RealGM Top 100 List #64

[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. . Sidney Moncrief may be the 3rd greatest 2 guard ever . . . for 4 years. Billy Cunningham, Chet Walker, Bernard King, Glen Rice, Mitch Richmond, there are a lot of scorers out there, how many are at this level, I'm not sure.

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.

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 had some monster runs but also some weak ones -- though his defense shut down several opposing scorers even in the weaker offensive runs.

Of the short peak guys, who are you most likely to win a title with during their approximately 5 years of dominance?

Moncrief -- the stopper, has the best chance of anyone in history to actually shut down a James Harden type scoring wing. Offensively, the most efficient of the 3, will get you around 20/game on .600 efficiency.
Hill -- the stat box stuffer, not terribly efficient scorer but gives you terrific rebounding, playmaking and solid enough defense.
McAdoo -- the scorer, can get you 30 a game on good efficiency and average rebounding at the cost of defense and some locker room issues. Would he have been better if his defensive issues could have been hidden at PF or would forwards have been more able to defend him out on the floor more effectively than the centers of his day did?

I prefer Moncrief's chance to get you rings. He's the most efficient scorer, did it within a share the ball offense (which has generally been the most efficient) rather than being the featured star, and he's the most impactful defender, not just individually but with his aggression translating to his teammates so that during his star seasons, his team was consistently at the top of the league defensively despite never having great defensive bigs (it continued there 1 season after he left with Paul Pressey taking his spot but then slipped and never recovered). Hill on good team wont be as ball dominant and would probably not be a first option which means his boxscore numbers will decline across the board and McAdoo's individual brilliance never translated into team success for whatever reason. Moncrief's did, the most of the three, though he had the bad luck to run into either the Bird/McHale/Parish Celtics or the Moses/Erving led Sixers almost every year of his prime. It was the era of the superteam and Milwaukee never had that third star to go with Sid and either Marques Johnson or Terry Cummings and fell short of those 2 all-time top 10 stacked teams.

I like Hill as a role player but he isn't a significant difference maker from an average starting wing, same goes for McAdoo's shorter stretch as a role player though each had real value. So, for me it comes down to peak for these three and Moncrief's peak was the highest.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay seems like a good time to take a step back at who's out there. These are guys who 64 or high in the 2011 project who have not been voted in yet:

Bob Cousy
Bill Walton
Bob McAdoo
Sidney Moncrief
Wes Unseld
Sam Jones
Marques Johnson
Bernard King
Dennis Rodman

Not saying there's anything wrong with not having them in, but if you haven't thought about those guys in a while, it would make sense to do so.

[Owly]

Where I am – some things I look at (post contains Arizin as largely composed whilst the last thread was still active)

Career value added faux-EWA-WS pythag rank
Name; Rank Score; Ranking
Marion; 59.5483; 34
Bellamy; 70.66116; 41
Nance; 70.83784; 43
Brand; 74.09453; 45
Hill; 96.33276; 58
Sikma; 100.2397; 59
Johnston; 102.2155; 60
Divac; 103.4795; 62
R Wallace; 104.0192; 63
Howell; 106.9299; 64
Arizin; 110.2769; 65
Unseld; 113.6002; 67
Kemp; 114.1271; 68
Cousy; 114.8085; 70

Caveats/notes: Obviously there’s aforementioned issues with my part of the methodology, whilst I quite like combining the two metrics to keep out more flukey seasons combining rankings is certainly imperfect, and as before this isn’t perfectly up to date. Another issue is with the faux EWA. Basically there are a lot of known but unseen adjustments that the creator made, that I might not be philosophically against, but we can’t be sure how much they adjusted the numbers (included postseason numbers, made adjustments for defense, skewed pro peak and a pro modern skew).

Marion and Nance: I like both in terms of the all round contribution. Perhaps the defense adjustment made in faux EWA went too far after their boxscore is already factored in (but their rankings there aren’t terribly different from their WS rankings). Anyhow, even if they are, they would now have dropped some 20+ spots from their boxscore ranking. The other issue with them is the absence of a huge peak, but then there aren’t many left and those that are have issues with era or longevity. I really like these guys as superb complementary players. Marion’s peak is a little higher, Nance had more quality years.

Bellamy: An interesting case. Big boxscore, big peak, not so great reputation.

