RealGM Top 100 List #49

[E-Balla]

They were good before in part because they had Ratliff, whom they had to trade, with other pieces to get Mutombo. It's a bit dubious to suggest low impact without accounting for the context of the other pieces moving around.

My bad if it came off that way I was just skimming over the impact topic by making a few small points. To me Deke is the GOAT defender and he originally had my vote. Still they only traded Kukoc and Ratliff (the others were scrubs) and you'd expect Deke to have a net impact greater than those two. When Iverson missed time they were barely average because having the best defense means nothing when you have the worst offense.

When he shot 5-26 against Milwaukee in game 2 the Sixers had a 101 ORtg. The next game without him they had a 91 ORtg and the lowest point total of the series.

[DQuinn1575]

I'll make a strategic vote for Iverson; he has a far greater peak than Mutombo, who is nowhere near the Top 50 players of all-time, and a greater peak than English. Those are the only ones with more than 1 vote right now, and to me it now makes more sense to vote for them.

vote
IVERSON

[Clyde Frazier]

I'll make a strategic vote for Iverson; he has a far greater peak than Mutombo, who is nowhere near the Top 50 players of all-time, and a greater peak than English. Those are the only ones with more than 1 vote right now, and to me it now makes more sense to vote for them.

vote
IVERSON

I voted for dantley, too. He has 2 votes:

viewtopic.php?p=41561763#p41561763

viewtopic.php?p=41568251#p41568251

EDIT - and parish has 3

[Moonbeam]

Anyway, short on time now, and people are calling for a vote. I'll go Parish, though it looks like Mutombo versus Iverson is set up. Parish reasoning: Best career value added on the board including an underrated peak (40th by my WS/48 - PER peak pythogrean rank -not absolutely up to date -; i.e. rank the best player seasons (one season per player) in each stat, square where they rank in each, add the two together square root -technically unnecesary - and then rank by that - far from perfect I know; 59th best peak in WS/48; 43rd in PER; again not completely up to date). Actually all the guys above him on PPR have issues that have kept them out of the conversation bar one

Very cool! Care to share the list of your top 100, even if it is not up to date?

[Moonbeam]

I then look at the controversy with dantley leaving DET and them winning the championship following his departure, and it seems overblown. Dantley’s averages in the 88 finals (loss) are as follows:

21.3 PPG, 5 RPG, 2.3 APG, .6 SPG, 57.3% FG, 85.6% FT, 67.6% TS, 127/112 OFF/DEF RTG

Games 6 and 7 of the 88 finals were decided by a total of 4 points, and this was with a substandard game 7 by the injured isiah thomas. If he’s healthy, they very well could’ve won the title that year. I don’t hold the turn of events against dantley all that much relative to general perception.

I think Dantley had a great case for Finals MVP had the Pistons won. I think the perception of him would (unjustly) be a lot different had he won a title.

Taking a closer look at the 1988 Finals, here are the results and some stats for both Thomas and Dantley:

Code: Select all

Game  Margin  IT TSA  IT PTS  IT AST  AD TSA  AD PTS
  1    +12     18.20    19      12     19.08    34
  2    -12     15.76    13       7     14.84    19
  3    -12     25.40    28       9     11.88    14
  4    +25      9.64    10      12     20.60    27
  5    +10     16.52    15       8     15.72    25
  6     -1     35.08    43       8     13.52    14
  7     -3     12.88    10       7     14.52    16


Of course Thomas was brilliant in Game 6 and had other brilliant moments, but Dantley was a matchup nightmare for the Lakers as shown especially in Game 1, and I think the Pistons probably should have gone to him more.

[Owly]

Anyway, short on time now, and people are calling for a vote. I'll go Parish, though it looks like Mutombo versus Iverson is set up. Parish reasoning: Best career value added on the board including an underrated peak (40th by my WS/48 - PER peak pythogrean rank -not absolutely up to date -; i.e. rank the best player seasons (one season per player) in each stat, square where they rank in each, add the two together square root -technically unnecesary - and then rank by that - far from perfect I know; 59th best peak in WS/48; 43rd in PER; again not completely up to date). Actually all the guys above him on PPR have issues that have kept them out of the conversation bar one

Very cool! Care to share the list of your top 100, even if it is not up to date?

