RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #63

[trex_8063]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Kevin Garnett
13. Oscar Robertson
14. Karl Malone
15. Jerry West
16. Julius Erving
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. John Stockton
22. Dwyane Wade
23. Chris Paul
24. Bob Pettit
25. George Mikan
26. Steve Nash
27. Patrick Ewing
28. Kevin Durant
29. Stephen Curry
30. Scottie Pippen
31. John Havlicek
32. Elgin Baylor
33. Clyde Drexler
34. Rick Barry
35. Gary Payton
36. Artis Gilmore
37. Jason Kidd
38. Walt Frazier
39. Isiah Thomas
40. Kevin McHale
41. George Gervin
42. Reggie Miller
43. Paul Pierce
44. Dwight Howard
45. Dolph Schayes
46. Bob Cousy
47. Ray Allen
48. Pau Gasol
49. Wes Unseld
50. Robert Parish
51. Russell Westbrook
52. Alonzo Mourning
53. Dikembe Mutombo
54. Manu Ginobili
55. Chauncey Billups
56. Willis Reed
57. Bob Lanier
58. Allen Iverson
59. Adrian Dantley
60. Dave Cowens
61. Elvin Hayes
62. Dominique Wilkins
63. ???

Go!

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

1st vote: Tracy McGrady

I'm very very big on meaningful longevity, and McGrady suffers in comparison to many other candidates on the basis of his longevity/durability--->more the durability than the longevity. He did play 15+ seasons (though only seven of them prime-level, 2 others were relatively "near-prime", and he was at least marginally useful in all the others)......that's OK in terms of longevity; he did miss large chunks of multiple seasons, though (so durability is certainly an issue).

If not for this, I'd have supported him earlier. With the exception of Bill Walton, Tracy McGrady is [imo] the best peak [and best average level during prime] left on the table (and obviously his longevity/durability soundly trounces Walton's).

While WS/48 doesn't rate him overly generous, the other rate metrics do. In a decent length career (938 rs games, >30,000 rs minutes), TMac has the 31st highest career PER of all-time (in NBA/ABA combined); he has the 12th-best career playoff PER of all-time. He has the 26th-best rs BPM of all-time (or since 1973, I should say), 15th-best playoff BPM.
He's also 49th all-time in MVP award shares, fwiw.

Impact data doesn't exactly love him (but it doesn't rate him poorly either). Spreadsheet I have which compiled data for many notable players from the following sources:
*colts18's rs-only APM for '94-'96
**ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt RAPM for '97-'00 (NPI for '97, PI otherwise)
***shutupandjam RAPM for '01-'07 (NPI for '01, PI otherwise)
****GotBuckets? PI RAPM for '08-'14
*****JE's google sheets PI RAPM for '15-'17

......from those, TMac's best 7 years combined is extremely similar to that of the following players who are off the table: Gary Payton, Dwight Howard, Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, and Russell Westbrook.

imho, #63 is possibly marginally past time for TMac.



2nd vote: Vince Carter

I was see-sawing between Carter and English; prior to these last few threads I had them in adjacent spots on my ATL (with English just in front). But tbh, I've found the arguments from the Carter-camp in recent threads more compelling, and I started to wonder if it was nostalgia or perhaps "pressure of the status quo" that made me want to put English ahead.

Carter's certainly got the higher peak, imo. He's got a nice 9-year prime, maybe another couple seasons that aren't too far declined from his prime, and then the whole bunch of fair/decent role player years he's racked up at this point. Poor intangibles early in his career, but excellent intangibles late in his career (sort of balanced out to neutral, imo).

And Carter often looks better than expected in terms of impact metrics. Granted these can be sporadically noisy, and are not direct measurements of player goodness (it's also about fit and utilization, etc), but still obviously one can't help but think strong impact metrics is a argument in his favor here.

tbh, I'm not married to the order here; I'm half-thinking of flip-flopping Carter and TMac.


