RealGM Top 100 #37

[Laimbeer]

Pierce/Hayes?

Hayes was probably the more dominant guy and was considered a more elite player in his day. Great longevity, a title, big statistical footprint. Pierce has been very good for a long time, it's just hard for me to imagine taking him over Hayes in terms of what they do for a team on both ends. He's obviously a better board guy, more of an impact defender, and for me commands more attention from a defense.

Pierce has a longevity argument over Reed and Cowens, but doesn't even have that on Hayes.

Easier era, bad intangibles reported at the time, questionable efficiency.

There are guys for whom questionable efficiency should be disregarded, or at least regarded lightly (e.g. Kidd, Cousy), but I don't recall seeing an argument to cover Hayes' case.

Pretty sure "efficiency" has become the most overrated metric in this project. I've seen so many great players brushed aside with a mention of "inefficiency".

Why would we not care about it in the cases of Cousy and Kidd?

[lorak]

Also, doesn't mysticbb's list still nominate Miller?

I think situation with Barry created precedent, so now we can't count mysticbb's vote. Who knows, maybe he changed his mind.... (that was argument used in Barry's case...).

If someone leaves a list, I'm pretty sure it's honored. In the Barry case, people were trying to speak for others based solely on how they voted in prior threads.

But what's the difference? Because in Barry's case the argument used was: "he maybe changed his mind". The same apply now.

[Fencer reregistered]

But what's the difference? Because in Barry's case the argument used was: "he maybe changed his mind". The same apply now.

The argument that was disallowed was to assume that his sequence of NOMINATIONS would be the same as his sequence of VOTES.

That would not be true for, for example, me; I nominated Kobe higher than I voted for him (although he happened to get in at exactly the slot I nominated him for, that wasn't my preference). "Would have voted", actually, since he got on too soon for my taste.

[Fencer reregistered]

Great PGs are assumed to make offensive contributions not reflected in the stats (e.g. "hockey assists"). That entitles them to some lower efficiency.

PGs may also take a disproportionate share of difficult (e.g. bail-out) shots; while I don't think that was the case for Cousy in the half-court, it may have been on the break.

[Fencer reregistered]

I finally found what I see as evidence of the Celtics' (or at least Cousy's) emphasis on offensive rebounding, even at the expense of scoring efficency. Cousy's ideal was:

This is normally the ideal type of basketball team. The team can use the fast break and/or a set two-three offense in which the three big men stay in close for offensive rebounds.

http://www.guidetocoachingbasketball.co ... ffense.htm

My theory for a while has been the Celtics' low efficiency was at least partly an artifact of an emphasis on getting second shots.

[lorak]

But what's the difference? Because in Barry's case the argument used was: "he maybe changed his mind". The same apply now.

The argument that was disallowed was to assume that his sequence of NOMINATIONS would be the same as his sequence of VOTES.

That would not be true for, for example, me; I nominated Kobe higher than I voted for him (although he happened to get in at exactly the slot I nominated him for, that wasn't my preference). "Would have voted", actually, since he got on too soon for my taste.

That's not the case. It was like that: in thread #28 user X vote for Barry, but Barry didn't win. In thread #29 user X didn't vote at all (there were some problems with connection to forum, many users reported that) and some of you said we can't count his vote from thread #28, because "maybe he changed his mind". So guess what, maybe mysticbb, who last time was seen how long ago? several weeks?, maybe he also changed his mind?

[Doctor MJ]

Hi, back (though starting work).

From a list mysticbb has left no more votes but does nominate Reggie Miller

Okay so then, Miller moves into a tie with McAdoo for the nom.

[Doctor MJ]

Great PGs are assumed to make offensive contributions not reflected in the stats (e.g. "hockey assists"). That entitles them to some lower efficiency.

PGs may also take a disproportionate share of difficult (e.g. bail-out) shots; while I don't think that was the case for Cousy in the half-court, it may have been on the break.

Eh. Here's how I'd put it:

Great distributors have a large amount of offensive impact other than scoring, and that can make up for less impact as a scorer.

