OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I feel like our debate here is yielding diminishing returns, so I'm just going to reply to a few things.AEnigma wrote:Wilkins — I am not looking for aesthetic complaints, I am looking at who was better at the sport and contributed more to their teams.
I find it interesting that you characterize inefficiency as an aesthetic complaint. I don't think it's aesthetic at all. That actually makes it sound like you don't think inefficiency actually matters.
It matters in the sense that all else being equal it is better to make shots than to miss shots, but my actual analysis is always whether the results justify the approach.
Dominique Wilkins may not be notably efficient, but that is only an issue to the extent his shots are taking away from better shots, and I have a tough time arguing that is what was typically happening on the Hawks. 1998 Jordan was a 53.3% efficiency scorer in a 52.4% efficiency league environment, and he also posted the lowest creation numbers of his entire career. Nevertheless, the Bulls were something like ten points better on offence with him in the game.
If you have a player who takes every end of clock contested mid-range shot, he can make them at the highest percent in the league and still qualify as a relatively inefficient scorer. But because he would qualify as the best in the league at that skill, the team would have the best results in those scenarios — which have happened regularly throughout NBA history and from like 1999-2004 (maybe even extending farther out from 1994-2016) were arguably the norm.
Will throw Trex as bone here and say that shot profile is a significant part of the case for Lamarcus Aldridge. From 2009-15, Aldridge was a negative efficiency scorer. His teams were also 6.5 points better with him on offence, and it was not because he was an elite playmaker or a Gobert-esque screener.
[Speaking of, you should intuitively understand how Gobert being able to shoot like Aldridge should make him a legitimate high-end superstar… even though it would take a lot away from his raw efficiency.]
Anyway, first instinct may be to point to Roy and Lillard, but no, you can filter them out and over a large sample from 2009-15 Aldridge is still providing above average on-court offence — better than what Lillard did without Aldridge, for that matter, without letting the team bleed defensively.
For the sake of this comparison, that does not mean I am saying Aldridge is more valuable offensively than Issel… but I do think it is substantially closer than what those TS ADD numbers would ever indicate, to the point that while I am not too inclined to back Aldridge for this project, I have a much easier time backing him than I do Issel. For similar reasons, I think prime (1983-92) Terry Cummings is pretty close to English and Wilkins and Worthy in that era, and if we had been doing this in 2014 or even 2017, I would probably be pushing him for this project too.
And then to bring it back to Chet, I believe Sloan and Love were the ones taking a lot of those “bad” shots… but it probably should have been Chet, and if it had been Chet, he would have been a more valuable player even while reducing his own efficiency. [Not saying it was explicitly his fault for not having a larger share of the offence, just that it would have been better if he had.]
Hill — I am not giving Issel bonus credit because he had good runs as a support piece to Artis Gilmore, David Thompson, and Bobby Jones, with a more limiting playstyle than alternatives like Bosh or Grant.
Being a tertiary piece on contending teams hasn't been a barrier before. Horace Grant is getting nomination votes right now. Jeff Hornacek made the last list.
Yeah and I am saying I would rather have Grant as a tertiary piece than I would Issel. Secondary, eh, depends more on the roster, but there I am definitely taking Bosh, Aldridge… Elton Brand… still probably inclined to take someone like Buck Williams… Definitely Vlade Divac and Marc Gasol, to say nothing of the already discussed Beaty…
Okay, cool, but there is a reason we factor volume. I brought up Kiki already, but he is not the only one. Chet’s career TS ADD is a bit below Cedric Maxwell’s, and Maxwell has a Finals MVP leading the team in regular season win shares. Bailey Howell is higher than both of them, with two titles! And unlike with Kiki, you cannot say either were soft defenders, with Maxwell in particular being good enough to provide useful minutes assigned to Moses Malone.
In any sense, I suspect you do not think a guy like Calvin Murphy was a more capable scorer than Allen Iverson, so why do we keep acting as if this is the means by which scoring is assessed?
I would only point out that Maxwell did not maintain the volume that Walker did for as long...Walker is at 18.2 for his career while Maxwell is at 12.5(and their mpg were mostly similar, it wasn't a result of playing less). I also am not sure Maxwell had as much primacy in his career as Walker did in Chicago, particularly once Bird was in Boston, and later McHale.
I am not saying vote for Maxwell, I am rhetorically questioning whether you think his 1979-81 peak was higher than the peaks of “inefficient” guys like Wilkins.
Neil Johnston led the league in win shares five years in a row and won a title. Where is he on your list?
Re Neil Johnston - he has made the list twice before. The notion of him being a candidate is not without precedent. There are only so many spots to fill though, and Walker played five more seasons than Johnston, while also being a bit more resilient in the postseason.
Okay, but do you see how that shows you can easily mould your standards? Title-winning league leader in win shares five years in a row. He really only has six seasons worth anything, but in those six seasons he accumulated more career TS ADD than Chet Walker. I do not have Johnston near my top 100, but I do not claim to be a committed era relativist who holds win shares and TS ADD in high regard.
Honest question, because you've brought up Davies' MVP multiple times - are you supporting or will you support McAdoo, given his MVP?
I am open to Davies and would like to see him in to completely cover the (primary league) title-winning through-line from 1946-2023, but at minimum I want Gus Williams in first.
Mixed on McAdoo. I would say I have him below Wilkins, English, Hill, and Worthy… but if it gets to the final rounds and they lack support, then I would be willing to pivot. On my own list I also have him below Vlade and Iguodala and on par with Bosh and Aldridge, but for the sake of a top 100 cutoff I could be flexible on that with McAdoo being a more noteworthy figure in the history of the league than those four.
