Real GM Top 100 List #27

[penbeast0]

Couple of things:

1. Walton had zero playoff impact except for his one magic season plus one as a reserve in Boston; instead his teams collapsed every year during his prime because he was a player that the teams built around then were unable to do much with his reserve (even though they had to make sure to get and pay a competent backup center like Tom Owens or Sven Nater who could start when Walton had his inevitable injury). It's a damn shame because he was a great player to watch but Walton's injuries give him almost a negative value for his career -- your team has ONE chance to catch lightning in a bottle with him in a key role and every other year will fall apart (and that one chance may not happen). I don't think you can exclude his injuries; they were the most relevant factor when GMing with him over the course of his career -- I don't think any other player was as hurt by injuries or had them hurt his team as much, the only ones that are close are Connie Hawkins and Maurice Stokes.

If he had had even a 5 year prime like Grant Hill or Sidney Moncrief, he'd be in the conversation and probably one of our top 25 as the next center after David Robinson (or even before if he won another title). But 1 year just isn't enough to compete with guys like Gilmore (who also won a title and had a lot of solid years), Cowens, Unseld, etc.

Dwight (greatest defensive impact and very good offense) v. Hayes (longevity, very good defense, mixed offensive impact) v. McAdoo (great offense, weak defense, attitude/drug issues), v. McHale (very good offense, very good defense, mediocre rebounding) . . . I would rate them (1) Dwight, (2) McHale, (3) Hayes, (4) McAdoo -- Hayes may have been an annoying jerk but McAdoo was a selfish addict toward the end of his prime and it showed despite some individual brilliance in his tenure in NY and Boston. I think Cowens v. Hayes is an interesting comparison and have no problem with Unseld, Mutombo, or (possibly the best of the bunch after Dwight) Zo getting into the conversation.

[penbeast0]

Dwight Howard has played 7 full seasons -- about the same number of games as Wade in one less year without the injuries. In that time, he has 4 top 5 MVP finishes, 3 Defensive Player of the year awards, has led the league in rebounding 3 times, and for the last 5 years has averaged over 30ppg with a TS% over .600 each of those years. That seems impressive enough to put him over the defensively weak McAdoo with his selfishness and substance issues or even Pierce though Pierce certainly has a longevity advantage.

And amidst frequent turnover on both teams' rosters, the Magic have gone deeper into the playoffs than the Celtics twice since Howard has been in the league. One of those was in Pierce's injury season, when the Celtics missed the playoffs and the Magic got swept in the first round.

While team success alone of course proves very little, that does cast some doubt as to whether Howard has been so much better than Pierce since coming into the league as to make up for all the many more years that Pierce has played well. E.g, it's still 9 all-star appearances vs. 5, and none of Pierce's (or Howard's for that matter) were of the undeserved Yao/Carter variety.

I don't think you can use team success as an argument for Pierce over Dwight Howard. First, Pierce's Boston teams sucked for a long time with similar PF types in Antoine Walker and Rashard Lewis while Orlando has been pretty solid from Howard's 21st birthday on. Secondly, while Pierce's Boston team has had great success since Kevin Garnett came on board, Kevin Garnett was the best player and Howard has taken his team to the finals with a supporting cast of . . . . Jamaar, Hedo, and Rashard?

[drza]

I don't think you can exclude his injuries; they were the most relevant factor when GMing with him over the course of his career -- I don't think any other player was as hurt by injuries or had them hurt his team as much, the only ones that are close are Connie Hawkins and Maurice Stokes.

That was the entire point of my post. You don't exclude the injuries, but you note that these days injuries that were career altering/ending in the past no longer are today. If a player tore his ACL in the 60s, he might be done or much diminished. A torn ACL in the 2000s is 6 months missed. A player that needed microfracture even in the 90s ended up like Penny Hardaway...a decade later, Jason Kidd and Amare Stoudemire have microfracture and barely miss a beat. And in Walton's case, he had chronic foot issues of an order similar to what Ilgauskas faced...but whereas they killed Walton's career, 25 years later Ilgauskas was able to get newer surgeries and play a long and healthy career.

