RealGM Top 100 List #98

[penbeast0]

Compare --
Tim Hardaway, Mark Price, Terry Porter, Gus Williams, and Penny Hardaway at PG, maybe Mookie Blaylock as well
Marques Johnson, Chet Walker, Wilkes, Dandridge, Dumars, and Hornacek as the top wings
Howell, Lucas, Bellamy, Amare and Yao Ming as top bigs, though not a lot of defense there

Although I could certainly see a number of the others and can be convinced, I will throw a vote for now to Joe Dumars as the best combination of stud defender, good complimentary scorer, and contributor to outstanding teams out there. Tempted to say Dandridge, but I think that's the old Bullets homer in me.

[Clyde Frazier]

Damn, 3 spots left and at least 7 guys I think should all be in…

Jerry Lucas
Detlef Schrempf
Earl Monroe
Gus Williams
Tim Hardaway
Mark Price
Joe Dumars

Probably leaning lucas since there’s been some support for him already, but I’ll see if I can come back with some material on the others I really feel strongly about.

[trex_8063]

I am definitely between Lucas and Bellamy at this spot. Am less confident in a Lucas vote than I was a few spots ago, while starting to feel more strongly about Bellamy (who shows quite a bit offensively to be impressed by, and with very good longevity, too). His underwhelming team results can be problematic, but I felt the same about Elton Brand (who was voted in nearly 20 places ago).

I'll make my decision and cast a vote for one of the two later tonight. I'd like to see guys like Dumars, Timmy Hardaway, Amar'e, and yes, still George McGinnis, too (though not as high on him as before, subsequent to previous discussions with penbeast0) get on the list.....but obv there isn't room. And Lucas and Bellamy are definitely the two I'm feeling more strongly about right now.

[trex_8063]

Alright, I'm gonna go with where my gut is right now.
Vote for #98: Walt Bellamy.

Not a great defender, but a VERY VERY good offensive center and a pretty good rebounder, too, and both of those things consistently for a pretty lengthy period of time. Suppose we liberally call his prime (or "extended prime") 11 years, '62-'72. Given the length of the seasons in each of those years, a "full schedule" involved 891 rs games. In that 11-year span, Bellamy played.....891 rs games .

His numbers over that span....

Per 100 possessions: 23-23.5 pts, 15.5 reb, 2.5 ast @ +6.5% rts
PER 20.5, .167 WS/48 in pretty big 37.8 mpg

I'd like to single out a few really impressive seasons within that stretch....

'62
Pros: Per 100 poss--->29.1 pts, 17.5 reb, 2.5 ast @ +7.56% rts. PER 26.3 (3rd in league, behind only Wilt---in his infamous 50+ ppg season---and Baylor), .2333 WS/48 (2nd in league, behind only Wilt). And all this in a whopping big 42.3 mpg.
Cons: Team was just 18-62 (terrible supporting cast, though).

'63
Per 100 poss: 28.9 pts, 16.9 reb, 3.0 ast @ +7.82% rts. PER 24.93 (4th in league), .1986 WS/48 (6th in league) in big 41.3 mpg. Team a little better at 25-55.

'68-'69: These two years played for some actual decent teams, and was averaging ~33-36 mpg while putting up per 100 poss: 20.3-20.9 pts, 14.6 reb @ anywhere from +6.5% to +8.5% rts. And this while into what must be considered decidedly post-peak/"late prime" at this point, too.


I think in most eras he'd have a a handful of All-NBA accolades to his credit. But he played his peak and the meat of his prime adjacent to PEAK versions of both Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. Played his late prime adjacent Wilt, Willis Reed, and early versions of Kareem and Unseld.

Is #32 all-time in career WS, fwiw.

Between the quality of scorer and rebounder he was, and for the length of time he managed those things, it would be a travesty if he doesn't make the cut in this project, imo.

[SactoKingsFan]

My top 3 candidates are Marques Johnson, Joe Dumars and Terry Porter. I'll vote for Dumars since he's already received a vote. Very good all around game (solid scorer, very effective 3 PT shooter, excellent perimeter defender, good playmaker for SG), good longevity and high BBIQ. Also known as a great teammate and could play PG when needed.

Vote: Joe Dumars

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #98 - Jerry Lucas

- 11 year career
- 1x NBA champion
- 5x all NBA (3 1st, 2 2nd)
- 1 top 5 and 1 top 10 MVP finishes
- 4th all time in career RPG

Lucas' ability to rebound at a high level and hit the outside shot consistently would be a great fit in today's game. His range reportedly went out to 25 feet, and take that for what you will, but I think he'd be able to develop a 3 point shot with repetition. What also impressed me with lucas' rebounding was his being up there with wilt and russell for many seasons, so era relative he was elite.

