RealGM Top 100 List #65

[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 Bill Sharman should get a look soon; Sharman has more accolades and is better for his day, but the 50s are far less competitive than the 60s. 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 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.

Archibald -- the crowd pleaser, led the league in scoring and assists, on good efficiency both individual and team! I can't see him over Moncrief if you want to win a ring with the team though; it's hard to build a championship around a ball dominant small man whose main value is high point/assist numbers and who has major defensive issues.

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.

Although both McAdoo and Archibald had stretches of value as a role players, their value over replacement isn't enough to make up for Moncrief's defensive impact (as well as his offense which is outstanding if not as impressive as the other two in terms of numbrs).

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Anfernee Penny Hardaway

A straight baller who could carry a team. Was the best player on the 1996 Magic, also finished 3rd in MVP voting. Would have been a top 25 player if he didn't get injured, but he did have a good enough prime to get this spot.

[Quotatious]

Vote: Bob McAdoo

Dominant force in his absolute prime - averaged over 30 points and 12 rebounds for three consecutive seasons between '74 and '76 (averaged 32.1 PPG, 13.8 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.2 steals, 2.5 blocks during that stretch, on excellent efficiency - 56.7% TS). Also had three more seasons with 25+ PPG (well, in the last of those seasons, in '79, he averaged 24.8, but that's almost 25...and 25.8 PPG for the three year stretch between '77 and '79), plus one more season in Detroit in '80, with 21.1 PPG. That's already solid longevity as a star/superstar, plus he was a very important contributor as a role player for the Lakers in the early/mid 80s (especially in the '82 playoffs, when he averaged almost 17 PPG on almost 59% TS, in less than 28 minutes).

Not a good defender, but that's in part because he played out of position at center, having to guard bigger and stronger players. He was only about 6'9'', 215 lbs, so he'd be a little undersized even compared to some PFs, let alone centers. Anyway, he was a good shotblocker during his peak seasons in the mid 70s, and he still doesn't seem like a total defensive liability, definitely not Amare/Boozer/Lee bad in this regard. I don't think he was much worse than Dirk, defensively, to be honest.
Good rebounder (even very good during his best years), versatile offensive player due to his athleticism, quickness, jumpshot and even some ballhandling ability. Decent enough passer. Turnovers may be a concern, and it makes his offensive efficiency look a bit less impressive than his PPG/TS% ratio would suggest, but considering the kind of volume that he was asked to handle, it's not that bad.

His scoring ability makes him basically an unstoppable force, in his best years, and he was a nightmare to guard because he could beat you in many different ways.

Looking back, I think that I could've even voted for him over Grant HIll - McAdoo was IMO a at least a bit more dominant in his prime (as evident by him winning the MVP, and finishing as a runner-up twice in 3 years - that's a top tier superstar, game-changer type stuff). Hill just had more role player contributions, but still, I feel like I made a mistake, voting for Grant over Bob (anyway, I'm happy that Hill's already in, loved watching him play - the fact that I know Hill's game much better than McAdoo's, certainly may've skewed my perception in GH's favor a bit, though).

1974-76 McAdoo was kinda like prime Durant playing C/PF - maybe not as good as KD, but the gap isn't huge.

Here's what peak McAdoo did to Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld in the playoffs.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQ3unu2YAQ[/youtube]

Averaged over 37 PPG on 53% TS in that series, and forced game 7 against a clearly superior team (Bullets won 60 games on 6.54 SRS in RS, Braves won just 49 on 2.17 SRS).

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote: Bob McAdoo

Dominant force in his absolute prime - averaged over 30 points and 12 rebounds for three consecutive seasons between '74 and '76 (averaged 32.1 PPG, 13.8 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.2 steals, 2.5 blocks during that stretch, on excellent efficiency - 56.7% TS). Also had three more seasons with 25+ PPG (well, in the last of those seasons, in '79, he averaged 24.8, but that's almost 25...and 25.8 PPG for the three year stretch between '77 and '79), plus one more season in Detroit in '80, with 21.1 PPG. That's already solid longevity as a star/superstar, plus he was a very important contributor as a role player for the Lakers in the early/mid 80s (especially in the '82 playoffs, when he averaged almost 17 PPG on almost 59% TS, in less than 28 minutes).

