RealGM Top 100 #49

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,794
And1: 21,726
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#21 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Oct 7, 2011 4:22 am

Snakebites wrote:^I don't know, I almost find that preferable to seeing a player with 3 devoted fans get voted in just because there was non unity among the other voters who didn't want to see him in.

Besides, it looked to me like Paul was getting late votes last round too. He just happened not to come out on top.


What I'm saying to you is that the winner of any given thread in this pseudo-runoff is someone who became a "finalist" because of someone being vehement early on his behalf, and that there is damage similar to if Paul gets "wrongly" voted in early, and that if the same pattern keeps happening, then the cumulative damage of voting for not-Paul through a swath of threads is worse than if Paul gets in too early.

As far as Paul's late votes, well that's misleading. The early/late distinction is generally true, but as you say, the Paul supporters have basically been the same contingent each time. Mystic just added another vote, but he's been gone, so that's not really a late vote thing.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
Snakebites
Forum Mod - Pistons
Forum Mod - Pistons
Posts: 50,450
And1: 17,636
Joined: Jul 14, 2002
Location: Looking not-so-happily deranged
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#22 » by Snakebites » Fri Oct 7, 2011 4:27 am

In all honesty, I really don't see the issue unless people are actually voting against Paul out of spite, and I simply find no issue with people selecting the contending player they favor rather than voting for their own favorite and watching a player tehy don't think deserves to be there win.

I've held off on voting for someone I didn't think would get the needed support a few times in this game, and really don't think I've done anything wrong at all.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. Its clear to me the majority of people do not think it is Chris Paul's time yet (if they did, it would be Paul getting last minute switches in his favor, which I'd have no issue with either), and favor varying numbers of other players over him. Once that number lowers, Paul will get his moment.

And RE: Paul's second place finishes. Its obvious to me that a fundamental difference exists in how to evaluate Paul's career up to this point, and where you fall in that difference results in a disparity of several spots. And I see absolutely no problem with that and don't agree with the premise that someone who gets second place that many times is being wronged.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,794
And1: 21,726
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#23 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:43 am

Snakebites wrote:I've held off on voting for someone I didn't think would get the needed support a few times in this game, and really don't think I've done anything wrong at all.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there.


I'm not saying people are guilty of unethical actions here. I'm just wanting to encourage people to think through their votes.

If there's a scenario where Player A could get voted in at 40, and you have him at 70, you can make your priority to lower him as much as possible, and that's fine. However, it means that amongst Players B, C, D, etc, your vote may end up getting placed for Player D even if you prefer Players C and D because someone pushing him is able to manipulate you into seeing Player D as the way to beat Player A. If you don't mind this, then that's fine, but you should be aware of the ecosystem at play.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,794
And1: 21,726
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#24 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:57 am

Snakebites wrote:And RE: Paul's second place finishes. Its obvious to me that a fundamental difference exists in how to evaluate Paul's career up to this point, and where you fall in that difference results in a disparity of several spots. And I see absolutely no problem with that and don't agree with the premise that someone who gets second place that many times is being wronged.


I'm not talking about Paul being wronged. I'm talking about how weird it is when players keep leaping from nowhere in the vote to winning the thing over a guy who keeps getting 2nd place. What that says to me is that that a major group of people simply thinks lots of guys deserve it more than the always-a-bridesmaid, and they aren't really having a debate about how those "lots of guys" stack up next to each other.

Essentially beginning with the Cousy vote, I think the last 5 winners' ordering says essentially nothing about what the consensus is regarding how they stack up next to each other because they won simply because they ended up being the anti-Paul candidate of the day. The fact that we have a bunch of guys next to each other on the list who we never really spent time debating between is what I call damage to the list, and I can't see how anyone could deny it exists.

Of course, if you think Paul isn't anywhere near worthy of these spots, him getting voted in is significant damage as well, and it's totally debatable which is worse. But the damage of a single overrated player is obvious and on everyone's minds. By contrast, I get the impression that when people vote for the lesser of two evils they think they are pulling a fast one, and their only lament is the thought that what they did is shady in some way, and this really isn't the issue at all. So I think it's important everyone realizes the pros and cons of what they are doing.

And again, I say this as someone who has played the pseudo-runoff game. I'm certainly not above it, I just see major drawbacks to doing so.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,003
And1: 5,070
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#25 » by ronnymac2 » Fri Oct 7, 2011 6:37 am

It comes down to McAdoo vs. Paul to me. I honestly think I have a greater chance of winning a title with McAdoo; he just has slightly superior longevity of his prime.

I know my vote won't matter seeing as how everybody has been underrating McAdoo ever since whenever I argued for him (probably in the 20's), and my vote probably will continue to mean little since KJ and CP3 are likely going in the next two spots (they certainly have legit arguments).

I saw McAdoo compared to Amar'e. Sure he had an advantage in that he faced centers and he was a PF, like Amar'e. However, think about this...in 1975, he torched the Washington Bullets. Dropped 37 PPG and had a 50-20 game. That's against Unseld and Hayes. Now, Washington could choose which players to be the primary defender on Bob. Well, whoever that was, they got their ass kicked.

I don't think McAdoo necessarily needed any "PF vs. C" advantage. I don't think Amar'e does either. That's a poor argument imo.


Vote: Bob McAdoo

Nominate: Bernard King


I'm willing to switch to Penny Hardaway. JordansBulls, Penny played more games than Shaq in 1996 and was more valuable, but he wasn't a better basketball player than Shaq.