This is absolutely the case for Cousy, but the odd thing is that his is not a scenario of a point guard knowing his scoring ability isn't that great and thus shooting less but rather a scenario of him jacking the ball up unwisely...which makes me question his ability as a distributor since accurately gauging yourself as a scoring chess piece is part of the deal for a floor general.

Re: Disproportionate bail-out shots. I'd say that that disproportionately goes to the leading scorer, which of course was Cousy. So he gets that kind of "slack"...but so does every other leading scorer and all the other lead scorers worth their salt have better efficiency than Cousy.

Then there's the matter that Boston's offense was unimaginably fast. I mean we consider run n gun now to be a pace of 95, and they were operating sometimes at a pace above 130. This wasn't a team winding down the clock and then shooting desperation shots very often.

[drza]

I'm a bit late to the party here as I've been away all weekend, but I'll add my 2 cents.

Willis Reed would be my vote.

Maybe I'm biased but the 1970 Finals series was one of the first old school era basketball series I watched. To put forward a case for Reed, I'm going to consider all arguments.

+ Peak season was incredible in terms of accolades. MVP. Finals MVP. All Star, All NBA 1st, All Defensive 1st, best defensive team, Champions...
+ 5 year peak of consecutive seasons at 20+ points 13+ rebounds.
+ Won at a time when Chamberlain and KAJ were tearing up the league
+ Great leadership skills and workrate
- upped his scoring in the playoffs (24.5 ppg pre-injury over 4 years)

- Peak shortened by injury - 'limited to 6 All Star appearances.
- not the flashiest stats

In contrast to the guys picking up votes at this level, Reed has them beaten in terms of prime season accolades, and individual accomplishments. Yes he was never a flat out dominat scorer, but his impact was reflected in his MVP shares at the time (1968-69 NBA 0.266 (2), 1969-70 NBA 0.664 (1), 1970-71 NBA 0.142 (4)) and the aforementioned accolades.

If we are to weigh in more heavily on longevity, then I still question why TMac would be in the running. And I am absolutely certain that Reed had more impact in his prime, than Dwight does now, and that we can't apply longevity to Dwight yet with any certainty.

Would be interested to know from other what Reed does/did or doesn't/didn't do to get more consideration at this stage. At the time, he was regarded as a better player than Frazier.

Are we over-thinking this?

This post reflects what I've been reflecting on a bit lately and mentioned tangentially in two recent posts, one about Cousy and one about McGrady/Pierce. I feel like, in the interest of avoiding the over-the-top accolades/resume-driven rankings that a lot of folks do these days, we may be in danger of going too far in the other direction.

Consider, that for a stretch Willis Reed was arguably the best player in the world. Not definitely, because you had the end of Russell, the beginning of Kareem, Wilt still around, and Oscar/West still kicking, etc....but even with all of that, Reed had a legitimate argument. That shows up best in the accolades (with an MVP/Finals MVP combo that is worthy of respect whether you are convinced they were deserved or not), but even in the available advanced stats from the time Reed peaked as the league leader in win shares/top-5 in PER. He was 2nd in the league in offensive win shares one season, then led the league in defensive win shares the next. And outside of stats, he was considered to be one of the greatest "intangibles" leaders of all time.

OK, he didn't have the greatest longevity, but he has a multi-year stretch as one of the best to do it. I think that's the issue that I have with Pierce at this stage of the game...he just wasn't, ever, anywhere near the top of the league. No matter what you think of accolades over-rating or weaknesses in different advanced stats, he just wasn't ever near the best. TMac, for all of his warts, can at least make the arguable claim that, at his best, he was one of the best. Same with Howard. Frankly, almost all of the folks currently under consideration on our list can make that claim to a larger degree than can Pierce.