I don't think you exclude the injuries, or just pretend that Walton was an iron man. But again, following the OP, we're supposed to take era differences into account. Walton, Hawkins and Stokes, in a different era, likely have relatively longer and more productive careers. You can't project improvements, I don't think, but if a player is all-world (like Walton was) and his ONLY knock is injuries, at least some of which are potentially era prevented, then I think we SHOULD take that into account. Again, that is, if the OP is true and we're focusing as much as possible on player quality and not holding his circumstances against him.

[pancakes3]

You forget about: "slightly above average during several best seasons"

And yes, he improved Rockets offense by about 2.5 pts as a rookie, but they still were very bad offensive team (-3.2 ortg). So overall Hayes impact on offense isn't too impressive and it's no surprise as he was very ineffective scorer and didn't provide anything more to offense except scoring.

it just seemed odd that you went out of your way to highlight the two seasons where his impact would be most visible - the two seasons where he was initially added to a team - and then went on to dismiss it by stating that his overall impact was negligible or negative. i did catch the "slightly above average during best seasons" but it was in parenthesis as an afterthought. the bulk of the message was that he was ineffective on offense when the data provided said otherwise.

furthermore, if we're going to be consistent in this project, Garnett's advanced stats said that he had a large impact on his Wolves teams even if their overall rankings on defense were middling at best.

and at this rank, i don't know how high an impact we're expecting out of our players. the 35-45th best player of all time isn't going to flip a team's offense from dead last to first. Nique as a rookie took an 18th ranked offense and bumped it up to an 18th ranked offense. Peaked at 11th in '86. Shaq himself when he went to the lakers actually had a -3.1 ortg.

on the other hand, Dwight has had a hell of an impact going from dead last before he was drafted to first in a span of 5 seasons.

i don't know what my point is. i'm just musing. my personal, possibly homeristic opinion is that Hayes isn't a "very" ineffective scorer. i'm not even sure what that means in this context.


Edit to add: I think DRZA brings up a pretty interesting and valid point. however we should be careful in interpretation because it's very well possible that Walton was capable of sustaining his dominant 1.5 cumulative seasons in portland any more than TMac was able to sustain his '03 season, Shaq his '00 season, or KG his '04 season.

[Laimbeer]

I don't think you exclude the injuries, or just pretend that Walton was an iron man. But again, following the OP, we're supposed to take era differences into account. Walton, Hawkins and Stokes, in a different era, likely have relatively longer and more productive careers. You can't project improvements, I don't think, but if a player is all-world (like Walton was) and his ONLY knock is injuries, at least some of which are potentially era prevented, then I think we SHOULD take that into account. Again, that is, if the OP is true and we're focusing as much as possible on player quality and not holding his circumstances against him.

That's quite a leap.

What about Grant Hill or McGrady? Because they had modern techniques, we don't upgrade them?

[Laimbeer]

For me, Isiah, Stockton and Hondo stand out at this point. Hondo probably has the slightest of edges though I'd be good with any of the three. Hondo also appears to have the best shot.

Cousy remains a clear choice for the nomination.

Vote: Hondo
Nominate: Cousy

Am I turning into a Celtic whore? I HATE that team.

[Laimbeer]

Consensus rating of players nominated

17 John Havlicek SG/SF
21 Isiah Thomas PG
23 Rick Barry SF
26 John Stockton PG
36 Jason Kidd PG
39 Patrick Ewing C
41 Gary Payton PG
42 Clyde Drexler SG
38 George Gervin SG
72 Artis Gilmore C

[Laimbeer]

Consensus Rating of Top Players Not Nominated

22 Bob Cousy PG
32 Willis Reed PF/C
33 Elvin Hayes PF/C
34 Kevin McHale PF
35 Dave Cowens PF/C
37 Allen Iverson G
40 Dolph Schayes PF
44 Tiny Archibald PG
45 Dominique Wilkins SF
46 Wes Unseld C

[lorak]

You forget about: "slightly above average during several best seasons"

And yes, he improved Rockets offense by about 2.5 pts as a rookie, but they still were very bad offensive team (-3.2 ortg). So overall Hayes impact on offense isn't too impressive and it's no surprise as he was very ineffective scorer and didn't provide anything more to offense except scoring.

it just seemed odd that you went out of your way to highlight the two seasons where his impact would be most visible - the two seasons where he was initially added to a team - and then went on to dismiss it by stating that his overall impact was negligible or negative. i did catch the "slightly above average during best seasons" but it was in parenthesis as an afterthought. the bulk of the message was that he was ineffective on offense when the data provided said otherwise.

