RealGM Top 100 List #33

[colts18]

Defense: Big edge for McHale.

Offensive rebounding: You're welcome to check the stats, but I'd think they favor McHale, or would at worst be a wash.

Defensive rebounding: As I've discussed at length, rebounding next to Robert Parish and Larry Bird is a lot different than rebounding next to, say, Lamar Odom and Ron Artest. It isn't just that the other two guys excelled at rebounding. It's also that both excelled at outlet passing, and one of the two excelled at leading the break as well.

So McHale's job was to run the floor while the other guys corralled the ball. And this was serious, because the Celtics were a serious fast-breaking team, something that gets forgotten a bit because of the fast break greatness that was the Showtime Lakers.

Defense: I wouldn't say it's a big edge. Gasol is a real good underrated defender. Look at LA's Defensive rating since he came. Always in the top 6. He shut down Boozer, Martin, and Duncan in one playoff. He shutdown Garnett in 2 finals who was the #13 guy on our list.

Offensive rebounding: Their offensive rebounding is about equal and this is despite McHale playing in an era where it was a lot easier to get offensive rebounds.

Defensive rebounding: He wasn't a good rebounder anyway you slice it. How about 1989 when Bird was injured for the whole year and Robert Parish was 35 years old. McHale had the worst Defensive Rebounding% of his prime years (84-91). Bird wasn't taking that many rebounds away from him. Gasol goes on a team like the Lakers who have Bynum, Odom, and Bryant who are real good rebounders. What happened? Gasol actually increased his rebounding despite playing with some good rebounders.

As far as fast breaks go, the Celtics finished in the top half of the league in Pace just twice in McHale's prime (90-91) and that was at the end of his prime and they only finished 13th out of 27 those years. Most years they were around 15-20

[ElGee]

ADJUSTED (pace adjusted points and efg adjusted ts%) -- Pierce really is helped by the pace adjustment but that almost certainly overstates his scoring as TrueLAFan has posted about pace adjusting lead scorers

I see people reference this, but have they read the thread? It's pretty unconvincing data he presents, and it's discussed briefly in the thread (mystic, myself, Doc MJ) without a rebuttal from TrueLA or anyone.

PPG in general are not a perfect measure of scoring. We know this for various reasons. If we are comfortable with the game of basketball and different strategies/contexts, we don't question this.

Similarly, pace-adjustment or normalization is to try and better equate what ppg means as a rate of scoring. That's all. And IMO, it's extremely handy to know, since, as I say in the thread, having more opportunities to score is relevant in understanding *how frequently someone is scoring.*

[therealbig3]

Since Drexler is getting votes, I'll repost why I pick Pierce

BTW, can't you make the case that Pierce>Drexler? Last time I ranked them, I had Drexler like 2-3 spots ahead, but come to think of it, is Drexler better on either side of the ball? He was a better playmaker for sure, but Pierce has a decent edge as a scorer imo. He was stuck on pathetic Celtics teams for a while, and he carried them to mediocrity...and actually advanced past the 1st round multiple times.

He had an underrated peak, he has impressive longevity, and he's one of the best big game performers around. His playoff numbers are great, and he always seems to bring his A-game when his team needs it. Honestly, if I needed a superstar performance in a do-or-die game and I could only pick one current player...and Dirk was already taken...I'd take Pierce, over guys like Kobe, Wade, and LeBron.

Check his numbers in elimination games (haven't accounted for 2011):

24.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 4.0 apg, 1.4 spg, .8 bpg, 3.2 TOpg, .566 TS%

Not saying he should be nominated right now, but I have him ahead of guys like Payton, Kidd, Isiah, and Stockton, and until someone can prove otherwise, I'm probably moving him ahead of Drexler and maybe McHale. I think Pierce is massively underrated.

For comparison's sake, here's Pierce's and Drexler's efficiency compared to league average (TS%):

Pierce
01: +4.5
02: +5.0
03: +1.3
04: +0.1
05: +5.4
06: +4.7
07: +3.0
08: +5.9
09: +3.8
10: +7.0
11: +7.9

He's averaged 21.9 ppg over this stretch (878 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.2%. Pierce's TS% over this time was 57.1%, or +3.9.