I feel like the argument for Pierce is essentially dependent upon him not hitting any negative hot buttons. He was a volume scorer on a poor team, but his efficiency was solid so he gets a pass while we pretend that Antoine Walker was never a good player. He doesn't dominate in +/-, but he was solid enough there that impact isn't used against him and in fact has become a bit of a strength that I don't know that it really was. He has good longevity, so he didn't fall off like many of his contemporaries did, but that doesn't mean his best was really better than their best. He turns in a lot of playoff stinker games, but he also has some memorable big performances so we ignore the lesser ones. His box score stats are comparable enough with a player like Drexler that we use Drexler's momentum to pull Pierce along, without really making the case that Pierce was that good on his own. He wasn't as good for his championship caliber teams as Mchale was for his or as even Ginobili has been on his, but he had some time as the "man" on bad teams while they were cutting their teeth as 6th men on better squads, so he gets another benefit of the doubt over them. He has very few accolades, but he was on a poor team and win bias is (justifiably) a key buzz word on a board where so many just look at accolades, so we just assume that Pierce should have more without really going year-to-year and exploring whether that's really true or not. So instead of maybe trying to quantify how many accolades he SHOULD have (which, I guarantee, even at max estimate would still be far worse than a guy like Reed), we just completely throw accolades out the window.

And the end result is this vote, which essentially leaves me a choice between two unsatisfactory options. I'm not ready to vote for TMac, really...but I really just don't see the case for Pierce being BETTER than the other players under consideration. And "yeah, but his worst was better than their worst and for a longer period of time" just doesn't resonate with me. When the project began I honestly wasn't putting much thought into where I'd vote Pierce, but if anything I thought I'd be one of the ones pushing the envelope by touting him as a borderline top-50, under-rated guy. Instead, because he came up about 20 slots before even I thought to vote him in, it turns out that I'm consistently speaking against a guy that I do agree has been under-rated and I do genuinely appreciate now since I watch him on a daily basis. Even though I don't agree with the placement, right now I'm leaning towards voting for him just so he'll finally be out of the way and we can move on to other players where I don't consistently feel like I'm raining hate on a a guy that I regularly pull for. As I'm pretty sure he's going in this round, I guess I'll get that particular wish answered.

[Doctor MJ]

My theory for a while has been the Celtics' low efficiency was at least partly an artifact of an emphasis on getting second shots.

This is a good thing to bring up, but it must also be brought up that we have ORtg estimates for Boston that include their massive rebounding. It's true we might not quite get the emphasis on rebounding there, but when the team is dead last in ORtg with excellent offensive rebounding, I question how much that additional offensive rebounding emphasis could really add. I don't see any way that this team's offense was what you would call solid.

[lorak]

Hi, back (though starting work).

From a list mysticbb has left no more votes but does nominate Reggie Miller

Okay so then, Miller moves into a tie with McAdoo for the nom.

If we count mysticbb's nomination then Reggie is leading:
5 - Reggie (ElGee Doctor MJ lukekarts therealbig3 mysticbb)
4 - McAdoo (Dr Mufasa ronnymac2 Snakebites TMACFORMVP)
3 - (Cousy Fencer JordansBulls SDChargers#1)
1 - Moncrief (penbeast0)
1 - Zo (DavidStern)

[lorak]

Re: Sharman. He along with Arizin are probably the two early 50s players that intrigue me the most.

Given his

1) Best in the game shooting
2) Tendencies toward solid efficiency
3) And his great success as a coach

I truly wonder if the Celtics would have been better if they had let him be the lead guard instead of Cousy. Hard to imagine ranking Sharman ahead of Cousy because he's so much less proven as a passer and seer-of-the-court, but truly I think so much of what makes a great floor general is an accurate sense of ones own abilities relative to teammates. God-level court vision will go to waste if your narcissism is too extreme.

Getting back on Arizin. So you've got a guy who invents the jump shot (others probably invented it too, but he discovered it on its own), becomes extremely good at, is renowned for his jumping ability, has a strong reputation as a tenacious defender which has drawn comparisons as a proto-Moncrief/Jordan, and then he's basically the first guy in NBA history who impresses by the on/off metric:

'50-51 joins Philly: SRS improves by 5.66
'53-54 leaves: SRS goes down by 6.68 to a 12 win team despite having statistical superstar Neil Johnston

'55-56 2nd year back, but first taking back lead scoring role away from Johnston: 5.72 improvement over not having Arizin in '53-54 and the team wins the title.

