RealGM Top 100 List #21

[ronnymac2]

I've become re-impressed with Cowens as well.

Any takers for Sidney Moncrief? What about Marques Johnson and Bob Mcadoo, two insanely high peak players?

[Dr Positivity]

On the topic of Baylor. Are we sure he's not close to the same player Erving is? Both guys have their huge early years due to freak athleticism and skills and then lesser but still great play after that and knee problems. What does Erving do that much better than Baylor? He's more efficient, but in a more efficient era. I don't think the passing gap is *that* big, Erving is much closer to Pierce level than Lebron level as a playmaker and Baylor's assist stats are pretty damn good considering he played off West for so long and it was hard to get assists back then. When I watched Baylor, his passing looked pretty solid.

[therealbig3]

Nominate: Gilmore

[penbeast0]

Gervin and Nique were both one-dimensional players (well Nique was a good rebounder)...and Nique wasn't all that efficient either.

With all due respect, not only was Gervin a more efficient scorer than Nique, but I believe you will find he was a very good rebounder relative to other SGs (6 reb/36 v. Nique's 7reb/36) though Nique should be given the advantage there. He also has better block/steal numbers than Nique though they were two of the players that gave weight to the idea that scorers don't play defense. But mainly it's the efficiency that separates them . . . Gervin for his career scored more ppg on less shots/game than Nique.

Oh and in the playoffs, the efficiency gap gets a little wider and Gervin ends up scoring and rebounding more per game than Nique even though Nique plays more minutes with higher usage.

[therealbig3]

Gervin and Nique were both one-dimensional players (well Nique was a good rebounder)...and Nique wasn't all that efficient either.

With all due respect, not only was Gervin a more efficient scorer than Nique, but I believe you will find he was a very good rebounder relative to other SGs (6 reb/36 v. Nique's 7reb/36) though Nique should be given the advantage there. He also has better block/steal numbers than Nique though they were two of the players that gave weight to the idea that scorers don't play defense. But mainly it's the efficiency that separates them . . . Gervin for his career scored more ppg on less shots/game than Nique.

Oh and in the playoffs, the efficiency gap gets a little wider and Gervin ends up scoring and rebounding more per game than Nique even though Nique plays more minutes with higher usage.

Well yeah, I think Gervin should rank ahead of Nique, because he was a better scorer, and that was the only thing you could say either of them did very well. I was just pointing out that both of them could score, but didn't provide much else; but even in regards to scoring, Nique wasn't even that efficient.

[pancakes3]

i'm really curious at the pierce talk. considering that the project is emphasizing "peak play" and the fact that there are a LOT of players remaining that i can rattle off without much thought that should be voted in before him. guys like rodman, gervin, unseld, elvin hayes, ben wallace, iverson, moncrief, mourning, dwight, gilmore, mcadoo, grant hill's 5.5 spectacular seasons...

i mean really pierce is on the fringes of top 50 battling it out with (imo) mchale, mark price, mark jackson, kevin johnson, vince, dumars, mutombo and players of that ilk.

i have no problem putting DRob here but i think Baylor is sinking like a stone. i'll make a case for raw numbers - you can say it was padded in an era where the pace was blistering but the fact that he was able to put up 30 pts 17 reb seasons says something in and of itself. kobe may have been gunning shots in '06 but it's still darn impressive he notched the first 35ppg since Jordan. rodman padded rebounds, dwight chases blocks, and lebron monopolizes the ball. all are stat-padders to an extent yet the raw numbers are impressive because they're just so freakishly high. aren't baylor's numbers "freakishly high" ? can't we give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he was silly good because he came in 2nd in scoring to wilt while shooting better than the league average and was in the top 5 in rpg during an era where russ and wilt were de facto 1 and 2?

vote: baylor
nominate: unseld

[drza]

But again, I think some of what you wrote has to do with how generally underrated Pierce is. I think there were several years when Pierce should have made the All-NBA team, but he was snubbed in favor of McGrady and Iverson. Carter is a guy who I think has been snubbed by the media due to them not liking him, because his production warranted selections after 01.

And I'm more impressed with what Pierce was able to do with his Celtics teams pre-08 than what Carter was able to do with his Raptors/Nets, McGrady with the Magic/Rockets, and Iverson with the Sixers. Those guys had better teams to work with imo, especially McGrady in Houston, and they didn't do much outside of 01, when Carter and Iverson advanced pretty far. Pierce got to the Conference Finals in 02, and he led his team to the 2nd round over the favored Pacers in 03. And all the while, he's putting up big numbers. The only playoff run he struggled in was 04, in which his Celtics, who won 36 games and somehow made the playoffs, were just horribly overmatched against the Pacers, who won 61 games and had the best record in the league that year.