Per 100 and relative TS% #s provided by trex in an earlier thread:

Per 100 Possessions and Relative TS%
'64: 17.7 pts, 17.4 reb, 2.6 ast @ +9.37% rts
'65: 20.5 pts, 19.1 reb, 2.3 ast @ +7.26% rts
'66: 19.2 pts, 18.9 reb, 2.4 ast @ +1.24% rts
'67: 16.4 pts, 17.6 reb, 3.0 ast @ +1.48% rts
'68: 20.4 pts, 18.1 reb, 2.9 ast @ +6.75% rts
'69: 18.6 pts, 18.6 reb, 4.2 ast @ +9.88% rts
'70: 17.2 pts, 16.2 reb, 3.0 ast @ +4.32% rts
'71: 20.0 pts, 16.5 reb, 3.8 ast @ +4.37% rts
'72: 19.5 pts, 15.4 reb, 4.8 ast @ +4.41% rts
'73: 15.9 pts, 11.6 reb, 7.2 ast @ +4.18% rts
'74: 13.0 pts, 10.7 reb, 6.6 ast, 0.8 stl, 0.7 blk @ -2.37% rts

Extended Prime of Jerry Lucas ('64-'72)--685 rs games
Rough cumulative Per 100 poss: 18.5 to 19.0 pts, 17.5 reb, 3.0+ ast @ +5.18% rts
PER 19.3, .147 WS/48 in a whopping 41.6 mpg over that span

His scoring volume during his prime---on a per 100 basis---is basically average for the era, however on impressive shooting efficiency that ranged from "fairly good" to "hyper-elite" (was "excellent" overall for his prime). His rebounding per 100 numbers are fairly elite-level for a PF (or PF/C), especially considering the huge minutes.

On his time with the knicks where helped them back to the finals in 72 and championship in 73:

Then, early in 1971-72 Lucas' career received a second life. During the 11th game of the campaign, Reed went down with a season-ending injury, and Lucas was forced into full-time duty in the pivot.

Back at center, where he hadn't played since college, Lucas looked as if he were at home again. He led the Knicks in rebounding (13.1 rpg), placed second to Walt Frazier in assists (4.1 apg), and contributed 16.7 ppg. He was the smallest center in the league, but his deadly outside shot, good passing and adept ballhandling blended well with coach William "Red" Holzman's team-oriented style of basketball. Filling in for Reed, Lucas played a key role in helping the Knicks reach the 1972 NBA Finals, where they lost to the Los Angeles Lakers in five games.

For Lucas, it was a basketball renaissance. "I'm having more fun now than I've had the past 10 years, even back into college," he said at the time. "I always felt the Knicks played the game the way it was meant to be played. I enjoy playing the pivot position. I enjoy it more than playing forward ... Naturally, I can't do some things that the bigger guys can do. Number one, I'm not a shotblocker, like the real big centers."

Nevertheless, teammates appreciated his clutch play. Dave DeBusschere, a standout forward for the Knicks, said of Lucas in 1972: "He gets the big rebound, makes the big play on defense, makes the tap shot when you need a basket the most."

http://www.nba.com/history/legends/jerr ... index.html

Since lucas gets some flack for not advancing that far into the playoffs pre-NY, I thought i'd take a look at the SRS rank of each opponent that eliminated them.

LUCAS TEAM SRS / OPPONENT SRS RANK

64 - 2nd / 1st (of 9) - eventual champion celtics
65 - 3rd / 5th (of 9)
66 - 4th / 1st (of 9) - eventual champion celtics
67 - 5th / 1st (of 10) - eventual champion sixers
71 - 11th / 1st (of 17) - eventual champion bucks

So in 4 of those 5 playoff appearances, they lose to the eventual NBA champs. In 65, lucas still had a good series in the loss with averages of 23.3 PPG, 21 RPG, 2.3 APG on an impressive 54.9% TS (league avg 47.9%). Not to mention you have to at least look at oscar, too when speculating on why they didn't advance further in the postseason together.