Drexler
87: +1.4
88: +2.6
89: +1.8
90: +1.4
91: +2.9
92: +2.9
93: -1.9
94: -1.4
95: +3.4
96: +0.9
97: +1.2
98: +0.7

He averaged 22.1 ppg over this stretch (849 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.5%. Drexler's TS% over this time was 55.1%, or +1.6.

So Pierce scored on pretty much identical volume, with a good advantage in terms of efficiency, while being a comparable rebounder and was more durable.

Lol, I'm kind of ranting about a comparison that isn't even relevant yet, but for the people voting for Drexler, or one of the PGs that have been discussed...why not Pierce?

EDIT: I know that it seems a little weird that I'm using their numbers during years where they're no longer in their prime...but Pierce's highest efficiency seasons have been in the last two years, and he's still an 18-19 ppg scorer, so it seemed to be unfair to exclude those. Similarly, Drexler in 96 and 97 had pretty efficient scoring seasons and was still dropping 18+ ppg. It wasn't until 98 when his efficiency fell, but if we exclude that, and include 86, which some people might feel was his prime...you get identical results.

If we simply exclude Drexler's 98 season altogether (in which he's still dropping 18 ppg, mind you), it just makes Pierce's durability advantage even clearer...he would have played in significantly more games through the same amount of seasons...and Drexler's overall numbers probably don't change much at all.

And fatal9's post in favor of Drexler kind of actually gives me another reason why I have both Pierce and T-Mac over him. Drexler wasn't the greatest iso scorer in the half-court...he got a ton of his points in transition, which reminds me of Shawn Marion.

How would Drexler compare to Pierce or T-Mac when the game is slowed down and you need your superstar to generate offense in the half court? Can Drexler dominate a one-on-one matchup in the way that Pierce and T-Mac could and have?

[drza]

I'm leaning towards my original vote (Gilmore) and nomination (Mourning) from last thread. That said, the conversation last thread has me seriously considering Iverson and I'm open to Paul. I'm also still pretty interested in getting Rodman into the mix, and Colts may have a point about Gasol. And the Reed/Cowens/Unseld/McAdoo/Walton 60s/70s big man MVP crew is still out there as well. In fact, are the 70s bigs, Iverson and Cousy the only eligible MVPs not yet voted in (let alone nominated)?

What puts more pressure on a defense, a quick slashing ball dominating but inefficient guard or a 7'3 superefficient low post big man who is too tall and strong to guard with single coverage. It seems to me that offensively, Gilmore puts more pressure on a defense -- now whether his guards (Reggie Theus, William Holland, Ricky Sobers, etc.) ever learned to feed the post properly is a different issue . . . . but you can't leave him alone or even in pure single coverage, you always have to be ready to drop a second man down or you will be destroyed . . . like playing Dwight Howard today (only Dwight's coach runs an offense that takes more advantage of it).

Bearing in mind that I'm strongly considering voting for Gilmore this thread while we're discussing an Iverson NOMINATION...I couldn't disagree with you more on this particular point. I think it's a blowout. Iverson put WAY more pressure on opposing defenses than a Gilmore or Howard type.

First of all, it's a matter of logistics. You allude to the fact that Gilmore needed an entry pass, but it's more than that. Gilmore (or Howard) is a) very limited in their effective scoring radius, b) not gifted passers (perhaps even poor), and c) unlikely to create tremendous volumes of point production for their teams even if the opposing defense doesn't collapse on them. As such, opposing defenses know exactly where they'll be. They of course have to modify their defenses to some extent because of their strengths, but for the most part they can concentrate on playing strong positional defense with perhaps a double-team...which Howard/Gilmore don't really make you pay for because they aren't great passers. And if they give up 25 points on great efficiency and 1 assist...that's unlikely to beat a team.

But Iverson? He's like a waterbug out there. When he crosses half-court with the ball, everyone on the defense has to be aware of where he is. If he drives then it causes the strong-wing to likely collapse and/or a big to show, forcing the 2 weakside defenders to rotate. If he passes to the wing and goes Miller-sprinting, his man + every big involved in the picks + even the man defending the ball have to be aware of where he is and move to adjust. If he's at the top of the key he's dangerous. If he's in the lane he's dangerous. It's just a much more dynamic threat, and causes much more defensive attention and response than what is caused by a Gilmore or Howard.

