RealGM Top 100 List #50

[Doctor MJ]

Sure we are . . . Marques Johnson, Bernard King, Carmelo Anthony . . . these are players in the same stratosphere as Mark Aguirre. Although I intensely disliked Aguirre when he played, for 5 years he was a consistent 20+ppg on 50%+ fg% scorer who led a very good Dallas team to some fine years. I don't think he was quite as good as Marques Johnson, Bernard King, or Carmelo Anthony, but he's in that same stratosphere.

If anyone in this project mention Aguirre before me, I'm shocked.

On the other hand, if his name never gets brought up as a candidate in this entire project, I will not at all be shocked.

[Doctor MJ]

So thinking more on King vs Marques...and that's making me think about Ginobili.

ElGee made some good point anti-King, which makes it pretty understandable to have Marques over King based on the idea that King only played a very short time as a super-elite player, and after that his value over replacement was really not anything to shout about.

Okay, then we look at Marques' minutes played...and they are hardly ahead of Ginobili's. Ginobili being someone who for most of his career, when he plays, has had massive impact. Should we begin talking about Ginobili in earnest now?

Also, among current players, the debate that's been in my head about what's next is Ginobili vs Gasol. I don't have that settled by any means.

[therealbig3]

I think I'd take Gasol over Ginobili, but it is close. Gasol does play more, so that's a definite plus for him, and he has a much larger defensive impact, by virtue of simply playing PF and being above average defensively. He's always been an extremely efficient and skilled 18-20 ppg post scorer, even in his Memphis days, and I always think those types of players are extremely valuable. Gasol has also been a 20/10ish player since he entered the league, which has been 10 years of big impact. Ginobili didn't become a high-impact player in my eyes until his 3rd year, which has been 7 years of big impact.

But Ginobili is the overall better offensive player because of his playmaking, and he kills Gasol in both of the multi-year RAPM studies, so it depends on how you look at it. But I'm partial towards efficient two-way big men, so I'd take Gasol.

[ElGee]

I think we all love King, his 1984 run was AMAZING, but was he overall better than Dantley?

Did you miss my post on Dantley a while back? I doubt I'd vote for him in a top-500.

[therealbig3]

I've been thinking about Parish, since his case is similar to Hayes, and I'm not really feeling him to be on the Melo, Worthy, Carter, Ginobili, Gasol level to be honest. Even just watching him, he never seemed to be a low post force in terms of creating offense, although he was a legitimately good defender. But his best scoring seasons came playing 3rd option to Bird and McHale in Boston, and outside of Boston, he was never more than a 14-17 ppg scorer, although his efficiency was excellent. He seems to be more of an opportunistic scorer, thriving off the creation of others, rather than a guy you can run an offense through, which separates him from the aforementioned players. Although I do feel Worthy was similar. I've never heard his name mentioned among the all-time great defensive anchors, which would be the only way I'd put him on the same level with guys who are clearly better offensive players imo.

[therealbig3]

Also, they've been mentioned sporadically, but where do guys like Schayes, Jones, Dandridge, Aguirre, and Thurmond stand at this point?

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Kevin Johnson
Nominate: Penny Hardaway

[Laimbeer]

Dear God that Rodman picture is disturbing.

[ElGee]

vote: Chris Paul
nominate: Marques Johnson

Again, I haven't seen a single thing I've said about Marques rebutted, so it's just utterly confusing why he isn't nominated but Moncrief has been on the board forever (nominated 9 threads ago!). Marques was the catalyst for the Bucks turnaround at the end of the decade. Then, when Moncrief becomes the star, Marques IS STILL the key performer in the PS!

this is off topic but..

i've got a question about one of your old articles on your blog. Can I PM, email, or something along those lines?

let me know..

Leave a comment on the blog post with your email address.

[drza]

So thinking more on King vs Marques...and that's making me think about Ginobili.

ElGee made some good point anti-King, which makes it pretty understandable to have Marques over King based on the idea that King only played a very short time as a super-elite player, and after that his value over replacement was really not anything to shout about.

Okay, then we look at Marques' minutes played...and they are hardly ahead of Ginobili's. Ginobili being someone who for most of his career, when he plays, has had massive impact. Should we begin talking about Ginobili in earnest now?

Also, among current players, the debate that's been in my head about what's next is Ginobili vs Gasol. I don't have that settled by any means.