Short video on lucas’ career:

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_t ... areer.nba/

[Samurai]

Now that Sharman is in, it appears according to Owly's chart that a PF from the 1960's is the only position not represented so far:

50s
C Mikan (24)
PF Pettit (21)
SF Arizin (63)
SG Sharman (97)
PG Cousy (71)

60s
C Russell (3)
PF ????
SF Baylor (33)
SG West (15)
PG Robertson (12)

70s
C Abdul-Jabbar (2)
PF Hayes (58)
SF Erving (14)
SG Gervin (38)
PG Frazier (28)

80s
C M Malone (19)
PF McHale (44)
SF Bird (10)
SG Moncrief (66)
PG Magic Johnson (8)

90s
C O'Neal (6)
PF K Malone (17)
SF Pippen (27)
SG Jordan (1)
PG Stockton (26)

2000 (to present because of incomplete decade)
C Howard (43)
PF Duncan (5)
SF James (7)
SG Bryant (13)
PG Nash (25)

As a five-time All NBA selection (3 firsts and 2 seconds) during the 60's, I would think Lucas is a very worthy representative for that unrepresented group. I know some dismiss him as a "stat padder" - but he is still 4th all-time in rebounds per game (15.6). Any way you slice it, that's still a lot of rebounds. Since I am not a voter, I'm hoping Lucas can get some love before the voting ends.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Joe Dumars

Dude had wicked lateral quickness (really looked like he could take large steps sideways while remaining balanced) which made him an excellent man defender. Very strong, too, so could guard PGs and SGs. Offensively, solid. Hits from the outside, unselfish, could be a secondary playmaker and ball-handler (Detroit during the title years had poor full-court ball-handling in the frontcourt, so this was crucial), reliable tertiary scorer on great teams. I've got no problem with Dumars going in.

[Moonbeam]

I'm leaning Dumars as well but will have to think about it.

[Moonbeam]

The next guy on my list is Bill Walton. Any chance he could sneak in the last few spots? Right after that, though, it's Joe Dumars. He was a tremendous asset to those Piston teams - a reliable scorer and a very good defender whose impact is not picked up at all by Defensive Win Shares. He'll probably get my vote.

Other guys I'm hoping are in the mix for the last few spots:

Cliff Hagan
Walt Bellamy (I hear you, trex)
Jerry Lucas (I hear you, Clyde)
Marques Johnson (I hear you, beast)
Terry Porter
Vern Mikkelsen
Detlef Schrempf
Penny Hardaway
Yao Ming

[Quotatious]

I'm not sure who I'll vote for here, but I want to ask - what do you guys think about Terry Cummings, here? Solid 10-year prime - from '83 to '92, he never played less than 67 games, and generally put up consistent numbers (averaged 21.3 ppg/8.7 rpg/ 2.4 apg in 34 minutes, and seemed like a solid defender). Also a pretty good playoff performer (his scoring efficiency even goes up pretty clearly - 22.4 ppg on 55.3% TS in the playoffs, compared to 21.3 on 52.7 in RS). Two-time All-NBA selection (2nd and 3rd team), finished 5th in the MVP voting once, in 1985 (ahead of his teammate Sidney Moncrief, who finished 8th that year, and also ahead of rookie MJ - fwiw, not too many guys finished ahead of Jordan in the MVP voting, during his career with the Bulls )

[penbeast0]

Cummings first 7 years in the league he was probably better than James Worthy or Dominique Wilkins, then the knee injury. Always loved him; used to wear a headband around his biceps to emphasize his guns. Didn't have a good defensive rep but when I saw him he always looked good defensively and the Spurs were better defensively with him than with Rodman (though a lot of that is synergy with David Robinson). Like so many others, has a legit case to be considered here.

How do you compare Cummings to Marques Johnson?

[Quotatious]

How do you compare Cummings to Marques Johnson?

This is a very interesting comparison, because they were actually traded for each other in their primes, yet the Bucks remained roughly at the same level, no matter if they had Marques with Junior Bridgeman, or Cummings with Craig Hodges (well, in terms of SRS, they were a bit better with Cummings/Hodges, and then also Ricky Pierce developed into a good player).

Marques had about 9-year prime (1978-86), Terry had about 10 (1983-92). Cummings had a clearly longer career (played 10000 more minutes than Johnson), but I don't really value Cummings' post '92 seasons that much.

Johnson looks a bit better statistically (comparing '78-'86 Johnson to '83-'92 Cummings, Marques has the edge in regular season PER - 20.2 to 19.6, WS/48 - 16.4 to 14.0, BPM - 3.8 to 1.8, VORP - 33.9 to 25.1, and he was a more efficient scorer - 20.4 ppg on 55.7% TS, compared to 21.3 on 52.7% for Cummings). Terry looks relatively better in the playoffs - similar sample size - Cummings played 61 games, Johnson 54, similar usage (well, Cummings' was a bit higher), so I think we can compare their numbers at face value - Cummings has a slight edge in PER and a pretty clear edge in terms of scoring efficiency, Johnson still has the edge in WS/48, BPM and VORP.

