RealGM Top 100 #37

[SDChargers#1]

People really held it against Stockton for a while because of where he ranked overall in the league (MVP voting, All NBA teams), yet seem to be ignoring that with Pierce. Pierce has never been a top 5 player in the NBA, and has been top 10 maybe once or twice. I just don't see how that equates to a top 40 player of all time.

Vote: Dominique Wilkins
Nomination: Bob Cousy

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, Stockton HAS already been voted onto our list.

Pierce has been a top-2 SF in the league more consistently than Stockton was a top-2 PG (Magic, Isiah, Payton), although the discussion does get clouded by positional back-and-forth, and by some excessive Melo-love.

When we nominated Pierce (and TMac) before Wilkins, we were right to do so, although I'm OK with the flashy guy from the earlier era going on the list soon after those two do.

Yes, but he didn't get voted in until much later then when he was originally brought up. His numbers and longevity absolutely trounce Pierce.

Pierce was a top 2 SF in the league for multiple years yet peaked as a one time All NBA 2nd teamer, and only 3 more All NBA 3rd teams.

Even if it were true, dominating a weak position doesn't mean squat. Dwight will have been the best Center in the league for multiple years. Way more than Ewing, yet Ewing is already on the list.

Point Guard has been a stacked position for a while now.

[Doctor MJ]

I haven't paid as much attention to Schayes because he didn't quite have the accolades of Cousy (not first-team every year, never an NBA), didn't quite have the team success (OK, that part is unfair), and didn't have the humongous extras that I'm convinced Cousy has.

Anyhow, Schayes was known as one of the great shooters of his era, and Cousy had almost identical shooting stats to him, so you're making my pro-Cousy point for me.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=1963

Schayes did get to the line a bit more that Cousy, and had rebounds where Cousy had assists; those are the main statistical differences between them.

If you want to make some sort of argument that Schayes/Cousy is Pierce/Kidd all over again, be my guest. We don't have the eye test on Schayes to match our assurance that Pierce was a very effective defender, but Schayes also doesn't have Pierce's odd lack of top contemporary regular-season accolades.

On the other hand, Schayes did get beaten out for All-NBA Second Team a couple of times by Tommy Heinsohn, let alone first team (Pettit, Arizin, Baylor), while Cousy never lost out for First Team to anybody except Robertson and West. So maybe we DO have a bit of a contemporary-accolades issue with Schayes as well.

More than half kidding on the accolade part, actually. The biggest part of the accolade point that's real is that Cousy had an UNBROKEN run on first team until he lost out to guys we've ranked MUCH higher on the list.

As I say, picking Cousy over Schayes is totally reasonable, but don't vote Cousy over more modern players without also thinking about where Schayes fits in. I'm trying to point you to Schayes because if you look at Schayes and think "Whoa, THAT was a superstar in the '50s", it might give you a more accurate understanding of Cousy.

Re: "identical shooting stats". Well first, I don't see much point in looking at stuff other than TS% in most cases when talking about ability to help your team with scoring. Schayes has a 4% career edge over Cousy there. Right there, we're talking about the difference between Kobe & Iverson and you're favoring the Iverson guy.

And then there's the whole playoff issue we've mentioned with Cousy: Schayes has an 8% TS edge over Cousy there. Freaking huge man.

Re: Pierce/Kidd analogy. Don't know where you're doing with that.

Re: Beaten out by Heinsohn. No he didn't. Not in his prime. Take another look.

Re: Beaten out by Arizin. I need to hammer this in: Arizin was every bit on the level of Schayes or Cousy and while Cousy's game would probably transfer better to the modern NBA than Schayes, Arizin's game would probably translated better than EITHER of them.

I mention Schayes because 1) He accomplished more than Arizin because of Arizin's time in the military, and 2) because it's so clear that he could not be a modern big man.