And I do put stock into APM numbers, but they're not 100% reliable either, and we don't even have APM numbers for all of the guys you mentioned (outside of Kidd), so for all we know, they could be in the same boat as Pierce.

In Engelmann's 10-year study, Pierce ranks 11th, ahead of Kidd. But Baron Davis, Chris Paul, and Manu Ginobili are 3 of the guys ahead of him, none of whom are a threat to him in this voting, except for maybe Paul, but for argument's sake, let's ignore him for now. So the 10-year study says Pierce is a top 8 player in his generation, and 5 of the guys ahead of him are already voted in, and the other two guys are Wade and Nash, who are already nominated and will likely be voted into the next 2-3 spots.

Pierce ranks 19th in Engelmann's 6-year study, but again, look at some of the names ahead of him: Bosh, Bogut, Davis, Aldridge, Nene, Amir Johnson, Deng, Collison, and Ginobili. Common sense and just watching them play should tell us that Pierce should rank over all of them over this time period. Pierce is now in top 10 territory from 06-11, and focusing on all-time ranking, again, two of the names are Paul and Howard, who I personally don't think have been around long enough to rank over Pierce all-time. So that's top 8 territory, with the same 7 guys ahead of him as in the last study.

The APM studies are useful, but like I said, they're not perfect, since you have a lot of guys being ranked very high that don't deserve to be there, so how do we know how accurately it's measuring Pierce's impact?

I understand we're talking about the top 30 players of all time, and it's exclusive company, but I definitely think Pierce belongs there. I mean, ignoring all accolades, and just breaking down Pierce's game: how many scorers not yet nominated or voted are better than Pierce? How many are better at rebounding for their position? How many are better defensively? How many are better at creating their own shot? How many are better at creating for others? And how many are as reliable in the playoffs? I don't think there are too many players left, if any, that have the all-around package that Pierce brings to the table. I don't think there's really a weakness to his game.

EDIT: And technically, I don't even have Pierce as a top 30 player all time. I have him 31 right now, but I don't know where to rank guys like Cowens, McAdoo, or Hayes, so Pierce might drop to 34 for all I know.

There are a few things in here that I want to reply to, but I don't want to make this into some type of anti-Pierce tangent, so I'm going to reply here then try not address this anymore.

My point in the last thread was that in general, no matter HOW you choose to quantify players, Pierce comes out in around the same range. I don't think it's a case of him being so underrated by the accolades. He only has the one 2nd team and three 3rd team All NBA nods...but even if you give him a few more, he'd still end up no better than the 10th - 15th range among his contemporaries on that front. He's 24th among active players in MVP shares. If you ignore accolades and move to the box scores, Pierce is 18th among active players in career PER. He's 16th among active players in career WS/48. If you move to the +/- realm, as I mentioned last post, let's say he even rounds up to around 10th among active players (though I don't necessarily agree with how you parsed it before...Kidd, for example, is several years older and was consistently ahead of Pierce until he got to his late 30s and Pierce surpassed him. And you can't just ignore Manu, either), again, he still hasn't separated himself from the secondary (perhaps even tertiary) level of his own generation.

My point is, whatever your cup of tea for quantifying players, Pierce just doesn't in any way separate himself from his peers in a way that makes me think he should be getting serious discussion yet. You say you'd take Pierce over the Iversons, TMacs, Carters, even Manus of his generation. and I don't even necessarily disagree with you. But I think Pierce vs those players is a legit, in-depth conversation to be had. And none of those guys are going to be nominated for awhile, most likely, when they are IMO Pierce's peers.

You mention Pierce's pre-07 team success, but I'd say even that is a dubious distinction. Pierce's Celtics, in 9 years, only 3 times had a record over .500, peaking at 49 wins. The Celtics' record over his career was well under .500 at 321 - 385. Yes, the 49-win team made the ECF, but you can't just ignore that the East was horrific for the early 2000s...the same way that Kidd's Nets or Iverson's Sixers making the Finals have to be viewed through the "East sucks and SOMEBODY had to make it" prism, the Celtics beating other average/below-average teams then getting beaten by another slightly above average team in the ECF isn't that impressive to me on a career front. Yes, Pierce's teams tended to be poor and he had reasonable success considering that...this is why I think his APM tends to be a bit higher than his box score stats would indicate. He had a good team impact, regardless of how bad his team results were. But again, neither those results nor, in fact, the APM measurements themselves do anything to separate Pierce from his peers in an All-time sense.

