RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 (Dennis Rodman)

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,573
And1: 8,207
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 (Dennis Rodman) 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:36 pm

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. Vince Carter
64. Alex English
65. Tracy McGrady
66. James Harden
67. Nate Thurmond
68. Sam Jones
69. Kevin Johnson
70. Bob McAdoo
71. Sidney Moncrief
72. Paul Arizin
73. Grant Hill
74. Bobby Jones
75. Chris Bosh
76. Tony Parker
77. Shawn Marion
78. Hal Greer
79. Ben Wallace
80. Dan Issel
81. Larry Nance
82. James Worthy
83. Chris Webber
84. Rasheed Wallace
85. ???

Decide it.....

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

Colbinii wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

pandrade83 wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

SactoKingsFan wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

RSCS3_ wrote:.

BasketballFan7 wrote:.

micahclay wrote:.

ardee wrote:.

RCM88x wrote:.

Tesla wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

kayess wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

MisterHibachi wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

mischievous wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Bad Gatorade wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Cyrusman122000 wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

wojoaderge wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Outside wrote:.

scabbarista wrote:.

janmagn wrote:.

Arman_tanzarian wrote:.

oldschooled wrote:.

Pablo Novi wrote:.

john248 wrote:.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:.

Senior wrote:.

twolves97 wrote:.

CodeBreaker wrote:.

JoeMalburg wrote:.

dhsilv2 wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,240
And1: 9,820
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#2 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:18 pm

Vote: Mel Daniels
Alternate: Elton Brand


There isn't much new I can say about Mel Daniels. I know the early ABA was a pretty weak league but when you are going up against guys like Carmelo Anthony, a great scorer but a questionable teammate and defender, it makes sense to look at WHY Mel Daniels and his teams won 3 titles (in a weaker league) and Anthony has not done much in that sense. It comes down to very good defense v. very bad defense as opposed to short career v. long career. I'll take the guy who will give me a legit shot at a ring with decent talent around him v. a guy who would be not terribly important (like this year in OKC) but will get you points for a long time. Daniels, a 20pt/15reb prime guy who was a 2 time MVP winner and the best or second best player on 3 championship teams should be looking pretty strong, even with a relatively short career. As Doctor MJ said, winners win for a reason.

Mel Daniels is certainly the only multiple MVP winner left. Nobody else changed or dominanted on both ends to the same degree for more than 1-1.5 years (Walton, Hawkins). Daniels was the best player on two championship teams plus a willing support role on a third championship though in a weak league (probably better than the pre-Russell 50s though). I tend to value defense, particularly for big men, and Mel was basically the original Alonzo Mourning with more rebounding but less shotblocking. He was a 1st round NBA pick (the first to sign with the ABA) and in the NBA would probably have been one of the best centers as well, not in the Jabbar league but then neither was anyone else, but contending with Unseld/Cowens for the rebounding leaderboard and 2nd team All-Defense and with 15-20ppg scoring on limited range (He did a lot of outside shooting his first year . . . badly; coaching of the day didn't like centers out of the post though). Like Zo, his playmaking was mediocre but in addition to strong rebounding and defense, he was Indiana's intimidator, in a league where everyone was trying to make a name for themselves. And, he did it without major foul trouble issues. The two MVPs show he was valued above his box scores.

It is reasonable to compare Daniels to Kawhi Leonard as they have similar length of career by now. Kawhi brings excellent wing defense early on, but Daniels was probably more impactful defensively as intimidating defensive centers tend to be (especially in the 20th century). Kawhi's defense is still good and his scoring has blown up, a clearly better option than Daniels; also clearly a better passer. Daniels brings rebounding and toughness at a level equal to guys like Wes Unseld or Dave Cowens who are already in from his era (other league). I think the impact Daniels brought was appreciably higher in his league than that Kawhi has in the current league, enough to overcome the much weaker league he played in. Connie Hawkins would be another early ABA guy, higher peak than Daniels, shorter career though he did have a 1st team All-NBA between his first and second major knee injury. More of a career than Walton, less than Daniels. With careers this short, the difference is magnified. Of the bunch, I rate Daniels the highest.

Bill Sharman is probably the best 50s guy left, Chet Walker or Bellamy from the 60s (Bells wasn't a great team player but it was a center's league). Paul Silas or David Thompson from the 70s? Someone like Westphal, King, or DJ form the 80s? Rodman from the 90s for pure defensive impact. In the 00s, Elton Brand, by the numbers, looks very impressive. Amare Stoudamire has the most accolades and really impressive prime numbers . . . but didn't play any defense. Mark Gasol or Kawhi Leonard for active players, I might vote Kawhi here except for the fact that SA doesn't seem to falter at all when he is missing.

I'm pretty open to arguments for my alternative having switched twice in the last couple of threads. Hit me.
[/quote]
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#3 » by pandrade83 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:43 pm

pandrade83 wrote:Primary: Tim Hardaway
Alternate: Dennis Rodman


Not sure how many people saw/didn't see my post on Hardaway vs. Tiny. Since Tiny is getting some traction, I figured I'd lead with this rather than make the same post on Hardaway for the 3rd straight time.

Here's some of the reasons I take Hardaway over Tiny:

A little bit better Box Metrics in a materially better era

Hardaway generates 85 Career WS to Tiny's 83.4 and about 2/3 of Tiny's WS comes pre-merger; I think that's note-worthy. Tiny posts a positive Box Score +/- just once post merger as well; showing a clear drop-off (though partially due to age). Hardaway also has marginally better PER (18.6 vs. 18.0). I'm willing to concede that Tiny's best BPM Years probably aren't captured ('72 & '73) but it's likely that Hardaway has a superior Career VORP Score as well since '74-'84 leave him with 9.5 vs. Hardaway's 34.6.

Solid defender vs. Weak Defender

I think the game clips + the RAPM Data + the steal frequency + some of the h2h matchups I've previously posted shows a fair picture of a capable defender. I wouldn't call Hardaway elite or anything - but he's solid. Archibald on the other hand was pretty bad on metrics & I'll add to it with some of the data from Owly:

After rookie season
The Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball 1971-72 – A Jim O’Brien Book [different to later Hollander edited books]
Has trouble on defense … Has tremendous body control, however, and could come a long way in that area this season.

After ’74 (4th year) but mainly in reference to earlier seasons as playing only
1975 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald will have to make an effort on defense or will have his problems with [incoming head coach Phil] Johnson. In the past he gave back many of the points he scored.
[player section:]

1977 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald can be pesky in a pressing situation, perhaps, but overall he’s a liability.
[player section:]

1978 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald can be a pest, but he can’t contain anyone over 40 minutes.
[player section:]

DNP in the prior, 77-78, season.
1979 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] In Archibald, Knight and Barnes, they have acquired offensive talents who can make it an exciting team, but a porous one as well.
[player section:]

1980 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald has lost a step and can’t guard his house.
[player section:]

1981 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald is adequate against players his size (both of them).
[player section:]

No mentions of his D in either section of the ’82 Handbook

1983 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald can be beaten because of his size …
[player section:]

Playoffs

I was pretty candid about Hardaway's playoff performance - warts & all. But Tiny's indisputably and materially worse. He has a negative BPM every year, never even gets to 14 on PER, and the one time he made it in his prime, he went for 20-5 on 44% TS.