Re: Beaten out by Pettit & Baylor. Okay, what are you even doing now? Both of those players are easily superior to Cousy or Schayes.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm not sure Schayes wouldn't translate as well as Cousy. Now I've like, seen nothing of Schayes. But from what I understand, he's got a kick ass jumpshot and if you're an aces shooting big man, you have a role in the modern NBA. He was also one of the better rebounders and before you say he's an unathletic white guy, we just saw Kevin Love drop 15rpg so I wouldn't count out Schayes to grab 8-11. I'd also venture those rebounding numbers suggest good athleticism for his time. I don't know if Schayes would be a star, but he might have a better chance to be Kevin Love than we think, or at least Troy Murphy. Cousy of course I'm not sure translates more than White Chocolate, so if Schayes is just a borderline starter, that might be enough

I don't like the 'translate to today' criteria a ton anyways, but I don't think Cousy translating more than Schayes is certain, and definitely not why he should go far ahead. I see no reason to not put Cousy, Schayes and Arizin on the same tier. I'm thinking Schayes, Arizin then Cousy in that order, actually. Schayes probably should get some consideration soon. I think he has a lot in common with Bob Pettit, made top 25 on our RPOY, had very nice longevity and was an All-NBA guy by 61 (and in fact had his highest ppg that year) which doesn't remove him much from Pettit's career arc. If you like Pettit, you should like Schayes 80 or 90% as much, I think

[penbeast0]

...
(Why Wilkins?)
a.) He never had a championship caliber supporting cast.
b.) He lost to only some of the best teams in the era.
....

That of course includes Sidney Moncrief and Milwaukee who were better than the Hawks consistently through Moncrief's prime then beat them (and once the Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ Celtics) in the playoffs.

NOMINATE SIDNEY MONCRIEF

VOTE DWIGHT HOWARD . . . will be back Monday, thank for covering drza

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not sure Schayes wouldn't translate as well as Cousy. Now I've like, seen nothing of Schayes. But from what I understand, he's got a kick ass jumpshot and if you're an aces shooting big man, you have a role in the modern NBA.

Ah, he had a kick ass SETshot, which he stuck with to the bitter end even as others had moved to the jump shot. I'm sure that he'd have been a great shooter for a big man in an era, but jump shooting is harder than set shooting.

Arizin by the way was the one who brought the jump shot to the NBA in 1950. He literally wouldn't have to change his game much at all to maximize it for the modern game.

He was also one of the better rebounders and before you say he's an unathletic white guy, we just saw Kevin Love drop 15rpg so I wouldn't count out Schayes to grab 8-11. I'd also venture those rebounding numbers suggest good athleticism for his time. I don't know if Schayes would be a star, but he might have a better chance to be Kevin Love than we think, or at least Troy Murphy. Cousy of course I'm not sure translates more than White Chocolate, so if Schayes is just a borderline starter, that might be enough

Ooh, see we need to be careful with Love now. It's good to see a white guy without huge height, hops, or quickness be a dominant rebounder in the modern game. Tells us we shouldn't overrate those things, but we shouldn't pretend that there isn't something incredibly special abound Love to be able to do what he does.

Bob Pettit was about he same size as Schayes and outrebounded him by 4 RPG, so it's not the case that Schayes was a rebounding prodigy.

I don't like the 'translate to today' criteria a ton anyways...

I'm totally fine with people that factoring that in, or not, as long as the rest of what they do is coherent with that.

[Fencer reregistered]

I have no objection to considering Schayes and his set shot -- not jump shot -- high too. And it's a good point about Cousy's FG% dropping in the playoffs (a main point of divergence between the two).

Cousy does have a longevity edge -- Schayes' play dropped off for a few years at the end, as noted while Cousy kept going strong and quit before the inevitable drop-off. And I stand by my point on Cousy's huge bonus-points intangibles, as well as all my prior arguments as to why low efficiency numbers are misleading in his case.

Still, you've convinced me -- I'll be nominating Schayes soon too, unless somebody comes up with some negative information about him I'm not aware of yet.

[Doctor MJ]

Still, you've convinced me -- I'll be nominating Schayes soon too, unless somebody comes up with some negative information about him I'm not aware of yet.

Hehe, excellent: I've convinced someone to vote high someone I wouldn't vote high.

(Being sincere here. I respect that you listened to my words and thoroughly applied them to your own understanding in a way much different than just "Okay, I'll vote like he does.")

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Tracy McGrady

Nominate: Bob McAdoo

[Doctor MJ]

Hmm, Doc MJ, I'm not completely sure we can discredit Miller's lack of all-star berths by bringing up the "lack of competition" for Ray Allen.