Brand: A big one year outlier peak, but quietly consistently very good including strong D. Stuck on bad teams and playing in the exact same era as 3 of the greatest PFs of all time (and around their peaks, the same conference as all of them) meant he didn’t get much pub, but I think he warrants consideration here.
Hill, Johnston and Arizin represent the big peaks. Arizin and Johnston are those most hurt by faux EWA’s anti-older era bias, being the furthest back.

Sikma, Divac, Unseld and Sheed are slightly atypical passing inclined bigs, without big boxscore peaks.

Kemp has a better boxscore peak than the above pack and has good playoff numbers but was permanently in foul trouble (limiting his minutes in his prime), not fundamentally sound, not the most mature guy and ate his way out of the league.

Howell is an oddity, like Cousy with regard to disappointing playoff numbers. Unlike Cousy often ignored historically but one of the most efficient scorers of the 60s. Cousy himself been covered in previous conversations.

Moncrief, who had a vote last time isn’t too far off the edge of that group (79th), Thurmond is further (105th) but the argument for him isn’t necessarily about the numbers (one might for instance believe he could provide a pretty good facsimile of Russell given the same circumstances). Doc’s “last edition” listing includes Rodman who is similarly non-boxscore. May look at those on that listing and other angles if and when I get time.

The best boxscore peaks are Stoudemire, Johnston, Arizin, McAdoo, Bellamy, Brandon, Brand.

Will probably leave it [voting] for now, whilst I try to work it all out. Understand scepticism about Johnston regarding team success (team fell apart when Arizin left, though Andy Phillip did so too) Philly’s star system, but just enquiring, are we sure he wasn’t better than Arizin. Certainly he gets forgotten for a 4 time 1st team All-NBA center.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Nate Thurmond

Still going with Thurmond for now. I'm trying to figure out why I shouldn't vote for Bob McAdoo however. Guy's peak was insane in the mid-70s.

Also looking at Grant Hill. His longevity is pretty impressive all things considered.

Thurmond was great though. Top-10 defensive player ever, was sort of like Joakim Noah with worse scoring on offense (so average, but useful).

Spoiler:

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

Wings: Penny Hardaway, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[penbeast0]

If Thurmond's scoring was "average" I'd vote for him too. It wasn't, it was awful and led to his team having one of the worst offenses in the league through the first 8 years of his career.

[trex_8063]

Vote for #64: Bob Cousy.

Thought I’d throw in a bit of statistical comparison to some other PG’s already voted in (in some instances quite awhile ago)....

Prime Per 100 Possessions (rs)
Cousy (‘52-’61)--697 rs games: 21.9 pts, 6.1 reb, 8.8 ast @ 44.9% TS% (-0.4% to league)
Isiah Thomas (‘83-92)--770 rs games: 26.1 pts, 4.9 reb, 12.6 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 4.9 tov @ 52.3% ts (-1.4% to league)
Kevin Johnson (‘89-’97)--599 rs games: 26.6 pts, 4.5 reb, 13.4 ast, 2.1 stl, 0.3 blk, 4.5 tov @ 59.0% ts (+5.4% to league)
Chauncey Billups (‘03-’11)--685 rs games: 27.0 pts, 5.0 reb, 9.6 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.4 tov @ 59.5% ts (+6.0% to league)

Peak PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 23.7
Chauncey Billups: 23.6
Isiah Thomas: 22.2
Bob Cousy: 21.7

Prime PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 21.5
Chauncey Billups: 20.5
Bob Cousy: 20.1
Isiah Thomas: 18.9

Career PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 20.7
Bob Cousy: 19.8
Chauncey Billups: 18.8
Isiah Thomas: 18.1

Prime PER (playoffs)
Isiah Thomas: 19.8
Kevin Johnson: 19.6
Chauncey Billups: 19.6
Bob Cousy: 18.0

Peak WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .257
Kevin Johnson: .220
Bob Cousy: .178
Isiah Thomas: .173

Prime WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .207
Kevin Johnson: .187
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .126

Career WS/48 (rs)
Kevin Johnson: .178
Chauncey Billups: .176
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .109

Prime WS/48 (playoffs)
Chauncey Billups: .197
Isiah Thomas: .143
Kevin Johnson: .124
Bob Cousy: .121

So while he doesn't rate out "well" among these guys, he does appear "in the mix". Although era considerations obviously apply. Still, this isn't comparing to players still on the table; the others are all voted in already (one as far back as 25 places ago!).