Look, data shows that Rockets and Bullets slightly improved offensively in Hayes first seasons. But:
1. they were still very bad offensively (Rockets 1969) or barley above average (Bullets 1973), so how much is it worth when bad team improves by 1 or 2 points?
2. There were also other changes which had more to do with slightly offensive improvement than Hayes: Barnett and Adelman in 1969 and Riordan and Porter (!) in 1973.

We also know that over course of his career Hayes teams almost always were bad offensively.
W also know that he was very infective scorer. You ask what it means? Well, look:

Code: Select all

1983-84    -9,3
1982-83    -1,6
1981-82    -2,6
1980-81    -5,2
1979-80    -3,9
1978-79    -0,7
1977-78    -2,6
1976-77    3,3
1975-76    -0,3
1974-75    -0,6
1973-74    -3,3
1972-73    -2,1
1971-72    -3,3
1970-71    -3,2
1969-70    -1,9
1968-69    -0,8


That's Hayes TS% relatively to league average. That is simply horrible, only one year when he was above LA.

And of course on offense he didn't provide much more outside of scoring.

That's why I think his overall offensive impact was around 0, in some best season slightly above average, but in more even negative. He was much better on defense.

And BTW, we still have non nominated players who had big (bigger than Hayes) offensive or defensive impact: for example KJ on offense or Dwight, Thurmond, Mourning and Ben on defense.

[drza]

I don't think you exclude the injuries, or just pretend that Walton was an iron man. But again, following the OP, we're supposed to take era differences into account. Walton, Hawkins and Stokes, in a different era, likely have relatively longer and more productive careers. You can't project improvements, I don't think, but if a player is all-world (like Walton was) and his ONLY knock is injuries, at least some of which are potentially era prevented, then I think we SHOULD take that into account. Again, that is, if the OP is true and we're focusing as much as possible on player quality and not holding his circumstances against him.

That's quite a leap.

What about Grant Hill or McGrady? Because they had modern techniques, we don't upgrade them?

There's no rule for how to handle it, just like there's no rule about any of how we interpret the criteria. But I just don't think there should be a one-way street when we decide how era difference should be handled. Almost universally, we wonder how playing in the past BENEFITTED older players...smaller leagues, more watered down leagues, athletic ability, offense sophistication, etc. As such, the tendency is generally to downgrade past players more, comparatively speaking, than present players. And based on those areas, it's a fair thing to do.

Well, this is an example that is reversed. That, pretty clearly, present-day players (on the whole) can have distinct longevity advantages due to modern medicine. Similarly, as someone pointed out in the original Top 100 thread, very old school players tended to play many more minutes per game than their present day contemporaries, likely also leading to extra burnout and shorter careers.

Again, just something to keep in mind. I'm not projecting Walton anywhere near a full, healthy career (if so he'd likely long-since have been in the mix). But I think projecting him to play in 61 games per year instead of 51 (on average) and finishing another few seasons is a reasonable thing to do. For me. Your mileage may vary.

[penbeast0]

If we were talking about saying a guy who had a 5 year peak might be comparable to a guy with a 7 or 8 year peak today I could see it, but you are saying a guy who had ONE healthy year as a full time player should be considered the equivalent of "finishing a few seasons" . . . I think you have to project him as having a couple of more 61 game starting seasons where he still didn't make it to the playoffs -- two would be very very generous; just too much of a jump to suddenly assume he's THAT much more healthy.

[drza]

If we were talking about saying a guy who had a 5 year peak might be comparable to a guy with a 7 or 8 year peak today I could see it, but you are saying a guy who had ONE healthy year as a full time player should be considered the equivalent of "finishing a few seasons" . . . I think you have to project him as having a couple of more 61 game starting seasons where he still didn't make it to the playoffs -- two would be very very generous; just too much of a jump to suddenly assume he's THAT much more healthy.