Robert Parish is also interesting. I always thought he was one of the more underrated stars; everybody thinks of his longevity and dismisses his excellent peak. I could switch to him if I see a good argument.

I like King now though. Dude was a nasty scorer and a force in the playoffs.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,003
And1: 5,070
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#26 » by ronnymac2 » Fri Oct 7, 2011 6:55 am

Fencer reregistered wrote:Guys who I assume are making the list at some point:

Sam Jones, Greer, Arizin, Schayes

Worthy, Marques Johnson, Ray Allen

Parish

Thurmond

Monroe

Bobby Jones, Rodman

Billups

Discussion of any of them might be in order

Guys I'm not so sure about:

Dennis Johnson -- didn't feel like that much of an offensive player on the Celtics, except in crunch time. And I'm not sure whether his defensive results match his reputation.

Vince Carter -- the visible quitting on his team is a HUGE black mark. Leading a team into the 2nd round of the playoffs isn't really enough to guarantee a spot on the list.

Ama're -- defense

Maravich -- what's the case for him?

Archibald -- ditto


Just wanted to add a few names: Jack Sikma, Dave DeBusschere, and Horace Grant.

Nate Archibald should be coming up soon. Insane production is still insane production, and the fact that he became an excellent floor general on Early-Bird's (Ha!) teams means something. His point guard duals with Mo Cheeks were something I found compelling when I watched old Philly vs. Boston games. Older Tiny was still athletic enough to race the very athletic Cheeks all around the court. Both guys would fit in perfectly in today's era of quick point guards.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,003
And1: 5,070
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#27 » by ronnymac2 » Fri Oct 7, 2011 7:04 am

I just want to say that I support Melo and Amar'e going somewhere in this project.

The one and only aspect of the Melo arguments here that I'll comment on is that it's unreasonable to see how Denver did post-Melo and conclude Melo didn't have star-level impact. NY stupidly traded one million players- some of them very good players- for Melo and Billups.

First off, it was what, 20ish games that we got to see? That's a problem.

Denver got a host of excellent players back, players who fit nicely with other players (Gallo and Chandler can play off ball really well for 15 ppg scorers). I've written about how I think Lawson and Gallinari are a great offensive duo going forward, so unfortunately, I expect to see Melo get unfairly criticized for not having star-level offensive impact even though Denver has a great, budding offensive core.

Finally, NY didn't improve with Melo because they gutted their already flawed team to get him, Billups was injured a bit, Amar'e was worn down a tad from carrying an immense load at the beginning of he season, and Fields hit the rookie wall.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,794
And1: 21,726
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#28 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Oct 7, 2011 7:57 am

ronnymac2 wrote:I just want to say that I support Melo and Amar'e going somewhere in this project.

The one and only aspect of the Melo arguments here that I'll comment on is that it's unreasonable to see how Denver did post-Melo and conclude Melo didn't have star-level impact. NY stupidly traded one million players- some of them very good players- for Melo and Billups.

First off, it was what, 20ish games that we got to see? That's a problem.

Denver got a host of excellent players back, players who fit nicely with other players (Gallo and Chandler can play off ball really well for 15 ppg scorers). I've written about how I think Lawson and Gallinari are a great offensive duo going forward, so unfortunately, I expect to see Melo get unfairly criticized for not having star-level offensive impact even though Denver has a great, budding offensive core.

Finally, NY didn't improve with Melo because they gutted their already flawed team to get him, Billups was injured a bit, Amar'e was worn down a tad from carrying an immense load at the beginning of he season, and Fields hit the rookie wall.


See, I don't like your Denver rebuttal for two reasons:

1) It's not like the "they did fine without him" stemmed only from 20 games. This has been a specific argument against Melo for years, and when they finally traded Melo, the results looked a lot more like what +/- people said than mainstream people. That's more of a complete scientific cycle than you typically get for a guy, and beyond that, if Denver sucked next year, would that really change the fact that Denver did fine without Melo last year?

2) Strong core. Added more players. If Melo's a HOFer in his prime, the only way it should be possible for him to be replaced by a depth of non-all-stars is if the team acquires players that fill glaring weaknesses while still having someone on their team who can play a similar role to what Melo did. I don't see how Denver benefited in either of those ways.

On the New York side of things though, agree, the jury is still out.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,422
And1: 16,000
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#29 » by therealbig3 » Fri Oct 7, 2011 8:13 am

Vote: Paul
Nominate: Marques Johnson
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#30 » by mysticbb » Fri Oct 7, 2011 8:35 am

ThaRegul8r wrote:I honestly don't get just voting for one of the candidates with the most votes. If I'm going to vote, I'm going to vote for whomever I believe deserves to be at that slot.


This. No idea why I should try to vote strategically. I pick the player I would take first from the available candidates.
I also want to say I enjoy reading Doc MJ's posts regarding APM, Stoudemire and Anthony and I agree with his view.

Vote: Chris Paul
Nomination: Dennis Rodman
User avatar
lukekarts
Head Coach
Posts: 7,168
And1: 336
Joined: Dec 11, 2009
Location: UK
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#31 » by lukekarts » Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:06 am

I suspect Dennis Rodman get nominated in next, which I think is too early. I question how many GM's would select him over guys like Worthy, Marques etc, who are yet to be nominated. Yes he was a great defensive player, with a unique skillset, but at the same time he was a very limited player with distinct weaknesses.