Some other "career bullet-points", for whatever they're worth:

*6-Time NBA champion. For at least 2 of those he was the clear 2nd-best player on the team, and was one other where he was at worst the "2B" on the team. Was never less than the 4th or 5th best/most important player on any of those championship squads. I'd like to quote something from John Taylor's The Rivalry regarding the Celtics dynasty and contributions by players NOT named Bill Russell. He was definitely the keystone for that team, though I think he too often gets credited for having carried them to 11 titles; and I think it gets overlooked just how lucky Russell was a to land where he did:

"…..But Auerbach’s inquiries left him with the impression that, however limited Russell might be in general, in the areas of his strengths he was overwhelming. Russell was not the answer to every coach’s prayers. But working with the players whose skills complemented and extended his and whose talents covered for his weaknesses---players, that is, like the Celtics--he could be the linchpin of an indomitable team…." (pg 64-65)

*13-Time All-Star (tied for 10th all-time)
*12 Times All-NBA (tied for 6th all-time); 10 of those All-NBA 1st Team (tied for 3rd all-time).
----obv era considerations again apply, but just sayin'
*36th all-time in MVP Award Shares. Even if we down-grade his 1957 finish from 1st to 3rd ('cause obv it's questionable that he deserved that), he'd still likely be in the top 50 all-time.
*33rd all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.

Cousy was capable of leading #1 offenses. A quote from Michael Grange's Basketball's Greatest Players:

“.....Boston had only six plays and their fast break, but were the highest-scoring* team of their era---and it was Cousy who made it work.” The were also the #1-rated offense for three consecutive seasons ('53-'55).


And I also want to talk about something that I think is relevant to the discussion (Doc will likely disagree with me, saying I'm again being too broad): pioneering, or otherwise being influential on the evolution of the game. To me, such is inseparable from any discussion of "greatness". Cousy was doing things with the ball that nearly no one else was doing at the time (give a little props to Bob Davies and Marques Haynes, as previously discussed), and was certainly the most high-profile player doing them, and was the most successful at incorporating these things while also being a highly effective player in the major pro league. In many ways he pioneered or established the classic point guard role. If I can again quote Michael Grange's book:

“When Chris Paul crosses over his man, drags the help defense with him and drops the ball behind him so his teammate can have the easy layup, he is paying tribute to Bob Cousy. It’s the same when Steve Nash looks right and passes left, hitting his teammate for a dunk, or when Rajon Rondo grabs a defensive rebound and sprints for the other end of the floor, leading the herd. They are all bowing to Bob Cousy, the NBA point guard who did it first.”


Frankly, Cousy is on the short-list of the most influential players in pro basketball history. How much value should be attached to that is open for debate; but imo it absolutely is worth something.

To me he's the biggest combination of career value, career achievement, and game influence left out there. I certainly don't think #64 is overrating him at all (we're certainly well past the "status quo" on Cousy, at any rate).
The only other guy I'm feeling somewhat at this spot is McAdoo, who imo is the highest peak left out there with the probable/possible exceptions of Walton and Connie Hawkins; but even McAdoo's longevity is pretty good compared to those two.

[Quotatious]

Vote: Grant Hill

One of my favorite players of all-time, and his case is as good as anyone's, at this point. 5-year prime when he was a top 10 player basically every year (I'd have to make a list for every season between '96 and '00 to make sure my claim is true, but at first glance, I really don't see 10 guys better than Hill in any of these seasons), probably even peaked as a top 5 guy (in '97, and just slightly below that, at 7, in 2000, after Shaq, Zo, Duncan, Malone, Payton and Garnett).

He was also able to change his game and become a very valuable role player late in his career in Phoenix (actually even had an All-Star caliber season in 2005 in Orlando, playing 67 games, averaging about 20/5/3 on 20 PER, 56.5% TS) - it was basically just a matter of health with him - he was such a talented and intelligent player that he could always find a way to contribute if he could just be out there on the court.

He didn't have much of a playoff career, but he's not the only one who has that problem here, and he often just had bad luck in this regard.

Like ronnymac said, Hill's longevity is pretty impressive, when you know how much he had to endure. About 36500 career minutes (RS+PS combined). That's much better than for example Sidney Moncrief (I've already expressed my thoughts on prime Hill vs Moncrief - IMO it's more or less a wash, and Hill's non-prime contributions are clearly superior to Moncrief's).

[Joao Saraiva]

My vote goes to Dennis Rodman.

I think his all time rebounding numbers justify the spot, and also his defensive efforts.

Averaged more than 18 RPG twice, lead the league in rebounding several times and got 2 DPOY awards, along with multiple 1st team defensive selections.

[magicmerl]

My vote goes to Dennis Rodman.

