Kendall Gill had one of the best non-all-star careers, production-wise

[SHAQ32]

In his first 10 seasons, 718 games, he averaged 15 points, 5 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 steals, and a block per game!

The more you know.

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

[Ein Sof]

Mike Bibby averaged 16/6 for his first 802 games (1999-2009)

[penbeast0]

Long career, leaving out his efficiency overrates him though, he had a career TS+ of 93 (.493ts%) and a career TSadded of -957 with only 2 positive seasons (rated at 4 and 5). He was Billy Beane, 5-tool player who just didn't produce enough points.

[Colbinii]

He was one of the first players I remember and I have no idea why.

edit: Played for the 2003 Wolves!

[SHAQ32]

He doesn't measure well in TS, but his FG% during the stretch was a more than acceptable 44%. And he led the league in steals and steals% one season.

[Owly]

Comes down to what you mean (one of the best ...10? 20? 30? 100?) and what you value. But the Reference metrics only really value one year '97 as clearly above average.

Here's the top 30 box peaks (standard deviations among pool of [self generated] semi-notable retired non-all stars by the Reference metrics - peak numbers not required to be from same year).

C
Sabonis
Marcus Camby
Nene
Tree Rollins
Al Jefferson
Tom Boerwinkle
Shawn Bradley
Clifford Ray
Tom Owens
Jim Fox
Rich Kelley
Marcin Gortat
Oliver Miller
Andray Blatche
Billy Paultz
Andrew Bogut
Chris Andersen
Gheorge Muresan
Andris Biedrins
Jeff Foster
Erick Dampier
Darryl Dawkins
Danny Schayes
Emeka Okafor
Mike Gminski
Troy Murphy
Pervis Ellison
Elden Campbell
Lloyd Neal
Todd MacCulloch

PF
Josh Smith
Brian Cardinal
Donyell Marshall
Lamar Odom
John "Hot Rod" Williams
Ersan Illyasova
Ed Pinckney
P.J. Brown
Jerome Williams
Happy Hairston
Mickey Johnson
Mitch Kupchak
Charles Smith
Roy Tarpley
Charles (Bo) Outlaw
Amir Johnson
Kurt Thomas
Brian Grant
Drew Gooden
Boris Diaw
Mychal Thompson
Carl Landry
Sam Perkins
Gary Trent
Leon Powe
Gene Banks
Clarence Weatherspoon
Cliff Levingston
Grant Long
Curtis Perry


SF
Toni Kukoc
Cedric Maxwell
James Posey
Paul Pressey
Richard Jefferson
Don Nelson
John "Hot Plate" Williams
Matt Harpring
Bob Gross
Corey Maggette
Greg Ballard
Chris Morris
Bonzi Wells
Hidayet Turkoglu
Josh Childress
Ruben Patterson
Orlando Woolridge
Jerome Kersey
Rodney Rogers
Walt Williams
Eddie Johnson (shooter)
Mike Miller
Sonny Parker
Clark Kellogg
Shane Battier
Scott Burrell
Reggie Williams
Tyrone Corbin
Matt Barnes
Trevor Ariza


SG
Brent Barry
Ron Harper
Larry Hughes
Kerry Kittles
Jason Terry
Byron Scott
Kevin Martin
Freddie Brown
Stacey Augmon
Jon Barry
Nick Anderson
Fred Hoiberg
Tony Allen
Doug Christie
Derek Anderson
Kendall Gill
Leandro Barbosa
Marquis Daniels
Mike Woodson
Wesley Person
Tim Legler
Derek Smith
Jason Richardson
Monta Ellis
Ben Gordon
Drazen Petrovic
Mario Elie
Sarunas Marciulionis
Mike Dunleavy Jr
Jamal Crawford


PG
Darrell Armstrong
Rod Strickland
Derek Harper
Andre Miller
Ray Williams
Jose Calderon
Lucius Allen
Dave Twardzik
Lou (Louis) Williams
Eric Murdock
Micheal Williams
John Lucas
Nate McMillan
Brian Taylor
Brent Price
Kirk Hinrich
Antonio Daniels
Steve Kerr
Mike Bibby
Bobby Jackson
David Wesley
Johnny Moore
Vern Fleming
Brevin Knight
Mike James
Dee Brown
Jay Humphries
T.J. Ford
Kenny Smith
James Silas

Think this was NBA only. Pool being me generated might affect SDs and distribution generally. Positional designations are fluid.

Gill played a long time as a solid player.

[SHAQ32]

Yeah, he wasn't a high peaker. He consistently played at that just sub-all-star level for a good 5-6 seasons.

[SHAQ32]

Comes down to what you mean (one of the best ...10? 20? 30? 100?) and what you value. But the Reference metrics only really value one year '97 as clearly above average.

Here's the top 30 box peaks (standard deviations among pool of [self generated] semi-notable retired non-all stars by the Reference metrics - peak numbers not required to be from same year).

Career production.

[pipfan]

I was a walk-on with the Flying Illini team back in 89-Gill was a good guy, quiet and improved a lot
I thought he made one All Star team?

