41219896#p41219896 viewtopic.php?p=41290348#p41290348).

Since Nique is getting traction, wondering how everybody feels about him vs Manu?

[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.

[penbeast0]

I (or someone) should do a Manu v. Sid v. Grant comp . . . all relatively short careers. I think Sid's the most valuable prime, then Manu, then Grant but Grant had the biggest role on his team and a longer (roleplayer) post-prime career.

[Quotatious]

I (or someone) should do a Manu v. Sid v. Grant comp . . . all relatively short careers. I think Sid's the most valuable prime, then Manu, then Grant but Grant had the biggest role on his team and a longer (roleplayer) post-prime career.

I'd definitely give Moncrief the edge as far as primes (Sid's '82-'86 stretch comfortably over any 5-year stretch of Manu, for me), and I don't think we even have to go into the whole minutes played thing - Moncrief had 20.5 PER, 21.2 WS/48, 59.2% TS for those 5 years in the RS, so pretty close to Ginobili's numbers - for example '04-'08 Manu had 22.3 PER, 22.6 WS/48, 59.3% TS, with Moncrief having a bit higher VORP, and clear defensive edge, considering that he was a consistent All-Defensive 1st team performer), however, Manu was clearly better in the playoffs (but it's not enough for me to give him the overall edge for prime, because Moncrief was usually the #1 option on his team, Ginobili just #2 or #3.

Anyway, I'd rank Ginobili higher career-wise, because he had more valuable contributions other than their respective 5-year stretches. Minutes played are very close, but I'd definitely take Manu's non '04-'08 contributions over Moncrief's non-'82-'86 - wouldn't even hesitate, to be honest.

It's close, and if you prefer to evaluate players based on their best prime/5-year stretch, you can rank Sidney higher, but I prefer a longer, more sustained period of excellence, and that's why Ginobili is my pick.

BTW - prime goes to Moncrief, but peak may go to Manu - I'd seriously consider taking '05 Ginobili over any season of Moncrief - Sid gets the edge for RS, but Ginobili had an exceptional playoff run that year.

Oh, and if I had to decide where to rank Grant Hill - I'd probably take him ahead of both Moncrief and Ginobili. He has one more quality season than Sidney (very comparable level), and clearly more valuable role player contributions. So, Hill over Moncrief for me, but not so sure about Hill vs Ginobili. FWIW, Manu definitely proved more in the playoffs (but Hill would definitely appear on the top 10 list for each season during his prime more often than Ginobili).

[Quotatious]

If we're already talking about Hill, Moncrief and Manu, wouldn't it make sense to mention Melo and Mullin, as well? Anthony's prime is already almost twice as long as Moncrief's or Hill's (superior quantity may outweigh inferior quality in this case), and Mullin had a 4.5 year stretch when he averaged almost 26 PPG on 60% TS.

Just something to consider.

[tsherkin]

If we're already talking about Hill, Moncrief and Manu, wouldn't it make sense to mention Melo and Mullin, as well? Anthony's prime is already almost twice as long as Moncrief's or Hill's (superior quantity may outweigh inferior quality in this case), and Mullin had a 4.5 year stretch when he averaged almost 26 PPG on 60% TS.

Just something to consider.

Mullin seems more relevant than Melo just yet, especially given how much better he played during his peak. I guess it depends on how much you weight longevity, though.

[penbeast0]

I don't see Hill over Moncrief for peak . . . or even that it's all that close. Sid is clearly the superior scorer despite Hill being far more the featured star on his teams, particularly in terms of efficiency; Sid is clearly the better defender; I don't see Hill's greater usage/assists and rebounding to come close to making up that difference.

How you weigh longevity is a big factor whenever talking about Moncrief however because of the rapid disintegration of his knees.

[Quotatious]

I don't see Hill over Moncrief for peak . . . or even that it's all that close. Sid is clearly the superior scorer despite Hill being far more the featured star on his teams, particularly in terms of efficiency; Sid is clearly the better defender; I don't see Hill's greater usage/assists and rebounding to come close to making up that difference.

I have to disagree about Moncrief being a clearly superior scorer. I'm sure you're looking at '97 Hill, which was probably his all-around peak, but 2000 Hill was IMO at least as good of a scorer as prime Moncrief. Obviously it's just one season, but when Hill really had to be a volume scorer, he could do it pretty well.

Here are prime Moncrief's numbers:

'82-'86 Moncrief:

21.0 points, 5.8 rebounds, 4.7 assists, 1.5 steals, 12.7% TOV, 20.5 PER, 21.2 WS/48, 59.2% TS, 4.9 BPM, 24.3 VORP

And here are Hill's (also 5 seasons)

'96-'00 Hill:

21.9 points, 8.1 rebounds, 6.5 assists, 1.6 steals, 14.4% TOV, 23.1 PER, 18.3 WS/48, 54.5% TS, 5.3 BPM, 26.4 VORP

Very comparable numbers. Obviously Moncrief was better defensively, and you can argue that he was a slightly better player because of that, but I really don't see how they aren't close (Moncrief also had much stronger teams, with superior offensive talent around him, so I'm not sure if the difference in terms of scoring efficiency was really that big - I'd bet that Hill's TS% would've improved on the Bucks, and Moncrief's would've dropped on the Pistons).