Finally, you ask what other scorers in NBA history like Pierce aren't nominated yet, then add to your criteria from there. I think that's the wrong approach. I'd ask, instead, what other players in NBA history that were better than him haven't been nominated yet. And as I mentioned in the first post of mine that you replied to, there are still several that I think warrant discussion before we get to Pierce. Reed and Cowens. Moncrief and Gervin. Kidd and Gilmore seem to be getting the most discussion now. Payton and Stockton have already gotten a lot of discussion as well. I actually agree with Pancake here...there are others here as well. You seem to be coming from the direction that Pierce is something of a given at this level and that the others need to have their cases proven over him. To me, it's the reverse...Pierce hasn't even really separated himself from his own peers, so to me he's the one that has to be proven that he's on this level. I haven't really seen that.

[mysticbb]

Vote: David Robinson

Nomination: Artis Gilmore

[Doctor MJ]

On the topic of Baylor. Are we sure he's not close to the same player Erving is? Both guys have their huge early years due to freak athleticism and skills and then lesser but still great play after that and knee problems. What does Erving do that much better than Baylor? He's more efficient, but in a more efficient era. I don't think the passing gap is *that* big, Erving is much closer to Pierce level than Lebron level as a playmaker and Baylor's assist stats are pretty damn good considering he played off West for so long and it was hard to get assists back then. When I watched Baylor, his passing looked pretty solid.

Well, here's a place where I think it's really important to think through exactly what a "more efficient" era is.

Baylor had only played for 5 seasons before his teammate West started volume scoring at an efficiency right up there with what guys like Erving and Kobe would eventually produce. West spent the rest of his career at around that level, and Baylor showed no obvious trend of improving his efficiency.

To me, you either have to knock Baylor for his efficiency next to the Erving's and Kobe's of the world, or you've got to give West a big bonus next to those guys. However, given that West's efficiency plateaued relatively early on, it always just seems odd to me to imagine that he'd take leaps forward from what we call solid modern efficiency to what would essentially be north of Jordan territory. I'm inclined to say that by the mid-60s, we see players worthy of modern superstardom interspersed with players who simply aren't making that transition.

More damning still for Baylor is that fact that he's literally got this next gen superstar next to him his whole career slaughtering his efficiency and he not only doesn't improve but keeps jacking up more shots than West basically until 1970. Granted coaches could have told him to stop, but a smart basketball player you'd hope would recognize when someone else has a better shot than you - and with West this was most of the time.

Now, it's entirely possible that with modern coaching these issues with Baylor go away, but again, I just don't see a way to let Baylor off the hook that doesn't involve either ignoring West's glaring superiority literally right next to him, or elevating West to GOAT scoring level.

[Doctor MJ]

-I tentatively have Artis Gilmore 51st. So I believe that's about the largest disconnect for myself and other members of this group. I say disconnect because it seems to be governed by no bias whatsoever. And with the exception of a few posters who watched him live (Penbeast, and who else?), we've all presumably seen the same Gilmore tape available and know the same information about him/his teams. Maybe some people haven't read the RPOY threads with reports about him or scoured archives as much, but I presume those aren't the people backing him as a top-30 player of all-time.

I'm open to hearing more of your thoughts. Typing out loud here, I'll put him next to other big men still out there. First, here are the RPOY shares for guys in the top 50:

23. Schayes 2.176
27. McAdoo 1.472
28. Walton 1.373
34. Howard 1.077
36. Mourning 0.843
39. Reed 0.684
40. Gilmore 0.681
42. Cowens 0.645
47. Lanier 0.519

Gilmore placing 7th certainly helps you with your point, but of course basically all of other guys have some longevity issues ('cept Schayes).

Let's look at career WS leaders among this bunch:

6. Gilmore 190
26. Schayes 142
46. Lanier 117
95. Mourning 90
99. McAdoo 89
107. Cowens 86
131. Howard 80
158. Reed 75
xxx. Walton 39

See the issue here for me? I'm not going to say there's a right way to factor in longevity, and WS aren't a perfect stat, but Gilmore's number literally dwarf every other big man on the horizon.

I look at that, and the fact that I really do think that Gilmore peaked early at a level pretty comparable to most the guys on that list, and I just don't see putting him below them.

Obviously then, I'm not going to wait another 20 spots before putting another big man on the list, so Gilmore's time if not now would be soon.