During Miller's prime, here are some of the guards that beat him out for the All-Star game. This is excluding the obvious Jordan, Thomas being included as obvious sort picks. Outside of them, and even Isiah in his later years, which guards were considered near locks to make the game?

91: Hersey Hawkins, Joe Dumars, Alvin Robertson.
92: Reggie Lewis, Joe Dumars, Mark Price, Michael Adams
93: Joe Dumars, Mark Price.
94: Kenny Anderson, Mookie Blaylock, B.J. Armstrong, John Starks, Mark Price.
97: Terrell Brandon, Joe Dumars.

We compare that to Allen's competition. Kidd, McGrady, and Iverson were near locks to be in the all-star game every year. So, Allen had lesser spots to compete with his contemporaries which included guys like Baron Davis, Carter at times, Jordan (lol), Marbury, Houston, Sprewell, Stackhouse, etc.

When Allen moved West to Seattle, Kobe and McGrady (a year after Allen moved to Seattle) were locks to be named to the All-Star team. Then consider his competition was Ginobili, Nash, Paul/Deron at the tail end of his Sonics career, or Parker, then I'm not completely sold on the idea that Allen had ridiculously easy competition, while implying that Miller had much more superior competition.

Overall though, all-star nominations, as you allude to aren't really a reason to rank one over another. It's dependent on era and media, and don't really prove why one player is better than another. It's just that, I'm not completely sure it was the competition that created that discrepancy.

Re: Spacing; I completely buy this argument. Reggie's impact in terms of creating for space his teammates is astronomical, and a big reason why his numbers don't indicate his true impact on the game. I was always under the belief that Reggie Miller was one of the most overrated players of our generation (depending on whom you ask in the media, it's still holds some truth); but I think that opinion became so popular that he's now become slightly underrated because his statistics don't paint the entire picture. But the question I'm struggling with is, does this propel him into being better than some certain players that had different offensive games - meaning, put the ball on the floor more, play-making, etc, while they have considerably greater defensive impact, see guys like Moncrief or Dumars.

I also take the points about Miller raising his game in the playoffs, most specifically 5 post-seasons with an average of over 25+ PPG respectively. But I think it's worth mentioning, only one of those five post season runs were when Miller actually advanced past the first round. He played 3, 4, 17, 1, 4 games in those respective post-seasons. In retrospect, Allen actually has two post-seasons of production worth over 25 PPG having advanced past the first round.

I think they're comparable as defenders, while Allen has the edge as an all rounded player in terms of rebounding, and play-making. Offensively, I think it's close enough to the point that I like Ray Allen more overall. In fact, there's not much a difference between their teams relative rank in ORTG.

Code: Select all

00 Bucks - 2nd
01 Bucks - 1st
02 Bucks - 8th
03 Bucks - 2nd (Allen was traded after 46 games however)
04 Sonics - 4th
05 Sonics - 2nd
06 Sonics - 3rd
07 Sonics - 8th


Code: Select all

90 Pacers - 7th
91 Pacers - 7th
92 Pacers - 6th
93 Pacers - 5th
94 Pacers 11th
95 Pacers - 8th
96 Pacers - 6th
97 Pacers - 15th
98 Pacers - 4th
99 Pacers - 1st
00 Pacers - 1st

And as for his volume #'s in Seattle, I agree with the notion that I'd prefer Allen with less an on ball role, and for that sort of role, I'd prefer Miller, BUT I don't think that's the right way to look at Allen's role with those Sonics teams. Because, he had to play that role, not out of game style, but team structure.

I think the better question is, if the team structure were forced into putting one of these guys as the primary creator/initiator for the team offense, then I'd take Allen over Miller, because he's a bit more versatile in terms of putting the ball on the floor, and getting to the rim to create for himself or teammates. Now, I don't think it's a huge difference, but similar to the difference in wanting Miller over Allen in a strict off the ball sort role. That '05 season was pretty impressive by Ray, IMO. Give him some more shooters in Lewis, Ridnor, and Radman, along with hustle big men like Fortson, Evans, James, and Collison, that Sonics team won 50+ games, and took the to-be champion Spurs in the 2nd round to 6 games.

TBH, I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on, but I think Allen deserves serious consideration with Miller to the point it's a matter of preference. Perhaps comes down to valuing a slight better all round game, or greater playoff play.