The case for Archibald is

Thinking about this from a pro-Tiny perspective, I think the biggest case is being really in love with that '73 season and valuing the peak he brings over the career value edge that Hardaway seems to have. He's part of a 3 man 30 pt 10 assist club with the Big O & Westbrook. He did so while shooting 56% TS which is pretty strong for the era and anchors the #1 offense while doing so without having a 3 point line and with Sam Lacey being the next best player on the team.

It's a great season. I get the appeal of that season - but if you're backing Tiny over Hardaway, you need to remember that Tiny didn't get in the playoffs that year. But that would be the only time before playing with Larry Bird where he was on a positive offense and for a point guard who was clearly a defensive liability, that seems problematic.

If I'm picking a guy for pure peak, I'd rather go with Kawhi or Walton.

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

We're all pretty familiar with the pros/cons of Rodman. It's been fleshed out really well. His head-case problems really bother people and I think that's reasonable. As such, my case for him isn't going to lean on quantitative metrics (much) - rather one of his problems.

He was a head case to deal with - I'm not 100% sure I'd want him on my team unless I'm a contender with strong AND vocal leadership. I get that. He's near the very top of the "fortunate to be in his situation" lottery - because if he had played anywhere but for the squads he did, he's not relevant.

But he did - and this isn't a situation where he'd be ignored if he had the same level of performance if he played on a non-contender.

Rodman's impact is of an elite caliber.

'90 - With Rodman coming off the bench: 26-14 - with him starting: 33-9. Detroit was more cohesive. +11 in wins (admittedly this has a lot of noise just talking about coming off bench vs. starting):
'93 - 36-26 with, 4-16 without. +32 in wins.
'94 - Upon joining the Spurs they go from +2.2 SRS to +5.
'95 - 40-9 with, 22-11 without. +12 in wins.
'96 - 57-7 with, 15-3 without. +5 in wins on a 72 win squad. It's troubling that the Spurs improve defensively without him - but he still raises the ceiling of an elite squad.
'97 - 48-7 with, 21-6 without. +8 in wins - jumping from 64 win pace without to 72 win pace with.
'98 - Pippen misses 1/2 the year. Chicago goes 26-12. It's an aging Jordan, Rodman & Kukoc + filler and they generate a 56 win pace. Chicago is -5.2 in relative D Rating.

I understand the warts. I think that < 5% of NBA Teams in history could maximize him. I understand the stat chasing on the back half of his career and that '95 season is a major pain. But the reality is that he helped out significantly and lightning struck not once but twice for him. The history of the league cannot be written without him and he needs to be getting in soon.

Wrapping up - below is my original reasoning for Hardaway. I figure those still voting have read it by now which is why I focused on why I consider Hardaway superior to the other PG getting traction as my lead.



Spoiler:
I'm breaking the seal on Hardaway a little bit, so he's maybe been overlooked.

Here's my arguments for:

1.Hardaway is recognized as an elite player consistently in a competitive era

We are down to a handful of players that made All-NBA 5 X+ post-merger:

Carmelo Anthony
Tim Hardaway
Chris Webber
Yao Ming
Amare Stoudamire
Mitch Richmond

Of that group, if we filter it down further to players who made at least one first team squad, here's your list:

Tim Hardaway
Amare Stoudamire
Chris Webber

Of that group, just Hardaway & Webber finished Top 5 in MVP voting at any point in their career.

2. The Advanced Metrics/Impact Stats view him highly

-Shut up & Jam's NPI RAPM ratings (chained unweighted 5 year avg) has him as a low-level all-star from '97-'01. The two year '97 &'98 RAPM score him as about the 9th best player in a typical year with '97 scoring 2nd highest overall. While RAPM definitely gets to pick up his best year, his 2nd-4th best years are probably '91, '98, '92 (you could make an argument for flipping '91 & '98) so there's likely high impact years being omitted.

-Of the years he missed material time, his WOWY numbers are +4 in '92 & '95 each & +14 in '00.

-In '96 after trading for him, the Heat went 18-11 & were 24-29 pre-trade. The Warriors went 11-18 after the trade & were 25-28 pre-trade - indicating he upgraded the Heat & his loss caused a downgrade in the Warriors.

-Miami would have its best year by SRS when Hardaway - not Mourning - led the team in WS & '98 & '99 are virtually equal with Hardaway leading the team in WS.

3. From a Box Score standpoint, he is a very effective playmaker & scorer with strong turnover economy.

-Only four players in league history have recorded a 20 point, 9 assist >54% TS season while also achieving < 15% TOV economy:

Chris Paul, Tim Hardaway & James Harden. Hardaway is the only player to do so more than a decade ago.

-If you change the query to make it more pace based, & do 25 points + per 100 & > 40% assists, Chris Paul & Tony Parker are the only players to achieve it more than once.

Given that I'm the first to back him, I'm going to try and address some of the potential reasons why I'm the first:

1. Weak longevity - Hardaway logged 31 K Career Minutes and made All-NBA Teams 8 seasons apart.

2. Other point guards have been brought up as being better (Price in a separate thread, Archibald). - Hardaway has significantly more career WS than Price indicating better quality longevity; Archibald's career is very much a roller coaster. He put up huge stats on bad teams and so much of his career value is tied up in one year ('73) so the Archibald argument is a peak driven one.

3. Hardaway has a shaky playoff resume that saw him lose 4 times with HCA. Hardaway has a roller-coaster of a playoff resume - there's more valleys than peaks but there are a couple nice moments in key playoff victories (vs. '91 Spurs & vs. '97 Knicks).
3A. If you're going to note the rare company Hardaway is in other places, he's one of the rare players to lose in the 1st round while leading an SRS 5+ Team in WS.

'91 - Averages 25/11 plus 3 steals per game as the W's upset the Spurs in round 1 - losing to the Lakers in round 2. Good year.
'92 - Averaged 25/7/4 but shooting metrics are blah (51%) and the Warriors are upset by the Sonics. Defense was the bigger issue in the defeat (giving up 117 per 100 possessions to the Sonics). Mixed.
'96 - Heat are swept by the Bulls as Hardaway averages 18-6 on 57% TS but has 5 TO pg. Sub-par.
'97 - Hardaway gets his ass kicked by Penny in round 1 but redeems himself against the Knicks in round 2, culminating in a monster Game 7 saving the Heat. Mourning is outplayed decisively by Ewing but the Heat advance on the strength of Hardaway. Hardaway is miserable against the Bulls. Mixed.
'98 - The Heat are upset by the Knicks, but Hardaway plays well - averaging 26/7 on 59% TS. Good year.
'99 & 2000 are both bad years where the Heat lose to the Knicks w/ HCA.

4. Box Score Stats like Win Shares & VORP aren't fond of him

Tackling VORP first - We know that this is derived from BPM & BPM gives him some pretty ugly defensive scores. I think that this is a little bit of a miss for 3 reasons:

1) The RAPM data we have of his Miami years paints him as a neutral impact player on that end - he has no negative years from '97-'01 (but nothing impactful either).
2) He's an opportunistic ball thief who generates a fair amount of steals. You see him with solid defensive efforts in the video I posted above.
3) Other strong point guards of the era don't go off on him (cliff notes: He holds Isiah, Payton & Price below normal, KJ, Stockton & Magic get their typical #'s against him)

Stockton http://bkref.com/tiny/Hu3Wl
Isiah http://bkref.com/tiny/O2kos
Payton http://bkref.com/tiny/l1s9I
KJ http://bkref.com/tiny/QzMdm
Mark Price http://bkref.com/tiny/82snI
Magic http://bkref.com/tiny/Kh6fj
4) The Warrior teams he was on had garbage for rim protection

Tackling WS next: We know that WS has a big winners bias & Hardaway was stuck in a somewhat dysfunctional franchise for his first few years - that dovetails into:

5. Why did Golden State miss the playoffs twice including a 56 loss season with him as their leader?

The '95 season was a total mess for the Warriors. Don Nelson got fired midway through the year, Webber got traded for Tom Gougliotta (sp) who misses half the season, Mullin misses virtually the entire year and 14 dudes log 600+ minutes.