[lorak]

vote: Robinson
nomination: Stockton

[fatal9]

Vote: David Robinson
Nominate: Drexler

[Pistol Pete Vescey]

V: D-Rob
N: Jason Kidd

[Sedale Threatt]

Vote: David Robinson
Nominate: John Stockton

[Baller 24]

Vote: Wade

Nominate: Payton

[ElGee]

Well, Gilmore finished 8th in MVP voting two times. Pippen was top-10 5 times, despite that old narrative problem of playing next to Michael Jordan. Not actually saying that proves anything, but just from a ballpark standpoint, you'd have to provide some really nice evidence that it was Gilmore who had the better peak (I don't think he did, personally, so I'd need swaying).

More to your points, he has a fairly negligible statistical change in 1978 in his first NBA year. You say his assists go up, but his TOV go way up. His blck% is pedestrian. HIs scoring rate is 20.8 pts/75, but of course that team's ORtg was near the bottom of the league, so it's not like his offense was able to give a nice boost to a really weak offensive team.

You may want to point to 1982. He's still rebounding well (above avg. for center) and drops the old 70% TS...but the ast are way down so I assume that's a selectivity issue in changing his role/shot selection with the ball. (Anyone here follow the 82 Bulls??) His scoring rate was 19.7 that year.

Pippen, OTOH, well I've outlined in detail what he can give you with defensive-oriented teammates on offense. I'll say this about them defensively -- I don't see any clear evidence that Artis Gilmore was clearly a better defender. Maybe in the ABA, in which case we'd have to buy that his athleticism eroded quickly, which is not a good argument for him ranking this high on a GOAT list.

Btw, Pippen's scoring rate in 1994 was 22.5/75 pos. And 21.9, 20.9 and 21.4 in the ensuing seasons. Artis was absolutely more efficient...but was it from Tyson Chandler shot selection, if you know what I mean? THere's a massive difference in offensive value between a point-creator and primary scorer/self-creator and someone only taken what they are given.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the thing that makes it toughest for you to get accolades is not playing next to a superior player but playing next to weak, poorly constructed talent.

Your points about things like turnovers are well taken, but I just keep thinking: If you're knocking Gilmore for not putting up as big a numbers as you'd like, where does Pippen fit in with that? Gilmore's numbers by really any advanced metric are better than Pippen's. If you want to give Pippen the nod because of the areas not covered by stats, that's of course coherent, but I just get the sense that we aren't doing apple-to-apple comparisons. Gilmore's numbers are disappointing...if you are comparing with Kareem. But we're currently debating about the guy in line for spot 30 not spot 3, and I don't see how Gilmore falls short of Pippen just based on the numbers.

Re: Chandler's shot selection and Pippen's points per 75. I feel like I'm missing something here. By my count, in '81-82 Gilmore scored 19.9 points per 75 possessions and did it at 70.2% TS. So that's not far different from peak Pippen in volume but 70 instead of 55-ish TS. And you're saying that's something like 10 PPG Chandler? I can't think of any reasonable metric for rating scoring over replacement that wouldn't rate Gilmore drastically higher than Pippen.

Speaking to Pippen in general, he is someone very much on my mind among the candidates right now. I'll admit to feeling a bit down on him compared to how I've felt at other times.

I used to give him really a ton of credit for keeping the Bulls at 55 wins without Jordan. But really, we know by SRS the team wasn't that good, just lucky, we also know that compare the team to how it looked on all cylinders in '91-92, it wasn't anywhere close because of the lack of offense, and that Pippen's offensive numbers really didn't get drastically better without Jordan. Pippen is often portrayed as a guy who sacrificed drastically to play with Jordan, but without Jordan his numbers really stayed about the same.

None of this means that Pippen wasn't a great #2 to have, but whereas my skepticisms of John Stockton are about really not knowing if he would have been capable of Nash-levels in other circumstances, I feel like we know what Pippen was.

Hmm. I'm not trying to knock Gilmore's numbers, per se. I'm trying to knock Gilmore. The right guy in the right setting can be 20-10 and be an elite player. Another guy can merely be top-20 or worse. I was knocking the numbers specifically there to try and gain perspective on an inflated era for people who are easily swayed by those things. I mean, does no one find it weird that Artis Gilmore was never really considered a top player in the NBA?

re: Tyson Chandler. I'm not comparing Gilmore to Chandler as offensive equals. I'm suggesting that if Chandler's scores something like 13 pts/75 at 70% TS, it's because he gets a lot of his offense off of creation from teammates and offensive rebounds. That's not a bad thing, but it is one type of offense. It's basically secondary offense. It's the polar opposite of what Iverson did. Which means their efficiency (and skill curves) are on opposite ends of the spectrum. That's what I was equating to Gilmore -- he can be 20 and 70%, but there's nothing I see suggesting it's as good as someone like Paul Pierce's 20 and 55%, especially when factoring in the difference in pressure/creation in puts on a defense and what it does to help teammates.