It's really quite something.

I agree with you about Sharman (I value him more than Cousy), but the informations abut Arizin are something new for me and very interesting. It seems like he had amazing impact and we should nominate him soon.

[drza]

Re: Sharman. He along with Arizin are probably the two early 50s players that intrigue me the most.

Given his

1) Best in the game shooting
2) Tendencies toward solid efficiency
3) And his great success as a coach

I truly wonder if the Celtics would have been better if they had let him be the lead guard instead of Cousy. Hard to imagine ranking Sharman ahead of Cousy because he's so much less proven as a passer and seer-of-the-court, but truly I think so much of what makes a great floor general is an accurate sense of ones own abilities relative to teammates. God-level court vision will go to waste if your narcissism is too extreme.

Getting back on Arizin. So you've got a guy who invents the jump shot (others probably invented it too, but he discovered it on its own), becomes extremely good at, is renowned for his jumping ability, has a strong reputation as a tenacious defender which has drawn comparisons as a proto-Moncrief/Jordan, and then he's basically the first guy in NBA history who impresses by the on/off metric:

'50-51 joins Philly: SRS improves by 5.66
'53-54 leaves: SRS goes down by 6.68 to a 12 win team despite having statistical superstar Neil Johnston

'55-56 2nd year back, but first taking back lead scoring role away from Johnston: 5.72 improvement over not having Arizin in '53-54 and the team wins the title.

It's really quite something.

I agree with you about Sharman (I value him more than Cousy), but the informations abut Arizin are something new for me and very interesting. It seems like he had amazing impact and we should nominate him soon.

I remember being extremely impressed with Arizin during the RPoY project, to the point that at times he was more impressive to me than even Pettit, who I expected to be the guy that wowed me. Yeah, I'd like to start learning/talking more about Arizin in the near future...

[pancakes3]

I think it just hit me why it feels so wrong to rank pierce so high. He "feels" like a tier lower than it should be. He "feels" worse than TMac but what with injuries, Pierce's recent finals MVP and shooting renaissance, the APM numbers muddle things.

What about Durant? 4 years in the league, 2 post-seasons, hardly enough to make a case for the top 50 and yet doesn't he just FEEL like he's better than pierce? and not just by a little - a lot. I dunno, it just doesn't FEEL right. yeah, i know, feelings don't mean diddly squat for statheads, but if that were the case, let's just turn this into a spreadsheet and call it a day, yeah?

vote: Elvin Hayes
nominate: Unseld

[ElGee]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your assertion about T-Mac being able to fit/lift better teams?

-The last 41 games of the 2005 season, post Wesley trade (and with a healthy Yao) they were a +6.9 MOV team. (Ming - PF - McGrady - Sura - Wesley lineup)
-In 2006 they weren't good without him...
-In 2007, with McGrady Houston was a +6.1 MOV team.
-2008 is really the only year that supports your categorization.

6+ SRS teams are often considers legit contenders. Now, you might say "but Yao Ming had serious mobility issues and someone like Carlos Boozer could bbq him," and to that I say "but yeah, what does that have go do with Tracy McGrady?"

Now you mention oRtg... Second half of 2005 they were likely near 112 (assuming constant pace). They had few offensive weapons and McGrady still had them in offensive mediocrity (or better), and of course Van Gundy was clearly a defensively oriented coach (and Adelman needs some props for his offensive schemes lately). In 2007 82games has them at a 110 ORtg with McGrady on court. (2008 a small shift to 109 when on court.)

If you are knocking McGrady for 2004...well the coach was fired and it was of the worst teams in NBA history IMO outside of T-Mac. And to say Pierce never had anything like that when the 2007 Celtics happened is a bit unreasonable IMO.

You make good points as per usual LG.

I'll admit to some degree of essentially knocking McGrady based on skepticism, i.e. "Well it didn't happen, so it's less likely to happen". This is something I do tend rail against, but on the other hand Houston's inability to emerge as a contender in his time there is rather astounding, and for the post-McGrady/Yao era to be filled with a team that's essentially doing just fine, it bothers me.