Your Top 8 in MInutes Played:
Spree
Hardaway
Keith Jennings
Clifford Rozier
Chris Gatling
David Wood
Tom Gugliotta (sp)
Victor Alexander

of course that team sucked - not to mention Hardaway was coming back from ACL Surgery & missed 20 games. But he still competed - averaged 20-9 while shooting 55% TS despite Spree being the only other player who can command any sort of gravity who was consistently playing.

They got ravaged with injuries the other time they missed the playoffs with him as their leader was '93.

Mullin misses 36 games
Marciuilinoius misses 52 games
Owens misses 45 games

You're not going to do great when you lose your 2nd-4th best players for 1/2 the season each. Hardaway still led a solid offense that was in the positive territory in Offensive Rating.

I'll wrap up with a great video of him in his athletic prime against the Lakers in the playoffs turning in a strong performance. Really one of my favorite players to watch growing up & I think his play earns him a spot on our list.

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,573
And1: 8,207
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#4 » by trex_8063 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:13 pm

1st vote: Carmelo Anthony

An impact study of Melo is a little bit of a mixed bag (skewing toward negative: just so we don't embark on another semantic debate with my labeling :wink: ). His RAPM's (the impact metric I tend to put the most faith in, fwiw) look a bit questionable [that is: below expectation] in many years. otoh, WOWY studies, and team performance relative to cast, don't look too bad at all for a player gaining traction in the mid 80's section of the list (better in these regards than Elton Brand, as noted in previous thread).

But as I've said elsewhere, I'm not comfortable putting all my eggs into one basket (and certainly not all into one that isn't a direct measure of "player goodness"). If one were to base ranking/assessment on all other factors and metrics (outside of the impact umbrella), he would conclude we're already 10+ places late on Carmelo Anthony.
With that in mind, I've a hard time putting him off any further.

Offensively he's clearly a pretty talented player. Ranged from a very good to near-elite scorer during his prime (despite spending much of that without terribly relevant play-makers around him). I've never been overly fond of his shot-selection (over-reliance on the mid-range), though that's what kept him in the "very good to near-elite" range (but never "elite", imo).

Not a particularly relevant playmaker, though certainly no worse than James Worthy, Dominique Wilkins, or Kawhi Leonard. And has been a very good rebounding SF (occ. SF/PF) in his career, and does provide some spacing.
A mostly weak defender with sporadic seasons of "OK" defense. I'm not considering this current season, though fwiw, it indicates to me what I've suspected: that Melo could play halfway respectable defense if deployed in a more offensively limited role-player capacity (as reported he was willing to do in the Olympics, fwiw); and defense being the primary thing that has held his impact down.
Longevity is actually pretty good by this point (considerably better than Webber, Kawhi, or Tiny; considering minutes, arguably better than Rodman, too).

Criticized as being difficult to integrate into a contender (somewhat speculative, imo), but at any rate a pretty decent floor-raiser (which carries more value [to me] than most seem to give it credit for).


2nd vote: Dennis Rodman
Always an energy guy, which I admit I have a soft spot for. He came into the league as a "useful" bench player, was arguably in his prime (very near to it, anyway) by his 2nd season. Played nearly 14 seasons, and basically 11 of them are at least very near prime-level: from '88 to '98 he was on average a 14.8 PER, .154 WS/48, and +3.3 BPM player in 33.3 mpg........which we know isn't fully capturing his full defensive value some years.
He was an energetic, versatile defender and EXCELLENT rebounding combo forward right off the bat in his career, eventually becoming a DPOY (twice), before then allowing his defense to regress somewhat (still a solid post defender in Chicago) as he carved out a new niche as basically the GOAT rebounder. During the latter half of his career, I actually suspect he was more valuable on the offensive end than the defensive, as result of the fairly ridiculous ~6 OREB/game he was averaging. RAPM for '97 and '98 reflects this.

I've criticized Rodman previously for his volatile temperament and his propensity for team-cancer meltdowns (see '95 WCF), and I think it's true you need some strong (and vocal) team leaders to keep him in line. It's for this reason that I haven't supported him earlier (and in truth, I could be convinced that this is important enough a consideration that I should delay my support for him a few spots further, in favor of someone like Kawhi or Big Game James).

However, a few "intangible" things I'll credit him with to counter the negative repercussions of his erratic behavior......the positive repercussions of his erratic behavior:
1) No one could get under the skin of opposing players like Dennis Rodman. They don't call him "The Worm" for nothing. Rodman had a knack for getting in opponents' heads, sometimes taking people out of their game (see Brickowski in the '96 Finals). That's a semi-tangible value his team can continue to reap the rewards for even after Rodman takes a seat on the bench.
2) No one played the crowd like Dennis Rodman. Home-team fans LOVED him; opposing fans hated him. But he could really get the crowd going, and sometimes that fuels a team. Get the home-crowd going, the home-team can sometimes ride that momentum. And on the road, well.....Rodman didn't have a problem playing the villain (which perhaps deflects the wrath away from his teammates or the actual course of the game, and instead fixates them directly on him???).
3) Rodman played the refs pretty well, too (namely with "flopping" or similar; perhaps one of the original "greats" in this regard).
4) The hustle plays. We you see a guy lay it all out diving in futility for a loose ball or some such, I kinda feel like [as a teammate] it makes it that much harder for you to slack off at all.......because you're just going to look bad by comparison if you do.

Anyway, Rodman's got all the other resume-filler that has been stated by another poster below, so I won't get into that. I feel bad for bumping him back once again, but I'm actually still not 100% set on him here. Could potentially be swayed to Brand or Kawhi, perhaps even Grant, Porter, Cheeks, or Sikma (swaying me, tbh, possibly hinges more further convincing me of the extent of risk/danger/destructive potential you get with Dennis Rodman than on building the other candidates up).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,222
And1: 26,100
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#5 » by Clyde Frazier » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:24 pm

Vote 1 - Carmelo Anthony

Vote 2 - Tiny Archibald

- 14 seasons
- 6x all NBA (two 2nd, four 3rd)
- 1 top 3 and 1 top 10 MVP finish
- 1x scoring champ

Players already voted in in Melo’s VORP and Win Shares range:

VORP

George Gervin 32.2 *-1 season
Bobby Jones 32
Dan Issel 31.2 *-3 seasons
Steve Nash 31.2
Carmelo Anthony 29.4
James Worthy 28.5
Kevin Johnson 28
Chris Bosh 27.5
Tony Parker 27
Bob McAdoo 26.5 *-1 season
Dave Cowens 26.2 *-3 seasons
Alonzo Mourning 24

*Number of seasons played prior to 73-74 where stat could not be calculated

Win Shares

In this case the total # of win shares speaks to Carmelo’s solid longevity. As a reference point, his prime WS/48 from 06-14 is .149 and he peaked at .184.