Vote: Elvin Hayes
Nominate: James Worthy
There is no consolation prize. Winning is everything.
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,859
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#32 » by drza » Fri Oct 7, 2011 1:22 pm

mysticbb wrote:
ThaRegul8r wrote:I honestly don't get just voting for one of the candidates with the most votes. If I'm going to vote, I'm going to vote for whomever I believe deserves to be at that slot.


This. No idea why I should try to vote strategically. I pick the player I would take first from the available candidates.
I also want to say I enjoy reading Doc MJ's posts regarding APM, Stoudemire and Anthony and I agree with his view.

Vote: Chris Paul
Nomination: Dennis Rodman


Re: "Voting strategically". I've been following this debate, and I think there are actually 3 different things being discussed. Much of Doc MJ's issue with it, if I read correctly, is that if one does not put forth a vote or argument for the player they actually think fits best and continuously just takes the lesser of 2 evils (Call it method 1), they essentially are ceding their list-making voting ability. In essence, in only reacting to the opinions and work of others, a voter gives up his "offense" (i.e. ability to initiate his own opinions and changes) and begins to only play "defense" against players being misranked. I dont think this is in any way morally wrong, but it DOES limit the value of one's vote. Instead of really shaping the narrative to what you think, you're shaping it according to what you're sure you DON'T think.

The opposite side of the coin, then, would be method 2: Promote and vote for who you think best come hell or high water. This is another way to do it, and seems to be the method that some are pushing back as a more pure way to do it...the vibe that I get is this is considered sort of the "real man" (apologies if any here aren't men, wanted the connotation of the term not necessarily the gender) way to do it. That you make up your own mind, speak your piece and vote, then let the cards fall where they may. And this is also a valid way to do it, but here it comes back to all of the different voting methods folks argued for before the project started. Because with a voting base this small, it CAN be an issue that if 3 posters really believe in a person they can force him through the voting population just because of plurality and a lack of quorum. I'm sure we all feel there are players that we've seen go too high in this project, and that's one thing, but for a player to go too high almost solely because one relatively small block decided that they really like him while he's not even on anyone else's radar, to me that is a problem just as large if not larger than what we discussed in method 1. To me this is an all "offense", no "defense" approach...the voter tries to shift the whole thing to his way of thinking, but if he isn't successful he essentially has no impact on a thread.

But there's a third branch, and one that I've been more likely to participate in, that essentially combines the two. I generally spend the first day actually pointing out and hopefully promoting the player that I think fits best at a certain slot, if I have a definite opinion. I may even list a small group, each of which I consider to be viable alternatives that would get my full blessing at a particular spot. However, if by day 2 the "finalists", if you will, are neither one among the group that I feel are best to represent a single slot, but of the finalists I find one to be a better candidate than the other, I BY ALL MEANS am willing change my vote to an instant run-off. With the scoring system we chose, I not only think that's a reasonable approach...frankly, I think it's the SMARTEST approach. Yes, I want to put my own opinion forth and try to promote the players I think best. However, I also want my vote to count, and if the player I think best just won't make it anyway, then I certainly would want to then have my opinion on which of the finalists best fit heard. To me, that only makes sense...a mix between offense AND defense.

Re: Melo and APM.
Doc MJ's line of reasoning works for me, too, for the very reasons he lists. I've written articles from well before the trade this year, pointing out how whenever Melo leaves the line-up the Nuggets are fine. So when he was traded and the Nuggets were fine, to me that was further support for what APM was already telling us...not just a standalone 20 games that we have to wait for further support on, but a 20 game test period for a hypothesis that we ALREADY had very reasonable and solid support for. That's a big difference, in my eyes.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,859
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#33 » by drza » Fri Oct 7, 2011 1:35 pm

lukekarts wrote:I suspect Dennis Rodman get nominated in next, which I think is too early. I question how many GM's would select him over guys like Worthy, Marques etc, who are yet to be nominated. Yes he was a great defensive player, with a unique skillset, but at the same time he was a very limited player with distinct weaknesses.

Vote: Elvin Hayes
Nominate: James Worthy


I guess my rebuttal is that, instead of a question of "how many" GMs would select him, I'd be more interested in how many of the GREAT GMs would select him. There's an interesting article in the October 3rd ESPN the Magazine that discusses the rise of "advanced stats" in the different sports, and how some teams are further ahead of the curve than others. I haven't seen any in-depth study done on exactly which teams are making their decisions more heavily based on advanced stats than others, or any type of exact correlation made between that and win percentage, but anecdotally it seems to me that in the NBA the nerd teams are making the most of what they have. I know, for instance, that the Mavs and Celtics, among recent champs, are renowned for their analytic departments and before them teams like the Spurs were known for being ahead of the game on their advanced scouting departments (which speaks of the mindset that I'm looking for in a front office as well).

Which brings me back to my point. A player like Rodman seems to measure out as HYPER impactful by the different advanced methods that I've seen. Whether it's a controversial box score method like Wins Produced arguing that Rodman was the actual MVP of the 1996 Bulls over Jordan, or on the opposite side of the coin an extreme non-boxscore/impact based approach like the "Rodman for the HoF" site ( http://skepticalsports.com/?p=1181 ) that makes his case based on changes in team win percentage/scoring margin with and without Rodman...from both directions, there is enough statistical smoke that not only was Rodman an obvious outlier with his absurd rebounding percentages, but that he was also an IMPACT outlier because of the effect that his rebounding and defense had on his team's outcomes, that I believe it. Defense and rebounding ARE, IMO, the most overlooked aspect of the game both from not just the casual fan, but even for many TV analysts or GMs.