-"last 41 games", a good thing to bring up, and I'll admit that I tend to be very cautious about such runs. I remember when Denver had a similar run when Karl arrived, and people had huge expectations for upcoming seasons, but get over the hump for the long haul often times proves to be very elusive.

-In '05-06 they weren't good without him (and Yao)...and what that meant was the offense went from mediocre to terrible. Again, I've got zero doubts about the ability of volume scorers to make offenses mediocre.

-In '06-07 he returns the offense to mediocrity and they win 50. Good on them. McGrady incidentally get ranked at #32 on APM. Solid, but not exactly KG territory.

Re: "2004...coach fired...worst team in history without him". Arguments that I'm being unfair here are reasonable.

But look, when a team really falls off the map in a season on an epic level, it's really hard for me not to point some blame at the star.

First off, TMac's stats fell off back to around what normal prime TMac was. It's '02-03 that was the anomaly, not '03-04. That fall off was part of what led to the offensive fall off, and so while that's not exactly worth crucifying the guy, I don't think it makes sense to act like it had nothing to do with him.

Second, the big falloff was on defense...which is exactly the kind of thing you fear happening when your team starts off slow, they fire the coach, and your star isn't big on inspiration. I think people are too harsh on McGrady's dislike of practice and leading effort generally...but when a player with those issues is on a team that falls apart defensively, am I supposed to think it's a coincidence?

How about if you take the above the scenario and say add the fact that said star responded to this situation by essentially demanding a trade?

Shall we also note that said fired coach was Doc Rivers who is now pretty well established as a guy who can do great things when you give him talent to work with? I want my superstars to be actively involved with the coach in planning and leadership. I want them to have a definite opinion of the coaches involved, and to not let the organization fire a superior coach to promote his inferior underling. That TMac was either on board with the mid-season de-talenting of the coach, or totally disengaged, seems like it has to be a part of the story.

Good post. I hear you on continuity over longer stretches, but a 1/2 season is a good chunk of time to give a team/player some credit. So what happened in Denver in the example you alluded to?

In 2005, Karl took over in the second half and the Nuggets finished 32-8 (+6.9 MOV, coincidentally). The primary rotation was Miller-DerMarr-Melo-Martin-Camby with Buckner, some Nene, Boykins and some Elson.

In 2006, Camby and Martin missed a combined 52 games and Nene missed the season. Boykins missed 22 games. DerMarr missed time and wasn't the same spark. They had 19 different starting lineups. If we assume constant pace, the second half 05 ratings were 111 ORtg and 104 DRtg...which turned into 106 ORtg and 105 DRtg in 2006. Could all those injuries and 2 healthy rotational players make up the difference? I think it's fair to think of it as a plausible explanation.

[Dr Positivity]

@ The Pierce accolades argument. My feeling on him is the abundance of star SGs played into it and if you're a player "only" as good as Pierce, you're not going to get top 5 player consideration unless you're the best guy on a 60 W team or lead a big team turnaround after your trade

eg., Are we sure prime Derrick Rose is better than prime Deron Williams because the former has such a higher accolade peak? I'm certainly not. Rose leapfrogged Deron in peak accolades for reasons that likely aren't tied to their play.

[ElGee]

^^^Did Pierce quit the team during the losing streak and then return right after?

No. Why? Did TMac ever do something like that?

Seems like an awfully selective way to view intangibles, no?

Huh?

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Maybe I need to communicate more clearly with you.

In a discussion about intangibles, vis a vis team's quitting/collapsing, Paul Pierce was on a 24-win team with an 18-game losing streak. Obviously, if intangibles are so powerful, the leader of the team surely would avoid such a meltdown. You said

It's not really relevant to a Pierce/TMac comparison to equate the two situations, given that Pierce wasn't around for EITHER one of them.

That's just false. He was "around" for the one that happened in Boston.