Top runners up are the aforementioned Alex English, Kevin Johnson, and Nate Thurmond. With guys like Unseld, Reed, Dantley, Cowens already voted in, this will likely be the cluster of guys I'm arguing for over the next few threads.

[dhsilv2]

Poor intangibles early in his career, but excellent intangibles late in his career (sort of balanced out to neutral, imo).

In another thread you commented that the bulk of one's career value comes in during the player's prime and near prime years. While I have Carter over English, I don't think intangibles are balanced out here. Carter's issues early and honestly into his mid career were also when he should/was adding the most value. I did love what he did for Dallas (or memphis) as a bench player, the total value of those years were really rather small anyway you cut them.

I say this in part for myself as I'm weighing Carter's career against Harden's who I feel is a complete neutral intangibles guy. Full disclosure if I add this year to harden, it's my new alt but I feel that's inappropriate). I have a feeling my next in choice will be difficult as a lot of players left are either before my time (Sam Jones) or guys I just generally didn't care a lot for (english) but that isn't reason to leave them out or even vote for them.

[70sFan]

I think that there should be a bit more focus on some early stars like Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston and Sam Jones.

[Outside]

I think that there should be a bit more focus on some early stars like Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston and Sam Jones.

Agree, particularly for Sam Jones and Paul Arizin. There's another guy from the 60s and 70s that I think deserves consideration, but his name escapes me... Anyway, so many factors to consider for players not yet selected.

Naturally, the eye test matters.
All-time great competition -- how did the player fare in those games?
Total body of work over the course of a career.
Extra factors, like leadership and chemistry.

Triple-doubles are great. Quadruple-doubles are even better.
High basketball IQ.
Understanding a player in the context of how the game was played during his era.
Rebounding is one of the most impactful skills.
MVP shares is something that can tell how a player was viewed compared to his peers.
Offense -- particularly for a defensive-minded player, was he able to make an impact offensively?
Not that RS doesn't count, but did the player have PS impact and success?
Defense. Offensively productive players more, rightly so, but a few make an extraordinary impact defensively.

[dhsilv2]

I think that there should be a bit more focus on some early stars like Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston and Sam Jones.

Make a case for them! I'm ready to vote Jones if someone can put a case together and push for him, but without that i'm not going to lead that charge (just don't feel like I know his game well enough). It's rather hard to watch celtics games from the past unless I just watch 1 player and ignore the rest due to the video quality on youtube. Perhaps my issue, but when I've watched the Celtics Hondo, Cousy, and/or Russell were always who I focused on.

[trex_8063]

I think that there should be a bit more focus on some early stars like Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston and Sam Jones.

Though I'm not likely to give them my personal support in the next few threads, I'd not be upset with Jones or Arizin gaining traction. Aside from my two picks, I'd mentioned English, KJ, and Thurmond (the latter being an "early star") as guys I'm considering a bit. Immediately after them, fwiw, I'll likely to be going for McAdoo, Harden (if he doesn't get in beforehand, as he's had traction for a few threads), and Tony Parker; but more or less clustered right in there with them for me is Paul Arizin (Jones just a few places behind).

I'm not ready for Neil Johnston, though: short career/prime, poor defensive reputation, and though he was on one title team, he otherwise had quite of few seasons of big numbers for poor teams (and of course era considerations apply, too). For me, there's at least a couple dozen guys I'd like to see gain traction before him. He's more likely someone I'll be considering in the final ten spots.

[dhsilv2]

I think that there should be a bit more focus on some early stars like Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston and Sam Jones.

Though I'm not likely to give them my personal support in the next few threads, I'd not be upset with Jones or Arizin gaining traction. Aside from my two picks, I'd mentioned English, KJ, and Thurmond (the latter being an "early star") as guys I'm considering a bit. Immediately after them, fwiw, I'll likely to be going for McAdoo, Harden (if he doesn't get in beforehand, as he's had traction for a few threads), and Tony Parker; but more or less clustered right in there with them for me is Paul Arizin (Jones just a few places behind).