What about those best early years from Gilmore?

1972 - Artis's rookie year. In generally, it's hard for me to believe rookies have the same impact they will have by even their second year. There's a learning curve in 99% of star players. That this is considered Gilmore's "peak" ITO of stats and accolades is concerning to me, particularly since the 1972 ABA is weak. (I don't think it's his peak as a player.) He finished 8th in RPOY voting, and his postseason was considered a bit of a flameout.

1973 - This season seemed less regarded than his 1972 season...which again, is a weird sign to me. He was the most discussed Colonel in the 3 FInals wins over Indiana, but what happened in the 4 losses? I recall reading UPI reports like Kentucky couldn't keep Indiana off the glass in G5 (21 Oreb to 9). I always felt there was waxing and waning in Gilmore's key series. Or in G1 (another loss) that Gilmore had 15 points and it was Issel who went for 33 and 20. Or in G7, 19 points (to lead the team at least) but no mention of him at all in a postgame wrap I've seen...

1974 – Gilmore finishes second in MVP voting to Dr. J (49 to 9), which makes sense to me as players should be getting better in their early years. The 1974 ABA is tougher, Dr. J is no slouch, and I think that's a nice recognition. However, we then get this, from the 4.29 issue of SI (pg 24):

Throughout the series the 6-11 Paultz engulfed his Colonel counterpart, Artis Gilmore, like a 240-pound sack of Silly Putty, holding to a 15-point scoring average and outplaying him overall

.

I like Bill Paultz, but that says way more about Gilmore than the Whopper to me. Reading the article, it seemed Paultz simply used position and strength to prevent Artis from getting easy baskets near the hoop. And this was coming off the best stretch of Artis's career, averaging 20-20+ since the AS break and going for 30-19 on 67% shooting in the first round. SI described the offense vs. New York as “inert and inept.” Gilmore finished 9th in RPOY, with a single vote.

1975 – One might think this is Artis' peak season, because his team won the title and he had 3 high profile games in the Finals, including a huge 4th quarter and a record 31 rebounds in the clinching G5. And it may have been a case of Artis maturing. But he didn't earn an MVP vote in the league (McGinnis, Erving, Calvin and Bobby Jones did). As for his playoffs and Finals v George McGinnis:

Gilmore's NBA FInals
G1: 26/13 -- McGinnis 35/12/9 (25 in 2nd half). Gilmore DQed with 8 min left and Colonels dominated.
G2: 12/15 -- Gilmore GW shot with 2 seconds left only score of 2nd half.
G3: 41/28 -- 11 OReb. McGinnis mildly sprains ankle.
G4: 18/18 -- Gilmore "wasn't much of a factor in 4th" (AP). McGinnis 22 pts 21 reb.
G5: 28/31 -- Gilmore's rebounds an ABA playoff record. McGinnis 31.

Gilmore's Finals avg: 25.0 ppg 21.0 rpg
McGinnis Finals avg: 27.6 ppg 14.0 rpg 6.4 apg

Gilmore through first 2 rounds: 23.7 ppg 15.9 rpg
McGinnis through first 2 rounds: 34.1 ppg 16.6 rpg 8.9 apg

1976 – Gilmore again without an MVP vote. In an SI piece by Curry Fitzpatrick, Issel is described as outplaying Gilmore in G7 of the series (and of course, David Thompson's 40-10-5). Gilmore isn't really spoken of in the Nuggets series recaps that I can find, but Thompson comes across as the best player in the series (and someone I think highly of anyway). Gilmore does have a notable G3, as he “added 36 points,” (15-20, 16 reb) but Bird Averitt was the headliner with 18 of his 40 in the 4th. (Bird also had 34 to avoid elimination in G6.) In G4 Artis had 22. In G6 he had 21 in 2 OT (Issel had 22).

1977 – If we are working under the assumption that this is still a good year for Gilmore (and 78 too), we need to be fair and note he didn't make an all-nba team because of Walton and Jabbar. But at 27 years old, he also didn't make the All-Star team. That isn't simply a function of team play or ABA bias, that's just a reflection of how people thought of him. And as has been discussed, the Bulls defense only improved slightly. The offense does improve considerably, so one has to gauge whether they think that is because of the presence of Gilmore. His shooting does drop 3% and I assume his turnovers spike if we look at 1978 data.