Okay. As I say this is only the peaks, so only one year. I think I had 1000 minute minimums. The pythogorean method means its favours those who are consistent in both categories rather than doing well in one and poorly in another. And by ranking their ranks, it's a bit arbitrary in that your lead over, say, the guy 10 spots below might be minute, but the ranking doesn't know.
PPR Score; PPR Rank
2.236067977 1 Wilt Chamberlain
4.242640687 2 LeBron James
4.472135955 3 Michael Jordan
6.403124237 4 David Robinson
9.055385138 5 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
9.433981132 6 Shaquille O'Neal
10 7 Chris Paul
15.62049935 8 Kevin Garnett
15.65247584 9 Kevin Durant
18.60107524 10 Charles Barkley
20.24845673 11 Dirk Nowitzki
21.40093456 12 George Mikan
21.63330765 13 Karl Malone
22.36067977 14 Oscar Robertson
23.08679276 15 Tracy McGrady
27.29468813 16 Earvin "Magic" Johnson
29.69848481 17 Amare Stoudemire
32.80243893 18 Neil Johnston
34 19 Bob Pettit
34.525353 20 Dwyane Wade
34.71310992 21 Tim Duncan
37.21558813 22 Larry Bird
38.28837944 23 Moses Malone
42.48529157 24 Dolph Schayes
43.56604182 25 Paul Arizin
47.38143096 26 Bob McAdoo
48.3011387 27 Hakeem Olajuwon
50 28 Dwight Howard
52.77309921 29 Jerry West
54.3783045 30 Walt Bellamy
55.90169944 31 Terrell Brandon
61.40032573 32 Julius Erving
63.07138812 33 Elton Brand
63.78871374 34 Elgin Baylor
65.30696747 35 Ed Macauley
67.53517602 36 Emanuel Ginobili
68.01470429 37 Arvydas Sabonis
68.60029154 38 Adrian Dantley
69.37578828 39 Kobe Bryant
73.00684899 40 Robert Parish
73.8241153 41 Alonzo Mourning
76.53103945 42 Larry Foust
77.46612163 43 Bob Lanier
78.71467462 44 Grant Hill
79.25906888 45 Kevin Love
79.64923101 46 Harry Gallatin
81.05553652 47 Pau Gasol
81.32035416 48 Anfernee Hardaway
81.39410298 49 John Stockton
83.81527307 50 Yao Ming
84.62860037 51 Kevin McHale
86.68333173 52 Chauncey Billups
94.81033699 53 Bernard King
94.84724561 54 John Drew
97.62171889 55 Brandon Roy
97.67292358 56 Clyde Drexler
99.15644205 57 Steve Nash
100.2397127 58 Bill Walton
103.8123307 59 Rick Barry
104.3551628 60 Patrick Ewing
108.8944443 61 Kevin Johnson
111.6288493 62 Bill Russell
112.3788236 63 James Harden
113.7409337 64 Andrew Bynum
114.8651383 65 Clyde Lovellette
115.5508546 66 Vince Carter
116.211015 67 Brad Daugherty
118.1270502 68 Kenny Sears
119.5533354 69 Shawn Kemp
119.6202324 70 Marques Johnson
120.5072612 71 Shawn Marion
123.6931688 72 Sidney Moncrief
129.0736224 73 Derrick Rose
133.2216199 74 Cliff Hagan
133.7348122 75 Vern Mikkelsen
134.0335779 76 Paul Pierce
134.3167897 77 Artis Gilmore
134.8517705 78 George Gervin
135.67977 79 Chris Bosh
137.2333779 80 Charlie (Chuck) Share
138.0326048 81 Scottie Pippen
138.9460327 82 George Yardley
139.8463442 83 Chris Webber
139.917833 84 Chet Walker
140.121376 85 Dan Issel
142.2743828 86 Tony Parker
142.3516772 87 Andrei Kirilenko
142.8425707 88 Ray Allen
151.7135459 89 Dominique Wilkins
152.8005236 90 David Thompson
152.8823077 91 Terry Porter
154.3826415 92 Sam Cassell
154.8418548 93 Bob Houbregs
159.81239 94 Mark Price
160.5521722 95 Russell Westbrook
160.8011194 96 Walt Frazier
161.0124219 97 Kenneth Faried
161.9012044 98 Sam Jones
166.291912 99 Darrell Armstrong
166.964068 100 Gary Payton

[D Nice]

Pretty clear record of him having a +8 defensive RAPM with normal starter minutes that meant he played about 3/4ths of his team's total, so I'd rate him a +6 defender, and I probably wouldn't rate anyone else at that level.

+5 guys? I'd say Garnett gets there, and Ben & Duncan might get there from the databall era.

Earlier guys? Olajuwon & Robinson seemed the most likely. Ewing maybe too. Eaton may have if he could have kept it up for more minutes. I think Walton probably got there ever so briefly.

Thanks. Follow-up (apologies if this is derailing the thread): In the present era (01-02 to present), particularly since since the first season of Thibs/KG (07-08 to present), do any additional guys join that group? Do any drop out?

If I'm understanding you, you're asking who could do what in the current age.

It's a great question and not one that I've taken any great stand on. Perhaps it's time I do? Open to the thoughts of others.

What is the case in the new era is that with the ability for teammates to proactively cover for each other, the value of man defense goes down, while the value of help defense might go up but not necessarily for the guys who are the biggest outliers.

That our biggest impactor of this era is a guy known for extreme agility and excellent floor generalship doesn't seem like it would be a coincidence, and hence guys unlikely to have those traits may well go down in value in this era.

Mutombo clearly would be one of those guys to tumble.
Robinson & Olajuwon might be guys who held even or went up.