As I said, your mileage may vary. I don't think projecting someone to have a few more finished seasons with modern medicine behind them is unreasonable at all.

[drza]

This turned into a much more drawn out conversation about injuries/Walton than I initially intended. I was just trying to put out there that we maybe should consider how playing further in the past could have hurt some players, the same way we think about whether it helped them. But now I'd like to move back to thoughts on this particular thread.

I'm guessing that Ewing is going to win this one. Last round I was debating Baylor and Ewing, so I'm definitely leaning in that direction. But that said, I haven't yet tried a Barry or Hondo vs Ewing comp, so it's not set in stone. Also, as I mentioned before, I'm ready to talk about Isiah. Hopefully I'll have the time to post some things about him today, but if not it'd be cool to see some in depth coverage about Zeke.

As for the nominations, with Kidd getting in last round I'm in the process of evaluating who else is out there. The Dwight Howard case mentioned in the early posts is pretty credible, and he could be the early leader in the clubhouse. BigThree and Fencer have done a good job getting Pierce on the radar. TMac had an outstanding Dominique post last thread, and he's in the mix. Thank you to DavidStern and PenBeast for giving me some things to chew on about Hayes. Mourning, Moncrief, McAdoo, Cowens and Reed are alll in it for me as well. And of course, at this point it's well established that I'm thinking about Walton as well.

All in all, there are a lot of candidates worthy of discussion right now.

[pancakes3]

I agree with drza to an extent. a foot injury "improperly" healed is a curse for life but thanks to doctors Yao Ming almost doubled his career from 4 to 7 seasons before falling apart. however, the flip side of that coin is that there is only so much medicine can do. bone-frail guys like Walton will be chronically injured no matter what. a broken bone isn't like a torn tendon. surgery still has a long ways to go before broken ankles/feet injuries can be shaken off without a noticeable drop in ability.

[ElGee]

vote: Patrick Ewing
nominate: Tracy McGrady

Still haven't heard a persuasive reason to go Pierce here. Again, keep in mind that they are basically neck and neck to me...but I think "how to differentiate McGrady from Pierce?" The biggest tiebreakers for me are "who do I trust?" and "who impresses me more?"

McGrady, obviously, could do things on a court PP couldn't do. Pierce, OTOH, was one of the great big game players of this decade. Some people like to say "I might take Pierce over Kobe for a single big game..." and that's really not a bad idea. When you score 30 in the first half of your first big career game (G5 2002 v Philly), it's a good sign.

BUT, McGrady is subject to Losing Bias. If I rewatch those key games vs. Dallas and Utah in the Houston years in question, well, he was really really good. I remember thinking that at the time, and feeling a little bad that he was taking a wrap for losing in the first round...as if he had anything to do with it (and then he cried in the presser). Switch situations, and the reputations might be switched.

[Gongxi]

If voting Cowens will be wasting my vote, I'll enter the Piece/McGrady/Howard debate (that's how I'm seeing it). I like Moncrief, KJ, and McAdoo here, but if I'm changing my vote to count, I'm not going to change it them. So it's between McGrady and Howard and I'll lean Howard here.

[Dr Positivity]

My argument for Pierce vs Tmac, if nothing else, is just longevity and kicks at the can.

But even past that, I struggle with Tmac's impact outside of 2003. How do you lead a team to a 1-19 start to a season in your prime? That's a DANGER! DANGER! red flag for a player's impact to me. And I know he or Yao were on and off the court a lot, but when they did play, they didn't feel like a title contender to me. IMO Tmac and Yao did not have synergy like say, Kobe and Pau. I don't feel Tmac and Yao do much better if they stay healthy. We saw them get beat in 07 with Battier as a perfect 3rd wheel (though Tmac was past his prime arguably), and in 05 with not as much depth.

I don't feel Tmac, ever quite got it. And getting it is pretty darn important.