I think his all time rebounding numbers justify the spot, and also his defensive efforts.

Averaged more than 18 RPG twice, lead the league in rebounding several times and got 2 DPOY awards, along with multiple 1st team defensive selections.

I agree. My vote is for Dennis Rodman too.

Although clearly not a well rounded player, he was singularly great at rebounding (the rebounders better than him went far earlier in the project). And he was pretty good at taking opposing PF/Cs out of their game on defense.

[Owly]

My Wins Above Good measure (as ever not taking away for time below but only counting minutes and play above the threshold) for the RS for those mentioned in my previous post

in both measures Cousy is missing his rookie season (minutes not recorded, neither is PER estimates)

EWA (PER) based Wins Above Good (Where Good = 17.9 PER)

Neil Johnston 62.31428
Elton Brand 56.76358
Amar'e Stoudemire 53.01318
Bob McAdoo 49.68881
Walt Bellamy 47.441
Grant Hill 42.28965
Shawn Marion 37.39274
Larry Nance 33.13085
Shawn Kemp 32.23035
Marques Johnson 31.59547
Bob Cousy 29.94303
Terrell Brandon 26.5204
Bernard King 24.73716
Bailey Howell 23.32214
Sidney Moncrief 18.29985
Bill Walton 15.57692
Jack Sikma 12.07736
Sam Jones 10.72607
Rasheed Wallace 8.006766
Vlade Divac 6.38592
Wes Unseld 0.0602488
Dennis Rodman 0

the same with win shares above good (.144 WS/48)

Neil Johnston 37.50535
Bailey Howell 26.02558
Sidney Moncrief 23.0294
Walt Bellamy 20.93269
Sam Jones 19.9995
Amar'e Stoudemire 18.79104
Larry Nance 18.67998
Bob McAdoo 18.40183
Shawn Marion 18.08771
Elton Brand 17.67381
Marques Johnson 16.40483
Shawn Kemp 15.98746
Grant Hill 11.53165
Jack Sikma 10.18433
Wes Unseld 10.12033
Terrell Brandon 8.899083
Dennis Rodman 8.412583
Rasheed Wallace 6.774042
Bill Walton 6.547875
Bernard King 6.473833
Vlade Divac 3.322479
Bob Cousy 3.230292

Apart from Johnston, the two different metrics tend to differ substantially on who they really rate.

Am now leaning Johnston. Boxscore wise he obviously has a very strong peak, and maintained that level to get the significant Wins Above Good measures above. The issues are team performance and era. Team performance is perhaps the biggie (era obviously is a "problem" but with Arizin in already, that alone probably doesn't stop someone with his numbers --and all-NBA accolades-- at this point). I tend to take individual production at face value but the team stuff probably has to be looked at here. A sypathetic view might be that the team became bad when Arizin and Phillip went (and they weren't great at Arizin's boxscore peak) and they got good when Arizin returned and Gola arrived, and in the meantime he had a terrible supporting cast (maybe it's arguable that in the smaller league, in it's infancy smaller differences mattered more, and/or it was more possible, through less complex scouting, to fall off the pack with inferior role players). The less sympathetic view would be that he was an awful defender, that the Philly star system led to epic individual numbers (the thing is, when there's no shot clock, it's hard to figure how he can be said to be causing teammates to shoot poorly except through skill atrophy) and that his numbers aren't that far ahead of other 50s centers like Groza, Macauley, Foust and Lovellette. I tend to say teammates lousy free throw shooting tends to be a point in favour of the sympathetic interpretation (teammates that can't shoot) but I guess it could fit with atrophy too. Hmmm.

[SactoKingsFan]

Grant Hill's still my top candidate. Although Hill has relatively poor prime longevity/durability, 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 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

Other guys on my radar:

Spoiler:

Thurmond
Moncrief
McAdoo
Unseld
Rodman
Jones
Parker
King

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Moonbeam]

If Thurmond's scoring was "average" I'd vote for him too. It wasn't, it was awful and led to his team having one of the worst offenses in the league through the first 8 years of his career.

For what it's worth, the negative impact of Thurmond's scoring isn't that far removed from Elvin Hayes, who I don't think anyone would claim was as good of a defender.