Now, a big like Shaq? More pressure on a D than Iverson. Hakeem? Yeah. Maybe even a Duncan type that isn't scoring as much, but makes the whole defense react with his ability to pass and/or direct the offense from multiple court locations...I can see it. But to me, Iverson put MUCH more pressure on a defense than a Gilmore/Howard type, despite their much higher efficiencies. By volume of potential points created (both scoring and passing), dynamics in terms of attack locations, and just the ubiquitousness/relentlessness of his threat Iverson put pressure on defenses in a very unique way.

Frankly, the more I talk about Iverson the more I'm leaning towards nominating him. I'm not sure if I'm convinced that he's the best candidate left, but he's on the short list and I think he (at the least) belongs in the debate with TMac and Pierce with a legit chance to go above them.

[penbeast0]

btw drza, I quoted the wrong post for that comment, sorry (fixed retroactively).

ElGee, I don't ever remember comparing TMac and Dantley; I compared Dantley and Iverson only because TMac brings a lot more to the table for me outside the scoring so I don't really see him as a good Dantley comp. And I am not here nominating Dantley either, English maybe, Dantley to me is behind him somewhere . . . just making the point for AI fans that he didn't bring much more to the table than Dantley and in their most important area of contribution, scoring, Dantley is at one end of the efficiency scale while Iverson is toward the other.

[Laimbeer]

Consensus Ranking of Players Nominated

33 Elvin Hayes PF/C
34 Kevin McHale PF
36 Jason Kidd PG
38 George Gervin SG
42 Clyde Drexler SG
45 Dominique Wilkins SF
71 Dwight Howard C
72 Artis Gilmore C
73 Paul Pierce SF
75 Tracy McGrady SF

[Laimbeer]

Consensus Ranking of Top Players Needing Nomination

22 Bob Cousy PG
32 Willis Reed PF/C
35 Dave Cowens PF/C
37 Allen Iverson G
40 Dolph Schayes PF
44 Tiny Archibald PG
46 Wes Unseld PF/C
47 Earl Monroe PG
48 Sam Jones SG
49 James Worthy SF

[ElGee]

btw drza, I quoted the wrong post for that comment, sorry (fixed retroactively).

ElGee, I don't ever remember comparing TMac and Dantley; I compared Dantley and Iverson only because TMac brings a lot more to the table for me outside the scoring so I don't really see him as a good Dantley comp. And I am not here nominating Dantley either, English maybe, Dantley to me is behind him somewhere . . . just making the point for AI fans that he didn't bring much more to the table than Dantley and in their most important area of contribution, scoring, Dantley is at one end of the efficiency scale while Iverson is toward the other.

I really am coming to loathe the delineation of basketball talents. Iverson's most important area of contribution was *offense.* You can't just separate scoring from that. He and Dantley don't seem similar at all in this regard.

(drza has a nice post on this) When Iverson's on offense, he can pressure the defense with the dribble (an Opportunity Created), off the ball by drawing extra defenders (another Opportunity Created), he can score off the ball on the catch, or off the dribble generating his own, from the floor or line.

Dantley, from what I can tell/have seen, loves to hold the ball in the post. He's doing most of his contributions by waiting for the ball, getting it, and going to work.

**The result of all of that is only captured in a statline of ppg, TS%, TOV and ast**

But, when you consider which one is a better offensively player, I don't see how it's not Iverson by a mile. All that aforementioned stuff he does helps his team a good amount. It helps them when they need a shot. It helps others get good looks they wouldn't normally have. Dantley, OTOH, seems to potentially hurt the team, because all the times he doesn't do something good with the ball/his body against the defense completely counteracts the 30 ppg on +10% TS that he generates on his personal scoring possessions.

We know most modern teams will score somewhere between 0.95 and 1.15 pts/pos. What good does it do if Dantley's 23 "true shooting" possessions yield 30 points (1.3 pts/pos) if on his other 50 possessions his touches very actively contribute to say, 45 points? He can do this by holding the ball too long, looking for a re-post, clogging a side, etc.