Hal Greer 102.7
Alex English 100.7
Grant Hilll 99.9
Allen Iverson 99
McGrady 97.3
Carmelo Anthony 97
Bobby Jones 94.1
Ben Wallace 93.5
Kevin Johnson 92.8
Sam Jones 92.3
Bob Cousy 91.1
James Harden 91.3
Sidney Moncrief 90.3
Alonzo Mourning 89.7
Bob McAdoo 89.1
Dave Cowens 86.3
Chris Webber 84.7
James Worthy 81.2

In the seasons post 2014 top 100 project, the PG situation in new york did not improve at all:

14-15: Shane Larkin, Langston Galloway, 37 yr old prigioni, 33 yr old calderon

15-16: Langston Galloway, rookie Jerian Grant, 34 yr old Caldeorn — this PG rotation was so poor that carmelo ended up leading the team in APG and just about equaled calderon in AST%

16-17: Rose, Jennings, rookie Ron Baker

Jennings was really the one penetrate and dish PG the knicks had in those 3 seasons. He even seemed to buy in to the fact that he can’t shoot and really got everyone involved. Of course, he had rose starting in front of him, so his time on the floor with melo was limited. He was used more in bench lineups that actually thrived, relatively speaking.

In an era where dynamic PG play is paramount, knicks management abhorrently ignored the position. I don’t think you can find such ineptitude in a front office with playoff aspirations outside of the cousins-era kings.

- - - - -

Peak carmelo developed into one of the best offensive players in the league. The “iso melo” stigma really became an outdated narrative as you saw all he really needed was a decent PG rotation to keep the ball moving (a little different, but billups certainly got the best out of him in denver). He became one of the better off the ball players in 12-13, actually shooting more efficiently and on higher volume than durant in catch and shoot situations. His transition to a great 3 pt shooter also opened up his game, and he stepped into transition 3s about as well as anyone in the league.

He’s obviously known for his great post up and face up game, but not acknowledged as much for being a great offensive rebounder for his position. He had a deceptively quick second jump and soft touch around the rim for put backs. He also possessed a unique rolling spin move to the hoop i’m not sure anyone else in the league has. The one thing he was really average at is finishing at the rim, and i’d say that partially has to do with him not being able to take advantage of the way the game is called these days. He isn’t a freak show athlete like lebron, and he doesn’t have those long strides like durant / harden where they know the angles and draw fouls as easily as they do.

Carmelo had the full repertoire going with his career high 62 pts against charlotte last season (they ranked 5th in DRTG):



I then look at someone like dominique, who was voted in at #62, and I think a 20 spot gap between the two is pushing it. Take a look at how they compare over their first 11 seasons (dominique actually comes off as worse if you look at his whole career):

http://bkref.com/tiny/KSWoH

They’re very comparable in most areas, and carmelo actually comes out as the better postseason performer, something wilkins was well criticized for, but still managed to get voted in much earlier. I noted trex's argument in past threads about nique consistently carrying offenses with not much support. It's a valid point, although again it's 18 spots later.

There always seemed to be this all or nothing evaluation of carmelo where he’d be expected to be as good as lebron / durant (which he obviously isn’t), or he’s barely a top 20 player in the league. You may want to fault him for forcing his way to NY, but let’s not pretend like many players voted in already haven’t done the same.

ronnymac brings up a good point about low turnovers being a plus for high usage players. Below are are 20+ PPG scorers in the playoffs (excluding centers) sorted by TO% (best to worst):

http://bkref.com/tiny/HO11E

Of course there are guys at the “bottom” who were very successful, but the lower TO% can help offset some of the decrease in efficiency we see with carmelo in the playoffs.

Then we get to the clutch play. 82games.com looked at shot data from 04-09 in the reg season + 04-08 in the post season. Carmelo was 6th in the league in game winners, but #1 in the league by far in FG% on game winners at 48.1%:

http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

By 2011, he already had enough game winners to choose from to create a top 10 for his career:



For clutch data from 2000-2012, carmelo was 7th in the league in FG%, and 50% of his FGs were assisted, which is interesting to note for being criticized for holding the ball too long.

http://bit.ly/1wnySdJ

[I’d obviously prefer eFG% or TS% for these figures, but they weren’t available here]

I’m aware that he hasn’t been quite as clutch over the last few seasons, but i attribute some of that to fatigue (he led the league in MPG last season) and the makeup of his teams. He’s still had his fair share of clutch moments since coming to NY, and hit multiple game winners during his first season here. He did give us this gem in 2012 as well:



Carmelo gets a decent amount of flack for his playoff resume, and I think it’s a little overstated, so I’d like to provide some context for each season. It also seems to get pushed aside that making the playoffs 10 seasons in a row is no big deal or something, especially when the majority of them came out west. Below is carmelo’s team SRS rank and the opponent’s SRS rank that he lost to in the playoffs.

CARMELO SRS RANK / OPPONENT SRS RANK

04 - 11th / 2nd
05 - 10th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
06 - 15th / 9th
07 - 9th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
08 - 11th / 2nd
09 - 8th / 3rd (eventual NBA champion lakers)
10 - 8th / 3rd
11 - 15th / 6th
12 - 11th / 4th (eventual NBA champion heat)
13 - 7th / 9th

Aside from 2013, the team he lost to has always been favored in SRS, with 4 of the 10 series losses coming to the eventual NBA champs. To me, this doesn’t reflect a player who’s come up short when he’s been expected to go farther in the playoffs. You can make the argument that if he was a better player, he may have been favored in more series, but that only goes so far.

It’s clear that he hasn’t been as fortunate as some other players as far as who he’s played with. Some more details on his recent playoff loses:

09 - This run to the WCF almost gets glossed over at times. Nuggets were 2 wins away from the finals, losing to the eventual NBA champion lakers, who were just flat out the better team.

He had some great performances during that run.

11 - Billups gets hurt in game 1 against boston (out for rest of series), then amare gets hurt in game 2 only playing 17 min. First 2 games are decided by 2 and 3 points respectively.

Tony douglas forced to play PG for the rest of the series, basically putting it out of reach.

12 - Disastrous # of injuries. Tyson chandler finishes off a DPOY season, and of course gets the flu as soon as the playoffs start. Lin doesn’t come back for the playoffs, shumpert and douglas only play 1 game a piece, baron davis eventually goes down, and the knicks are only left with 33 yr old mike bibby to run the point, who already had 1 foot in retirement.

13 - First time since carmelo came to the knicks that they really looked like a team who could make a run to the finals. PG play was always an issue prior to this season, and felton came up big in the 1st round against boston. Ball movement flowing with kidd and prigioni as well. Then in the 2nd round against indiana, chandler again doesn’t look himself, which would later be revealed that he had an “undisclosed illness” during the series. I think there’s a good chance they beat the pacers with a healthy chandler, and who knows what happens from there.

Here are the best players carmelo’s played with over the course of his career: andre miller (first few seasons of carmelo's career), kenyon martin (often injured), post 30s iverson, camby (often injured), JR smith, nene (often injured), billups, afflalo, amare (often injured), tyson chandler (often injured), kidd in his last season, in shape felton and porzingis' rookie/soph year.