[BenoUdrihFTL]

I liked his game (especially on that trapping Sonics team) but it felt like every shot he took in that 1994 first round series was at the rim and sent back by Deke

[Owly]

Comes down to what you mean (one of the best ...10? 20? 30? 100?) and what you value. But the Reference metrics only really value one year '97 as clearly above average.

Here's the top 30 box peaks (standard deviations among pool of [self generated] semi-notable retired non-all stars by the Reference metrics - peak numbers not required to be from same year).

Career production.

Yes. As stated in the quote it depends what you value. If one is agreement that only '97 is significantly above average, it might not take many seasons of a Sabonis ('96: 24.7 PER peak, 4 years above 20; .233 WS/48, 5 years above .200; 6.7 BPM, 4 years above 4) ... more substantial needle movers to surpass Gill, perhaps considerably so.

I guess it also depends what you mean by "production". If one wanted to ignore the bad efficiency noted above then he or a Jimmy Jackson, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington and perhaps others with different gaps (e.g. Wayman Tisdale - though some aforementioned have weaknesses other than efficiency) outside their positional top 30 peaks might be considered "productive". It depends what you value.

Yeah, he wasn't a high peaker. He consistently played at that just sub-all-star level for a good 5-6 seasons.

Per above he played a long time as a solid player, however bar '97 box aggregations suggest never really significantly above average (94's 15.6 PER, .132 WS/48; 1.3 BPM probably next best season - Gill's on-off data for that season is absent but Seattle fared very well with fellow SG Ricky Pierce on). This is not a damning thing. It might though be a stretch to call it "just sub-all-star level for a good 5-6 seasons." Where he ranks will simply depend what you value.

[SHAQ32]

I guess I'm looking at the raw numbers and defense and not as much at the lack of efficiency. Six-season stretch, 92-97, 17 points, 5 boards, 4 assists, shooting 45% from the field. To go along with 2 steals and a block per game. I'm sure some guys scored more or were more efficient, but who was passing and playing the defense?

[Owly]

I guess I'm looking at the raw numbers and defense and not as much at the lack of efficiency. Six-season stretch, 92-97, 17 points, 5 boards, 4 assists, shooting 45% from the field. To go along with 2 steals and a block per game. I'm sure some guys scored more or were more efficient, but who was passing and playing the defense?

Passing is included in these composites. Much of defense isn't but then Gill was arguably more defense box productive (2.6 stl%) than he was recognized as a defender (Barry books between 91-96 always graded him between B and A, most frequently B+, this on a 6 main point scale D, C, B, A, AA, AAA) nor fwiw did he make and all-D teams (though these can be ... inaccurate) nor have huge sign of impact on that end in the impact era (an entirely solid, average, neutral at each end in the 97-14 sample).

Gill mostly played fairly big minutes and Charlotte twice and Seattle once were top 2 in pace in the window (Nets 5th in the whole season there).

As above counting stats are there. Composites are mostly average. Defensive rep seems fine but nothing exceptional. I'd be inclined to think solid, but not notably good (before getting into intangible issues in the span - had problems in Charlotte and Seattle).

[trex_8063]

Comes down to what you mean (one of the best ...10? 20? 30? 100?) and what you value. But the Reference metrics only really value one year '97 as clearly above average.

Here's the top 30 box peaks (standard deviations among pool of [self generated] semi-notable retired non-all stars by the Reference metrics - peak numbers not required to be from same year).

Career production.

Yes. As stated in the quote it depends what you value. If one is agreement that only '97 is significantly above average, it might not take many seasons of a Sabonis ('96: 24.7 PER peak, 4 years above 20; .233 WS/48, 5 years above .200; 6.7 BPM, 4 years above 4) ...

Something that REALLY needs to be included/considered [imo]----and which is often over-looked----when comparing rate metrics is playing time: Sabonis had the 24.7 PER peak while averaging 23.8 mpg; Gill had the 19.6 PER peak while averaging 39.0 mpg.

That's pretty relevant. A difference in >15 mpg extra [likely] means Gill was playing while fatigued more often than Sabonis, and/or playing while "coasting" [to avoid fatigue when big minutes are expected of you] more than Sabonis. That's going to effect one's rate metrics.
The degree to which one can be aggressive may be sporadically limited for high-minute players too (as they perhaps occasionally must dial it down to avoid foul-trouble).

Since I've mentioned fouls, it's worth noting that '96 Sabonis averaged >4.7 fouls/39 minutes. That would translate to a number of games where he wouldn't be able to reach ~39 minutes, because he'd foul out BEFORE that point. Even if fatigue were NOT a factor, he'd likely have to dial back his aggressiveness [from what he actually did in '96] if expected to play 39.0 mpg as Gill did in '97......and that would likely effect his rate metrics.

