RealGM Top 100 List #35

[RSCD3_]

Artis Gilmore – trex_8063, Quotatious, Moonbeam, penbeast0, Clyde Frazier, SactoKingsFan, Owly, RayBan-Sematra, john 248, Doctor MJ,

Isiah Thomas – ronnymac2, Warspite, JordansBulls, DQuinn1575(?), basketballefan (?)

DQuinn1575 and basketballefan indicated in their posts that they didn't realize that we were counting ABA seasons. I am counting your votes for Isiah tentatively but would like you to confirm that, given the ABA seasons, you still feel this way.

Thanks

I edited my OP on page 1

Runoff voting for Gilmore


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Voting for Artis Gilmore minly because I'm not sold on the impact of isiah Thomas.
He was the offensive star of a team known for it's defense, while being very inefficient.
Going for the two way big man, that could have gone way earlier than here.

[Texas Chuck]

I will not be casting a Run-off vote because I simply can't make up my mind. And while it looks like we are going to have a clear winner I wouldn't feel right about potentially influencing the result here since I am so unsure between these two guys.

[Doctor MJ]

On the other hand, as the +/- data expands, we just keep getting more examples of relatively inefficient scoring point guards that "shockingly" have great +/- scores. Kidd is an extreme example because of his defensive and rebounding uniqueness, but guys like Baron Davis, Mookie Blaylock, Tim Hardaway and these days Russell Westbrook are all showing extremely well in /- studies. I've already pointed out the much less granular examination of the Pistons' team results suggests strongly to me that Zeke's presence correlates with positive gains on the team, and stylistically I think he compares well with these other high impact scoring point guards.

Because while a lot is made of his scoring and efficiency, not enough is made of Zeke's natural brilliance as a ball-handler/distributor. He had a flair that was almost artistic, and he was a true floor general as opposed to the recent wave of try-my-best-to-score-and-if-I-can't-I'll-throw-you-the-ball-and-you-better-shoot "point guards" that we saw a lot of in the early 2000s.

A great post in general, whereas this of mine is just quick because I'm heading out:

Like you, I have to admit that I remember the '80s through a kid's eyes. It doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, and as such my opinions of those players are less confident than of the guys right now.

You mention the +/- and point guards looking good, but a clear distinction arises:

Point guards who are just guys looking to score a lot while being small look terrible. Allen Iverson looks bloody awful by it.

So yeah in general, the passers look good, the scorers look bad.

And then the question arises: Which is Isiah?

Many people will insist on Isiah's passing being great, and as I said, I'm not confident to really say they are wrong. But when people talk about Isiah's greatness, they typically talk about his scoring. His great playoff moments aren't about passes, they are about scoring 25 points in the 4th quarter while fighting a bear. This leads into some of the +/- skepticism.

And of course that's not helped by the fact that his scoring stats don't look great, and that in his most glamorous years no one gave him any love on the accolade level. Yes they did in earlier years, but I've yet to see anyone insist that those earlier years are what made him the legend he is.

Also, the notion that he just held back and blended his talent in those title years would make a lot more sense if Isiah actually had good longevity. Instead when you look at Isiah's numbers, his "blend in" seem to be part of decay.

I also have to bring up - and I know a lot of people don't see this as fair - Isiah's time as GM. Because aside from being one of the worst GMs in modern history, what was noteworthy was his obsession with guys whose best attribute was scoring. He was in love with Marbury saying he could be among the handful of greatest point guards in history. Brought in Francis, drafted Nate "I can't tell if you're open because I can't see you" Robinson. And that was just among point guards. The trend continued elsewhere.

To me that's not the behavior of the super-IQ playmaker, nor the tough-as-nails galvanizer of defenses. That's the behavior of a guy who most saw the game through a lens of scoring. And if he did, well then all the more reason to say he was lucky as hell to be with a coach and a team that emphasized his playmaking and focused on defense.

[Notanoob]

I will cast my vote for Artis Gilmore. I believe that as a defensive big who scored at a good rate, he had a bigger impact on the game than Zeke did.

[Quotatious]

He was the offensive star of a team known for it's defense, while being very inefficient.