So back to your original statement, I could TOTALLY see GM Kevin Mchale looking at the box scores and watching a few videos, and saying that Marques Johnson is definitely the pick for his Timberwolves. But I get the feeling that a Daryl Morey-type is going to look at things a lot more in depth, and based on how I read it I'd be surprised if Rodman isn't the player that he'd pick more often than not of the two.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
lorak
Head Coach
Posts: 6,317
And1: 2,237
Joined: Nov 23, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#34 » by lorak » Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:08 pm

vote: CP
nominate: Rodman
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,206
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#35 » by ElGee » Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:28 pm

Dr Mufasa wrote:Dwight vs Paul. I've made this argument about 5 times but there *is* a clear difference in longevity here.

2010, 2011 Dwight - 2008, 2009 Paul
2008 Dwight - 2011 Paul - Personally I'd use 2007 Dwight here but I'll throw 2011 Paul a bone
2005, 2006 Dwight - 2006, 2007 Paul - Paul is slightly better but injured his second year

Those parts of their careers can pretty much be considered equal. What's left then is


Well, I specifically mentioned you so you wouldn't have to make it a 6th time...oh well.

I can't say it's crazy to equate 08-09 Paul to 10-11 Dwight, but I'll still give a small edge to Paul.

I equate Paul's 11 season to Howard's 09 season - I'm not sure why you used 2008. I think it's off to see those as equal seasons.

That leaves 06-08 Dwight vs. 06-07 and 10 Paul (I hope we can agree that Dwight's rookie year is of no relevance here.) I don't see a clear edge to Howard at all here.

2006 Howard is a 20-year old trying to come into his own. He isn't an all-nba defender. He's pretty darn raw. Rookie Paul actually turns in a decent rookie year, enough so that I think he's an all-star caliber player. Small difference but it's there nonetheless. Edge Paul.

2007 is pretty close to me. Howard is getting less raw, but he's still pretty raw. I'm not sure if people are just forgetting his developing out of HS or not, but he scored a bumpy 13, 8 and 11 points in the first 3 games of the PS. There's finally a great defensive jump for Orlando but Detroit did what they wanted in the 4 game playoff and my impression at the time was Dwight wasn't really much of a factor. His on/off difference that year was negligible. (0.8 pts worse in 930 minutes).

Paul, OTOH, has a small on/off too (and a nice difference on offense). Given that he's beating Howard in every PM study, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that his defense isn't something awful, even if his offensive impact wasn't all-world in 07. He's running a ~110 level offense with Chandler-West-Mason-Brown which is pretty good, although not great.

Which leaves Howard's 2008 vs. Paul's 2010. And if you give an edge to Howard (finally), I don't see how one can reduce it to Wade 07. (EDIT: I almost do ITO of value, so it's not far off in comparison. I just mean let's not act like having that version of Paul or Wade is totally useless on a team.) Wade could barely play. Paul, to me, and after watching what he did this year when it mattered, was capable of helping his team to a degree in the PS that is above all non-elite PGs. I don't think it's correct to erase his season because of the missed games either from a value standpoint.

So ultimately, if you give the edge to Howard (I do)
(a) it's not by much (unless you just love love love you some early DH)
(b) The longevity is barely the issue since it's almost identical
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,349
And1: 16,271
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#36 » by Dr Positivity » Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:37 pm

On the run off voting debate, I think the closest we can get to 50% of us agreeing on a player, the better - and if it comes down to two players, getting extra votes on who should be higher between the two matters. Essentially what's happening is that if everyone had a list made, the ones who switched from KJ to Zo in the last thread would've had both KJ and Zo above Paul. Thus the consensus saying Zo > Paul is very correct

There's just ample reason to think that the player who emerges as the top contender in a given thread simply has a lot to do with who get so a couple quick votes and then becomes the guy to pick if you simply really disagree with the philosophy of others on another player who you know will get votes.


I agree with this, but it seems to me like the "everyone but Paul"-ians really are deciding on who's going next, and the same process is happening there as when the whole group is picking between players. It's not random - the order went Cousy, Cowens, Iverson, Walton, Zo because that's what the consensus, in this case the people not naming Paul, chose. I don't see any reason to believe that if Paul wasn't in the mix, that the order would change in the last 5 spots for any other reason than the Paul voters landing strongly on the side of someone else, which is a different problem than vote switching

When people change their votes, essentially everyone has already voted, and it's become clear who the leader is (other than Paul). I have to assume that they'd have been leading otherwise and thus winning

I don't think any of us are thinking "oh crap, I have to vote for anyone but Paul" and not putting thought into picking between the other candidates. I know personally that I didn't switch my vote in Cousy vs Paul because I didn't have a strong feeling towards either, but I did switch on Zo vs Paul because I did feel strongly about Zo having a CLEAR edge by my criteria (and that KJ and Zo are virtually tied)
Liberate The Zoomers
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,859
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#37 » by drza » Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Hayes impact

I keep waiting for someone else to weigh in on Hayes, when maybe I should be the one to do it. I don't have time to do it full justice, but I can at least look into it a little closer.

The 1968 Rocekts went 15 - 67, with an SRS of -7.94 (12th out of 12 teams). There is no team ORTG or DRTG available, but they averaged 112.4 ppg (11th out of 12 teams) and gave up 121 ppg (11th out of 12 teams). As a team they shot 41.7% from the field, dead last in a league where the average was 44.6% FG.

The 1969 Rockets went 37 - 45, with an SRS of -0.3 (7th out of 14). There is still no team ORTG or DRTG available, but they averaged 115.3 ppg (3rd of 14) and gave up 115.5 ppg (10th of 14). As a term they shot 42.8% FG, 12th out of 14 in a league with an average of 44.1% FG.