Johnson had 86.5 career win shares (regular season and playoffs combined), and 36.5 VORP.
Cummings had 98.1 WS and 26.5 VORP.

It's a very close comparison, honestly I'm not sure who I would take. Marques had more accolades (I don't care about it that much, but still, it might be an argument in his favor - 5 All-Star selections compared to 2 for Cummings, 3 All-NBA selections - one time 1st team, and two-time 2nd team, compared to one 2nd and one 3rd). Cummings has slightly more career MVP shares - he's ranked 73rd all-time, Marques is 83rd.

I think that Marques peaked a bit higher (his peak was probably '79 or '81), in the early 80s, he was considered very close to Dr. J (and actually played like MVP Erving's equal in the '81 playoffs).

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 7594&hl=en

FWIW, I don't think Cummings was ever getting that kind of praise.

[Owly]

Now that Sharman is in, it appears according to Owly's chart that a PF from the 1960's is the only position not represented so far:

50s
C Mikan (24)
PF Pettit (21)
SF Arizin (63)
SG Sharman (97)
PG Cousy (71)

60s
C Russell (3)
PF ????
SF Baylor (33)
SG West (15)
PG Robertson (12)

70s
C Abdul-Jabbar (2)
PF Hayes (58)
SF Erving (14)
SG Gervin (38)
PG Frazier (28)

80s
C M Malone (19)
PF McHale (44)
SF Bird (10)
SG Moncrief (66)
PG Magic Johnson (8)

90s
C O'Neal (6)
PF K Malone (17)
SF Pippen (27)
SG Jordan (1)
PG Stockton (26)

2000 (to present because of incomplete decade)
C Howard (43)
PF Duncan (5)
SF James (7)
SG Bryant (13)
PG Nash (25)

As a five-time All NBA selection (3 firsts and 2 seconds) during the 60's, I would think Lucas is a very worthy representative for that unrepresented group. I know some dismiss him as a "stat padder" - but he is still 4th all-time in rebounds per game (15.6). Any way you slice it, that's still a lot of rebounds. Since I am not a voter, I'm hoping Lucas can get some love before the voting ends.

There's some looseness in both position and decade but I'd list DeBusschere as primarily a PF and primarily 60s (though of course he is more famous in the 70s both because he was on a good team then and there were all-defense team accolades then).
If you ignore the cross decade 69-70 campaign (2627 minutes, in case anyone wants to add it to either decade) he played 17086 RS minutes in the 1960s to 11489 minutes in the 70s (postseason 841 in the 60s, 701 in 69-70, 2140 in the 70s). With Dave in at 93 and now Sharman at 97, I think we have a full house.

As many are saying lots of great candidates. Lucas' WOWY numbers in his prime kill him for me here (and I lean more towards Howell in any case at that time that position).

From Moonbeam's list (which covers other voters) my gut reactions
Hagan- Love his massively forgotten, monster '58 playoffs (and playoff metrics generally strong, particularly through his best years). Gut instinct is to want to have him in the top 100, I guess maybe longevity, era and maybe overshadowed "2nd banana" status don't help.

Bellamy - Somewhat similar to Neil Johnston. Some monster numbers (and played longer in a tougher era). Downsides are fairly consistently mediocre or below team performance (and, I think, somewhat clearer suggestions that he and his D are partially responsible). Hard to get my head around. Often little respect for him despite the numbers.

Marques - Love the peak, as I said when King went in, I have Johnson as a superior 80s SF. Probably peaked at exactly the wrong time (turn of the decade rather than say mid 80s) both in terms of his legacy (the league becoming that much more popular, more covered in the mid-80s) and in terms of his team (peaking parallel to Moncrief might well have pushed the Bucks to a title or two).

Porter- Nice spacing and D from a point guard so portable, and a forgotten by some peak.

Mikkelsen - His (and Gallatin's) advanced numbers suggest maybe they are due a little more respect than they have tended to get.

arghh... Just looking at this list and Clyde's, it's hard to pick one person (or indeed find many that you'd say confidently aren't top 100). Came here wanting to vote but can't see a clear choice. Maybe Bellamy? If I figure it out I'll vote.