Okay, looking at Allen year by year, I think I was a little unfair to his time in Seattle. Understand though that in Milwaukee typically multiple all-star spots per year were going to guys like Houston, Eddie Jones, Stackhouse, Sprewell, etc. It was not hard to make all-star in those years.

Re: CP/Deron. Not even close to all-star consideration until Allen was in Boston.

You using the weak competition thing back at me to knock Miller is reasonable and smart. This is one of those situations though where I'm not giving my whole argument up front because I don't want to rack up any more TL;DR's than I already get.

As you can probably guess, I think Miller deserved a hell of a lot more all-star nods than he got. I can go into that year by year if people really want, but the bottom line is that I value the Miller/Allen off-ball role more than voters who typically rate perimeter players essentially by adding points, rebounds, and assists with some kind of fudge factor for team record and a penalty for any superior teammates already getting a nod.

So basically, I don't believe there should be a major all-star nod gap between these two guys.

Re: Moncrief comparison. That's really a peak vs longevity question. Yes, Moncrief's peak was better than Miller or Allen's.

Re: Dumars comparison. I'm interested to hear people argue Dumars' case. I like him, but at this point I'm not sold he was as impressive as Miller or Allen. I'll also mention that I've actually been thinking more about Dumars' teammate Rodman than Dumars lately.

Re: Allen's versatility. I think this is absolutely something to consider, but how much to consider it?

I have to admit that I'm influenced by this belief: I don't think it's the case that there are only a handful of great distributors out there, and all others are no better than the superstar scorers in the league. Now, for a guy who needs to create on ball for himself, sometimes him dominating the ball is how it has to be. However if a scorer doesn't need that, and he's truly not stellar as a distributor, I think you can find a point guard who can distribute the ball better than him.

And so that's how I see Allen. I don't think at the NBA level you ever need to move him out of the off ball spot, so that kind of versatility starts getting into the "Do I actually care?" range. Not as "I don't care" as Shaq's 3-point shooting ability, but I just don't see it as anything beyond a potential tiebreaker between Miller and Allen, and since I don't see their off ball play as a tie, it doesn't stop Miller from getting the nod.

EDIT: Oh and regarding team offensive ratings. Just wanted to say something about Seattle:

Seattle's offense turned elite in '04-05, more than a year after Allen arrived with his stats not changing significantly, what happened?

Their offensive rebounding went from terrible to amazing. Simple as that. Basically the same way Jordan's Bulls turned into an all-time great ORtg team.

Now I don't want to say that that makes them "not really" a great offense in principle, and the team had solid number in the other areas to back that up. However, while shooting shots you can make and not committing turnovers are fundamental things everyone offense is trying to maximize, offensive rebounding is a strategy based on skills that don't have much to do with Allen. Note how his good Seattle offenses had great offensive rebounding, but his Boston teams appear to be terrible at it. That's really more about a coaches decision than anything else.

And note that neither Miller's great Pacer offenses nor Allen's great Buck offenses were even decent at offensive rebounding. Those truly were offenses thriving based on core offensive skills, and they did it with two of the best off ball shooters in the game doing their thing.

[Fencer reregistered]

Still, you've convinced me -- I'll be nominating Schayes soon too, unless somebody comes up with some negative information about him I'm not aware of yet.

Hehe, excellent: I've convinced someone to vote high someone I wouldn't vote high.

(Being sincere here. I respect that you listened to my words and thoroughly applied them to your own understanding in a way much different than just "Okay, I'll vote like he does.")

Can't win 'em all.

Thanks for laying out your thoughts so clearly!

[Doctor MJ]

BTW, I love Ginobili. He's efficient, he's clutch, has a very good all-game, competes every game, and drza had an awesome post about his defensive impact. I love that he's getting talked about here, but where does Carter stack up in a comparison with him? Longevity for both are similar, if not a slight edge for Carter, so are we under the assumption that Ginobili's peak is THAT much better?

Just a tough tough question. Evaluating Ginobili may be the single toughest player for me.

Here's something I will say: Were this project to include Ginobili's international play, the Ginobili vs Carter comparison becomes a no brainer. Ginobili is an absolute lock for the Hall for me, and Carter probably wouldn't get my vote and in my all-play Top 100 Ginobili is higher.