I'd be curious to know what comes to mind for guys with huge BBIQs among bigs. They'd be worth pondering

I resent the implication that Deke’s defensive efficacy would drop because (which is what you’re really saying) he doesn’t play defense like Kevin Garnett. His mobility would be just fine, and it’s not like that much has changed between 2007 and now, when he still had incredibly impressive per-minute impact for the Rockets at the age of 40. The guy that just won DPOY (Marc Gasol) isn’t a more mobile defender than Mutumbo. On a “skill paradigm” for the 5 most impactful defensive players in the league (Gibson, Marc, Noah, Bogut, Howard) Deke’s mobility falls right in the middle and his post defense and rim protection are at the top. He’s probably also the smartest defensive player of the group, if not then it’s a 3-way tie between him, Marc, and Jo. When you look at the impact even a guy like Mozgov can have on the game with merely size and a willingness to contest shots I see no reason for Deke’s defense to be less impressive.

Yes, the floor is more spread out now, but this doesn’t necessarily work against Mutombo. Having a GOAT swatter allows you to be more aggressive in chasing guys off of 3-point shots (this eraser pheonemon is fairly well-documented and implemented I’d say) and we’re playing in an era where it is MUCH harder to keep slashers out of the paint in one-on-one situations, putting rotational rim protection at a premium. Just because Garnett achieved one ridiculous D-RAPM score on an all-time defensive team in 2008 does not mean that is the only way to achieve top-tier defensive impact or that bigs who don’t play that type of D can’t defend at historic levels. Again, this is where I point to Bogut and Gasol.

I also don’t see how Hakeem or D-Rob are going to look better then they already did - both are top 5 defensive players ever, whatever impact is gained in “mobility deployment” by coaches is lost in the darth of skilled post bigs for them to defend 1-on-1 at an elite level.

Scottie Pippen and Kevin Garnett are the only all-time-great defensive players whose primary defensive toolkit consisted the type of “middle-line-backer disruption” you are speaking to. They are the exception, not the rule. I exclude Russell because he was equal parts of both (which is why he’s the defensive GOAT and able to be a top 3 player ever without being very far above average on the other end of the court).

PS: sure, feel free to vote for other guys. That's just my perspective on Allen Iverson, not everyone has to agree and I can be wrong about a lot of things... English is, of course, a nice pick for this spot, or even Parish or some other guys. I just feel like people sometimes just look at Iverson's ts% in an isolated way, without seeing the context within it. I think he's one of those cases where a different organization could have made wonders for him.

See this is where I, and I think others go the other way with him. Firstly, in fairness he did trade usage for efficiency quite successfully once, in Denver with Anthony, though he's good but not spectacular (20.9 PER and .163 WS/48) part of which is assisting less.

Yeah, this is just flat out wrong, it wasn’t a matter of him “sacrificing usage for efficiency,” it was a guy no longer playing in the worst era of all time for his skill-set. He was a 50.5TS% player from 97-04 and a 54.5TS% player from 05-08 despite being (arguably I suppose) a worse player in the latter stretch (at the very least he was less physically gifted in the 05-08 stretch).

This is where people go wrong with Iverson (well, one place anyway). If you want to knock his efficiency compared to Kobe, T-Mac, Pierce, and Ray Allen, that is completely fine. If you are going to knock him in a comparison to current-era perimeter players or the 80s guys you need to make sure you give him the ~ 4TS% boost he would get when playing in the era those guys did their damage in - it’s a completely unfair critique otherwise. And you could say “well in the era he was actually playing in he was only a 51TS% guy so he was hurting his team by shooting that much,” but that criticism completely falls apart when you look his roster constructs.

But in Philly with secondary offensive talent, the likes of Derrick Coleman, Jerry Stackhouse, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other scorers like Corliss Williamson, Clarence Weatherspoon even a Matt Geiger, he didn't seem to mesh too well. Now that's not to say that all of those are ideal supporting talent. It isn't. But it's certainly arguable that prime Iverson's ideal team is perhaps a variation on the '01 Sixers. Maybe some better shooters. But the implication is, perhaps, until late in his his prime, he didn't really trade usage for efficiency, so his best value was dragging an offense towards average with a huge burden and allowing to pick up cheaper, defense/hustle minded talent. And if this is the case that probably isn't the the recipe for a contender with any real probability of titles (yes, that 76ers team made the finals but only out the abysmal East). Unless those defenders were having a huge impact. In which case you're looking at crediting them more than AI.

Lol at mentioning the guys you did as “supporting talent". Post-knee Webber was an abhorrent USG 27% TS% 47% between 2004 and the end of his stint in Philly in 2007. And that was best offensive talent Iverson got to play with before Carmelo. Even when you analyze his TS% compared to that of his team you have to account for the fact that if you actually took away those possessions from Iverson the TS% of his supporting cast would decline further (and Moonbeam can check this but I doubt very much his collective teammates were even much better than 51TS% between 97-04)

[D Nice]

I don’t mean to seem anti-Deke (again I have him higher on my list than he will end up going here) but Iverson’s slippage is starting to bother me.

I will ask those voting for Deke over AI to consider 2001. We saw these guys playing side by side on the same team I don’t think it’s even remotely contestable who the better/more important player was to that team (Philly was 15-11 with Deke 41-15 with Ratliff in his place, and AI’s +/- craps on Deke’s in the 26 games they were together). 2001 isn’t very far removed from the average prime impact of either player, so seeing as how these two have a similarly long prime (10-12 years for Iverson 10-11 for Mutomobo) how do you rationalize ranking the latter over the former? The only logical responses I could see would be “well, I think Deke was better than AI in 2001” or “well, I don’t think Deke was close to his prime level in 2001,” both of which are absurd (IMO).