Outside of iverson, that’s a collection of good players, but nothing that screams "consistent second option", or even "consistent first option" if you want to push carmelo down a notch. Porzingis and carmelo actually had great chemistry until rose came along, but their timelines unfortunately didn't match up. Fit is clearly important, too, and while iverson and carmelo never had "problems" with each other, it wasn't working. It’s not an accident that carmelo’s best seasons came with billups running the show in 2009 and a knicks team in 2013 which focused heavily on keeping the ball moving and quick decision making.

With regard to how carmelo’s career is perceived, I always go back to pierce before garnett and allen came along. Even if we agree that pierce is the better player, he had only been to the conf finals once before that trade, and i’m not sure how his career progresses without those trades being made. Does he stick with it in boston and not make anymore playoff runs? Does he eventually go to another team? I just wonder how carmelo would be looked at had he been fortunate enough to play with teammates of that caliber in his prime.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,146
And1: 22,154
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#6 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:19 am

Vote: Connie Hawkins
Alt: Dennis Rodman

Alright, so I haven't pushed anyone into the conversation for a while, and I'm doing it with Hawkins. I'm still not going to say a ton, because I just don't have the focus, right now, but I'll provide a couple links and then say how I see him.

Here's an article from his "rookie" season in the ABA where he instantly looked like a man among boys:
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/2008/03/31/Pittsburgh-had-its-basketball-kings-for-a-day-in-68/stories/200803310156

He's a webpage with just a ton of cool pics:
http://www.nasljerseys.com/ABA/Players/H/Hawkins.Connie.htm

So for those who don't know, Connie got blackballed because of a gambling scandal in college. It tooks years, lawsuits, and frankly ABA domination before an NBA team would chance bringing him aboard. When he did he was great, but also clearly on a downward trajectory health-wise. It should be noted that in the end there wasn't any evidence that Connie was even involved in the scandal. All of this leads to a relatively easy narrative of "What might have been".

It is, in other words, really not controversial to say that Hawkins had Top 50 level talent at the very least, but that he didn't play enough to merit that sort of conclusion. Before I say anything else, I think that that alone makes him worth discussing down at this level of the project, rather similar to Bill Walton.

I may champion Walton before we're done here, but the fact that Walton played so little hurts him, and this is where it's worth noting that despite Hawkins limited career, he's still a guy who had comparable ABA/NBA win shares to others being discussed here while Walton had nowhere near that many. And that's before you remember that Hawkins played professionally as the start of the ABL and Harlem Globetrotters in the years before the ABA. Hawkins, in other words, played plenty for someone at this range.

So then, what was he as a player? Well, the comparisons you always see Baylor and Erving as the fellow "Jordans before Jordan". So start there. Note that "the Hawk" was known for having exceptionally long arms - considerably longer than you'd expect from someone 6'8" - and many said his hands were bigger than ANYONE's. This is what gave him that graceful style that was specifically akin to Erving.

Also like Erving, Hawkins was someone who likely lead a championship ABA team leading the team in all major categories. We know for sure about the PPG, RPG, APG, but Hawkins also blocked shots and stole the ball.

Something unique to Hawkins though: While Erving led his team in APG, no one accused him of being a truly great passer. With Hawkins teammates praise him as actually being pass-first, despite volume scoring with ease. And unselfish point center at time, maybe the closest thing to a basketball tank mage we'd see until LeBron James showed up.

I look at all of that, and I think he's more worthy than anyone still remaining to be included here.

Re: Rodman. Of the guys being talked about by others, Rodman's resonating the most for me right now. The reality is that the Bulls GOAT team really was a big 3, with Rodman being the 3rd of that 3. There defining offensive characteristic was not Jordan's scoring or Pippen's playmaking, but their outstanding board crashing spearheaded by the Worm. This is a big deal.

I'll say though that I had thought that James Worthy was already in, but it looks like he isn't. So I guess he just got close once with a bit of luck. I'd say that he warrants being championed again.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 49,570
And1: 26,750
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#7 » by dhsilv2 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:00 am

Clyde Frazier wrote:With regard to how carmelo’s career is perceived, I always go back to pierce before garnett and allen came along. Even if we agree that pierce is the better player, he had only been to the conf finals once before that trade, and i’m not sure how his career progresses without those trades being made. Does he stick with it in boston and not make anymore playoff runs? Does he eventually go to another team? I just wonder how carmelo would be looked at had he been fortunate enough to play with teammates of that caliber in his prime.


Pierce was 2 tiers better as a player. I'm not sure who would compare the two. Just looking at their stats, Pierce has twice the VORP and 50% more winshare. Pierce had more VORP by 07 than Melo has for his career. That seems like a wildly inaccurate comparison to me.

I'm honestly not sure what melo would be with a KG on his team. But there's a big part of me not sure that celtics teams wins with Melo in palce of Pierce. Melo is weird as his points per game indicates he was a super star, but he never to me was anything close. He was the guy you kept thinking "when he finally puts it together" or "when he starts to play defense"...but he was never really a super star level guy.
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,222
And1: 26,100
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#8 » by Clyde Frazier » Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:27 am

dhsilv2 wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:With regard to how carmelo’s career is perceived, I always go back to pierce before garnett and allen came along. Even if we agree that pierce is the better player, he had only been to the conf finals once before that trade, and i’m not sure how his career progresses without those trades being made. Does he stick with it in boston and not make anymore playoff runs? Does he eventually go to another team? I just wonder how carmelo would be looked at had he been fortunate enough to play with teammates of that caliber in his prime.


Pierce was 2 tiers better as a player. I'm not sure who would compare the two. Just looking at their stats, Pierce has twice the VORP and 50% more winshare. Pierce had more VORP by 07 than Melo has for his career. That seems like a wildly inaccurate comparison to me.

I'm honestly not sure what melo would be with a KG on his team. But there's a big part of me not sure that celtics teams wins with Melo in palce of Pierce. Melo is weird as his points per game indicates he was a super star, but he never to me was anything close. He was the guy you kept thinking "when he finally puts it together" or "when he starts to play defense"...but he was never really a super star level guy.


I was specifically talking about career arc with pierce vs. melo. Until garnett and allen came along, he was certainly looked at as a star player, but not an all time great by any means. And since people always point to melo's lack of deep playoff runs, pierce was on the same career track at that point. If he wasn't fortunate enough to team up with those guys, who knows what happens. Does he stick in boston and come up short? Does he bounce around chasing rings?

I have to ask, did you watch most of melo's playoff run in 09? This idea that he "hadn't put it together" yet and subsequently never did is a real exaggeration. He and billups were a great tandem and had solid role players around them. They just ended up facing a better team in the lakers (3rd in SRS, 3rd in ORTG, 6th in DRTG) in the WCF, who went on to win the championship. He put up 27.5 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 3.7 APG and 1.3 SPG on 54.6% TS against them in 6 games. I don't know what else you could ask for given the circumstances.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 49,570
And1: 26,750
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#9 » by dhsilv2 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:34 am

Clyde Frazier wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:With regard to how carmelo’s career is perceived, I always go back to pierce before garnett and allen came along. Even if we agree that pierce is the better player, he had only been to the conf finals once before that trade, and i’m not sure how his career progresses without those trades being made. Does he stick with it in boston and not make anymore playoff runs? Does he eventually go to another team? I just wonder how carmelo would be looked at had he been fortunate enough to play with teammates of that caliber in his prime.


Pierce was 2 tiers better as a player. I'm not sure who would compare the two. Just looking at their stats, Pierce has twice the VORP and 50% more winshare. Pierce had more VORP by 07 than Melo has for his career. That seems like a wildly inaccurate comparison to me.