To be fair, Isiah led several top 10 offensive teams (#1 in 1984, #9 in 1985, #7 in 1986, #9 in 1987, #6 in 1988, #7 in 1989, so 6 consecutive seasons), and it's entirely possible that an inefficient scorer can have an excellent offensive impact - for example 2014 LaMarcus Aldridge, who was a high volume (23.2 PPG on 20.6 FGA/G), low efficiency (3.4% below league average TS%) scorer, had +2.0 offensive split in NPI RAPM, and +3.41 in prior informed, and he was the first scoring option of the 2nd best offensive team in the league.

I'm not really trying to make a case for Isiah, actually the opposite (I was one of the biggest supporters of Artis in this thread, and I'm generally rather low on Zeke), but I'm just trying to point something out. Obviously with no stats like RAPM for the 70s and 80s, we won't know for sure how high Zeke's offensive impact really was, but the fact that a player is an inefficient scorer, doesn't necessarily have to mean that he's not very impactful (I think Isiah's offensive impact was pretty comparable to another inefficient scorer, but great creator off the dribble - Allen Iverson, so it would be pretty decent, even if not really elite). In general, the more efficient scorers are usually also more impactful, but there are definitely some exceptions to that rule (like Aldridge being very impactful despite being an inefficient scorer, and Adrian Dantley having a questionable impact despite his historically great volume/efficiency ratio).

Anyway, I really like the fact that people are finally comfortable voting for Gilmore. I think he was very deserving since #30, or so.

[Owly]

Isiah led an NBA team to two titles.
Artis led an team to one playoff miniseries win.

It's not even close.

How many players get to say they led their team to the title when they don't have their teams best playoff PER, don't have their teams best playoff WS total, don't have their team's best WS/48 in the playoffs, aren't close to their team's best defender (on a team winning primarily with D), aren't the finals MVP and you can ditto those facts (which could be applied) to the regular season. Also they didn't make so much as the All-NBA third team. That's Isiah in '89. How low is the bar to have to have "led" a team to a title? Out of curiosity as much as anything, who's the best player on champ to fit all those criteria?

Plus given the remit for this includes ABA the "one playoff miniseries win" is, at best, misleading.

Isiah led the team in minutes, points, and assists in both the regular season and playoffs on back-to-back champions.

I'm not sure how many guys can say that.
No Piston made all-NBA in 1989, Isiah was the highest vote getter.

Dumars played great in the Finals in 1989, I don't put a lot of stock in Finals MVP - 4 games is like a Player of the Week award.

Wow, a pg who led his team in assists.

Seriously do you think it's a good thing that your leading scorer is the player with the worst Ortg and TS% (by quite a distance). Because that's what '89 playoffs Isiah is.

If your pg is making a lot of their shots and being the leading scorer then that can work well for an offense (Oscar, Tiny). But if they're just taking more shots (e.g. Thomas' points advantage over Dumars, 0.6 points, coming from 2.7 extra field goals attempted) well that's not a great asset. It's certainly not leading your team to a title.

Regarding finals MVP not mattering because of small samples, then why would you weight the playoffs so heavily (as you have to put Isiah in this ballpark). It's small samples. We've got a much bigger RS sample to show what Isiah typically gave you.

Incidentally off the top of my head the best player to meet the above criteria (not leading by any of the metrics, RS or Playoffs, nor All-NBA nor particularly close to the team's best defender, nor FMVP) is Bosh. Did he lead his team to titles? Should he be in soon?

Where are the '89 All-NBA votes (was there significant support for Isiah? He was the same as Dumars in MVP balloting, a single 5th place vote each)?

[Clyde Frazier]

I also have to bring up - and I know a lot of people don't see this as fair - Isiah's time as GM. Because aside from being one of the worst GMs in modern history, what was noteworthy was his obsession with guys whose best attribute was scoring. He was in love with Marbury saying he could be among the handful of greatest point guards in history. Brought in Francis, drafted Nate "I can't tell if you're open because I can't see you" Robinson. And that was just among point guards. The trend continued elsewhere.