But this is just an NBA/ABA project, and I just don't know. Here's something I will say because it's interesting and relevant. It is something that is on the pro-Ginobili side, but I want to make clear that I really have no idea if I'll vote Ginobili before Carter.

Engelmann has a 10-year RAPM. He sees it as more of a toy than anything else, and that seems pretty healthy to me as we all know that no one stays the same over 10 years. Still the leaderboard looks pretty impressive:

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking

Ginobili ranks 4th on the list with a +6.1 rating.
Carter ranks 22nd with a +3.1.

Now, it's absolutely not right to say "Well if you multiply the rating by minutes played, Ginobili has the lead". Er, well the statement is true, but not meaningful. A +0.0 player isn't giving you nothing after all, but is actually a significant positive.

What is meaningful though is that if you're thinking "I don't know if I really believe Ginobili's got a significant per minute impact edge", data says it's actually quite large.

[fatal9]

Ugh. Just lost a huge freaking post responding to fatal about Reggie Miller. Not going to re-do it, don't have time, will summarize:

-If you don't like the Miller nomination, argue specifics against it, don't just say he was worse than other players. Obviously, some of us disagree with you. We've given specifics supporting him, ignore us or debate in earnest with us.

-Comparison with Ray Allen is most informative, so I'll speak to that. Allen's got 2 obvious things over Miller.

1) All-star nods, which are luck. Allen had ridiculously weak competition.

2) His gaudy volume numbers in Seattle. But, on ball players get inflated numbers. Is there anyone building a dream team that wants Allen for what he did in Seattle? C'mon, he's a HOF lock primarily because of his off ball role as a shooter/spacer.

And when you look at Allen in that role, Miller matches or beats him everywhere you look. More volume, more efficiency, and widens the gap in the playoffs.

Do you have a link to some of your posts from the past threads? I remember skimming them before, but will read them in detail to see your take/argument for Reggie. I looked through the last couple of threads but couldn't find them.

[Fencer reregistered]

http://www.johnchristgau.com/originsoft ... pshot.html

Some notes on the invention of the jump shot; apparently it was independently re-invented many times, including by teammates Arizin (not covered in that particular article) and Fulks.

This begs the question -- when jump shooting became more popular, and then the norm, whose jump shots paved the way? My first guess is Arizin, because he was the most prominent of the guys credited, but that's just a guess.

http://www.nba.com/home/history/legends ... index.html is a long bio of Arizin, with the second best note I've seen on him and the jump shot. It's close enough to the best one I won't bother looking to find that again.

[lorak]

Also, rumors of Cousy's low efficiency are greatly exaggerated, an artifact of there not being PG/SG distinctions in the records of the time. If you look at "small guards" who dished out a relatively high number of assists, and use that as a proxy for "PG", all of a sudden his supposed inefficiency goes away.
(...)
If you're groaning about overall shooting efficiency from that era, I refer you to Sharman's quotes about the shape of the basketball (!), general fatigue from the conditions of the day, and so on. I further refer you to the lack of game-day shootarounds (later pioneered by, yes, Sharman), the lack of a 3-pt line providing spacing, and so on, although I recognize that some of those things were implemented after efficiency went at least somewhat up.

And in the same environment Sharman was MUCH more efficient that Cousy. Other guards also.

Here's Cousy FG% relatively to LA:

Code: Select all

1962-63    -4,4
1961-62    -3,5
1960-61    -4,4
1959-60    -2,6
1958-59    -1,1
1957-58    -3
1956-57    -0,2
1955-56    -2,7
1954-55    1,2
1953-54    1,3
1952-53    -1,8
1951-52    0,2
1950-51    -0,5


Not so bad pre shot clock, but after he was simply horrible.

[drza]

Also, rumors of Cousy's low efficiency are greatly exaggerated, an artifact of there not being PG/SG distinctions in the records of the time. If you look at "small guards" who dished out a relatively high number of assists, and use that as a proxy for "PG", all of a sudden his supposed inefficiency goes away.

Rumors of Cousy's inadequate defense seem questionable, given the great defensive teams he played on. Yes, Celtics guards relied on Russell to protect them while they gambled for steals, and no, steals aren't actually tracked from those days -- but whatever they did worked.