The main players on the 1968 Rockets in terms of minutes played were:

1) Don Kojis (29 yrs old, wing, 2548 min played (69 games))
2) Toby Kimball (25 yrs old, PF, 2519 min played (81 games))
3) John Barnhill (29 yrs old, guard, 1883 min played (75 games))
4) Jon McGlocklin (24 yrs old, wing, 1876 min played (65 games))
5) John Block (23 yrs old, FC, 1805 min played (52 games)
6) Dave Gambee (30 yrs old, F, 1805 min in 80 games)
7) Art Williams (28 yrs old, PG, 1739 min in 79 games)

The main players on the 1969 Rockets:

1) Elvin Hayes (23 yrs old, FC, 3695 min in 82 games)
2) Don Kojis (30 yrs old, wing, 3130 min in 81 games)
3) John Block (24 yrs old, FC, 2489 min played in 78 games)
4) Jim Barnett (24 yrs old, wing, 2346 min played in 80 games)
5) Art Williams (29 yrs old, PG, 1987 min played in 79 games)
6) Toby Kimball (26 yrs old, PF, 1680 minutes in 76 games)

Looking at those two teams, in general we see similar names. Don Kojis was the best player on the '68 Rockets, and was the 2nd best on the '69 behind Hayes. There was turnover among the wings (Barnhill and McGlocklin's minutes replaced by Jim Barnett, none of whom I know much about) and Hayes/Block took up minutes previously played by Kimball and Gambee...but from what I can tell Hayes was definitely the primary addition, along with better team health.

It seems to me that, at this closer-though-still-could-definitely-get-closer look, Hayes still looks like the big impact piece. He comes in, is by-far the leading scorer on efficiency above his team's average, and certainly appears to be the key piece in the offense improving in both efficiency and volume overall. The defense, also, was much improved by volume...even without pace info, we can say that the 1969 team scoring 3 more ppg and giving up 6 fewer ppg than their 1968 counterparts suggested significant overall improvement and likely improvement on both sides of the ball. And again, from what I can tell, Hayes seems to be the focal point of the improvement.

In 1970 they regress to 27 - 55 record and -2.95 SRS, with the 5th rated offense by volume (118.7 ppg, 43.6% FG) but back to DFL on defense (121.8 ppg). Hayes played all 82 games, but 31-year old Kojis only played 56 and youngster Stu Lantz teamed with Barnett as the biggest minute wings on the squad. I don't have enough idea of this team to make strong pronouncements, but they still ended up closer to their 1969 team record and SRS than their 1968, and the offense by both volume and efficiency seems to stay near their 1969 value despite the second best scorer missing a bunch of time injured. Hayes was the leading scorer by 12 ppg, and his efficiency was again better than the team average.

In 1971
they jump back up to 40 - 42 with a 0.20 SRS, both offense (113.2 ppg) and defense (113.4 ppg) around the middle of the pack by average, Hayes still by-far the leading scorer though Stu Lantz and young Calvin Murphy both take on larger scoring and passing roles.

1972:
34 - 48, -1.22 SRS, offense (109.7 ppg)/defense (111.2 ppg) still both middle of pack by average. Hayes, Lantz and Murphy still running the show. Hard to go much further.

1973: Entirely new Rockets team. Hayes and Lantz are gone, Murhpy now looks like a 5th option, with Rudy T, Jack Marin, Jimmy Walker and Mike Newlin as the scoring leaders. The Rockets team results don't change much (33 - 49, -1.81 SRS), though their style seems much different as they lead the league in points/game (112.8 ppg) but are last in opponents ppg (114.5 ppg). From that, I would think they became more of a run/gun team (coaching change as well), but can't really extrapolate the impact of Hayes leaving with the whole team different.

Meanwhile, in Washington...

The 1972 Bullets were 38 - 44 with a -1.26 SRS; 14th/17 in offensive ppg (107.1 ppg, 45% FG), 5th in pts allowed (108.3 ppg). By minutes, the main players on the 1972 Bullets were:

1) Archie Clark (30 yrs old, guard, 3243 min in 76 games)
2) Wes Unseld (25 yrs old, C, 3171 min in 76 games)
3) Jack Marin (27 yrs old, wing, 2927 min in 78 games)
4) Phil Chenier (21 yrs old, guard, 2481 min in 82 games)

Hayes joined the team in 1973, and they went 52 - 30 with a +2.85 SRS; 12th/17 in offensive PPG (105 ppg, 46.4% FG) and 4th in pts allowed (101.6 ppg). By minutes, the main players were:

1) Mike Riordan (27 yrs old, wing, 3466 min in 82 games)
2) Elvin Hayes (27 yrs old, FC, 3347 min in 81 games)
3) Wes Unseld (26 yrs old, C, 3085 min in 79 games)
4) Phil Chenier (22 yrs old, guard, 2776 min in 71 games)

Unseld and Chenier were essentially constants, with Hayes and Riordan replacing Clark (played only 39 games in '73) and Marin in the minutes hierarchy. Hayes was the leading scorer, but one of a group of 4 that all were within the 18 to 21 ppg range. Hayes and Unseld also combined to dominate the glass, and since Hayes would go on to make both the '74 and '75 All Defense team while Unseld never did, it would certainly indicate that Hayes was considered the best defender on those teams. The offense scored 2 fewer points (but on 2% better FG) than the 1972 team, but the defense gave up 7 fewer ppg. All in all, considering other new addition Riordan was a wing that was 4th on the team in scoring, it would appear that again Hayes is the new jack that should be given the most credit for the team's improvements on both sides of the ball as part of an overall big jump in record and SRS.