It looks to me like that is what happened with Adrian Dantley.

[RealBaller02]

Artis Gilmore.

An ultra athletic 7'2 - 7'3 center with great play on both ends of the court and great effeciency are attributes that will transcend all eras. I will probably replace him with Dwight Howard once Howard clocks in a few more seasons of what he is doing already.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Artis Gilmore

I still see Gilmore as someone with a superstar-level peak, a long all-star level prime, and a gargantuan longevity as an incredibly effective super-role-player.

Nomination: Chris Paul

Still in my boat where I'm pulling for Miller but no longer want to stand in Paul's way. Looks like Paul has more momentum. Want to remind everyone again: Go and look at how much Paul's played relative to Wade & Howard. It's not that different.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Clyde Drexler

Nominate: Bob McAdoo

Can see Paul or Zo or Iverson or a few others though.

What ever happened to the Cowens train? I feel like he was first brought up about 20 threads ago.

[ronnymac2]

And what about Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond?

You know, I'm here nominating McAdoo in every thread, but I think Alonzo Mourning is getting underrated. I think he's an underrated postseason performer, too.

I know his prime got cut short, but this guy was a useful player up until 2007. He was third in shot-blocking in 2006- playing 20 minutes per game! I know his role allowed him to try to swat everything, but that's some intense shot-blocking skills.

I'm really tempted to start using my nomination as a way to pull for people who aren't getting talked about enough.

[drza]

About to go out of town for the weekend, unsure what my internet access will be, so figured I'd better get my vote in.

Vote: Gilmore
Nominate: Zo Mourning

Really starting to lean Iverson, am not averse to Paul, and could be talked into a few others here. Still on the Rodman and Walton trains too, but I think I'd be there alone for the time being. We're at such an interesting point in the project...I'd like to actually vote for some of the players that haven't even been nominated yet (i.e. after all our discussions, I might would vote Iverson over Drexler right now....but I might vote Drexler over most of the players we have on our nomination list. Strange). We really are in a time of plurality.

[penbeast0]

Let me explain why I am voting for Sidney Moncrief here. His peak is short, only 5 full years from 82-86 and those years coincided with the peak years of both the Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ Celtics and of the Moses/Erving/Toney/Cheeks Sixers (as well as the Showtime Lakers) so he never made it past the ECF but in those peak years he led Milwaukee, a Don Nelson coached team with no consistent center, to be one of the best defensive and an above average offensive team. Individually he was a consistent 20ppg scorer with excellent passing and rebounding skills who is widely considered the greatest man-up perimeter defender to ever play winning the first two ever awarded DPOY awards in this 5 year stretch.

Milwaukee's leaguewide ratings, even in those years of great dynastic teams, were

82 Moncrief 6.7reb/4.8ast/19.8pts on .601ts% incredible for a guard before wide use of the 3pt shot
9th in offense, 1st! in defense -- Marques Johnson was the second star only scoring 16ppg, center was good offense, mediocre defensive aging Bob Lanier, the other biggest minutes were PG Quinn Buckner (excellent defender) and Brian Winters (offense only pure jump shooter)

93 Moncrief 5.8reb/3.9ast/22.5pts on .602ts% 1st DPOY award (82 was actually better defense)
10th in offense, 6th in defense -- Marques Johnson had a great year, Alton Lister replaced Bob Lanier

94 Moncrief 6.7reb/4.5ast/20.9pts on .591ts% 2nd DPOY award
12th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Lanier came back to split time with Lister and Marques's last year

95 Moncrief 5.4reb/5.2ast/21.7pts on .594ts%
6th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Terry Cummings took over for Marques as the other star, Lister split time with Randy Breuer at center, 3pt specialist Craig Hodges split time with Paul Pressey and Junion Bridgeman

96 Moncrief 4.6reb/4.9ast/20.2pts on .604ts%
4th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Breuer became the starter still splitting time, Pressey as point forward

Moncrief was an incredible two way player. In a slightly weaker era, he might have led his team to one or two championships like a Chauncey Billups or Isiah Thomas but the one year they beat the Celtics (with great performance by Sid), they then ran into the "fo fo fo" Sixer team. But he was the clearly acknowledged leader of Milwaukee teams and led them to terrific defensive performances despite average defensive big men (Cummings doesn't have a good rep but is underrated but before him the starter was journeyman Mickey Johnson though Don Nelson liked to use Marques Johnson as PF and play 3 guards more than using Johnson).