If you're groaning about overall shooting efficiency from that era, I refer you to Sharman's quotes about the shape of the basketball (!), general fatigue from the conditions of the day, and so on. I further refer you to the lack of game-day shootarounds (later pioneered by, yes, Sharman), the lack of a 3-pt line providing spacing, and so on, although I recognize that some of those things were implemented after efficiency went at least somewhat up.

If you are looking askance at the huge differences in Celtics stats from the rest of the league's -- #1 in points scored and last in efficiency at the same time -- well, that was the system. And it won. We've seen with Kidd how great eye-test PG play can show up more in defensive than offensive stats. We can't rule out extra fatigue from a LOT of extra running affecting efficiency in Celtics games at both ends of the court; indeed, it makes perfect sense to assume that in.

And in what I think is an underappreciated factor, we can't rule out an offensive systems that factors the potential of an offensive rebound into schemes and decision-making -- it's known the Celtics had a limited number of plays (seven), and it's known that rebounding schemes were part of the play design.

The thing that I've been looking for in the Cousy debates, that I haven't yet seen, is a causative argument for Cousy. You've done a good job with describing the times, and the system that the Celtics run, and providing quotes from others about that Celtics system. (Note: I started this post about 12 hours ago, but had to stop because I got last minute tix to what turned out to be a RIDICULOUS football game between Michigan and Notre Dame. Anyway, I'll continue now) But what I HAVEN'T seen is anything that says that Cousy was the key to why the Celtics did what they were doing, and/or that they couldn't do it at that level without him. As Doc MJ has pointed out, the Celtics were winning with their defense and the defense (and winning) continued without much hitch when Cousy left.

Now, that can still be salvaged if you can show me that while he was THERE, what Cousy was providing was indispensible. You've talked about the frenetic pace that the Celtics ran...was there something about Cousy that they required to run that way? For example, you keep referring to Kidd as a comp...but there's fairly reasonable evidence that Kidd's combination of rebounding/defense/something-about-him played a big role in why his teams were able to play that fast paced/high effort defense. That it was Kidd, specifically, that helped make that possible. Is there any data or quotes that suggest that Cousy was the one that allowed the Celts to run?

Or, there've been arguments (some made by me) that Iverson's high volume/low efficiency shooting at times still provided the framework for the Sixers offense to succeed at all in the absence of any other reasonable creator. That's a contested stance, but at least there's some logic in it to me. Was there anything to indicate that Cousy was putting pressure on opposing defenses in a way that the Celtics needed, even in spite of his low efficiency at high volumes?

Do you see the difference? You've done a lot to describe the Celtics situation, and as Doc MJ pointed out you do a lot of...trying to suggest that Cousy isn't that bad because some other lead guards were inefficient. But, for me, that's not really very powerful. Don't tell me that he's ok because others (that we also aren't considering) were doing it...tell me that his inefficiency shouldn't be held against him because he was directly helping the team in "X" way. The "X" is what I'm looking for, that I still haven't seen yet.

And by the way -- Cousy collected an awesome set of rings and accolades.

Ironically, as this project goes along I find that I do value these things a bit more than I expected. Not nearly enough that it would be the determining factor like among the "resume" crowd, but enough that...enough that it makes me happy that our last few nominees have been former MVPs. I guess what it comes down to, is, I feel like there is some inherent hubris in completely ignoring the accolades. That if player A wins an MVP and huge acclaim in his time while player B can barely make an All NBA team, then there should be an EXCELLENT set of arguments for voting player B over player A. For the most part, I think there have been excellent arguments given here for many of our votes. And enough doubt has been raised in my mind about Cousy that, as I pointed out above, I need to be convinced on him now.

But I do think that's part of why I have some difficulty going with the Reggie and Pierce picks at this stage and it's part of why I haven't nominated Manu or Rodman yet despite feeling like there's good evidence that they really are that good...it seems like the pendulum has almost swung the other way. From there being an over-reliance on accolades without any analysis given for context (which often permeates this board), in this project I want to make sure we don't go too far in the other direction.