The Bullets went on to maintain strong team success for the rest of Hayes' prime, including multiple Finals appearances and a championship, all of which being teams that featured Hayes centrally as arguably the best player.

So, upon further (though still by no means exhaustive) review, my findings seem to support what Laimbeer posted before. Hayes does look like the catalyst for 2 strong team jumps-in-quality upon his addition, and he was the focal point of many sucessful teams. When Hayes' main two knocks (scoring efficiency and attitude questions) normally make their mark as negatives on team success, and it really doesn't appear that Hayes' teams HAD difficulty in those areas (in fact, just the opposite)...I'm much more apt to believe that Hayes' accolades were deserved (and perhaps he deserved more) and that he really was a high impact player, than to worry about his PER.

As such, after further consideration Hayes continues to look like a very strong candidate to me.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,206
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#38 » by ElGee » Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:58 pm

Let's do a few more. Dave Cowens was voted in. Let's overlook that I presented how he was not some high-level impact player and that that Celtics team was constructed in a multipolar fashion much more like the 04 Pistons in build than the 02 Lakers.

Remember, Cowens is VOTED in.

71 I give him relevance.
72 he's a solid All-Star
73 he's in that sub all-nba range
74 Same
75 Same, slightly worse
76 Peak - slightly better than 73 and 74 - all-nba stuff
77 Relevance.

71 and 77 mean little to me, although they count at least. That leaves 72-76 without a very good peak IMO. Remember, coming off what I hold as his best season in 76, Cowens shocked the team by retiring (only to return). In those 30 games Boston was 0.9 points worse. That's it. And in 1975 when he missed 17 games, they were still a +3.7 MOV team without him (+6.3 with).

Willis Reed is VOTED in.

65 Relevance
66 Relevance
67 Solid All-Star. (Good jump by Willis)
68 Solid All-Star.
69 Good all-nba/MVP level season. Best peak of these 3 IMO.
70 Same as 69
71 Relevance (Similar to Paul's 10 season limping through the PS)

Marques Johnson has a better IMO peak and his breakdown is something like
78 Solid All-Star
79 Solid all-nba. Arguably peak season. Not far off from MVP-level.
80 Slightly worse than 79
81 Solid all-nba. Also arguably peak season (comparable to 79, if not better with proven PS)
82 Relevant season. Misses time but still has impact (3 to 6.2).
83 Solid All-Star.

That gives him 5 years + 1 relevant year. Cowens has 5 years + 2 relevant years. Only I think Marques is better at peak and in many other seasons than Cowens. Reed 4 years + 3 relevant years (better 2-year peak). Yet two are voted in, **both without much argumentation** and the other isn't nominated.

So CLEARLY it's not an issue of longevity with some of these guys. And since I haven't seen anyone really rebut any of these points, I don't know what to think anymore other than people either aren't reading the analysis, or reading it and thinking "OK, but I CAAAAAAN'T vote him over [established player with good rep of the past]." :-?
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,206
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#39 » by ElGee » Fri Oct 7, 2011 6:06 pm

To repeat the Marques argument...

Again, compare Marques to Moncrief. They are very close, but I don't see any clear argument for Squid over Marques by peak or career, especially when you consider Marques' pension for the big moment/big playoff performances. I also don't think people realize how widely talented/regarded he was...I've probably read more Milwaukee Sentinel/Journal articles than any normal non-Milwaukeean should, and he constantly is in the headline as "Marques does it again," or "Marques spectacular as huge to save Bucks." Moncrief never had quite that praise.

Here's what SI said in 1980:

Sports Illustrated Mar 30 1981 wrote:In NBA circles, when the Milwaukee Bucks are discussed—if they are discussed at all—the most frequently used word is could. As in: Marques Johnson could score 30 points a night; or, Bob Lanier's knees could collapse at any moment: or, Sidney Moncrief and Junior Bridgeman could start for any other team in the league. But the facts are that Johnson, phenomenal as he may be, is scoring fewer than 21 points a game...

Not having a star of the magnitude of Julius Erving, Larry Bird or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Milwaukee is, perforce, the paradigm of team play. This is best exemplified by Johnson. He can score almost at will—his high this season is 40 points—but he clearly chooses to blend his skills with those of his teammates. In addition to leading Milwaukee's balanced scoring, Johnson ranks second on the club in both assists and steals and is the top offensive rebounder.


In the 81 PS, the Bucks battled Dr. J and 76ers.

Sports Illustrated wrote:Game 7, Easter Sunday, was the magnificent effort that it was meant to be. The Doctor and Marques strutted their stuff, then stuffed some more—the other Sixers acknowledging Julius Erving's greatness by clearing out and letting him operate in splendid isolation; Milwaukee's Johnson relentlessly going through all five defenders, if necessary, to score.


Perhaps it was the frustration of not seeing the ball often enough down the stretch in Game 3 that inspired Marques Johnson to have probably the best individual game of the playoff two days later, when the Bucks evened the series with a 109-98 victory. Beginning with perfect 7-for-7 shooting from the field in the first period and ending with his seventh offensive rebound and subsequent layup for points 34 and 35, Johnson was nothing short of spectacular.