[colts18]

If you vote for CP3, shouldn't you consider Walton ahead of him? Bill Walton played 468 games to CP3 425. Walton's peak was a lot better than CP3. Both were injury prone. I would take Walton because you are all but guaranteed you a title and another great year. CP3 doesn't guarantee you anything except 1 playoff series win in 6 years.

[penbeast0]

(a) Walton doesn't guarantee a title in his one year although he is quite possibly the best player in the league -- the rest of your team has to be healthy and step up too as Portland did.

(b) Walton does guarantee failure virtually every other year of his first 8 years in the league (assuming his health issues are a constant for you -- I know some posters feel he should get some extra because medicine wasn't as advanced, I'm not one -- When you build around an MVP caliber player (who insists on treatment and pay as an MVP caliber player) and he is injured 7 years out of 8 before the playoffs, you have 7 years of virtually guaranteed failure.

(c) He did have one season as a reserve but then was injured again. It is a shame because any fan of team basketball LOVES his game but Walton was a disaster for the Clippers and he hurt Portland 3 out of his 4 years there. He's a one and out value as a starter, plus one year as a part time player.

[colts18]

(a) Walton doesn't guarantee a title in his one year although he is quite possibly the best player in the league -- the rest of your team has to be healthy and step up too as Portland did.

(b) Walton does guarantee failure virtually every other year of his first 8 years in the league (assuming his health issues are a constant for you -- I know some posters feel he should get some extra because medicine wasn't as advanced, I'm not one -- When you build around an MVP caliber player (who insists on treatment and pay as an MVP caliber player) and he is injured 7 years out of 8 before the playoffs, you have 7 years of virtually guaranteed failure.

(c) He did have one season as a reserve but then was injured again. It is a shame because any fan of team basketball LOVES his game but Walton was a disaster for the Clippers and he hurt Portland 3 out of his 4 years there. He's a one and out value as a starter, plus one year as a part time player.

Walton's peak pretty much guarantees you a great regular season and an amazing chance at a title. CP3 peak was 2 years and in 1 of them, he played awful in the playoff so CP3 gives you like 1 great peak playoff, same as Walton, but Walton was much better.

[fatal9]

Vote: Clyde Drexler
Nominate: Mourning

[penbeast0]

For supporters of short peak guards like Chris Paul who are not in Moncrief's league defensively (Paul is good but not that good), can you explain how the offensive impact of those players is sufficiently higher than that of Moncrief to compensate for the defensive impact?

It seems to me that Moncrief is at least close to equal offensively and far superior defensively with a greater team impact than either (Paul has one season of getting his team into the top 5 either offensively or defensively and that was 2008; KJ has more of a case with some great teams in Phoenix but again, doesn't match up as a defender or stand out individually from Moncrief offensively).

[therealbig3]

For supporters of short peak guards like Chris Paul who are not in Moncrief's league defensively (Paul is good but not that good), can you explain how the offensive impact of those players is sufficiently higher than that of Moncrief to compensate for the defensive impact?

It seems to me that Moncrief is at least close to equal offensively and far superior defensively with a greater team impact than either (Paul has one season of getting his team into the top 5 either offensively or defensively and that was 2008; KJ has more of a case with some great teams in Phoenix but again, doesn't match up as a defender or stand out individually from Moncrief offensively).

Well, I'd say that you'd have to explain why you don't see much of an offensive gap between KJ/Paul and Moncrief.

Because KJ and Paul scored on comparable efficiency, on higher volume, and were vastly superior playmakers. You can also see a huge decline in the Suns'/Hornet's offensive production when they're not in. Don't really see how Moncrief is on their level as an offensive player.

Also, Moncrief's scoring, playmaking, and efficiency dipped significantly in the playoffs, while KJ and Paul maintained their level of play.