[Owly]

Thanks. Follow-up (apologies if this is derailing the thread): In the present era (01-02 to present), particularly since since the first season of Thibs/KG (07-08 to present), do any additional guys join that group? Do any drop out?

If I'm understanding you, you're asking who could do what in the current age.

It's a great question and not one that I've taken any great stand on. Perhaps it's time I do? Open to the thoughts of others.

What is the case in the new era is that with the ability for teammates to proactively cover for each other, the value of man defense goes down, while the value of help defense might go up but not necessarily for the guys who are the biggest outliers.

That our biggest impactor of this era is a guy known for extreme agility and excellent floor generalship doesn't seem like it would be a coincidence, and hence guys unlikely to have those traits may well go down in value in this era.

Mutombo clearly would be one of those guys to tumble.
Robinson & Olajuwon might be guys who held even or went up.

I'd be curious to know what comes to mind for guys with huge BBIQs among bigs. They'd be worth pondering

I resent the implication that Deke’s defensive efficacy would drop because (which is what you’re really saying) he doesn’t play defense like Kevin Garnett. His mobility would be just fine, and it’s not like that much has changed between 2007 and now, when he still had incredibly impressive per-minute impact for the Rockets at the age of 40. The guy that just won DPOY (Marc Gasol) isn’t a more mobile defender than Mutumbo. On a “skill paradigm” for the 5 most impactful defensive players in the league (Gibson, Marc, Noah, Bogut, Howard) Deke’s mobility falls right in the middle and his post defense and rim protection are at the top. He’s probably also the smartest defensive player of the group, if not then it’s a 3-way tie between him, Marc, and Jo. When you look at the impact even a guy like Mozgov can have on the game with merely size and a willingness to contest shots I see no reason for Deke’s defense to be less impressive.

Yes, the floor is more spread out now, but this doesn’t necessarily work against Mutombo. Having a GOAT swatter allows you to be more aggressive in chasing guys off of 3-point shots (this eraser pheonemon is fairly well-documented and implemented I’d say) and we’re playing in an era where it is MUCH harder to keep slashers out of the paint in one-on-one situations, putting rotational rim protection at a premium. Just because Garnett achieved one ridiculous D-RAPM score on an all-time defensive team in 2008 does not mean that is the only way to achieve top-tier defensive impact or that bigs who don’t play that type of D can’t defend at historic levels. Again, this is where I point to Bogut and Gasol.

I also don’t see how Hakeem or D-Rob are going to look better then they already did - both are top 5 defensive players ever, whatever impact is gained in “mobility deployment” by coaches is lost in the darth of big men for them to defend 1-on-1 at an elite level.

Scottie Pippen and Kevin Garnett are the only all-time-great defensive players whose primary defensive toolkit consisted the type of “middle-line-backer disruption” you are speaking of. They are the exception, not the rule. I exclude Russell because he was equal parts of both (which is why he’s the defensive GOAT and able to be a top 3 player ever without being very far above average on the other end of the court).

PS: sure, feel free to vote for other guys. That's just my perspective on Allen Iverson, not everyone has to agree and I can be wrong about a lot of things... English is, of course, a nice pick for this spot, or even Parish or some other guys. I just feel like people sometimes just look at Iverson's ts% in an isolated way, without seeing the context within it. I think he's one of those cases where a different organization could have made wonders for him.

See this is where I, and I think others go the other way with him. Firstly, in fairness he did trade usage for efficiency quite successfully once, in Denver with Anthony, though he's good but not spectacular (20.9 PER and .163 WS/48) part of which is assisting less.

Yeah, this is just flat out wrong, it wasn’t a matter of him “sacrificing usage for efficiency,” it was a guy no longer playing in the worst era of all time for his skill-set. He was a 50.5TS% player from 97-04 and a 54.5TS% player from 05-08 despite being (arguably I suppose) a worse player in the latter stretch (at the very least he was less physically gifted in the 05-08 stretch).

This is where people go wrong with Iverson (well, one place anyway). If you want to knock his efficiency compared to Kobe, T-Mac, Pierce, and Ray Allen, that is completely fine. If you are going to knock him in a comparison to current-era perimeter players or the 80s guys you need to make sure you give him the ~ 4TS% boost he would get when playing in the era those guys did their damage in - it’s a completely unfair critique otherwise. And you could say “well in the era he was actually playing in he was only a 51TS% guy so he was hurting his team by shooting that much,” but that criticism completely falls apart when you look his roster constructs.

But in Philly with secondary offensive talent, the likes of Derrick Coleman, Jerry Stackhouse, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other scorers like Corliss Williamson, Clarence Weatherspoon even a Matt Geiger, he didn't seem to mesh too well. Now that's not to say that all of those are ideal supporting talent. It isn't. But it's certainly arguable that prime Iverson's ideal team is perhaps a variation on the '01 Sixers. Maybe some better shooters. But the implication is, perhaps, until late in his his prime, he didn't really trade usage for efficiency, so his best value was dragging an offense towards average with a huge burden and allowing to pick up cheaper, defense/hustle minded talent. And if this is the case that probably isn't the the recipe for a contender with any real probability of titles (yes, that 76ers team made the finals but only out the abysmal East). Unless those defenders were having a huge impact. In which case you're looking at crediting them more than AI.