Mind you, I will be nominating both Ginobili and Rodman in the very near future and arguing for them strenuously, so take this set of musings for what it is...just me thinking out loud, trying to figure out where I stand on things as we go along. I certainly don't think we should be tied to the accolades. But I do think the accolades are in fact data points, and though the potential for bias is high and has been abused in the past, I'd rather see us account for the bias but still respect that some info is there instead of just completely throwing all accolades out. Similarly to how I recognize the weaknesses in whatever type of advanced box score stat is out there, but that doesn't mean I completely ignore them. Like everything else, it just requires more interpretation.

[drza]

Nique vs Pierce

(The following is a re-post from the "Pierce vs Wilkins" thread that was on the main page today)

It seems that in many Nique comps of late, I see him compared to either "low efficiency gunner" types like Iverson or to "high-flying-style-over-substance" types like Vince Carter. I don't necessarily agree with the somewhat negative connotations afforded to these types, but the larger point is that neither really fits Nique's game.

Stylistically, by FAR the player that most resembles Nique from this generation is Carmelo Anthony. Melo isn't the highlight film that Nique was, but the way they operate on the court is very similar. Offensively, both have more traditional small-forward skills than the combo-wing style favored by this generation of high-scoring wings. As such, neither Nique nor Melo were big ball-handlers or distributors. No, they are more finishers, players that get the ball in their attack zones (often from the wing or elbow) then either shoot off the jab-step or else attack the rim with 1 or 2 power dribbles off of a move.

This difference is important when discussing both "iso" and "offensive versatility". Because "iso" for a combo wing means a lot of dribbling in areas all over the frontcourt. Off that dribble they might try to move into an attack position to make a scoring move, or they might dribble while waiting for teammates to set/come of picks to run a play, or they might dribble just to let the play develop or they might dribble just to take time off the clock/get themselves in a rhythm. In other words, for a combo wing "iso" means a lot of time with the ball in their hands, for better or for worse. For the Nique/Melo type, though, "iso" is almost always an attacking/finishing role, with much less dribbling and whatever dribbling that occurs oriented towards getting to the rim.

Similarly a combo wing, by dint of team role and all of that time that the ball is in his hands, will almost necessarily have more assists than his bigger forward counterparts. The offense is designed for him to more often be the decision maker and the one making the last passes. Plus, the 3-point line is a lot bigger part of the game in the 2000s than it was in the 80s, so many of the wings now play further out than they did in Nique's time. On the other hand, the "big" SF, by dint of playing more off the ball and in attack zones closer to the rim, is more in position to attack the offensive boards.

All of what I described above shows up very clearly in the box scores if you compare the first 13 years of Pierce and Wilkins, alongside Vince and Melo. http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y4=2011 . As you can see, there's a clear stylistic separation between the two groups with Melo/Wilkins on one side (higher FG%, fewer treys, more O-rebs, fewer assists) and Pierce/Carter (exact opposite) on the other.

My point is, there are stylistic differences in the way Nique and Pierce played forward that don't, of themselves, connote which player is better. They just say that their roles were different. So, the question is, who did better at their roles and who made the bigger impact?

To me, Nique was a bit better. In the (earlier) Top-100 threads I went through the Hawks offensive ratings through the years, and it was clear that the offense's rise and fall corresponded to Nique (note: plus TMac4MVP had an awesome post breaking down Nique's game a bunch of threads back...might be worthy of a re-post if you're up to it). Thus, he wasn't just empty numbers, he was making an impact. Pierce was as well, as evidenced by his good APM numbers, so I don't see a lot of space between the two. But I think Nique was a bit closer to the super-elite of his time than Pierce was to the super-elite of his.

[lorak]

vote: Dwight
nominate: Zo

[drza]

Evaluating Kevin Mchale, and ranking him vs Dwight Howard

(The following is a re-post from Vote thread #35)

Mchale is an interesting case for me, because in a lot of ways he is like Pippen and Ginobili, two players that came into the league on a team that already had an All-History player and thus never really had the chance to operate on a team built around THEM. It's an interesting conundrum in a project like this, because that can be both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, many observers relegate players like this to so-called "#2 status" and refuse to compare them directly to "lead options" because of their different roles. But on the other hand, these are players that were better than 90% of the best players on other teams...they just weren't better than Bird, Jordan or Duncan. And frankly, in a project where we're trying to determine who was the "best at playing the game of basketball" I can't really see holding their role against them, either way.