[penbeast0]

I've become re-impressed with Cowens as well.

Any takers for Sidney Moncrief? What about Marques Johnson and Bob Mcadoo, two insanely high peak players?

They should start getting some play soon but they share one problem with Dwyane Wade . . . their peaks lasted only about 5 years with a sharp dropoff after that due to injury for Moncrief and Marques and substance abuse for McAdoo (same could be said for Mel Daniels and David Thompson). 5 years beats the 1 year for Bill Walton or 2-3 years for Connie Hawkins but it's still pretty short compared to a guy like Drexler or Pierce.

[penbeast0]

...
1977 – If we are working under the assumption that this is still a good year for Gilmore (and 78 too), we need to be fair and note he didn't make an all-nba team because of Walton and Jabbar. But at 27 years old, he also didn't make the All-Star team. That isn't simply a function of team play or ABA bias, that's just a reflection of how people thought of him. And as has been discussed, the Bulls defense only improved slightly. The offense does improve considerably, so one has to gauge whether they think that is because of the presence of Gilmore. His shooting does drop 3% and I assume his turnovers spike if we look at 1978 data.

Actually the Bulls defense improved considerably dead average (9th/18) to outstanding (2nd/22) in 1977 while at the same time the offense went from worst in the league(18/18) to crummy (15/22) as they didn't use Gilmore as the main man the way Kentucky did. If fact, Chicago never used Gilmore as more than a 3rd option -- makes no sense to me as he was setting all time efficiency marks later on but they just didn't think that way. (and not just Ed Badger but Jerry Sloan so it may have been Gilmore's personality or practice habits)

The comments you are thinking of refer to 78 when the Bulls fell apart defensively (20/22) though the offense improved (7/22). And the defense stayed crummy (though not THAT crummy) whle the offense continued to be up and down throughout Gilmore's tenure. Though, again, in Gilmore's ABA days, Kentucky had a very good defense despite the other big minutes guys next to Gilmore being Dan Issel and Louie Dampier who were both known as weak defenders.

Oh, and the 3rd center on the West All-Star team was Bob Lanier in his peak season (25/12/3) although Detroit was never a good defensive team -- still the numbers are there and Gilmore was expected to be Kareem level coming to Chicago (and only took 13 shots a game to Lanier's 20) so they were doomed to disappointment. Does make me wonder if Gilmore just quit on Chicago defensively after 77 because they didn't make him feel wanted -- if so that's a definite knock against him -- or if he really couldn't get the ball in the post or challenge defensively as much because of his much more limited mobility after the knee surgery -- although then how do you explain 77 -- but yes, his time in Chicago was a definite disappointment considering his talent level. Was he as good as he could have been? No. Was he still an all-time great who belongs in the top 30? Yeah, probably, there just aren't that many superathletic 7 footers to choose from and he's still a top 10 center all-time.

[Baller 24]

Stockton's getting a lot of love, and it seems more or so that it's based on valuing his career accomplishments to the fullest extent. For example, why so much love for Stockton over someone like Drexler? Who elevated his game in the playoffs. Perfect example, in '95 when the Rockets got him, they were expecting a big finish to end the season off, but that wasn't the case. Once the P/S started, it seemed straight from the first game that this is a very different team compared to what we saw during the season with Clyde. We all know the story, he eventually adapated, had some big games in the playoffs, and some big moments in the finals to win the championship. Now even prior to that, big-game player, showed up, impacted a team, mentally one of the more smarter players in the league. Check out this article I found researching some things on Drexler:

JOE FREEMAN
The Oregonian

Forget what you've heard about the man called "The Glide," because the leaping ability and athleticism that allowed him to allegedly beat Olympic sprinter Carl Lewis in a footrace and literally jump over Memphis State's Andre Turner during an infamous college dunk was not the secret behind the success.

No, the Trail Blazers first learned Clyde Drexler was going to be special in the summer of 1983, when he sat down with a pencil in a room at the team's offices in Portland for a four-hour psychology test.

Designed by doctor and psychologist Bruce Ogilvie to help teams measure an athlete's mental framework and intelligence, the test was administered to every player former Blazers general manager Stu Inman drafted. He hoped to procure insight into the type of professional athlete a prospect might become and Drexler, as was the case throughout his illustrious career, didn't disappoint.