To me that's not the behavior of the super-IQ playmaker, nor the tough-as-nails galvanizer of defenses. That's the behavior of a guy who most saw the game through a lens of scoring. And if he did, well then all the more reason to say he was lucky as hell to be with a coach and a team that emphasized his playmaking and focused on defense.

To put it simply, I don't see how his time as a GM should have any effect on his ranking. This project is about playing careers, not coaching or GMing. You're making assumptions about his mindset as a player based on actions he made after his playing career was over.

-----

I'm curious to see how you feel about this.

And for the record, i'd love to penalize isiah for his horrendous time as a GM in NY. After so many grating press conferences over the years, I have a hard time even watching him on NBA TV these days. I can't see holding that against him in this project, though.

[Owly]

All nba teams should be taken with a grain of salt.

And besides he still made 3 all nba first teams.

Not sure what team peak has to do with solely an individual.

Why should they be taken with a grain of salt?

Also: Isiah being a 1st team guy earlier in his career doesn't answer the dilemma because Isiah's stature isn't built on those years nearly so much as it is based on the fact that he was later the face of back-to-back champions, during which no one took him serious as a player of that stature based on all the accolades we have.

I don't put a ton of weight into all star games or All nba teams. They are often based on reputation. I mean look at how much of a joke the all defensive teams have been.

Anyways whether or not he made all nba teams earlier or later in his career really shouldn't matter. It's kind of like Magic won his mvps when he wasn't winning titles. My point is they won titles when they did because that's when their team was at their best, it doesn't make any sense to knock a player just because they didn't receive those accolades simultaneously.

Thomas accomplished more in a tougher era, what exactly has Gilmore done that was so noteworthy?

Tougher era for what? All time greats? As noted previously the 80s is the the thinnest decade on all time greats after the 50s. At his position? Hardly, the 80s have Magic, who's exceptional, a legend (though not always matching up with pgs); then Cheeks (a good, effiecient, D-first, pure point), then what? (I'd suggest not a lot until primarily 90s guys like KJ, Stockton, Price start getting minutes)

The all-NBA teams aren't being used as the primary measuring stick here just confirmation (along with numbers, and Pistons' strong D) that he wasn't a singular driving force behind the titles. But how a belief that all-D teams are unreliable affects All-NBA selections validity is a mystery to me. If you think they're dubious fine, but show why rather than associate it with something else that you think is bad.

But to clarify, people aren't saying team and player peak have to come simultaneously. They're saying if a guy is getting recognition based on team achievements you have to be confident he was causing that goodness. And so if you're saying "Of course Isiah was a cause of greatness, look at how good he was in '84-'86", then that's a weak argument for him as a prime causer in later titles.

[Owly]

I also have to bring up - and I know a lot of people don't see this as fair - Isiah's time as GM. Because aside from being one of the worst GMs in modern history, what was noteworthy was his obsession with guys whose best attribute was scoring. He was in love with Marbury saying he could be among the handful of greatest point guards in history. Brought in Francis, drafted Nate "I can't tell if you're open because I can't see you" Robinson. And that was just among point guards. The trend continued elsewhere.

To me that's not the behavior of the super-IQ playmaker, nor the tough-as-nails galvanizer of defenses. That's the behavior of a guy who most saw the game through a lens of scoring. And if he did, well then all the more reason to say he was lucky as hell to be with a coach and a team that emphasized his playmaking and focused on defense.

To put it simply, I don't see how his time as a GM should have any effect on his ranking. This project is about playing careers, not coaching or GMing. You're making assumptions about his mindset as a player based on actions he made after his playing career was over.

-----

I'm curious to see how you feel about this.

And for the record, i'd love to penalize isiah for his horrendous time as a GM in NY. After so many grating press conferences over the years, I have a hard time even watching him on NBA TV these days. I can't see holding that against him in this project, though.

I don't think anyone should say he's a bad GM therefore his playing career is worse than it would have been without that.