I'm not ready for Neil Johnston, though: short career/prime, poor defensive reputation, and though he was on one title team, he otherwise had quite of few seasons of big numbers for poor teams (and of course era considerations apply, too). For me, there's at least a couple dozen guys I'd like to see gain traction before him. He's more likely someone I'll be considering in the final ten spots.

I'm interested in KJ discussion if you're ready for it. He seems pretty early given he didn't have a super long career and was well thought of but was never seen as a super star either. He's a top 100 for sure, but I was thinking we were a long way away from him.

[pandrade83]

1st Choice: James Harden
2nd Choice: Tracy McGrady

Harden's starting to turn into Reed in the way he's lost a couple run-offs in a row. He's arguably the highest non-Walton peak left.

I think everyone knows the arguments for Harden - this is a recent player so unless you're not paying attention to current basketball, you understand the case for. I'll tackle the case against instead.

Longevity - he has 7 high impact years; so there's a solid base there and his impact in Houston has been a very strong peak/prime - imo, the best left.

Defense - He sucks at this and I'm not going to try and defend it. The only thing I will say is that it's already baked into the team performance and in spite of this he was able to . . .

Lead a Team - Your supporting cast doesn't suck just because you don't play with another all-star. But Harden is the straw that stirs the drink for that team. He allows those 3 point shooters to shoot at a high rate, he allows Capela & Harrell to get the looks they get & he allowed Beverly to be Beverly last year. The team's depth is (imo) why the RAPM data looks the way it does, & I felt that the way he was able to lead the team last year & a couple years back when they made the WCF was very impressive.

Playoff performance - I ding him all time time about his game 6 v Spurs & the '12 Finals. Let's look at those runs in fuller context:
Last year he averaged 29-9-6 58% TS in the playoffs. The 5 TO per game is a bit alarming - but still - pretty strong.

Let's look at '12:

16-5-3 on 61% TS. And as bad as he was in the Finals, I think he was their 2nd best player against the Spurs in the WCF that year.

When we take into consideration the massive peak, and that he has a few years on the same order of magnitude - just not as high - I'm comfortable putting him in here. He has many years that are much better than several other players being nominated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The arguments for are pretty straight forward - the massive peak, the outstanding 8 year run, leading league in OBPM twice, etc.

The elephant in the room - the only reason he's not in right now is the first round thing.

Here's what his playoff #'s look like during his Orlando/Houston time:

30-7-6. I know the TS% isn't ideal (52%) but still - look at that again. Were some of the series winnable? Of course. That's why he's not in the Top 50. But it's time. With 30-7-6, it's time to give him a real look.[/b]

[pandrade83]

I think that there should be a bit more focus on some early stars like Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston and Sam Jones.

I think Arizin is the last 50's player I'm comfortable with putting in and we're in the range where, while I wouldn't take him, I don't think it's unreasonable to start the conversation.

I need some help with Jones. I'm not sure what to think - he was probably at least a + defender given the team performance; it's just too hard to have a negative defender and have those defensive ratings. He's an efficient scorer but low assist totals so he's probably not creating for others & while I get that he led multiple title teams in scoring, he doesn't strike me as a strong offensive anchor given the overall team offensive performance. Did he have poor TO economy or are you just screwed offensively if Russell, Hondo & Sam Jones are your 3 best players?

The playoff #'s are stellar for sure & that's a big part of the case.

If the poor team offensive ratings while the offensive anchor is a function of the team - and there is credible evidence to believe he's a strong defender, I'm good putting him in pretty soon - I just need to have those questions answered.

[pandrade83]

I think that there should be a bit more focus on some early stars like Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston and Sam Jones.

Though I'm not likely to give them my personal support in the next few threads, I'd not be upset with Jones or Arizin gaining traction. Aside from my two picks, I'd mentioned English, KJ, and Thurmond (the latter being an "early star") as guys I'm considering a bit. Immediately after them, fwiw, I'll likely to be going for McAdoo, Harden (if he doesn't get in beforehand, as he's had traction for a few threads), and Tony Parker; but more or less clustered right in there with them for me is Paul Arizin (Jones just a few places behind).