Lol at mentioning the guys you did as “supporting talent". Post-knee Webber was an abhorrent USG 27% TS% 47% between 2004 and the end of his stint in Philly in 2007. And that was best offensive talent Iverson got to play with before Carmelo. Even when you analyze his TS% compared to that of his team you have to account for the fact that if you actually took away those possessions from Iverson the TS% of his supporting cast would decline further (and Moonbeam can check this but I doubt very much his collective teammates were even much better than 51TS% between 97-04)

Well firstly you're arguing as though everyone who is posting on the "Iverson skeptic" for want of a better term, perspective is posting from the exact same view. I assume that's what's implied when the tangent goes off in what is ostensibly a response to me, about how we should compare him to 80s scorers. I'm not advocating one. I haven't mentioned one. And I'm fully aware of the need for context/era adjustments in comparison of boxscore (or in this case neo-boxscore / scoring efficiency) stats - though time constraints sometimes prevent us being as thorough as one might like.

But to the main points

it wasn’t a matter of him “sacrificing usage for efficiency,”

AI highest usage 37.8; best year usage 35.9; most efficient year usage 26.7. There's no correlation there? Ditto three of his top 4 ts%s coming in years with usage under 30. There's no general relationship between shot creation burden and efficiency? Skill curves are just the fevered dream of Dean Oliver? If so, fwiw, that's terrible news for Iverson. It means his shot creation was valueless. Which would just make him a chucker. I don't know what you're trying to argue or why there. Especially since you basically come back to skill curves at a team level later, advocating them.

Regarding optimal rules for AI. I tend to argue primarily based on how you performed in the era you were in, not on hypotheticals about era portability. This debate has been covered in previous threads, and each side has it's merits. For what it's worth the "worst era of all time for his skill-set" would presumably be 60s and before where palming was rigidly enforced (of course this raises the problem of such time travel counterfactuals as it relies on assumptions that players would play their games in the same way that they did in their time, if placed in a different time).

Regarding supporting talent once again I have no idea what you think you read but a

Lol at mentioning the guys you did as “supporting talent".

suggests you haven't understood it. For further clarification see post 58

On the teammates point, the suggestion isn't that they are great players it is primarily that they are competent or better scorers (and mostly were percieved as such upon joining the same team as AI, though not always leaving with that rep, perhaps in some instances this relates to age; perhaps though, also a further suggestion of AI's non-synergy with scorers) with whom AI, the teammate and the 76ers failed to flourish.

And citing how poorly Webber played with AI, as you do, only further makes that point. And that's not to suggest I believe Webber was pre-injury Webber in Philly.

[Moonbeam]

Even when you analyze his TS% compared to that of his team you have to account for the fact that if you actually took away those possessions from Iverson the TS% of his supporting cast would decline further (and Moonbeam can check this but I doubt very much his collective teammates were even much better than 51TS% between 97-04)

It's absolutely true that Iverson's Philly teams had poor scorers looking at Iverson's Score+ metrics:

Code: Select all

Year  Score+  PosScore+  TeamScore+
1997  -1.332   -1.273     -0.322
1998   0.643    0.436      1.178
1999  -0.255   -0.052      0.938
2000  -1.967   -2.205     -0.378
2001   0.028   -0.562     -0.005
2002  -2.504   -2.847     -1.429
2003  -1.348   -1.383     -1.412
2004  -2.729   -2.401     -1.935


The TeamScore+ is almost always higher than either the Score+ or PosScore+. I wouldn't read too much into the negative values for TeamScore+, either, because while they do suggest that Iverson's teammates had a higher average TS than he did in those years, the difference is often minimal and these metrics still don't account for any tradeoff between usage and efficiency (I still haven't figured out how to properly adjust for this). Moreover, Iverson as a SG for most of these years and the threat of his scoring opened up opportunities for him to dish off to these teammates, and he was generally well above 6 assists per 100 possessions, and while his turnovers don't look so hot, I think it's fair to posit that his AST/TO ratio is underselling his playmaking ability because his teammates during that span largely never distinguished themselves as decent scorers even outside of their time as Iverson's teammates.

[D Nice]

But to the main points

it wasn’t a matter of him “sacrificing usage for efficiency,”

AI highest usage 37.8; best year usage 35.9; most efficient year usage 26.7. There's no correlation there? Ditto three of his top 4 ts%s coming in years with usage under 30. There's no general relationship between shot creation burden and efficiency? Skill curves are just the fevered dream of Dean Oliver? If so, fwiw, that's terrible news for Iverson. It means his shot creation was valueless. Which would just make him a chucker. I don't know what you're trying to argue or why there. Especially since you basically come back to skill curves at a team level later, advocating them.