But if the case is that he somehow sacrificied his individual numbers (when his usage numbers 87-90 are a little higher than his three year boxscore peak, his assist % numbers are down and his turnover % numbers generally a little up) but made the team better and the evidence is thin and based on some notion he had a special understanding of the game (this not at any one poster here but is, more generally, the implied, Isiah sacraficed, he was the main cause argument) then I think looking at his other basketball ventures is legitimate. If people aren't arguing for that (Isiah equals remarkable BBIQ related intangiables), then the GM stuff is probably irrelevant, but if they are then perhaps it isn't.

[Jaivl]

Runoff vote: Artis Gilmore

Good, measurable impact in both ends, something I cannot say about Isiah (funny thing is that he is my favourite player). Absurd efficiency, most definitely a plus on offense. Lenghtly, athletic rim protector at his peak, maybe DPOY level. Don't really know why I should disregard his ABA days... that's cutting his prime in half.

[Quotatious]

Artis Gilmore (14)– trex_8063, Quotatious, Moonbeam, penbeast0, Clyde Frazier, SactoKingsFan, Owly, RayBan-Sematra, john248, Doctor MJ, RSCD3_, Ryoga Hibiki, Notanoob, Jaivl

Isiah Thomas (6) – ronnymac2, Warspite, JordansBulls, DQuinn1575, Basketballefan, drza


Seems safe to assume that Gilmore is the winner.

[DQuinn1575]

Seriously do you think it's a good thing that your leading scorer is the player with the worst Ortg and TS% (by quite a distance). Because that's what '89 playoffs Isiah is.

If your pg is making a lot of their shots and being the leading scorer then that can work well for an offense (Oscar, Tiny). But if they're just taking more shots (e.g. Thomas' points advantage over Dumars, 0.6 points, coming from 2.7 extra field goals attempted) well that's not a great asset. It's certainly not leading your team to a title.

Regarding finals MVP not mattering because of small samples, then why would you weight the playoffs so heavily (as you have to put Isiah in this ballpark). It's small samples. We've got a much bigger RS sample to show what Isiah typically gave you.

Incidentally off the top of my head the best player to meet the above criteria (not leading by any of the metrics, RS or Playoffs, nor All-NBA nor particularly close to the team's best defender, nor FMVP) is Bosh. Did he lead his team to titles? Should he be in soon?

Where are the '89 All-NBA votes (was there significant support for Isiah? He was the same as Dumars in MVP balloting, a single 5th place vote each)?

Okay, I think Artis is severely overrated at #35, and it is by far the worst placing so far.
He was barely ever a Top 10 player, and had no impact on the playoffs in the NBA.
He led his team to an ABA title, but realistically there were at least 4 NBA teams in 1975 better than Kentucky.
Golden State, Chicago, Boston, and the Bullets.
1975 ABA best centers were 19 yo Moses. Swen Nater, and Billy Paultz. Some decent players, but no one close to all-star caliber.
Isiah at his peak was one of the Top 5 players in the league; even post peak he was good enough to lead two title teams in minutes played and assists. I don't think he is the next best player; but feel he is definitely ahead of Artis.




All-Pro voting

1989


Forwards— Karl Malone. Utah (85),
425; Charles Barkley, Philadelphia (80)
412.
Center — Akeem Olajuwon. Houston
(86), 379.
Guards — Magic Johnson, L.A.
Lakers (84), 423; Michael Jordan,
Chicago (84), 423.
Second Team
Forwards — Torn Chambers, Phoenix
(1), 174; Chris Mullin, Golden State,
137.
Center — Patrick Ewing, New York
117), 267.
Guards — John Stockton, Ulah (1),
224; Kevin Johnson, Phoenix, 131.
Third Team
Forwards — Dominique Wilkins, Atlanta
(2), 116; Terry Cummings, San
Antonio (11,70.
Center — Robert Parish, Boston (1),
70.
Guards— Dale Ellis, Seattle (1). 83;
Mark Price. Cleveland, 75.
Others receiving votes
Clyde Drexler, 65; Alex English, 58;
Islah Thomas, 57; Larry Nance, 45;
James Worthy (1), 40; Kevin McHale,
33; Moses Malone (1), 19; Joe Dumars,
16; Mitch Richmond, 12; Brad
Daugherty and Ron Harper, 9; Fat
Lever, 8; Mark Eaton and Mark
Jackson, 6; Bernard King and Charles
Oakley, 5; Otis Thorpe, 3; Danny
Alnge, Eddie Johnson. Xavier McDaniel,
Ken Norman, Doc Rivers and Kelly
Tripucka, 1.