Even though Marques and The Doctor were rarely assigned at the same time to guard each other and both tried to deemphasize their ballyhooed matchup, one had to wonder what sort of payback Erving would have for Marques. Unfortunately, the Game 5 showdown didn't come off. At a Tuesday practice in Milwaukee, Johnson suffered a recurrence of the back spasms that have plagued him since college. "It's nothing new; it just happened at such a hell of a time," he said. "I kept telling everyone how cold the arena was, but I didn't think about putting my warmups back on."


And in G7:
Indeed, Marques Johnson was himself again, playing the entire 48 minutes of the game and scoring 36 points, his personal high for the series. He got 12 of those in the first period as the teams played to a 28-28 tie...

The teams exchanged the lead for more than three minutes before Erving hit two free throws, stole a pass and sank a jumper to put his team ahead 91-86.

Now it was Marques' turn. He scored five points as the Bucks drew to within a basket at 93-91. With 2:30 to play, Moncrief tried a layup, and Dawkins was called for goaltending when he pinned the ball between the rim and the glass. The score: 93-93. That set the stage for Jones' late-game heroics and the semi-protest by the Bucks.

After a Hollins jumper, Jones' first two free throws put Philly up 97-93. Marques quickly cut the margin to two at 1:06. Then, with 45 seconds to play, Jones rebounded a shot missed by Erving. Eighteen seconds later, after a Cheeks field-goal attempt was blocked by Lanier, Caldwell picked up the loose ball and put up a shot from the top of the key. It missed, barely ticking the rim, but it beat the 24-second shot clock. Dawkins tapped the offensive rebound back to Hollins, who passed the ball on to Jones, who was fouled with 14 seconds to play and made both free throws. That made the score 99-95. The Sixers had held on to the ball for an incredible—and later disputed—52 seconds. A three-point goal by Bridgeman was too little, too late.


This is a guy whose per 75 numbers from 79-81 were:
79 24.0 pts 7.1 reb 2.8 ast +5.6% TS
80 21.9 pts 7.5 reb 3.5 ast +5.4% TS
81 21.1 pts 7.1 reb 4.8 ast +4.9% TS

(83 Moncrief 22.7-5.9-3.9 +7.1%)

The Bucks were a -3 SRS team when Marques was drafted. His rookie year they were ~.500.

77 primaries to 78 primaries:
Winters (2700 mp) --> Winters (2800)
Dandridge (2500) --> Marques (2800)
Bridgeman (2400) --> Bridgeman (1900)
Buckner (2100) --> Buckner (2100)
Nater (2000) --> Gianelli (2300)
Meyers (1300) --> Meyers (2400)
Restani (1100) --> English (1600)
Lloyd (1000) --> Benson (1300)

A young Alex English is in the rotation and they go from Lloyd to Benson and Nater to Gianelli. Yet by replacing a prime Bob Dandridge they improve ALMOST as much as Unseld's Bullets in his rookie year. ;) Only Wes didn't replace an all-star level player...

In 79 the Bucks improve again to +2.2. It's basically the same team as listed above, only (1) Marques is better (2) Grunfeld has an expanded role (3) A player already nominated, English, left and (4) George Johnson plays 1200 minutes.

1980 is when they draft Moncrief and acquire Bob Lanier mid season. Again, speaking to both the importance of Lanier and Johnson, the Bucks were +11.0 MOV after that trade. The Bucks played an elite defense in defending champs Seattle and had no HCA. They also lost G1 in OT to a "desperation bomb" at the buzzer and no one could stop Gus Williams (13-20, 33 pts) in G7.

All this time the guy basically does whatever you ask of him. He's a natural 3 who can play power forward and rebound with the best of them - 16.2% TRB as a rookie and 18.6% in the PS - and create and distribute on offense. He and Moncrief thoroughly flustered the Celtics in 1983 with their versatility and athleticism. And in the closeout game of that series in 83 Johnson had 33-9-6, and it was Squid who said after the game "tonight it wasn't Marques and Sid, it was Marques and Marques."

And 83 was the year in which Moncrief won DPOY and was voted 1st-team all-nba. Yet in the postseason, it was Marques (again) who stepped up to lead the team in scoring, rebounding and assists while Moncrief''s numbers declined:

Moncrief 22.5 ppg 60% TS RS --> 18.9 ppg 50% TS PS
Marques 21.4 ppg 54% TS RS --> 22.0 ppg 51% TS

Btw, to slip in a pro-Lanier defense point, he held Moses to 14 points on 5-14 in 48 minutes in G1 of that series and was noted for it by the press as "slowing" him and forcing him into 9 turnovers.



More on 1983 and Bucks-76ers series.

In G1, Philly wins in OT but Marques has 30 (11-20, 8-11) 3 reb and 5 ast, including 12 straight to close the first half and cut a 16-point deficit to 2. Cheeks had a great game for Philly and Erving had 19. Moses was shut down basically (he only grabbed 12 boards in 48 minutes to boot). Moncrief was 1-9 for 7 points.

In G2, Moses bounced back with 26 and 17 (11-17, 4-7). Cheeks played well again. According to the Journal's Tom Enlund, "Marques Johnson was the only consistent bright spot, finished with 25 points and 11 rebounds." (12-19, 1-3) Moncrief played better with 21 (8-17, 5-5) and "Lanier, for the most part, did a good defensive job against Malone." It was another close loss for Mil.

G3 closed the door on the Bucks.

G4 Johnson had 19-10-8 (9-17, 1-3) to again spurn Milwaukee, this time to a victory. Bob Lanier had 5 blocks (17 points) and Moncrief had 17 and 9 (8-19, 1-1). Cheeks had a subpar game with 13 and 8 on poor shooting and Moses again was held down, 17-12 (7-19, 3-3). Erving had 19-6-5 (7-17) for Philly.