Note that I'm not really trying to say that I'd take Hill - in fact, I'm not sure who I'd take in terms of prime. However, I'd take Hill's overall career over Moncrief's, because of his superior non-prime contributions. Hill also played a lot more minutes (about 35000-36000, RS + playoffs combined, compared to just about 26500 for Moncrief).

[penbeast0]

I think of 5 points of efficiency for a primary scorer as significant; and the defensive edge as strong (though I think Hill's defense in his prime was solid if not a difference maker). Looking at career, you can certainly make a case for Hill due to longevity but I don't think his 5 year prime was as impressive and I'm not sure how much he adds to championship hopes as a role player -- he's a positive but it's not comparable to what either was in their prime.

[trex_8063]

I don't see Hill over Moncrief for peak . . . or even that it's all that close. Sid is clearly the superior scorer despite Hill being far more the featured star on his teams, particularly in terms of efficiency;.....

Don't you think the fact that he was the more featured star (with less talent in the supporting cast around him) may have contributed to the lower efficiency to at least a small degree?

Sid is clearly the better defender; I don't see Hill's greater usage/assists and rebounding to come close to making up that difference.

Hmm, see I'm not sure about that. I think Hill was a very respectable defender thru most of his career (and versatile, too: able to guard 1 thru 3). He received a few All-D votes even during his role years in PHX. Note also his DRAPM every year he played significant games:
'98: +1.90
'99: +1.38
'00: +0.10
'05: +0.3
'07: -0.5
'08: +1.06
'09: +0.94
'10: +0.54
'11: +0.03
'12: -0.05

Given all of this, I'm actually of the opinion that the gap in rebounding and play-making (in Hill's favor) is enough to overcome the defensive gap (EDIT: tbh, I might even say "and then some").

How you weigh longevity is a big factor whenever talking about Moncrief however because of the rapid disintegration of his knees.

This I agree with. Even Hill's longevity looks pretty decent when being compared to Moncrief. If we're declaring a 5-year prime for each, then I would say Hill has probably at least two injury-shortened (maybe even three???) non-prime seasons that were better than any of Moncrief's non-prime seasons, plus about half dozen other decent role player years (mostly in PHX).

It's a nice comparison. I do have Hill higher, but they're very close in my ATL.

[Quotatious]

Hmm, see I'm not sure about that. I think Hill was a very respectable defender thru most of his career (and versatile, too: able to guard 1 thru 3). He received a few All-D votes even during his role years in PHX. Note also his DRAPM every year he played significant games:
'98: +1.90
'99: +1.38
'00: +0.10
'05: +0.3
'07: -0.5
'08: +1.06
'09: +0.94
'10: +0.54
'11: +0.03
'12: -0.05

Also +1.33 in '97 (that may've been his best overall season - it's either '97 or '00 - I'd lean slightly towards '97).

[ronnymac2]

Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace are on my mind right now. I would give Nate the edge, but to be honest, I'm not sure if I prefer him defensively over Big Ben. I mean, Thurmond is the GOAT man defender vs. low post centers (that's probably the worst part of Ben's defensive repertoire btw), but Big Ben put together elite defensive rebounding with insane blocks/steals/pick-n-roll D/rim protection activity and somehow didn't foul as much as guys like Mutombo, Mourning, Olajuwon, Ewing, and Robinson. He's basically what we think Anthony Davis can become on defense.

From 2001-2007, Ben Wallace averaged 8.7 defensive rebounds (27.6 defensive rebound rate), 2.7 blocks, 1.6 steals, and just 2.2 fouls in 36.3 minutes per game. Here is where his teams ranked defensively over that span:

2001 — 8th
2002 — 8th
2003 — 3rd
2004 — 2nd (GOAT level over last parts of REG SEA and Playoffs)
2005 — 5th
2006 — 3rd
2007 — 1st

Is Nate's global defensive impact that damn good? I'm not sure. Not ready to vote yet.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman

Wings: Paul Arizin, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Deron Williams, Mark Price

The Nate vs Big Ben comparison is interesting. Looking forward to the conversation (couple of posts from awhile back viewtopic.php?p=41219896#p41219896 viewtopic.php?p=41290348#p41290348).

Since Nique is getting traction, wondering how everybody feels about him vs Manu?

Damn, that is THE post for Nate The Great. My gut says vote for Thurmond, so that's what I'll do, but I am def open to be persuaded in other directions.


Vote: Nate Thurmond

One of the 2 best defensive players left. He was a putrid scorer but an active screen-setter, forcible offensive rebounder, and smart passer. I don't think he had an ego that would make him clash with "possession optimization era" coaches who would ask him to shoot his fadeaway less (or how about never?). So he'd have mildly positive offensive impact with DPOY-caliber defense.

First man with an official quad-double and possibly played the GOAT, KAJ, to a standstill in the playoffs. Made the finals in 1967, only losing to perhaps the greatest team in history.

[Moonbeam]

I've had a re-think and I'm going to vote for Dominique Wilkins. I think trex has convinced me on that front - his regular season numbers are very good and definitely comparable to some of the other SFs already in, and his head to head stats vs. the top-flight 80s SFs aren't too bad, and they don't include many games from arguably his best years from 1990-1993. Sam Jones and Nate Thurmond are the other main contenders here - I'm glad to see flpiii chime in with his amazing post for Thurmond.