Thurmond Score+: -0.927
Hayes Score+: -1.005

Thurmond PosScore+: -1.084
Hayes PosScore+: -0.899

Thurmond TeamScore+: -0.476
Hayes TeamScore+: -0.281

I'm strongly considering Thurmond here, but I'll cast another vote for Sam Jones. Pretty long career as a great scorer who I feel had an important role in the Celtics dynasty.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #12:

Sidney Moncrief (1) - penbeast0

Nate Thurmond (1) - ronnymac2

Bob Cousy (1) - trex_8063

Grant Hill (2) - Quotatious, SactoKingsFan

Dennis Rodman (2) - Joao Saraiva, magicmerl

Sam Jones (1) - Moonbeam

Neil Johnston (1???) - Owly?? (wasn't sure on that one)

[penbeast0]

I hate these light votes, 2 votes and you get into the runoff isn't much of a consensus for the board but that's what we've got right now . . . okay, between Grant Hill and Dennis Rodman, I will hold my nose and vote for the Worm.

Hill's ball dominant style in his prime is like a poor man's LeBron; the trouble is that he wasn't dominant enough to carry a championship team really, just a very good player. As a role player/specialist, Rodman is more valuable despite the idiocy and drama. He is the GOAT rebounder ever and was a very good defender, even in Chicago (though not in San Antonio where he was feuding and sulking). That's an incredibly valuable skill set if you can get his head out of his butt.

[Owly]

I'll go Hill. PER (EWA) suggests he adds a significant amount of value above good I'm inclined to agree. WS is more skeptical but part of that is that in Detroit the team wasn't great which I'd be inclined to say is because of an unstable and mediocre supporting cast (some not terrible names but no great 2nd options, little in the way of 2 way players, generally not guys at their peak, not always guys in ideal headspace/frame of mind and as before a lack of stability, so whilst maybe the likes of Dumars, Stackhouse, Houston, Hunter, Augmon, McKie, Sealy, Mills, Miller, Thorpe, Long, Ratliff, Williams, Reid, Laettner, Vaught and Williams/Dele doesn't sound that bad, Hill probably got as much out of them as you could expect). Even before the injury a slightly odd career arc (maybe '98 he was trying to accomodate Dele, Stackhouse?).

In any case I like what you actually got from Hill's career and I like (at the margin) that re-run it again and you might very well get more (suggestions that problems began because of Detroit's medical staff cf: http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/ ... cal-staff/). With Rodman I like a lot of what you get through '92, thereafter he's unreliable (to put it gently), needs to be on the right team and from that point might have had a lot worse career if you run it through again (either Spurs opt to keep him, MJ doesn't come back or any other hypothetical career or scenario where you don't have the greatest player ever and the arguably the greatest star/enigma handling coach ever and a team that can live with him ignoring shooting).

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Grant Hill

He was more of a franchise player than Rodman and a true MVP player. He was 3rd in MVP voting and a true superstar.

[trex_8063]

Run-off vote: Grant Hill.

The more versatile and dominant player in his prime, who was once a legit top 5 player in the league imo. With the right supporting cast, I do think peak Hill was capable of being the #1 on a contender, and certainly had many seasons where he was capable of being the #2 on a contender. And was still a very capable role player (or even marginal All-Star: '05 for example) for several post-prime seasons.

Dennis Rodman may have been one of the best defensive forwards of all-time, and may have been the GOAT rebounder.....but he was never both at the same time; he could give you one or the other. His antics get in the way a bit too; makes him a little less portable than I think he often gets credit for.

[Joao Saraiva]

I voted Dennis Rodman but Grant Hill is also a good guy for this spot. He's going to win I think, so I'll keep voting for Rodman on the next spot And then maybe Ben Wallace.

[penbeast0]

You might want to look at Bobby Jones before Ben Wallace. Much as I love the Fro, Jones is the most decorated defensive forward of all time, one of the few 2 steal/2 block guys, one of the great all-time team guys, a good offensive player usually among the league leaders in efficiency, a good passer and smart guy, really the perfect guy to have on virtually any team.

[ceiling raiser]

pen has me not as high on Nate (who I think is the best defender remaining on the board), but I'm wondering what the thinking with Rodman is? Guessing the argument is since he didn't try and do too much offensively, he hurt you less (if at all on that end) than did Nate? I could buy into that I suppose, but then why not Ben Wallace?

Anyhow though, my vote is for Dennis Rodman. More impact on team success IMO, and higher portability. Not a huge fan of the rebound-crazy Rodman who has been criticized for lackluster defense when padding his boards count, but I think over his career he demonstrated that he was consistently a very valuable piece (and pretty damn portable). More quality seasons than Grant Hill (though I will say Hill's late-career seasons as a role player are admirable, huge plus that he reinvented himself and was able to contribute for so long in a lesser capacity).