[Owly]

Seriously do you think it's a good thing that your leading scorer is the player with the worst Ortg and TS% (by quite a distance). Because that's what '89 playoffs Isiah is.

If your pg is making a lot of their shots and being the leading scorer then that can work well for an offense (Oscar, Tiny). But if they're just taking more shots (e.g. Thomas' points advantage over Dumars, 0.6 points, coming from 2.7 extra field goals attempted) well that's not a great asset. It's certainly not leading your team to a title.

Regarding finals MVP not mattering because of small samples, then why would you weight the playoffs so heavily (as you have to put Isiah in this ballpark). It's small samples. We've got a much bigger RS sample to show what Isiah typically gave you.

Incidentally off the top of my head the best player to meet the above criteria (not leading by any of the metrics, RS or Playoffs, nor All-NBA nor particularly close to the team's best defender, nor FMVP) is Bosh. Did he lead his team to titles? Should he be in soon?

Where are the '89 All-NBA votes (was there significant support for Isiah? He was the same as Dumars in MVP balloting, a single 5th place vote each)?

Okay, I think Artis is severely overrated at #35, and it is by far the worst placing so far.
He was barely ever a Top 10 player, and had no impact on the playoffs in the NBA.
He led his team to an ABA title, but realistically there were at least 4 NBA teams in 1975 better than Kentucky.
Golden State, Chicago, Boston, and the Bullets.
1975 ABA best centers were 19 yo Moses. Swen Nater, and Billy Paultz. Some decent players, but no one close to all-star caliber.
Isiah at his peak was one of the Top 5 players in the league; even post peak he was good enough to lead two title teams in minutes played and assists. I don't think he is the next best player; but feel he is definitely ahead of Artis.




All-Pro voting

1989


Forwards— Karl Malone. Utah (85),
425; Charles Barkley, Philadelphia (80)
412.
Center — Akeem Olajuwon. Houston
(86), 379.
Guards — Magic Johnson, L.A.
Lakers (84), 423; Michael Jordan,
Chicago (84), 423.
Second Team
Forwards — Torn Chambers, Phoenix
(1), 174; Chris Mullin, Golden State,
137.
Center — Patrick Ewing, New York
117), 267.
Guards — John Stockton, Ulah (1),
224; Kevin Johnson, Phoenix, 131.
Third Team
Forwards — Dominique Wilkins, Atlanta
(2), 116; Terry Cummings, San
Antonio (11,70.
Center — Robert Parish, Boston (1),
70.
Guards— Dale Ellis, Seattle (1). 83;
Mark Price. Cleveland, 75.
Others receiving votes
Clyde Drexler, 65; Alex English, 58;
Islah Thomas, 57; Larry Nance, 45;
James Worthy (1), 40; Kevin McHale,
33; Moses Malone (1), 19; Joe Dumars,
16; Mitch Richmond, 12; Brad
Daugherty and Ron Harper, 9; Fat
Lever, 8; Mark Eaton and Mark
Jackson, 6; Bernard King and Charles
Oakley, 5; Otis Thorpe, 3; Danny
Alnge, Eddie Johnson. Xavier McDaniel,
Ken Norman, Doc Rivers and Kelly
Tripucka, 1.

It's moot at this point but your centers list missed Maurice Lucas and Caldwell Jones (at a lower level Mike Green -an NBA first round pick who got injured the year before the merger but managed a couple of comptent years in the NBA and Tom Owens and Robsich). And at the ABA only had ten teams.

And for what it's worth Sam Lacey was an NBA all-star that year. Now from what little I know I like his all round game, but this is a guy whose boxscore metrics rate him as a league average player, in large part because as a center he was shooting .464 (and that's his TS%). So whilst the ABA was about depth than the high end (except Gilmore) at center, I'm not sure these guys aren't even close to Lacey.