I'm not ready for Neil Johnston, though: short career/prime, poor defensive reputation, and though he was on one title team, he otherwise had quite of few seasons of big numbers for poor teams (and of course era considerations apply, too). For me, there's at least a couple dozen guys I'd like to see gain traction before him. He's more likely someone I'll be considering in the final ten spots.

I'm interested in KJ discussion if you're ready for it. He seems pretty early given he didn't have a super long career and was well thought of but was never seen as a super star either. He's a top 100 for sure, but I was thinking we were a long way away from him.

I'm ready for a KJ discussion pretty soon. So much to like.

-5 X All NBA in a pretty strong era
-best player on a team that led league in SRS
-Anchored Top 5 Offenses '89-'92
-Anchored Top Offense in '94, #7 offense in '97
-Excellent WOWY #'s
-Really strong playoff performer. Over his prime which spanned a not insignificant 92 playoff games over 9 years and 5 years of double digit playoff games, he averaged 21-10 on 56% TS.

I know his career was relatively short, but damn did he make the most of it.

After Harden/McGrady are in, he, McAdoo, & Carter are up on deck for me.

[trex_8063]

If I have time this weekend, I'll post some stuff on KJ and Arizin. In a nutshell KJ is the caliber of player who, if the latter half of his 9-year prime hadn't been so injury-hit and if he had a couple more "solid" non-prime years, would likely be a fringe top 50 player to me. Yes, I think he was that good; just didn't have the longevity/durability.

[penbeast0]

Vote Alex English
Alt: Sam Jones


Alex English v. James Harden and Tracy McGrady.

There comes a time when you have to give a player credit for being an outstanding reliable player who gives you good effort every day and that every day is every day for over a decade. This is English, it is not either James Harden or Tracy McGrady. There will come a time very soon where Harden's greater offensive dominance passes English's longevity and consistency or when the Beard steps up and takes over a playoff and this will no longer be close but for me, it's not yet.

All were good scorers, Harden and TMac peaked higher in terms of volume but in short peaks where they dominated the ball to an extreme degree. English had no year where he matched the sheer volume of Harden's 17 season or TMac's 03 but he was a consistent high volume scorer averaging almost 25ppg for a full decade. And, he did it within the confines of a spread, passing offense similar to what Golden State has had such success with.

And, in addition to English's highly efficient, high scoring, consistent offense that he produced for himself, he produced career years for a number of other players around him. Not just Lever and Issel (accounting for ABA/NBA differential) but Michael Adams was a marginal reserve when he came to Denver, playing in an offense that let him spam threes. Kiki Vandeweghe and Calvin Natt, two very different combo forwards, had career years playing next to English because he was able to provide the post up interior scoring that Vandeweghe lacked and the range to spread the floor that Natt lacked (when I saw Natt, he was most comfortable as an Adrian Dantley type post up combo forward). The Nuggests could play TR Dunn (think Andre Roberson with less range and more rebounding), they got career years out of journeymen centers like Wayne Cooper and Danny Schayes, very different stylistic centers. How? (a) an offense that spread the wealth and allowed each player to do what they did best and (b) English's ability to adapt different roles to cover the areas of the offense that those players were less adept at and still produce efficient offenses. I'm not implying that this is a Shaq effect case where English had gravity that warped defenses; but that his versatility extends his value beyond his admittedly outstanding numbers.