"Bruce called Stu Inman afterward and asked, 'Is there any way Clyde could have seen the test before he took it?' " said Harry Glickman, the Blazers' founder. "And Stu says, 'No way, that's impossible.' So Bruce says, 'Well, I've tested literally hundreds of athletes and Clyde just came back with the second-best profile ever.' "

Only two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback and future Pro Football Hall of Famer Roger Staubach had fared better. And the legend began.

Drexler blossomed into a Basketball Hall of Famer, Olympic gold medal winner and one of the NBA's top 50 all-time players with a combination of unheralded intelligence and celebrated athleticism. He holds 11 Blazers records, and when he retired after a 15-season career, the acrobatic, 6-foot-7 shooting guard finished as the third player in NBA history to accumulate at least 20,000 points, 6,000 rebounds and 6,000 assists, joining Oscar Robertson and John Havlicek.

But Drexler's impact on the city of Portland and its only major professional sports franchise extends beyond the victories he helped achieve and the team records he established.

When the Blazers drafted Drexler with the No. 14 selection of the 1983 draft -- one pick lower than where the team is slated to pick Thursday -- they set a course for the franchise's future. He would become the face of the organization, and during the 111/2 seasons that he donned the red and black, the Blazers were a model of consistency, character and success, a mirror image of their star.

Drexler's selection also had a ripple effect on future player drafts -- most notably the infamous 1984 selection of Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan -- as the front office constructed a team to complement its superstar.

Perhaps no player has made a more profound or lasting impact in Blazers history than Drexler, who guided the Blazers to 11 consecutive playoff appearances, two NBA Finals and a record number of home sellouts before he was traded to the Houston Rockets in 1995.

The resurgent Blazers appear to be on the cusp of another golden era of success, and Drexler, who turns 46 on Sunday, will take notice from his home in Houston as young players assume the esteemed role he once held.

A fateful decision

To this day, Blazers fans lament the Blazers' decision to draft Bowie, a promising 7-foot-1 center from Kentucky, over Jordan with the No. 2 pick in 1984. But at the time, it certainly made sense.

The Blazers had drafted Drexler the previous year, and although he averaged 7.7 points in three starts during his rookie season, the front office was confident it had a budding star. The Blazers also had Jim Paxson, an NBA All-Star who led the team in scoring (21.3 points per game) during the 1983-84 season, so drafting another shooting guard would have been comparable to Kevin Pritchard, the Blazers' current general manager, drafting a high-profile center to sit behind Greg Oden.

"Had we won the flip, we would have taken (Hakeem) Olajuwon," then-coach Jack Ramsay said about the 1984 draft. "There were thoughts that Patrick Ewing was coming out that year, and we would have taken him, too, but he elected to stay in college. So we went with Bowie. We needed a center."

But the decision hangs like a dark cloud over the Blazers, if not Drexler. Jordan developed into perhaps the best player in NBA history, winning five MVP awards and six championships with the Chicago Bulls, while becoming a marketing icon for Nike, whose headquarters sit in the Blazers' backyard.

Bowie lasted five injury-plagued seasons with the Blazers.

"One of the unfortunate things is that Clyde played at the same time as Michael Jordan," Glickman said. "He would have gotten a lot more recognition if there was no Jordan around. But the truth is, had we drafted Michael, I don't think he and Clyde would have played together."

Instead, the two became opponents. During the 1992 NBA Finals, even though Drexler led the Blazers in scoring in each game, the lasting image is of Jordan shrugging his shoulders after making his sixth three-pointer in Game 1. Chicago won the series in six games; the Blazers haven't returned to the Finals.

Drexler and Jordan, because of the 1984 draft, are inexplicably linked in the eyes of Blazers fans, but it doesn't even register with Drexler.

"It's never bothered me at all," Drexler said. "I didn't compare myself to anyone. Our games were similar, and Michael was darn good, so I always took it as a complement. I didn't feel like I was in anybody's shadow, ever. I had too much game for that."

Teammates say Drexler was too confident and determined -- as Ogilvie's test foreshadowed -- to let any comparisons stall his career.

"Knowing Clyde the way I do, I can assure you that Clyde couldn't have cared less," Jerome Kersey, Drexler's teammate of 10 years, said. "I think at times, he said, 'You know what? I'm a different person than Jordan is. He is who he is and I am who I am.' But Clyde didn't care one way or the other. Clyde is his own guy."

Well-rounded leader

During his career, Drexler exhibited an unusual blend of grace and power on the court. His dunking prowess, athleticism and scoring ability are what most remember -- "We used to look at each other on the bench and say, 'Did you just see what he did?' " Kersey said -- but he also was a demanding team leader who worked hard and expected the same from his teammates.