[ElGee]

If we were talking about saying a guy who had a 5 year peak might be comparable to a guy with a 7 or 8 year peak today I could see it, but you are saying a guy who had ONE healthy year as a full time player should be considered the equivalent of "finishing a few seasons" . . . I think you have to project him as having a couple of more 61 game starting seasons where he still didn't make it to the playoffs -- two would be very very generous; just too much of a jump to suddenly assume he's THAT much more healthy.

As I said, your mileage may vary. I don't think projecting someone to have a few more finished seasons with modern medicine behind them is unreasonable at all.

I think this is a great point drza. I was the one who brought up MP in the 60s, I do a slight adjustment for those kinds of things in my mind...such as Baylor being voted in last round. I've never thought of it that way with Walton, probably because of the structural mess that was his body, but it's possible modern medicine would have dealt with that much more effectively from his adolescence.

I mean, quite plausibly, he could have had a career that looked like Yao Ming's. Not saying I'm treating Walton like that at all, but a little mental curve up for him based on medicine at the time, and even how Portland treated the situation, is fair. (Have we all forgotten about the lawsuit and messy divorce from the Blazers medical staff?)

[Gongxi]

My argument for Pierce vs Tmac, if nothing else, is just longevity and kicks at the can.

But even past that, I struggle with Tmac's impact outside of 2003. How do you lead a team to a 1-19 start to a season in your prime? That's a DANGER! DANGER! red flag for a player's impact to me. And I know he or Yao were on and off the court a lot, but when they did play, they didn't feel like a title contender to me. IMO Tmac and Yao did not have synergy like say, Kobe and Pau. I don't feel Tmac and Yao do much better if they stay healthy. We saw them get beat in 07 with Battier as a perfect 3rd wheel (though Tmac was past his prime arguably), and in 05 with not as much depth.

I don't feel Tmac, ever quite got it. And getting it is pretty darn important.

Of interest, I believe the expected W-L through those first 20 games was 10-10. After 11 games, Rivers was fired, and McGrady missed one of those games. In the 19 he played, McGrady averaged 25/6/5. He shot pretty **** (41%, didn't calculate the TS%), but to say that type of play is responsible for a 1-19 start is a little much. Statistical aberrations are going to happen, it's just a matter of who's going to be lucky enough to be on the receiving end of the good stuff and who's going to be unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of the bad stuff. Looking at his play and pythagorean for that stretch of games by the Magic, though, it's really harsh to just look at McGrady that season and say "1-19? Next."

[Laimbeer]

I'm guessing that Ewing is going to win this one. Last round I was debating Baylor and Ewing, so I'm definitely leaning in that direction. But that said, I haven't yet tried a Barry or Hondo vs Ewing comp, so it's not set in stone. Also, as I mentioned before, I'm ready to talk about Isiah. Hopefully I'll have the time to post some things about him today, but if not it'd be cool to see some in depth coverage about Zeke.

I think it's a tad high for Ewing, but he's probably on his way. For me, the next tier should include Hondo, Isiah, and Stockton. On Isiah, it's problematic because I don't believe stats tell the whole story on him - I believe I've heard you make a similar comment. And this site is pretty stats oriented. We've also taken on a "best prime as an individual" type criteria. Much of Isiah's argument is building a team and leadership. I don't have a lot of time but can give you this snippet.


Isiah over Bird - Won playoff series 3-2, Won playoff games 16-12
Isiah over Jordan - Won playoff series 3-1, Won playoff games 12-10
Isiah over Magic - Playoff series 1-1, Won playoff games 7-4

Total Isiah over Bird, Jordan and Magic - Won playoff series 7-4, Won playoff games 35-24

The arguments made against Zeke - Titles are team accomplishments. Bird, Magic, and Jordan had great individual teammates but Zeke had deep, well-coached, perfectly constructed teams. Bird, Magic, and Jordan were greater individual talents.

Those sound familiar? They should.

The arguments made against Russell - Titles are team accomplishments. Wilt had great individual teammates but Russell had deep, well-coached, perfectly constructed teams. Wilt was a greater individual talent.

Isiah's greatness, like Russell's, is being the catalyst of great teams, not being the greater individual player. When head to head against three of the Immortal Six, he was Russell to their Wilt, winning more often than not, while conceding the individual accolades and raw basketball ability.