Then too as for Isiah as top 5, was he? His top MVP finish was 5th, once. MVP is far from perfect of course. RealGM PotY agrees though (once in top 5 at fifth). Both in '84. Metrics have him lower. So he has a one year peak where he's arguably the 5th best player (and by both polls certainly not close to top 3, one of a bunch of 4-8). Thereafter, as the top 5 gets stronger he's never higher on either list than seventh.

[penbeast0]

...
Okay, I think Artis is severely overrated at #35, and it is by far the worst placing so far.
He was barely ever a Top 10 player, and had no impact on the playoffs in the NBA.
He led his team to an ABA title, but realistically there were at least 4 NBA teams in 1975 better than Kentucky.
Golden State, Chicago, Boston, and the Bullets.
1975 ABA best centers were 19 yo Moses. Swen Nater, and Billy Paultz. Some decent players, but no one close to all-star caliber.
Isiah at his peak was one of the Top 5 players in the league; even post peak he was good enough to lead two title teams in minutes played and assists. I don't think he is the next best player; but feel he is definitely ahead of Artis....

Best 3 teams in the NBA that year were Washington, Boston, and (since they won the title) Golden State. I would put Kentucky up against any of them under ABA rules . . . under NBA rules, Kentucky's guards would be too small and Dampier (and to a lesser extent Averitt and Roche)'s 3 point shooting whch they used to create space for Gilmore would be negated. Kentucky's 2 spot was their weakest. As for the frontcourt matchup, remember, in addition to Artis having a long sold career in the NBA, their #3 option was PF Dan Issel who was a marginal All-star for another 10 years in the NBA as well and very similar to a modern stretch 4. Wil Jones was a decent player too; Julius Erving once said he was the defender who gave him the most trouble (and Kentucky's owner read that and went out and traded for him) as well as being a solid 12/8/2 or better combo forward.

And none of Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Silas, Cliff Ray, or Wilkes had the size to match up well with Gilmore either. Nor could Unseld, Silas, or Ray do much damage from outside or post up Gilmore so he was free to use his strength as a help defender while Issel man's up against Hayes or Cowens if they are midpost or higher. Wilkes would give Issel trouble if Barry gives up the ball but this is his rookie year and he wasn't the scoring threat he would later become. So, you are left with one of the guards, Chenier, Chaney, Charles Johnson, Porter, White, Beard, or someone off the bench having to step up against Kentucky's small guards without drawing the attention of Gilmore who is backing them up. Can be done . . . but really only Chenier and White were threats to do much and neither were unusually efficient.

Chicago had traded for Thurmond who was having his usual effect; great man defense, good team defense, terrible offense . . . but at least wasn't shooting as much. They had terrific defense everywhere starting 5 potential All-Defense candidates in Thurmond, Love, Walker, Sloan,and Van Lier but offensively were an inefficient jump shooting team that didn' pass particularly well. Sort of like Chicago was last year with Thibs only with better rebounding but without Noah's passing. Less of a playoff threat than they were in the regular season since everyone steps up their defense in the playoffs.

Now, to be fair, Kentucky is like Golden State, they weren't the best record in their league although they won the title so you have to include Denver too. But Kentucky stepped up in the playoffs where Boston, Washington, and Denver came up small . . . I feel all 5 teams (plus maybe the Nets) are pretty much on the same level, a little above the likes of Buffalo and Chicago in the NBA.

[penbeast0]

Quotatious has the numbers, this one goes to the A-Train.

[Doctor MJ]

I also have to bring up - and I know a lot of people don't see this as fair - Isiah's time as GM. Because aside from being one of the worst GMs in modern history, what was noteworthy was his obsession with guys whose best attribute was scoring. He was in love with Marbury saying he could be among the handful of greatest point guards in history. Brought in Francis, drafted Nate "I can't tell if you're open because I can't see you" Robinson. And that was just among point guards. The trend continued elsewhere.

To me that's not the behavior of the super-IQ playmaker, nor the tough-as-nails galvanizer of defenses. That's the behavior of a guy who most saw the game through a lens of scoring. And if he did, well then all the more reason to say he was lucky as hell to be with a coach and a team that emphasized his playmaking and focused on defense.