I'm honestly not sure what melo would be with a KG on his team. But there's a big part of me not sure that celtics teams wins with Melo in palce of Pierce. Melo is weird as his points per game indicates he was a super star, but he never to me was anything close. He was the guy you kept thinking "when he finally puts it together" or "when he starts to play defense"...but he was never really a super star level guy.


I was specifically talking about career arc with pierce vs. melo. Until garnett and allen came along, he was certainly looked at as a star player, but not an all time great by any means. And since people always point to melo's lack of deep playoff runs, pierce was on the same career track at that point. If he wasn't fortunate enough to team up with those guys, who knows what happens. Does he stick in boston and come up short? Does he bounce around chasing rings?

I have to ask, did you watch most of melo's playoff run in 09? This idea that he "hadn't put it together" yet and subsequently never did is a real exaggeration. He and billups were a great tandem and had solid role players around them. They just ended up facing a better team in the lakers (3rd in SRS, 3rd in ORTG, 6th in DRTG) in the WCF, who went on to win the championship. He put up 27.5 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 3.8 APG and 1.3 SPG on 54.6% TS against them in 6 games. I don't know what else you could ask for given the circumstances.


I remember Melo and Billups, but if I watched that run...I can't say that it was memorable for me. I will say I consider Melo a nugget and somewhat forget about his knick days. I was a big fan of Melo coming out. Heck I thought he should have been rookie of the year over Lebron.

But what about that playoff run made you think he'd gotten it? Was his defensive at another level? I hate to harp on it but the more I try and narrow down where I want to take melo his defense just looks so bad that it's a struggle for me to slot him in. I'd like take him after Grant and brand, but I'm thinking I'll be looking at Melo and Chris Mullins in 10 or so spots (though it seems there's momentum to get him in before then).
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,222
And1: 26,100
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#10 » by Clyde Frazier » Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:49 am

dhsilv2 wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
Pierce was 2 tiers better as a player. I'm not sure who would compare the two. Just looking at their stats, Pierce has twice the VORP and 50% more winshare. Pierce had more VORP by 07 than Melo has for his career. That seems like a wildly inaccurate comparison to me.

I'm honestly not sure what melo would be with a KG on his team. But there's a big part of me not sure that celtics teams wins with Melo in palce of Pierce. Melo is weird as his points per game indicates he was a super star, but he never to me was anything close. He was the guy you kept thinking "when he finally puts it together" or "when he starts to play defense"...but he was never really a super star level guy.


I was specifically talking about career arc with pierce vs. melo. Until garnett and allen came along, he was certainly looked at as a star player, but not an all time great by any means. And since people always point to melo's lack of deep playoff runs, pierce was on the same career track at that point. If he wasn't fortunate enough to team up with those guys, who knows what happens. Does he stick in boston and come up short? Does he bounce around chasing rings?

I have to ask, did you watch most of melo's playoff run in 09? This idea that he "hadn't put it together" yet and subsequently never did is a real exaggeration. He and billups were a great tandem and had solid role players around them. They just ended up facing a better team in the lakers (3rd in SRS, 3rd in ORTG, 6th in DRTG) in the WCF, who went on to win the championship. He put up 27.5 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 3.8 APG and 1.3 SPG on 54.6% TS against them in 6 games. I don't know what else you could ask for given the circumstances.


I remember Melo and Billups, but if I watched that run...I can't say that it was memorable for me. I will say I consider Melo a nugget and somewhat forget about his knick days. I was a big fan of Melo coming out. Heck I thought he should have been rookie of the year over Lebron.

But what about that playoff run made you think he'd gotten it? Was his defensive at another level? I hate to harp on it but the more I try and narrow down where I want to take melo his defense just looks so bad that it's a struggle for me to slot him in. I'd like take him after Grant and brand, but I'm thinking I'll be looking at Melo and Chris Mullins in 10 or so spots (though it seems there's momentum to get him in before then).


I'm not talking about it being memorable as an all time great playoff run. I'm simply pointing to a season where he was successful deep into the playoffs with a good, but not by any means great team around him. He performed at a star level and he and billups took that team as far as you could expect. Just because he isn't on the level of elite SFs like lebron and durant doesn't mean he wasn't a lower tier star. I went into great detail about how important PG play was to his success, so that's where I come back to basketball being a team game and some players just ending up with better teammates.

As for his defense, i've already touched on this in past threads. Was he ever a plus defender? Nope, but he just never portrayed the level of defensive liability that guys like amare, boozer, etc. did. So impact data rating him as an awful defender is suspect to me, possibly not telling the whole story. It may help as a wing he was able to fit more into a defensive scheme than say amare or boozer who played inside and were relied upon more for rim protection. But even looking at someone like harden (at his worst specifically). Melo just never exhibited that kind of carelessness on a regular basis.

Mullin is one of my favorite players of all time and i'd love to see him in the top 100, but his prime basically lasted 5 years. He stuck around for a while, but the rest of his career really pales in comparison to those 5 seasons. I've also made my case for melo over brand in a past thread, and while I appreciate grant's overall career value and can see a case for him inside the top 100, i don't see it here.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 49,570
And1: 26,750
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#11 » by dhsilv2 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:59 am

Clyde Frazier wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:
I was specifically talking about career arc with pierce vs. melo. Until garnett and allen came along, he was certainly looked at as a star player, but not an all time great by any means. And since people always point to melo's lack of deep playoff runs, pierce was on the same career track at that point. If he wasn't fortunate enough to team up with those guys, who knows what happens. Does he stick in boston and come up short? Does he bounce around chasing rings?

I have to ask, did you watch most of melo's playoff run in 09? This idea that he "hadn't put it together" yet and subsequently never did is a real exaggeration. He and billups were a great tandem and had solid role players around them. They just ended up facing a better team in the lakers (3rd in SRS, 3rd in ORTG, 6th in DRTG) in the WCF, who went on to win the championship. He put up 27.5 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 3.8 APG and 1.3 SPG on 54.6% TS against them in 6 games. I don't know what else you could ask for given the circumstances.


I remember Melo and Billups, but if I watched that run...I can't say that it was memorable for me. I will say I consider Melo a nugget and somewhat forget about his knick days. I was a big fan of Melo coming out. Heck I thought he should have been rookie of the year over Lebron.

But what about that playoff run made you think he'd gotten it? Was his defensive at another level? I hate to harp on it but the more I try and narrow down where I want to take melo his defense just looks so bad that it's a struggle for me to slot him in. I'd like take him after Grant and brand, but I'm thinking I'll be looking at Melo and Chris Mullins in 10 or so spots (though it seems there's momentum to get him in before then).


I'm not talking about it being memorable as an all time great playoff run. I'm simply pointing to a season where he was successful deep into the playoffs with a good, but not by any means great team around him. He performed at a star level and he and billups took that team as far as you could expect. Just because he isn't on the level of elite SFs like lebron and durant doesn't mean he wasn't a lower tier star. I went into great detail about how important PG play was to his success, so that's where I come back to basketball being a team game and some players just ending up with better teammates.

As for his defense, i've already touched on this in past threads. Was he ever a plus defender? Nope, but he just never portrayed the level of defensive liability that guys like amare, boozer, etc. did. So impact data rating him as an awful defender is suspect to me, possibly not telling the whole story. It may help as a wing he was able to fit more into a defensive scheme than say amare or boozer who played inside and were relied upon more for rim protection. But even looking at someone like harden (at his worst specifically). Melo just never exhibited that kind of carelessness on a regular basis.