Off the court, Drexler was positive and well-informed. He stayed on top of current events, read often, and frequently called team owner Paul Allen late at night, sometimes after games, to chat. He always seemed to be doing something. Everywhere he went, Drexler was stoic and, according to Allen, "a larger-than-life personality." He also was a generous and compassionate friend.

"My first experience with Clyde came after I was drafted," Kersey said. "There was a fashion show going on and I didn't own a suit when I first got to town. So Clyde found out and actually gave me one of his suits. Most people kind of thought Clyde was hard. But he was soft-hearted and easy-going."

Added longtime backcourt mate Terry Porter: "Clyde's whole game was about being consistent every night, and I think he did a tremendous job of showing what the franchise was all about. When you talk about character, those teams had a lot of character and determination, and I think he was a young man that wanted to be successful and really took a lot of pride in putting on a Blazers uniform and representing the city and state."

[ElGee]

Gilmore v Walton

Game details packaged here for those who want them. Otherwise, jump to the bottom for conclusions.

11/25/76 (117-115 Por OT win)
Gimore: 10-10-1 (3-10 4-5) in 34 min, 5 fouls
Walton: 18-18-2 (8-16 2-5) in 45 min, 4 fouls

12/28/76 (*Walton 7 key final points in 3 rebounds in waning minutes 84-79 Por win)
Gilmore: 10 pts (2 Fts in 2nd half)
Walton: 29-18

[01/01/77 -No Walton. Gilmore 15 pts in Por win]

[2/18/77 – No Walton. Gilmore 6 pts in 90-87 Por win]

PS
G1 96-83 win (Lucas hit 10 straight shots)
Gilmore 13-14-1 (5-12 3-3) in 44 min 5 fouls
Walton 11-9-6 5 (4-9, 3-3) in 39 min, 5 fouls

G2
Gilmore 27-13
Walton 24-17-?

G3
Gilmore 16-14-0 (5-9, 6-7) in 42 min 3 fouls
Walton 17-11-4 (8-14 1-4) in 38 min 6 fouls

A Eugene Register-Guard report says “Portland was worried Gilmore would take over the game” but he never did.

11/23/77 (116-111 Por win)
Gilmore 16-12-4 (6-15 4-6) in 42 min 3 fouls 0 blocks
Walton 22-15-3 (7-17 8-11) in 39 min 5 fouls 2 blocks

12/27/77 (115-106 Chi win)
Gilmore 25-10-5 (8-14 9-11) in 40 min 5 fouls 3 blocks
Walton 15-9-5 (6-13 3-4) in 37 min 3 fouls 4 blocks

01/03/78 (92-90 Por win)
Gilmore 27-12-1 (11-17 5-8) in 39 min 3 fouls (“brilliant battle w Walton”)
Walton 15-17-8 (7-14 1-2) in 40 min 3 fouls

2/26/78 (98-97 Por win)
Gilmore 23-12-2 (8-15 7-17) in 42 min 0 fouls
Walton 13-14-6 (7-17 0-2) in 34 min 6 fouls

--

Available Totals:
Gilmore (9g) 18.6 ppg (8g) 12.1 rpg (7g) 2.0 apg 13.1 FGA's (50.0%) 8.1 FTA's (66.7%) in 40.4 mpg
Walton (9g) 18.2 ppg 14.2 rpg (8g) 4.7 apg (7g) 14.3 FGA's (47.0%) 4.4 FTA's (58.1%) in 38.9 mpg

vs. rest of league 77-78
Gilmore 20.9 ppg 11.5 rpg 2.9 apg 14.4 FGA's 54.4% 7.6 FTA's (68.4%) in 36.1 mpg
Walton 18.8 ppg 13.8 rpg 4.3 apg 14.8 FGA's 52.8% 4.7 FTA's (71.4%) in 33.8 mpg

That's a per36 decline of 1.1 assists for Artis and 2.7 FGA's. Both players see their scoring take a comparable hit, with Gilmore dropping 4.4% in shooting and holding Walton 5.8% below his average. Also note that Gilmore was much better in 1978 than in 1977 against Portland. I regard Walton as way better than his box suggests and Gilmore as worse than his suggests, so please don't think I'm presenting these numbers to equate their play.

For my money, kind of what I'd expect from Gilmore in 1977, and maybe a little better in 1978. I'll give him some credit there. He didn't have someone like Mo Lucas next to him either.