Skill curves matter but they do not come close to affecting all players unilaterally. If I were to pick 3 players in history whose usage bears almost 0 impact on their efficiency it would be Iverson, Kobe and Jordan. 2005 and 2006 completely debunk you're argument and side with mine. AI was still rocking his 35+ USG% those two seasons but (thanks to the new rules) was a 54% TS player. In Denver he's a a 55.5 TS% player for the first time playing with a guy who draws doubles other than himself. Even if there was some impact due to reduced usage, it is MINUSCULE compared to the environmental shift (era).

As to your other point (synergy with Webber), I have no idea how you could have watched that Philly team and gathered Iverson was (in any way) making Webber inefficient. Philly's offense was basically adjusted to take AI off the ball and have Webber stand at the elbow and do 1 of 3 things: hit cutters, pass and screen the recipient, and shoot awful contested 16 footers when the first two reads weren't available. He only became more efficient in Detroit because his role was reduced dramatically and they turned him into a low post center (at that point he was still a decent post scorer). So at best that synergy criticism is disingenuous and at the worst it is reverse-narrative building. Dragging Philly to an above-average offense with Webber sucking up that many low-utility possessions in 2006 was nothing short of herculean.

[Moonbeam]

Anyway, short on time now, and people are calling for a vote. I'll go Parish, though it looks like Mutombo versus Iverson is set up. Parish reasoning: Best career value added on the board including an underrated peak (40th by my WS/48 - PER peak pythogrean rank -not absolutely up to date -; i.e. rank the best player seasons (one season per player) in each stat, square where they rank in each, add the two together square root -technically unnecesary - and then rank by that - far from perfect I know; 59th best peak in WS/48; 43rd in PER; again not completely up to date). Actually all the guys above him on PPR have issues that have kept them out of the conversation bar one

Very cool! Care to share the list of your top 100, even if it is not up to date?

Okay. As I say this is only the peaks, so only one year. I think I had 1000 minute minimums. The pythogorean method means its favours those who are consistent in both categories rather than doing well in one and poorly in another. And by ranking their ranks, it's a bit arbitrary in that your lead over, say, the guy 10 spots below might be minute, but the ranking doesn't know.

....

Thanks for that! I think you could do a version which takes into account the actual values of the metrics by standardizing them somehow.

[Basketballefan]

I wouldn't say AI was a great or very good defender. He was quick, knew how to play the passing lanes and frequently gambled. That's how he got so many steals. We know he was capable of playing great defense from his time at Georgetown, but AI wasn't a great defender in the NBA. I think he'll probably get voted in around 55, but it won't be because of his defense.

If Ai goes as low as 55 that will prove how much the voters dislike him.

Lighten up dude...you seem to think people just hate all the players you like.

Im not even an iverson fan. I just call bias when i see it and there have been several players in this project who went lower or higher than they should have because of it. People can deny it all they want to, but that doesnt make it false. We are humans, therefore we will be biased at times theres no point in trying to deny it.

[Owly]

But to the main points

it wasn’t a matter of him “sacrificing usage for efficiency,”

AI highest usage 37.8; best year usage 35.9; most efficient year usage 26.7. There's no correlation there? Ditto three of his top 4 ts%s coming in years with usage under 30. There's no general relationship between shot creation burden and efficiency? Skill curves are just the fevered dream of Dean Oliver? If so, fwiw, that's terrible news for Iverson. It means his shot creation was valueless. Which would just make him a chucker. I don't know what you're trying to argue or why there. Especially since you basically come back to skill curves at a team level later, advocating them.

Skill curves matter but they do not come close to affecting all players unilaterally. If I were to pick 3 players in history whose usage bears almost 0 impact on their efficiency it would be Iverson, Kobe and Jordan. 2005 and 2006 completely debunk you're argument and side with mine. AI was still rocking his 35+ USG% those two seasons but (thanks to the new rules) was a 54% TS player. In Denver he's a a 55.5 TS% player for the first time playing with a guy who draws doubles other than himself. Even if there was some impact due to reduced usage, it is MINUSCULE compared to the environmental shift (era).

Have you read all my posts. My central thesis was, Iverson's primary value is as a usage/volume sponge, and for the most part could not (or at least might not be able to) exchange volume for efficiency (and that somewhat as a result of this, he wasn't an ideal piece to build around). You're taking the one instance of a concession that he might have done that and saying he didn't, which is fair enough, but as I understand it you're pro-Iverson. I'm just not sure where you're going.

As to your other point (synergy with Webber), I have no idea how you could have watched that Philly team and gathered Iverson was (in any way) making Webber inefficient. Philly's offense was basically adjusted to take AI off the ball and have Webber stand at the elbow and do 1 of 3 things: hit cutters, pass and screen the recipient, and shoot awful contested 16 footers when the first two reads weren't available. He only became more efficient in Detroit because his role was reduced dramatically and they turned him into a low post center (at that point he was still a decent post scorer). So at best that synergy criticism is disingenuous and at the worst it is reverse-narrative building. Dragging Philly to an above-average offense with Webber sucking up that many low-utility possessions in 2006 was nothing short of herculean.

Firstly I note you don't address the optimal rules point. And given you're an AI advocate and feel that rules went against him, this might be the nub of the issue. If you believe rules shackled him then go and make that case and appeal to voters whose criteria have more leeway in that area. TBH it feels like you're just picking an argument, because as I say you're picking at little bits of fractions of what I'm saying, in an attempt to "win" an argument and make those not pro-Iverson look unreasonable.