Further, English was one of the players universally acknowledged as a great teammate. He won the Walter Kennedy award for citizenship. In addition to his offense, he gave consistent effort on defense as well. Compare that to Harden, practically a byword for lazy defense in today's NBA, TMac, known for lazy practice habits and inconsistency that matched his brilliance, they are more in the Allen Iverson mode. I admire what Harden has accomplished (and actually love his ability to draw fouls as well as shoot threes, a great combination) but cringe every time I see him dog it on defense. Tmac had all the tools to be a top 20 player in NBA history but what bothered me about him is that he would only seem to be fully engaged and playing his best when his best teammates like Yao (or for his one truly great year, Grant Hill) were injured. Then he would suddenly turn himself into superman and carry his team singlehandedly but he never really seemed to get the whole team concept. English did; and made himself the consumate team player . . . outscoring the likes of Larry Bird, Dominique Wilkins, or James Worthy for the decade of the 80s while remaining unselfish and as close to ego free as any superstar I have ever seen. He deserves to be in before Harden (at least at this point in Harden's career) and Tmac.

Alternative

Hmmm, Sam Jones, Nate Thurmond, Sidney Moncrief, Carter, Tmac, and Harden. OF that group, Moncrief is my favorite though his window is so friggin short, but he basically took a similarly talented Milwaukee team farther than Nique ever took Atlanta even beating Bird's Celtics superteam before running into the fo fo fo Sixers. Of the rest Harden is the biggest game changer, Jones the best second option, never thought Carter really moved the needle but a long solid career, similar to English though a weak playoff performer, unlike English.

[penbeast0]

Oh, and if we are down to superb players on short, injury plagued careers, I'd take Moncrief before KJ fairly easily.

[Owly]

Oh, and if we down to superb players on short, injury plagued careers, I'd take Moncrief before KJ fairly easily.

Is that on average during their primes or after accounting for longevity of prime?

Moncrief's prime might be 5 or 6 years, at longest going 16483 RS minutes (80-81 to 85-86). Even accounting for injuries, KJ (88-89 to 96-97) 21741 prime minutes. Others might go for healthy playoff years etc, but I don't particularly wish to go on a playoff tangent here.

Moncrief does then have more non-prime minutes to catch up the gap, and the value added there (obviously this is rough, and would be better with a better gauge of defensive impact/quality after the injuries) might not be nothing.

Still I would think one would have to consider Moncrief clearly the better player; a different tier perhaps, in terms of per minute quality/impact/performance. Given you have Moncrief ahead "fairly easily", would that be a fair reflection of your views?

[penbeast0]

I agree that KJ has a longevity advantage, a significant one. I have prime Moncrief on a tier close to prime DWade though, and KJ a level below. Sid was a better individual player and changed his team's culture to focus on defense . . . the Bucks became one of the best defensive teams in the league with a Moncrief led small ball defensive focus in an age where all the great defenses were built inside out. I give Don Nelson some serious credit as well and understand that others don't always agree but the combination of individual brilliance and team impact says a lot to me.

[pandrade83]

I agree that KJ has a longevity advantage, a significant one. I have prime Moncrief on a tier close to prime DWade though, and KJ a level below. Sid was a better individual player and changed his team's culture to focus on defense . . . the Bucks became one of the best defensive teams in the league with a Moncrief led small ball defensive focus in an age where all the great defenses were built inside out. I give Don Nelson some serious credit as well and understand that others don't always agree but the combination of individual brilliance and team impact says a lot to me.

What about playoff performance? It looks like KJ played better there too as Moncrief has a bit of a drop-off.

[dhsilv2]

Vote Tmac

7 time all nba. His best season was simply amazing, and given the injuries to his team that year, even making the playoffs was outstanding. His career ended too soon, his back just was never right and somehow he found teammates (grant hill, Yao Ming) who seemed to have just as many injury issues as he did. Right now he's I think the clear best player in terms of quality of prime, peak, and having been around just enough longer than harden who i think has best peak (all due respect to walton who even at his peak couldn't play 70 games).

Alt harden

I fully reserve the right to change this one.

[pandrade83]

Vote Tmac

7 time all nba. His best season was simply amazing, and given the injuries to his team that year, even making the playoffs was outstanding. His career ended too soon, his back just was never right and somehow he found teammates (grant hill, Yao Ming) who seemed to have just as many injury issues as he did. Right now he's I think the clear best player in terms of quality of prime, peak, and having been around just enough longer than harden who i think has best peak (all due respect to walton who even at his peak couldn't play 70 games).