Mullin is one of my favorite players of all time and i'd love to see him in the top 100, but his prime basically lasted 5 years. He stuck around for a while, but the rest of his career really pales in comparison to those 5 seasons. I've also made my case for melo over brand in a past thread, and while I appreciate grant's overall career value and can see a case for him inside the top 100, i don't see it here.


I'll just say that when i do likely vote for Melo or he gets in without my vote. He imo is the worst defensive player that will be considered here. While I can somewhat see why you bring in Harden, the difference is of course that Melo's role when he doesn't play defense it hurts his team more. I have a hard time not believing the RAPM data given the box score model that's designed to be close comes to the exact same conclusion. It just don't follow that a guy can be seen as that bad through both methods, despite their goal of getting to the same conclusion we have countless examples of people who show that they're not in lock step. They're completely in lock step here.

Back to 09, when i say it wasn't memorable, I'm just saying I personally can't recall how much of it I watched. My memory isn't perfect and I'm not sure if I watched a lot of those games. Odds are I saw a few, I generally catch most playoff games of interest to me and Melo was a guy i followed, but they are also a west coast team and you now...sleep is a thing. But here is where I struggle. For me that year Billups was the clear best player on that team. Nene imo was a very good player. I feel like that's around when i became aware of JR Smith and it was a welcome sight to see Bird man back. And on on top of all that they had Kenyon martin.

I bring that group up for a couple of reasons. The first is that if I wanted to cover up an awful defender, that's a hell of a start (ignoring JR) and I'll admit not a fan of Billups as a defender but I'm not one to worry about bad point guards. The other reason I bring that group up. They all finished ahead of Melo in VORP and all but Martin finished ahead of him in WS. Now Melo was better in the playoffs.

I guess where I am is, why are so many stats wrong about how bad melo is defensively? Or can you claim his offense was good enough to REALLY offset that? I get that maybe we can't discuss leadership as he was on some teams with train wreck players. I get that maybe he just made some bad career moves (going to maybe the worst run franchise over the last 20 years in the knicks). But at the end of the day he's this insanely skilled scorer who it seems can't play defense and I'm not sure there's a lot more there.

BTW I need some time to work on my response for it, but I'm taking Grant's peak play over Melo's, and I'll be explaining why Grant is why the first 3 peat was better than the second for the bulls, and yes 92 bulls were better than 96, and Grant is a big factor. So we'll clearly disagree on that one. And your arguments for Melo seem like they should fall on Brand imo. Brand is the guy who if he'd been in pierces place might get looked at completely differently. Brand has less longevity perhaps, but his peak is meaningfully above Melo's. If brand had landed on a team with talent, would he not be in already?
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,240
And1: 9,820
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#12 » by penbeast0 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:09 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Connie Hawkins
Alt: Dennis Rodman.


Connie v. Mel. Similar career length, 1 MVP caliber year and 1 ALL-NBA v. 2 MVPs. Hawk's peak year was statistically superior to the best of Daniels but there is a large difference between 68-69 ABA and 70-73, bigger than the difference between 70-73 and 74-76 when Erving made his rep. The early ABA was scrambling for players and lots of people sort of appeared, put up stats, and disappeared. By 70-71, most teams had settled into a rotation and the same players started appearing with good numbers every year. I would estimate a 15-20% difference (and a 5-10% difference between 70-73 and 74-76 with the diffrential a bit higher at the beginning of each period and a bit lower at the end). By 75, the ABA (except for Virginia) was pretty much equal to the NBA, arguably a big better on the average (VA was such a mess that if you include it, there's still an edge for the NBA).

So, it comes down to what will win you rings (or, if you prefer, pull you up into the playoffs with a bad team). The Hawk was aesthetically a far more pleasing player, a human highlight film. Daniels was a grinder and bruiser, the kind of player you love to root against. Hawkins would get you more scoring, better passing; Daniels dominates with superior rebounding and defense. Daniels gives 5 years of play roughly equivalent to the two seasons that those who watched him though was MVP worthy (I say this because his stats were never as great as his rep when he played). Hawkins gives you two years (plus a half but injured partway through) of MVP capable stats then his efficiency and mobility drop off drastically after his second knee surgery and he becomes a solid role player -- still capable of having big nights and still with excellent passing, but no longer a superstar.

I value the 5 year prime of Daniels (with 1 rookie year and really only 1 year of decent play and 1 as a shadow of himself outside of his prime before his knees and weight killed his career by age 30) more than the 2.5 year prime of Hawkins followed by 5 years as a good rotation player and another 1 as a reserve. Daniels, Hawkins, Walton . . . how much do we penalize them for the shortness of their greatness? I have them in that order. (and throw Maurice Stokes into that mix after Walton).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#13 » by pandrade83 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:57 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Connie Hawkins
Alt: Dennis Rodman.


Connie v. Mel. Similar career length, 1 MVP caliber year and 1 ALL-NBA v. 2 MVPs. Hawk's peak year was statistically superior to the best of Daniels but there is a large difference between 68-69 ABA and 70-73, bigger than the difference between 70-73 and 74-76 when Erving made his rep. The early ABA was scrambling for players and lots of people sort of appeared, put up stats, and disappeared. By 70-71, most teams had settled into a rotation and the same players started appearing with good numbers every year. I would estimate a 15-20% difference (and a 5-10% difference between 70-73 and 74-76 with the diffrential a bit higher at the beginning of each period and a bit lower at the end). By 75, the ABA (except for Virginia) was pretty much equal to the NBA, arguably a big better on the average (VA was such a mess that if you include it, there's still an edge for the NBA).

So, it comes down to what will win you rings (or, if you prefer, pull you up into the playoffs with a bad team). The Hawk was aesthetically a far more pleasing player, a human highlight film. Daniels was a grinder and bruiser, the kind of player you love to root against. Hawkins would get you more scoring, better passing; Daniels dominates with superior rebounding and defense. Daniels gives 5 years of play roughly equivalent to the two seasons that those who watched him though was MVP worthy (I say this because his stats were never as great as his rep when he played). Hawkins gives you two years (plus a half but injured partway through) of MVP capable stats then his efficiency and mobility drop off drastically after his second knee surgery and he becomes a solid role player -- still capable of having big nights and still with excellent passing, but no longer a superstar.

I value the 5 year prime of Daniels (with 1 rookie year and really only 1 year of decent play and 1 as a shadow of himself outside of his prime before his knees and weight killed his career by age 30) more than the 2.5 year prime of Hawkins followed by 5 years as a good rotation player and another 1 as a reserve. Daniels, Hawkins, Walton . . . how much do we penalize them for the shortness of their greatness? I have them in that order. (and throw Maurice Stokes into that mix after Walton).


The pacers max out at -3 DRTG and hover around 1 to 2 most years. That doesn't scream the elite defensive impact you're referencing - and they obviously had a good team around Daniels in those years. I'm seeing the elite rebounding - not the elite defensive impact though . . . I need some help here (and was not around for the ABA years).
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#14 » by pandrade83 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:23 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:


Broadly throwing my hat into the discussion on 2 topics:

1) The '09 Nuggets run:
Both the box score (WS, VORP) and RAPM paint Billups as the better player on that team. PER very marginally favors Melo (19.0 vs. 18.8). We should be thinking of that team as Billups' team - not Carmelo's. Carmelo was the #2 guy - which further lends credence to the idea that if Melo is your best player, your upside is severely limited.