[Dr Positivity]

Good stuff drza, but I digress a few points

- I've been the guy pushing Reed, but I don't think he ever had an argument for best in the league. From 71 on Kareem is definitely better than him. In 69 and 70 you've got West, Oscar, Russell and Wilt in 69, rookie Kareem in 70. Reed's MVP IMO was like Rose's MVP, the Knicks/2011 Bulls made for a good and new story but everyone except Ric Bucher knows Lebron, Wade and Dirk are better players than Derrick Rose. I can't buy that 70 Reed was better than 70 West, Oscar, Kareem and Wilt if you count him. Likewise with some other players on the board, I don't see evidence that Iverson had a real argument against Shaq and Duncan, that Nique had a real argument about Magic, Bird and Jordan, Cowens against Kareem, etc.

- Tmac and Howard I suppose are the ones with best in the league arguments. Howard made #37 on my personal list so I have no problem with him going here. I do think he's a top 30 regular season player ever already, my concern is that his offensive game is rudimentary and can be stopped in the PS, ie Sheed and Perkins played him man up very well in Det and Bos wins over the Magic. In the regular season the Magic have put up big ORTGs by a 3balls/help on Dwight before he gets it strategy that I always thought should've been less succesful, it seems to me teams were helping on Dwight too much - and in 2011 they kind of figured out if they stick on the 3pt shooters and let him go off, they're much less dangerous. Boston and Detroit figured that out in the PS far before that, though, partly because they had Perkins and Sheed to stick on him too. I think versatility and ability to not be gameplanned is important and those Magic teams, despite high ORTGs, didn't really have that

- Finally, I'd argue while the inclination is to think "You NEED a best in the league, top 5 in the league offensive player to win even if it's for a short period", I'm not sure how steady that holds. There's been superduperstars who've had almost no playoff success (Tmac, Paul, King, Thompson) meanwhile the Unseld, Allen, Miller, Gasol, Manu, etc. lesser tier has far more. Obviously players with monster peaks have a higher chance at a title in those years, but second tier perennial all-stars have *huge* value, help you get titles in a huge way and have an excellent track record of contending at some point in their careers. I'm not saying the slightly lesser for longer guys are definitively better, I respect the Tmac, Paul, etc. arguments, just that it's not like a megastar monopoly on titles

[Dr Positivity]

Just continuing, I think you can make a clear hierarchy from

Tier 1
Superstar for full career (10-15 year prime) - Amazing thing to have, by far your best chance at a title. All voted in

Tier 2
True perenniel all-star for full career
Best in the league candidate for limited career

Which is what I think we're looking at right now. Both these options needs a serious injection of luck for you to win a title. With the true perenniel all-star, you need a jacked team with another true star on it. Willis Reed had Frazier, Debusschere, etc., Cowens had Havlicek, Jo Jo, etc., Pierce had Allen and KG (more than he needed), Gasol had Kobe, Manu had Duncan and Parker, Hayes had Unseld and Dandridge, Drexler had a deep Portland roster. Players on this tier who didn't have as much luck - Dominique, English, Iverson, Kidd, Richmond, not 03 Tmac, Dantley???, etc.

With the best in the league candidate with the small timeframe, the luck you need is everything lining up just for that season or few seasons. Bill Walton had this, Chris Paul, Bob McAdoo, Bernard King, Thompson and Tmac didn't. (I'm counting Tmac and Paul as 1 and 2 years at 'best in the league' candidcy, respectively. Tmac's career is a weird hybrid of the two groups though to be honest, I don't care much for having non 03 Tmac on my team most of the time)

So I think no matter whom you choose here, we're at the point where luck is a major factor. You probably need both Pierce and Reed on the same team to win a title at this point, or you need things to lineup around 08, 09 Paul or 03 Tmac at a higher level than roughly "West, Chandler and shooters." I think that's more to ask than Pierce finding his way onto another perenn all-star team, tbh

[ElGee]

^^^Julien, what about all the championship teams I outlined a few posts back who did it in the first 2 years?

Or that Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Bird and Magic (if we count him) all won in their first 2 years (and Hakeem lost in the Finals in 6 against a GOAT team)? Wade, even, won in his 3rd and was on a title-level team in year 2 but had the rib injury...

Walton isn't the outlier because his team won early...he's the outlier because he's the only one to reach that level early and then basically stop playing due to injury.