Which makes it difficult. Because all of the stats that we have access to, at least to some degree, are directly affected by your teammates and role. And for players before 2003, we don't even have any kind of detailed +/- stats with which to try to break down impact beyond just the box scores, which are REALLY affected by role and teammates. Which means that we have to do a fair amount of the kind of skill-set interpretation that you do here, which brings in large amounts of subjectivity that would be at least somewhat minimized by more quantitative analysis. But it is what it is.

Re: Mchale's skillset and impact. We know that he had a weird body type...high shoulders and extremely long arms on an almost 7-foot frame, giving him not only the nickname "Lurch" but also the length to be extremely pesky as an on-ball defender. We know that he had excellent fundamental footwork on offense, and was adapt at using angles to ensure that his shot couldn't be affected by his defender. We know that, while he wasn't preternaturally quick like some of the ultra-elite defenders in history that share his body type, Mchale did have enough quickness that, combined with his absurd length, allowed him to defend quicker wing players even out to the perimeter by playing a step off of them and then challenging their shot. This same length allowed him to defend centers at need, even though he wasn't particularly girthy.

On the flip-side, we also know some of his weaknesses. Mchale wasn't particularly gifted and/or willing as a passer, making him a bit of a black hole. This could be seen as a good thing with his ability to finish efficiently, but it also doesn't demonstrate a framework by which Mchale could be a legit offensive center-piece on his own. The key thing that differentiates a Kareem or even Duncan from a Mchale or Howard type on offense is that the formers can set up in the post, take an entry pass, and make decisions for the entire offense with either an offensive move or a pass that leads to a good shot for either themselves or their teammates. Mchale never showed that skill, which puts a limit onto how much of an offensive anchor he could be. Likewise, on defense, while Mchale was an excellent on-ball defender his lack of dominant help defense and/or dominant rebounding kept him from becoming a history-level defensive anchor. One could argue that the rebounding of Bird and Parrish kept Mchale from having to vacuum the glass, but the logical rebuttal is that because Mchale didn't have to concentrate on the glass he was more free to do other things defensively...this is what allowed him to press up more on his man even out to the perimeter, and it also should have allowed him to really be able to roam and be a help defensive terror...if he had that capacity.

As such, on offense (in present day comparisons) I see Mchale's logical comps as the Zach Randolph/Amare Stoudemire type. And defensively, stylistically I see him as more of a Rasheed Wallace/Cliff Robinson type. On neither end is that my definition of a true offensive or defensive anchor...but on the other hand, it's a short notch below on both ends, and really...a combo of Amare's offensive output with Sheed's defense would be a NASTY combo. Just a short step behind the ultra elite, in my opinion.

Conclusion - Mchale vs Howard: So, as I've written this I've been kind of working out in my mind exactly how I see Mchale. Then, the next question becomes...how would Amare Wallace compare with Dwight Howard? It's a difficult question, but on a year-to-year basis I would rather have Howard. His brand of defense (help and man) and dominant rebounding, when played at the level that Howard does, is just a larger impact weapon than what an elite on-ball defender can have. And on offense, while Howard has yet to show the offensive repertoire that Mchale had as far as moves go, he has the raw athleticism to be able to finish at similar volumes and efficiency which, in the end, is what matters. The only thing that Mchale might have on Howard is longevity, but I've been less impressed by longevity than most in this project, so ultimately I still have Howard over Mchale.

But after listening to my own arguments, I think I've sold myself on Mchale higher than I previously had him. And would be interested to see more Mchale discussion moving forward to see if there are angles that I didn't consider.

Also...is it about time that Parrish starts getting some mention as well?

[Fencer reregistered]

And in the same environment Sharman was MUCH more efficient that Cousy. Other guards also.

Not the PG types.

[Fencer reregistered]

Hmm. I must confess that when one examines the Celtics' FGA/game, they seem to be in a relatively smooth curve peaking 1959-60, with no sudden discontinuity upon Cousy's retirement. That would indeed undermine the theory that he was essential to their fast-breaking style.

I do suspect that the Celtics' own offensive pace slowed while other teams' picked up -- after a while, they fell to #3 in the league in FGA. But still, those numbers (my simple proxy for pace) don't tell a big Cousy-centric story.