In G5 Philly clicked, with Toney scoring 30, Moses 28-17 (12-18, 4-4) and Doc 24 and 10 (10-19, 4-6). Marques led Milwaukee with 21-8-2 (7-21, 7-10). Lanier only played 26 min and Moncrief finished 4-12 (5-6) for 13 points 3 reb and 2 ast. The journal described Marques' 83 season as "magnificent," with no such praise for the shrinking Moncrief.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,349
And1: 16,271
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 #49 

Post#40 » by Dr Positivity » Fri Oct 7, 2011 6:17 pm

ElGee wrote:I equate Paul's 11 season to Howard's 09 season - I'm not sure why you used 2008. I think it's off to see those as equal seasons.


Well, I'm probably not going to convince the people who are high on Paul's 2011 otherwise since the argument rests on "Look if you watched the games, the guy was just not himself and couldn't be aggressive". He was Chris Paul as 2009 or 2010 Tim Duncan was Tim Duncan when his PER was still over 24. Paul disappeared a ton when they needed scoring, felt like he was playing on one leg, Darren Collision proved last year you could rack up a ton of assists in that offense playing at a much lower level than prime Paul. The team stats are not good, they finished 19th in ORTG but more importantly, 25th in 3PA which tells me Paul couldn't do his drive and create 3s game for them. Yes he was good in the playoffs, but I think we can agree that the Lakers were in a horrible mindset defensively based on the embarrasing way they didn't even try to guard the 3pt line against Dallas - pitfalls of small sample size (edit: It's the inverse of Paul's 2009 season where he sucked against Denver. In a series that short I'm not going to revalue the caliber of player they were the entire season based on how they played)

2009 Dwight Howard won 59 Gs and had a 6.49 SRS with Nelson, Lee, Hedo, Lewis aka the mediocority sandwich and then took them to the Finals after ripping about Cleveland's frontline. That was a HUGE season and every bit as big as his 2010 and 2011 seasons. 2009 Howard finished above 2009 Paul in the MVP vote! And frankly, I think he had a serious case for 2nd overall in a season where Wade went insane. 2009 Howard is simply a level above 2011 Paul.


That leaves 06-08 Dwight vs. 06-07 and 10 Paul (I hope we can agree that Dwight's rookie year is of no relevance here.) I don't see a clear edge to Howard at all here.


He still put up 12, 10 and 2 at C, which is something every team in the league wants.


2006 Howard is a 20-year old trying to come into his own. He isn't an all-nba defender. He's pretty darn raw. Rookie Paul actually turns in a decent rookie year, enough so that I think he's an all-star caliber player. Small difference but it's there nonetheless. Edge Paul.

2007 is pretty close to me. Howard is getting less raw, but he's still pretty raw. I'm not sure if people are just forgetting his developing out of HS or not, but he scored a bumpy 13, 8 and 11 points in the first 3 games of the PS. There's finally a great defensive jump for Orlando but Detroit did what they wanted in the 4 game playoff and my impression at the time was Dwight wasn't really much of a factor. His on/off difference that year was negligible. (0.8 pts worse in 930 minutes).

Paul, OTOH, has a small on/off too (and a nice difference on offense). Given that he's beating Howard in every PM study, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that his defense isn't something awful, even if his offensive impact wasn't all-world in 07. He's running a ~110 level offense with Chandler-West-Mason-Brown which is pretty good, although not great.



I'm fine with comparing 2007 Howard to 2007 Paul, albeit Paul did miss 18 games and it was precisely the reason the Magic made the playoffs and the Hornets didn't. Saying 05-07 Howard is level with 06-07 Paul is not crazy, I disagree with it, but we are measuring pre primes here


Which leaves Howard's 2008 vs. Paul's 2010. And if you give an edge to Howard (finally), I don't see how one can reduce it to Wade 07. Wade could barely play. Paul, to me, and after watching what he did this year when it mattered, was capable of helping his team to a degree in the PS that is above all non-elite PGs. I don't think it's correct to erase his season because of the missed games either from a value standpoint.


Well, no offense, this is just ridiculous. Wade played 51 games in 07 at a higher level in the regular season (29 PER) to Paul's 45 Gs (23 PER) because Paul was playing injured after the first 10 Gs - and Wade put up a 15/5/4 44% in the RS in his comeback and Paul put up 9/8/3/40%. It's not like he was 2011 Paul when he came back - he was straight trash statistically. Paul in no way was better than Wade when he came back. If Wade could hardly play, then Paul definitely could hardly play. It seems pretty clear that Wade was MORE valuable in 07 than Paul in 2010 - Saying "Can't be reduced to 07 Wade" about Paul's 2010, and even putting in an if you do caveat comparing 2008 Howard to 2010 Paul, is absurd and clearly comes from finding a way to push Paul

And on that note, I think it's a tricky game to start voting in players because someone sort of similar got in not that long ago because I think you could make an even stronger case for "Why the hell didn't Ray Allen get voted in within 5 spots of Miller", "English's career was every bit as good as Nique's", and so forth. I'd rather just compare the players on the board. In this case though with Howard and Paul, I do think the argument is pretty clear. 3 MVP seasons vs 2 and 5 All-NBA seasons vs 3, I just don't buy the argument that Howard's prime longevity isn't 1/3 bigger. It's extremely clear cut
Liberate The Zoomers

Return to Player Comparisons