Not a good defender, but that's in part because he played out of position at center, having to guard bigger and stronger players. He was only about 6'9'', 215 lbs, so he'd be a little undersized even compared to some PFs, let alone centers. Anyway, he was a good shotblocker during his peak seasons in the mid 70s, and he still doesn't seem like a total defensive liability, definitely not Amare/Boozer/Lee bad in this regard. I don't think he was much worse than Dirk, defensively, to be honest.
Good rebounder (even very good during his best years), versatile offensive player due to his athleticism, quickness, jumpshot and even some ballhandling ability. Decent enough passer. Turnovers may be a concern, and it makes his offensive efficiency look a bit less impressive than his PPG/TS% ratio would suggest, but considering the kind of volume that he was asked to handle, it's not that bad.

His scoring ability makes him basically an unstoppable force, in his best years, and he was a nightmare to guard because he could beat you in many different ways.

Looking back, I think that I could've even voted for him over Grant HIll - McAdoo was IMO a at least a bit more dominant in his prime (as evident by him winning the MVP, and finishing as a runner-up twice in 3 years - that's a top tier superstar, game-changer type stuff. Hill just had more role player contributions, but still, I feel like I made a mistake, voting for Grant over Bob (anyway, I'm happy that Hill's already in, loved watching him play - the fact that I know Hill's game much better than McAdoo's, certainly may've skewed my perception in GH's favor a bit, though).

1974-76 McAdoo was kinda like prime Durant playing C/PF - maybe not as good as KD, but the gap isn't huge.

Here's what peak McAdoo did to Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld in the playoffs.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQ3unu2YAQ[/youtube]

Averaged over 37 PPG on 53% TS in that series, and forced game 7 against a clearly superior team (Bullets won 60 games on 6.54 SRS in RS, Braves won just 49 on 2.17 SRS).

I've been voting for Rodman and Hill's comments never made me change my mind. But this does. I'm voting for McAdoo here too.

Thanks for your post, great as usual.

[tsherkin]

Vote Bob McAdoo

Been waiting a while for him to get in, or at least to have a legit chance. Big-time offensive big back in the day and a decent late-career adaptation as a bench spark player.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #65 - Bob McAdoo

Looking back at the last 10 spots or so, I think McAdoo deserved higher than this. But hey, I didn't push for him, so no big deal. I guess it was just his shorter prime holding me back as I've stressed longevity in the project. That said, his prime was really impressive, and his contribution to the lakers 82 championship run is worth noting as well:

16.7 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 1.6 APG, .7 SPG, 1.5 BPG, 56.4% FG, 68.1% FT, 58.6% TS, 108/105 OFF/DEF RTG, .126 WS/48

[trex_8063]

I've voted Cousy the last 2-3 threads, but did name-drop McAdoo and mentioned that he was other guy I was strongly considering. In truth, I think he should have been inside the top 60 (but were a few others I thought similarly of as we approached and crossed that threshold).

McAdoo, imo, is the best peak left on the table with the exception of Walton and possibly Connie Hawkins......but his longevity trumps them both (Walton, by a gaping maw of a margin). His game easily translates into a fantastic stretch-four in the modern game, too, fwiw (somewhat a rich man's Chris Bosh, imho). So this is a bandwagon I can happily jump on to.

Vote for #65: Bob McAdoo.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Bob McAdoo

I can roll with Mac. Basically a higher minutes/higher volume version of Amar'e with adequate defense and rebounding. Then he morphed into an all-time role player, having tremendous chemistry with KAJ on the Lakers and giving them one of the best bigs off the bench ever. The 1982 Lakers are in my opinion the toughest 80s Laker matchup for any other all-time team, and Bob McAdoo is a big reason why.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Bob McAdoo

I'll go with the flow here. Macao was amazing then, and among guys of that age, it's so easy to see how he'd dominate in today's game. Longevity's a concern obviously, but down in the 60s, he seems clearly worthy.

I will say though, I thought the floating of Bobby Jones name in the last thread made sense. I expect to champion him pretty soon.

[RSCD3_]

Vote Bob McAdoo

Good scorer and rebounder in his prime, basically amare with more minutes and production but better defense and then his career with the lakers had him play as a high level role player like grant hill did.

Vote: Bob McAdoo

[Owly]

Wasn't sure who to vote for but I'm happy to see McAdoo get in. There are obvious issues but by this point that's fair enough and in some cases there are mitigating circumstances (e.g. on D: decent by the boxscore and drew strong reviews in LA at the back their zone, so maybe he just needed the right role - and perhaps not quite so much offensive burden; shortness of peak career: instability and bad teams might demotive any player; longevity: played for 7 years in Europe, maybe a victim of his own fame, feeling that you can't keep an MVP on the bench (his last year in the league from little bits I've read and Bkb-Ref seems injury hit and thus sub-par, but then he lit it up in the playoffs, albeit again through injuries, so he could still play).