To put it simply, I don't see how his time as a GM should have any effect on his ranking. This project is about playing careers, not coaching or GMing. You're making assumptions about his mindset as a player based on actions he made after his playing career was over.

-----

I'm curious to see how you feel about this.

And for the record, i'd love to penalize isiah for his horrendous time as a GM in NY. After so many grating press conferences over the years, I have a hard time even watching him on NBA TV these days. I can't see holding that against him in this project, though.

Owly gave a great response, but in my own words:

1. I'm totally fine with you brushing this factor off.

2. I'm not saying anyone should put a direct penalty on a player if he does a bad job as a GM.

3. But when so much of a player's case is based on intangibles, we're already making our guess as to what was going on in his head while he played. If his time as a GM gives us better visibility into his head, I don't see how it makes sense to ignore that.

And in Isiah's case it's a very specific issue. I don't think much of McHale as a coach or a GM, but it's hard for me to see how that's relevant when looking at a career where he put up numbers that are so indisputable in a successful cause. But if you're making any argument along the lines of "You have to understand, Isiah was far better than someone like Iverson because first and foremost he was a guy who understood what was going on around him and doing just what was needed to be done", you have to at least admit that it was weird that Isiah didn't seem to be looking for that kind of ability at all from his players and instead focused on individual scoring ability in pretty much exactly the way we'd expect a casual fan, or Iverson, or anyone else who didn't understand the nuances of team basketball to do if he were a GM.

With Isiah I always come down saying that I'm not trying to sell him short. I see the stats and the accolades. I'm fine rating him in accordance to what those things say. But there's always been a vocal group of supporters who like Isiah saw him as the #4 player of his era, with a not so big gap between him and the Big 3 (Bird/Magic/Jordan) and a clear gap between everyone else, and that's the group that requires a leap of faith in Isiah that I just don't see any reason to take.

As I say all of this, I could see someone coming back at this stage saying, "Well sure but we aren't voting for Top 10 guys any more, it's time for Isiah to get in." That's understandable, I just still have some other guys not in yet I rate ahead of him.

[DQuinn1575]

It's moot at this point but your centers list missed Maurice Lucas and Caldwell Jones (at a lower level Mike Green -an NBA first round pick who got injured the year before the merger but managed a couple of comptent years in the NBA and Tom Owens and Robsich). And at the ABA only had ten teams.

And for what it's worth Sam Lacey was an NBA all-star that year. Now from what little I know I like his all round game, but this is a guy whose boxscore metrics rate him as a league average player, in large part because as a center he was shooting .464 (and that's his TS%). So whilst the ABA was about depth than the high end (except Gilmore) at center, I'm not sure these guys aren't even close to Lacey.

Those guys were close to Lacey. Sam was strong, a good defender, passer, and rebounder. But he was 6th best center in league with Thurmond failing. There were 5 guys - Unseld, Lanier, Cowens, Jabbar, McAdoo a lot better than anyone Gilmore faced. And that was how it was all during the ABA.

There was a golden age of centers with Unseld ,Lanier, Hayes ,Reed, Thurmond, Cowens, McAdoo, Jabbar joining Wilt and Russell. All of these guys were in the NBA, and all way better than any other ABA center.

Then starting in 1971/1972 the ABA started to get top college players. Unfortunately though the golden age of centers ended, and no great center entered either league except for Moses - at 19, and the oft-injured Walton.

[DQuinn1575]

Best 3 teams in the NBA that year were Washington, Boston, and (since they won the title) Golden State. I would put Kentucky up against any of them under ABA rules . . . under NBA rules, Kentucky's guards would be too small and Dampier (and to a lesser extent Averitt and Roche)'s 3 point shooting whch they used to create space for Gilmore would be negated. Kentucky's 2 spot was their weakest. As for the frontcourt matchup, remember, in addition to Artis having a long sold career in the NBA, their #3 option was PF Dan Issel who was a marginal All-star for another 10 years in the NBA as well and very similar to a modern stretch 4. Wil Jones was a decent player too; Julius Erving once said he was the defender who gave him the most trouble (and Kentucky's owner read that and went out and traded for him) as well as being a solid 12/8/2 or better combo forward.