Also, from a basic "measure of impact" standpoint: a guy who is performing at '96 Sabonis level for 23.8 mpg might not be impacting THE FULL GAME as much as someone playing at Gill's level for 39.0 mpg (even if he is out-doing the Gill-level on a per-minute basis).
Obviously, whoever subs in for them will have some manner of impact too (and the potential for imprint of said substitution is bigger in Sabonsis's case).......whether that's a good or a bad thing I suppose depends upon the quality of the sub. If we assume for simplicity that the sub is net-neutral (or at least net-neutral relative to the opponent's subs), then we can practically ignore this consideration.

[Sark]

Long career, leaving out his efficiency overrates him though, he had a career TS+ of 93 (.493ts%) and a career TSadded of -957 with only 2 positive seasons (rated at 4 and 5). He was Billy Beane, 5-tool player who just didn't produce enough points.

That's why he was never an All Star, and just Kendall Gill.

He had the physical tools to be better, but he just never really took his game to the next level..

[donkeylips]

anyone remember him on the tv show "My brother and me"

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Trading him for Hersey Hawkins took the Sonics to the next level. As athletic as he was....he just couldn't shoot from the perimeter which had a lot to do with b2b 1st round upset exits.

[Owly]

Career production.

Yes. As stated in the quote it depends what you value. If one is agreement that only '97 is significantly above average, it might not take many seasons of a Sabonis ('96: 24.7 PER peak, 4 years above 20; .233 WS/48, 5 years above .200; 6.7 BPM, 4 years above 4) ...

Something that REALLY needs to be included/considered [imo]----and which is often over-looked----when comparing rate metrics is playing time: Sabonis had the 24.7 PER peak while averaging 23.8 mpg; Gill had the 19.6 PER peak while averaging 39.0 mpg.

That's pretty relevant. A difference in >15 mpg extra [likely] means Gill was playing while fatigued more often than Sabonis, and/or playing while "coasting" [to avoid fatigue when big minutes are expected of you] more than Sabonis. That's going to effect one's rate metrics.
The degree to which one can be aggressive may be sporadically limited for high-minute players too (as they perhaps occasionally must dial it down to avoid foul-trouble).

Since I've mentioned fouls, it's worth noting that '96 Sabonis averaged >4.7 fouls/39 minutes. That would translate to a number of games where he wouldn't be able to reach ~39 minutes, because he'd foul out BEFORE that point. Even if fatigue were NOT a factor, he'd likely have to dial back his aggressiveness [from what he actually did in '96] if expected to play 39.0 mpg as Gill did in '97......and that would likely effect his rate metrics.

Also, from a basic "measure of impact" standpoint: a guy who is performing at '96 Sabonis level for 23.8 mpg might not be impacting THE FULL GAME as much as someone playing at Gill's level for 39.0 mpg (even if he is out-doing the Gill-level on a per-minute basis).
Obviously, whoever subs in for them will have some manner of impact too (and the potential for imprint of said substitution is bigger in Sabonsis's case).......whether that's a good or a bad thing I suppose depends upon the quality of the sub. If we assume for simplicity that the sub is net-neutral (or at least net-neutral relative to the opponent's subs), then we can practically ignore this consideration.

Can't do the detailed response I would want to now. Heat and hand pain.

In short
1) Fwiw, IRL as noted above Gill hard arguably better backups in Seattle thus keeping him on may have been harmful. Sabonis also had very strong backup. Dudley slightly below average (but solid for backup) 97-14 but playing with Sabonis probably hurt that a little and '93 Dudley WoWY showed signs of huge impact. Fwiw, '97 Gill backup depends how you read positional designations on an unstable roster.

2) I lean more heavily on valuing role players but ...
yeah Gill was rarely significantly different from average. He's never driving title equity only supporting it. A player of Sabonis's caliber could be a needle mover.

3) I suspect, without close study that serious title contention teams mostly don't have bad rotation players. Does Sabas put a bit more onus on getting a good alternate/backup 5. Yes although ...

4) Sabonis played very well at 35.4 mpg in the playoffs - albeit over just 5 games. Medium term he upped his minutes in those high quality years to 27,1 mpg for the first 4 years, peaking at 32 and bar '98 that highest season, he played more in the playoffs.

Portland were cautious. Rightly so. Sabonis has evidence of being a fairly massive needle mover (97-14 RAPM 3.46, 23rd).

5) The point was primarily about Gill. I could point to Armstrong. Or Camby. Kukoc, Maxwell, Strickland, Nene, Maxwell, D Harper, A Miller, Marshall, Smith, Odom, Bradley, Pressey ... None peak as high, but we can talk careers of all shapes and sizes. Players that really separated themselves from circa average have a much, much quicker route to championship equity.

6) Gill as "coasting" doesn't at first glance hold up to scrutiny. '95 he doesn't play 30mpg doesn't always start and has an ordinary, perhaps slightly down year. Other factors could of course be at play.


None of what you say seems in principle to be wrong/objectionable and is worth bearing in mind but in this instance it ignores the elephant in the room. Sabonis was a very good, perhaps great player who moved the needle. Gill was an ordinary player who kept things ordinary. There's value to the latter. There's considerably more to the former.