[Quotatious]

Hagan- Love his massively forgotten, monster '58 playoffs (and playoff metrics generally strong, particularly through his best years). Gut instinct is to want to have him in the top 100, I guess maybe longevity, era and maybe overshadowed "2nd banana" status don't help.

I also think that Hagan belongs on the top 100 list, and I think his "second banana" status absolutely shouldn't hurt him. However, I'm wondering - why did his minutes go down by such a significant margin after the '61-'62 season? Injury problems, perhaps?
This is the only thing that prevented me from taking Hagan over Sharman. I think that peak/prime Hagan was better than peak/prime Sharman. Better all-around player, very comparable scorer (much worse shooter, but much better inside scorer), pretty efficient for his era, and a very good playoff performer.

[trex_8063]

Tick-tock, tick-tock Quot/Owly/Moonbeam. Either take a stand with someone to create a run-off or this spot goes to Dumars with a mere 3 votes. If you're content with that, obv inaction is fine.

[Quotatious]

Okay, I'll vote for Marques Johnson.

Like I've said before - very good peak (fwiw, he made the All-NBA 1st team in '79), solid enough longevity (about 9-year prime), solid advanced metrics, efficient scorer - not super high volume (still, he was able to peak at 25.6 ppg on 58.6% TS - that's great), but what's important is that he was able to get his 20+ points while also playing within the flow of his team's offense, could get those points playing a strong teams. He could also isolate, but he wasn't just a great scorer on a bad team.

Great rebounder for a small forward - his career TRB% is even higher than guys' like LeBron or Pippen), not much of a creator for others, but capable of creating his own shot. Not a selfish player by any means, though. Almost 52% career FG%, excellent finisher.
Not a great playoff performer, but not bad, either.

What's noteworthy about Marques is that he was a star for almost his entire career, as long as he was healthy. That's pretty rare.

[Owly]

Hagan- Love his massively forgotten, monster '58 playoffs (and playoff metrics generally strong, particularly through his best years). Gut instinct is to want to have him in the top 100, I guess maybe longevity, era and maybe overshadowed "2nd banana" status don't help.

I also think that Hagan belongs on the top 100 list, and I think his "second banana" status absolutely shouldn't hurt him. However, I'm wondering - why did his minutes go down by such a significant margin after the '61-'62 season? Injury problems, perhaps?
This is the only thing that prevented me from taking Hagan over Sharman. I think that peak/prime Hagan was better than peak/prime Sharman. Better all-around player, very comparable scorer (much worse shooter, but much better inside scorer), pretty efficient for his era, and a very good playoff performer.

To be absolutely clear I don't think the "second banana" status should hurt him but I suspect it does (for instance in that his '58 playoffs is forgotten but Pettit's 50 points in the final game isn't. Though other factors possibly leading to it being forgotten may include (a) that specific playoff performances, e.g. moments, games rather than consistency are often celebrated and (b) lionization of playoff "greatness" has tended to come only after the NBA media boom). Era and longevity are more legit though obviously people will weigh them differently.

Versus Sharman I would note Sharman was a noted defender whereas Hagan wasn't (not to say he was bad, as with many older players, it's hard to tell with any degree of accuracy, he says he didn't necessarily have a reputation but tended to guard the best forward).

I've located my book on the Hawks from that time (Full Court) and there isn't an obvious reason for Hagan's minutes slip that I can see by scanning through it. It mentions his ppg dropping but credits that with from the guard positions (Wilkens, Barnhill and Vaughn named, and then Beaty mentioned too). It mentions in injury for the final 3 games of the conference finals, but that suggests one suffered (maybe reaggrivated?) during the playoffs. Looking at that team that year maybe Gallatin liked having a lot of players in the rotation (many between 15m and 24m). In all honesty I don't know.

[Post edited to remove typo (accidental double negative)]

[Clyde Frazier]

Hoping for a runoff here, would be cool to finish the project with as much activity as possible!

[Owly]

Okay so we have

Walt Bellamy (1): trex_8063
Joe Dumars (3): penbeast0, SKF_85, ronnymac2
Jerry Lucas (1): Clyde Frazier
Marques Johnson (1): Quotatious

with Moonbeam leaning Dumars.

I've considered Bellamy but with 3 confirmed votes and one expressed preference for Dumars (four of seven, or eight if I count myself and the non-Dumars voters split), I'm content for the vote to go that way. I'll check back in case I'm needed to decide a runoff contestant but atm I'm comfortable abstaining and assuming Moonbeam's preference will be more concretely expressed (or just accepted, given he already has 50% of concrete votes).