2) Melo's defense. Game to game - it was awful - he doesn't seem to expend any energy on that end of the court. Even now - on one of the best defensive teams he's ever been on - it sticks out like a sore thumb (although I think he's a plus to the team overall).

However - I will say this - he shows up for the National TV games and I think that skews the eye test a little bit. An example that sticks out in my mind: Late last year with the Knicks nearly mathematically eliminated, they host the Spurs on the Sunday Afternoon Primetime game. Melo showed up in a big way & was a monster on both ends - to the point that my wife asked "I thought you said Kawhi was the best player on these teams? Doesn't look that way to me". But on a random Tuesday night game? You can't expect anything from him. DHsilv2 already provided the metrics that highlights this - so I'm not going to try to add anything - that's just been my perception watching a lot of his games the last few years.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,240
And1: 9,820
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#15 » by penbeast0 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:50 pm

pandrade83 wrote:

The pacers max out at -3 DRTG and hover around 1 to 2 most years. That doesn't scream the elite defensive impact you're referencing - and they obviously had a good team around Daniels in those years. I'm seeing the elite rebounding - not the elite defensive impact though . . . I need some help here (and was not around for the ABA years).


Daniels wasn't a great help defender, okay but not great. Very good post defender. His front line help was Roger Brown, who didn't worry too much about defense, Bob Netolicky, who didn't worry about it at all, and George McGinnis, who doesn't seem to have been too much about the D either. Freddie Lewis was the PG and was a solid hardworking pro on both ends, and his reserve, Billy Keller, was only about 5'11 but loved to stick people. The 2 guard varied in both ability and focus depending on the year. Not surprised they were not a great defensive team. Maybe a great shotblocker could have covered more for the forwards, but Daniels was also the team enforcer and the early ABA was a thug happy league (84 fights in 84 games to quote Terry Pluto) so I count that as a bonus too as you have to win in the environment you play in.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#16 » by pandrade83 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:13 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
pandrade83 wrote:

The pacers max out at -3 DRTG and hover around 1 to 2 most years. That doesn't scream the elite defensive impact you're referencing - and they obviously had a good team around Daniels in those years. I'm seeing the elite rebounding - not the elite defensive impact though . . . I need some help here (and was not around for the ABA years).


Daniels wasn't a great help defender, okay but not great. Very good post defender. His front line help was Roger Brown, who didn't worry too much about defense, Bob Netolicky, who didn't worry about it at all, and George McGinnis, who doesn't seem to have been too much about the D either. Freddie Lewis was the PG and was a solid hardworking pro on both ends, and his reserve, Billy Keller, was only about 5'11 but loved to stick people. The 2 guard varied in both ability and focus depending on the year. Not surprised they were not a great defensive team. Maybe a great shotblocker could have covered more for the forwards, but Daniels was also the team enforcer and the early ABA was a thug happy league (84 fights in 84 games to quote Terry Pluto) so I count that as a bonus too as you have to win in the environment you play in.



I'm feeling like the best way to think about him is a poor man's Moses (that's not an insult) and obviously worse longevity. Is that fair/in the right ball-park? Am I missing something else on him?
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,146
And1: 22,154
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#17 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:11 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Connie Hawkins
Alt: Dennis Rodman.


Connie v. Mel. Similar career length, 1 MVP caliber year and 1 ALL-NBA v. 2 MVPs. Hawk's peak year was statistically superior to the best of Daniels but there is a large difference between 68-69 ABA and 70-73, bigger than the difference between 70-73 and 74-76 when Erving made his rep. The early ABA was scrambling for players and lots of people sort of appeared, put up stats, and disappeared. By 70-71, most teams had settled into a rotation and the same players started appearing with good numbers every year. I would estimate a 15-20% difference (and a 5-10% difference between 70-73 and 74-76 with the diffrential a bit higher at the beginning of each period and a bit lower at the end). By 75, the ABA (except for Virginia) was pretty much equal to the NBA, arguably a big better on the average (VA was such a mess that if you include it, there's still an edge for the NBA).

So, it comes down to what will win you rings (or, if you prefer, pull you up into the playoffs with a bad team). The Hawk was aesthetically a far more pleasing player, a human highlight film. Daniels was a grinder and bruiser, the kind of player you love to root against. Hawkins would get you more scoring, better passing; Daniels dominates with superior rebounding and defense. Daniels gives 5 years of play roughly equivalent to the two seasons that those who watched him though was MVP worthy (I say this because his stats were never as great as his rep when he played). Hawkins gives you two years (plus a half but injured partway through) of MVP capable stats then his efficiency and mobility drop off drastically after his second knee surgery and he becomes a solid role player -- still capable of having big nights and still with excellent passing, but no longer a superstar.

I value the 5 year prime of Daniels (with 1 rookie year and really only 1 year of decent play and 1 as a shadow of himself outside of his prime before his knees and weight killed his career by age 30) more than the 2.5 year prime of Hawkins followed by 5 years as a good rotation player and another 1 as a reserve. Daniels, Hawkins, Walton . . . how much do we penalize them for the shortness of their greatness? I have them in that order. (and throw Maurice Stokes into that mix after Walton).


I don't dislike Daniels at this spot to be honest, but I definitely see Connie at his best as better than Daniels at his best. There's a strong case to be made that Connie's interrupted career longevity precludes his Top 100 candidacy, but when I see that despite all he went through he still has a similar number of Win Shares to Daniels, it becomes hard to stand on that particular hill advocating for Daniels.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 16,884
And1: 11,708
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#18 » by eminence » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:33 pm

I see my boy Bob Davies hasn't made it in yet, I'll not be rejoining at this point, but I will say think about it. 2nd best player of the Mikan era imo (well, minus Kurland, but he didn't go pro - shoutout to Haynes as well).
I bought a boat.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,573
And1: 8,207
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#19 » by trex_8063 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:42 pm

Thru post #18:

Carmelo Anthony - 2 (Clyde Frazier, trex_8063)
Tim Hardaway - 1 (pandrade83)
Connie Hawkins - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)


~18 hours until runoff. Rodman has THREE secondary votes, but he's kinda SOL without at least once 1st ballot.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

Colbinii wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

pandrade83 wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

SactoKingsFan wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

RSCS3_ wrote:.

BasketballFan7 wrote:.

micahclay wrote:.

ardee wrote:.

RCM88x wrote:.

Tesla wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

kayess wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

MisterHibachi wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

mischievous wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Bad Gatorade wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Cyrusman122000 wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

wojoaderge wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Outside wrote:.

scabbarista wrote:.

janmagn wrote:.

Arman_tanzarian wrote:.

oldschooled wrote:.

Pablo Novi wrote:.

john248 wrote:.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:.

Senior wrote:.

twolves97 wrote:.

CodeBreaker wrote:.

JoeMalburg wrote:.

dhsilv2 wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,240
And1: 9,820
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #85 

Post#20 » by penbeast0 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:01 pm

pandrade83 wrote:

I'm feeling like the best way to think about him is a poor man's Moses (that's not an insult) and obviously worse longevity. Is that fair/in the right ball-park? Am I missing something else on him?



Pretty decent comparison. I tend to think of him as Alonzo Mourning with extra rebounding replacing the extra shotblocking because watching him reminds me of Zo, but Moses is probably more in line with his strengths.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.

Return to Player Comparisons