And none of Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Silas, Cliff Ray, or Wilkes had the size to match up well with Gilmore either. Nor could Unseld, Silas, or Ray do much damage from outside or post up Gilmore so he was free to use his strength as a help defender while Issel man's up against Hayes or Cowens if they are midpost or higher. Wilkes would give Issel trouble if Barry gives up the ball but this is his rookie year and he wasn't the scoring threat he would later become. So, you are left with one of the guards, Chenier, Chaney, Charles Johnson, Porter, White, Beard, or someone off the bench having to step up against Kentucky's small guards without drawing the attention of Gilmore who is backing them up. Can be done . . . but really only Chenier and White were threats to do much and neither were unusually efficient.

Chicago had traded for Thurmond who was having his usual effect; great man defense, good team defense, terrible offense . . . but at least wasn't shooting as much. They had terrific defense everywhere starting 5 potential All-Defense candidates in Thurmond, Love, Walker, Sloan,and Van Lier but offensively were an inefficient jump shooting team that didn' pass particularly well. Sort of like Chicago was last year with Thibs only with better rebounding but without Noah's passing. Less of a playoff threat than they were in the regular season since everyone steps up their defense in the playoffs.

Now, to be fair, Kentucky is like Golden State, they weren't the best record in their league although they won the title so you have to include Denver too. But Kentucky stepped up in the playoffs where Boston, Washington, and Denver came up small . . . I feel all 5 teams (plus maybe the Nets) are pretty much on the same level, a little above the likes of Buffalo and Chicago in the NBA.

Bird Averitt and Ted McClain joined Dampier at guards.


Okay

Washington - James Jones was 3rd guard. So? He was 1st team All-ABA the year before.
Third guard in NBA. Huge backcourt advantage to Bullets.

Call Riordan and Jones a push.

Hayes/Unseld versus Issel/Gilmore - no way Issel/Gilmore overcome the huge backcourt advantage.

Boston - Westphal is 3rd guard. Once again, 3 guards better than Colonels' best.

Silas/Havlicek versus Issel/Jones at forward - advantage to Celts.

Cowens versus Gilmore - once again no way Gilmore overcomes prime Cowens by enough to win.


This site
http://courtsideanalyst.wordpress.com/2 ... lity-myth/

calls the SRS difference about 4 - which would make the Colonels/Nets/Nuggets about +2 SRS NBA teams.
Maybe ahead of Buffalo, but after the top 4 NBA teams.



Bulls - Van Lier and Sloan destroy Colonels' guards.

Bob Love is the player to offset Issel - he plays great defense, and can score -Issel is a
little better, but Love is a tough match-up for him.

Chet Walker versus Jones? Not really close.

Thurmond provides no offense, but enough defense so Artis doesn't go wild.

[penbeast0]

In 1972, the NBA didn't have Reed as much of a starter, he played in only 11 games. The Knicks starter was an aging Jerry Lucas who wasn't even scoring and rebounding that much anymore. Rapid expansion gave a lot of stiffs jobs in the NBA; the ABA may have had better quality median centers. (Oddly enough, the ABA was always weakest at guard). These are guys who probably wouldn't have started in the ABA but did start in the NBA:

Jerry Lucas (still a legit PF but not a good center), Bob Rule, Rick Roberson/Walt Wesley (split time), Zaid Abdul-Aziz, Cliff Meely, and Dale Schlueter.

Neil Walk in the NBA, Mike Lewis in the ABA are sort of my cut-off line for the bottom of the legit center pool. I'd like to throw Elmore Smith under the bus too, he was the JaVale McGee of the 1970s but his talent was similarly impressive enough that he would start in either league, especially in those post expansion years.

These are the stiffs starting in the ABA; at about half the number of teams in the NBA, there are also about half as many stiffs:

Ira Harge, Rick (House) Jones -- a legit starting PF but not a center, Gerald Govan (though he kept getting starts everywhere -- like the Collins brothers used to).