One last time, I'm not arguing Allen Iverson made Chris Webber inefficient (my only comment on him specifically is that him being inefficient with Allen Iverson is a bizzare argument for countering a suggestion that AI doesn't pair well with other scorers). I'm suggesting AI peaked, both individually and a team level, with a defensive minded team, his spells with higher usage players generally tended to make him, them and the team less effective. Correlation isn't causation, so maybe there's a better explanation; though given you're also suggesting Iverson can't trade down on usage for efficiency (or can sustain a level of efficiency with increased usage, depending on how you look at it) you seem to be heading down the same path. The primary difference it seems is you suggest rules (artificially?) deflated that effciency, whereas I don't care so much whether they did or not.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #74:

Alex English (2) - penbeast0, ronnymac2

Robert Parish (3) - trex_8063, RSCD3_, Owly

Dominique Wilkins (1) - JordansBulls

Dikembe Mutombo (4) - Chuck Texas, tsherkin, Doctor MJ, SactoKingsFan

Pau Gasol (1) - john248

Allen Iverson (4) - Joao Saraiva, Basketballefan, E-Balla, DQuinn1575

Adrian Dantley (2) - Moonbeam, Clyde Frazier


While it does look like it's a Mutombo/Iverson run-off (as RSCD3_ declared in his post #59 vote count), I'd like to point out that as of that point Iverson and Parish both had 3 votes (he had names of the three people who'd voted Parish listed, but still had "(1)" as the vote count for him). It's only recently with DQuinn1575 casting vote for Iverson in post #62 that has made it 4:4 (Mutombo:Iverson).

EDIT: And I for one am happier with the better turn-out on this vote--->17 votes, that's more than we've had in awhile.

[D Nice]

Firstly I note you don't address the optimal rules point.

Which is what exactly? If I didn't address something it's because I missed it or it wasn't at all substantive.

And given you're an AI advocate and feel that rules went against him, this might be the nub of the issue. If you believe rules shackled him then go and make that case and appeal to voters whose criteria have more leeway in that area.

I don’t need to “go and make that case” to anyone. It’s a fact, it isn’t some nebulous opinion. He demonstrates a TS% of 4 points higher (a bigger jump than any of his contemporaries saw after the rule change) in a period where his efficacy at attacking the basket was actually LOWER than it was in his lesser-efficiency period. Nothing really needs to be said or argued beyond that, the data (and the tape) makes this abundantly clear.

TBH it feels like you're just picking an argument, because as I say you're picking at little bits of fractions of what I'm saying, in an attempt to "win" an argument and make those not pro-Iverson look unreasonable.

I’m not trying to “win” anything, this is realgm, I have no doubt whatsoever anything pro-Iverson is probably not even going to be considered, but I’d at least rather have some debunking of common fallacious stances regarding him on record. I’m not “pro-Iverson” in a comparison to Deke. I’m pro-accuracy and while I feel like Deke should have gone around 5 spots ago, Iverson should have gone around 10-12 spots ago, so yeah, I feel slightly stronger about his drop than I do Mutombo’s.

One last time, I'm not arguing Allen Iverson made Chris Webber inefficient (my only comment on him specifically is that him being inefficient with Allen Iverson is a bizzare argument for countering a suggestion that AI doesn't pair well with other scorers).

Then I see absolutely no point in referencing synergy. Synergy implies Iverson did a poor job of elevating Webber or was actively inhibiting his success. No real analysis of Philly's gameplan could actually would yield such a result, so that is "bizarre" to me. And again, lol at calling Webber at that point a "scorer" (unless you simply use the term interchangeably with "guy who took a lot of shots").

I'm suggesting AI peaked, both individually and a team level, with a defensive minded team, his spells with higher usage players generally tended to make him, them and the team less effective. Correlation isn't causation, so maybe there's a better explanation;

Yes the "better explanation" is that Post-Knee Webber and Jerry Stackhouse are not actually good offensive players. I don’t know why you are trying to do intellectual hoola-hoops around a very basic and readily apparent point. I never understood why him doing better on a team with elite defensive support was an indictment of him (or Kidd, or Isiah). If he's able to entirely bootstrap an offense himself while allowing a GM to collect defensive talents it is no different than an all-time defensive anchor allowing a GM to pursue offensive talent at the expense of defense. It's a benefit, not a detractor. If you want to say "well he doesn't scale as well as other guys" fine, but most or all of guys who could bootstrap an offense just as well while also scaling their offenses to better teams have been voted in.

Have you read all my posts. My central thesis was, Iverson's primary value is as a usage/volume sponge, and for the most part could not (or at least might not be able to) exchange volume for efficiency (and that somewhat as a result of this, he wasn't an ideal piece to build around). .

Right, and I find it objectionable you are leaning on post-knee Webber and Young Jerry Stackhouse to make this assertion when they themselves were bottom-of-the-barrel scorers who didn’t really make up for this by being particularly creative offensively (moreso Stack than C-Webb, at least Webber could pass). The one time he was paired with an actually efficacious scorer (Carmelo) they netted the #8 and #11 offense league-wide and were a 50+ win team in an extremely competitive conference. And this is despite the fact both are primarily on-ball scorers, which makes a big difference (although Melo has made strides off the ball since then).