Alt harden

I fully reserve the right to change this one.

NOOO! We need to be aligned on the order here.

[trex_8063]

I'm interested in KJ discussion if you're ready for it. He seems pretty early given he didn't have a super long career and was well thought of but was never seen as a super star either. He's a top 100 for sure, but I was thinking we were a long way away from him.

.

KJ was, imo, a remarkable offensive talent who didn't get credit for such in many years of his career. I'll throw some stuff at you for why I think so.....

I know these kind of arbitrary thresholds are kinda, well.....arbitrary; but try this on:
If you search for all seasons in NBA history in which a player averaged at least 20 pts, 9 ast, and >59% TS....you get just 8 seasons: one of Chris Paul ('09--->his peak rs to most), '17 James Harden, three seasons of Magic ('87, '89, '90), and THREE seasons of Kevin Johnson.

Can correct for era discrepancies in shooting efficiency and---instead of 59% TS---make the threshold >+5.0% rTS.....that adds a whole bunch of Oscar Robertson ('61-'69), one season of Jerry West ('71), and peak Tiny Archibald ('73); and fwiw, KJ comes just 0.2% rTS away from having a fourth season that qualifies by these specs.
Either way, it's a relatively short list of seasons (and fairly rarefied company). You can tweak the requirements slightly in different ways, and you continuously get a relatively short list of [great] players.


And the offensive results were generally stellar. Granted, he typically had a pretty nice offensive supporting cast, but no better than Alex English had during his prime in Denver (except probably in the years Barkley was on board). Here are the team rORTG results during KJ's prime (with some notations):

'89: +5.3
'90: +5.0
'91: +4.7
'92: +3.9
'93: +5.3 (Barkley arrives, though KJ misses 33 games: Suns were a +3.6 rORTG and +4.40 SRS in the games he missed; but were a +6.4 rORTG and +7.53 SRS in the games he played).
'94: +5.4 (KJ missed 15 games: they were a +2.4 rORTG and -0.70 SRS in the games he missed; were a +6.1 rORTG and +5.88 SRS in the games he played)
'95: +6.2 (KJ missed 35 games: this season was somewhat an outlier in that they did marginally better without him; but important to note that Barkley missed 14 games this year, too, mostly when KJ was around (but was around for vast majority of the games KJ missed); and Danny Manning missed 36 games, the majority over a stretch where KJ was active)
'96: +2.7 (KJ missed 26 games: Suns were a +1.5 rORTG and -3.81 SRS in the games he missed, +3.3 rORTG and +2.18 SRS in the games he played. DISCLAIMER: Manning again missed a bunch of games, and I haven't investigated to see where they fall).
'97: +2.6 (Barkley is now gone. KJ missed 12 games: Suns were a -7.3 rORTG and -8.18 SRS in the 12 games he missed; were a +4.3 rORTG and +1.65 SRS in the 70 games he played.


AVERAGE effect of having Kevin Johnson vs. not having him.
NOT weighted for # of games played or missed per season
+7.1 ppg.
+3.0% TS%.
+4.7 ORtg.
+4.01 SRS.
Weighted for # of games played
+7.8 ppg
+3.3% TS%
+5.2 ORtg
+4.02 SRS
Weighted for # of games MISSED
+4.1 ppg
+1.9% TS%
+2.7 ORtg
+3.98 SRS
79-60 (.568) record w/o, 396-203 (.661) record with: +7.6 wins per 82-game season.

^^^^That's generally how much lift he can provide to teams that are already good (more difficult to add on to teams that are already good--->redundancy and realistic ceilings, etc), though '97 perhaps gives a glimpse of just how much he could lift less stellar casts.


Can try to present some more arguments later. But the above at least partly illustrates why I think that if he'd been a little less injury-prone in his prime, and maybe had a couple additional non-prime years, he'd very possibly be a top 50 player for me.