You're taking the one instance of a concession that he might have done that and saying he didn't, which is fair enough, but as I understand it you're pro-Iverson. I'm just not sure where you're going

"Where I'm going" is that the "trade-off" your implying boosted his efficiency is actually much closer to the TS% base-line we should credit him with as an offensive player. If you are going to completely ignore this as fact (or say it's unimportant, which you seem to be saying), then there is really nothing else to discuss.

though given you're also suggesting Iverson can't trade down on usage for efficiency (or can sustain a level of efficiency with increased usage, depending on how you look at it) you seem to be heading down the same path. The primary difference it seems is you suggest rules (artificially?) deflated that effciency, whereas I don't care so much whether they did or not.

And right, even if you "don’t care” that his efficiency was artificially suppressed (which is completely ridiculous from an evaluation standpoint IMO) he clearly was not hurting his team by assuming such volume because he was on teams ill-equipped to generate offense outside of him. His teammates were generally just as inefficient as he was, and would have (likely) been more inefficient without his distortive presence.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'm glad to see Dantley and English on the run. My vote will probably go to one of them after Iverson gets in. Thanks for the reading about English and Dantley guys!

[penbeast0]

So, Iverson paired with another top 100 player (Carmelo) can produce an offense rated 9th or 11th in the league. English is appreciably more efficient, a class act, works harder on defense, and produces 5 straight top 5 offenses and 2 straight #1 in the league offenses and Iverson fans will start considering them after Iverson is in. I don't see it.

[penbeast0]

So, great defender who also rebounded and scored a bit on reasonably good efficiency v. low percentage gunner who notoriously blew off practice and played poor defense. VOTE Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo

[trex_8063]

Run-off vote: Allen Iverson.

The article fplii posted link to was interesting. While I cannot find a way to believe a steal is worth 9+ pts, it certainly was some food for thought (the Rubio/Love comparisons were interesting too), and lends a touch more credence to the quality of Iverson's defense.

But obv his claim to fame is as an offensive player. While his shooting efficiency is heavily criticized, there's a fair bit of context to it. I think Joao Saraiva stated it very concisely:

[b]Game 3 - Loss - Iverson didn't play and everyone was terrible from the field. This is a good example on how Iverson had to do everything on offense. Mutombo scored 12 points on 47ts%, and no other player from the starting 5 shot above 40%FG. How terrible is that? This is the context Iverson's ts% needs to be seen with.

Sans-Iverson the team shot 35.7% from the field (44.2% TS%) and scored a playoff-low 74 points (and this against a team that was ranked 20th of 29 teams defensively). That---in a nut-shell---is the context.

I agree this is not an ideal set-up, giving ~35% usage to a player like Iverson. But those Philly teams were already asking more than was ideal from several mediocre (or even poor) offensive players:
Eric Snow--->his SIX highest ppg averages, his SIX highest apg averages, and 4 of his 5 highest USG% all came during his six full seasons in Philly.
Theo Ratliff--->his 3-year stint in Philly accounts for all THREE of his highest ppg averages, and 3 of his 4 highest USG% (this in a 16-year career).
Aaron McKie--->his TWO highest ppg averages (and 5 of his top 6), his FIVE highest apg averages, as well as his TWO highest USG% (and 3 of his top 4, 6 of his top 8) all came during his 7 full seasons in Philly.
George Lynch--->3 of his top 4 ppg averages and 3 of his top 4 apg averages came during his 3-year stint in Philly.
Dikembe Mutombo--->his usage jumped by 2.8% (to a level he'd not been at in 3 years) and ppg jumped by 2.6 ppg (to level he'd not scored at for two years) IMMEDIATELY upon his arrival in Philly (at age 34).

I see the volume he was providing in Philly as largely defensible, based on who his teammates were and what was already being extracted from them. Seriously, are they going to see if they can milk 16 ppg out of Theo Ratliff and Aaron McKie? Maybe 15 ppg from Tyrone Hill? Those squads were out of offensive options.
And then there's his efficient year in a more 1B role in Denver (just to show he's capable of it), although he'd already had one in '06.

And as was mentioned in defense of McGrady: shooting efficiency is not the only measure of efficiency. Iverson's USG%/TOV% thru his prime ('99-'08) was 2.88: better than Lebron, Wade, English, Gervin, Durant, Ray Allen, Drexler, Dantley, Reggie Miller, Paul Pierce, way better than Mullin and Harden. And this while shouldering more usage than has been asked of anyone not named Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, or Dwyane Wade.

His career pts/tov ratio is better than that of Drexler, Paul Pierce, DWade, Bernard King, Ginobili, Derrick Rose, to name a few.
His career (pts + ast)/tov ratio better than that of Zeke, Pierce, Ginobili, King, among others.


The gist of this is that there's a relatively short list of players who would even be capable of shouldering that kind of usage and producing that degree of volume, regardless of efficiency. And an even shorter list of players who would be able to do it better (and those that could have already been voted in, most of them LONG ago).