I've been talking Ginobili in earnest for probably 15 threads now, every since it became clear that Pierce was going to go in when I'm really not sure I rank Pierce ahead of him. It was Ginobili/Walton/Worm as my default vote for awhile now, and the only reason I was voting the other two was that they had a legit shot to win while Ginobili never got any traction. But for the interim, Ginobili is likely to be at the head of my default vote list.

ETA. I've also got Pau on my radar, and could get behind a push for old-heads like Schayes or Arizin. Would also like to start hearing more conversation about the defensive bigs, which means that Thurmond, Big Ben and Mutombo could get into the mix.

[therealbig3]

Yeah, I questioned Ginobili before, but there were some great posts about him by DavidStern and Doctor MJ, and I've begun to appreciate him more. As of right now, the only players not yet nominated that I have over him are Marques Johnson and Pau Gasol. Ginobili vs Worthy and Ginobili vs Carter would be interesting debates though, but I have Ginobili over both as of right now, albeit barely.

Ginobili vs Worthy:

I'm seeing two guys who put up similar box score production, and they both were 2nd/3rd options for the majority of their careers...yet we know that Ginobili puts up insane APM numbers, so he's having a huge impact, and we know he doesn't depend on the star player in order to "get his" (Duncan dropped off big time this year, and Ginobili still put up big numbers), and he's a far better creator than Worthy. It's hard for me to imagine that Worthy had Ginobili-level impact.

Ginobili vs Carter:

As people have pointed out before, Ginobili looks like the better per-minute player by almost every metric...but he does play less minutes, so his raw numbers aren't as impressive, for whatever that's worth. In this comparison, unlike with Worthy vs Ginobili, the minutes do matter, because Carter does put up better production once you take his total minutes into account. I'd like to see this one debated in more detail, because this is a tough choice for me, and it's hard for me not to be biased, because I'm actually one of the few people who like Vince Carter.

[therealbig3]

I also don't see much of a case for Carter over Melo...Melo is the more explosive and more reliable scorer, as evidenced in the playoffs. He doesn't become jumper-happy like Carter and at least still tries to keep attacking the rim, and he has 3 playoff runs to his credit where he was very efficient. Carter has 1, and outside of 01, was dreadfully inefficient for the most part.

Melo is the better rebounder, and isn't really all that much worse as a creator, despite playing more off-ball. The only real advantage for Carter are the RAPM studies, in which Carter is ahead of Melo...but not really by that much.

So in my mind, if Melo is ahead of Carter pretty clearly, then he's ahead of Ginobili and Worthy too. That means he should be nominated soon. I feel like he's kind of maligned for some reason though, probably because he's hyped up by the media to be on the LeBron/Wade tier, when he's clearly not. But as it stands, I have him over the Carter/Ginobili/Worthy level.

[Doctor MJ]

Melo is the better rebounder, and isn't really all that much worse as a creator, despite playing more off-ball. The only real advantage for Carter are the RAPM studies, in which Carter is ahead of Melo...but not really by that much.

So in my mind, if Melo is ahead of Carter pretty clearly, then he's ahead of Ginobili and Worthy too. That means he should be nominated soon...

Feeling a bit of whiplash here. Hard for me to imagine anyone believing in APM, and putting Melo ahead of Ginobili.

I mentioned before I've got ranked lists of multi-year studies by Ilardi & Engelmann. Here's how the 3 players in question stack up:

Code: Select all

Manu    3   7   8
Carter 72  16  43
Melo  102  97  99

[lorak]

I think we all love King, his 1984 run was AMAZING, but was he overall better than Dantley?

Did you miss my post on Dantley a while back? I doubt I'd vote for him in a top-500.

I didn't miss your post, but I don't agree with it ;] and I don't see how King was overall better player. Dantley has positive impact on offense almost whole career and before his wrist injury his overall impact was huge: for example during his three first season in Utah, Jazz without him had 2-15 W-L.


Anyway, my nomination goes to Emanuel Ginobili
And I think I would also nominate DeBusschere and Bobby Jones before Marques. Maybe Greer and Arizin too.

[therealbig3]

Melo is the better rebounder, and isn't really all that much worse as a creator, despite playing more off-ball. The only real advantage for Carter are the RAPM studies, in which Carter is ahead of Melo...but not really by that much.

So in my mind, if Melo is ahead of Carter pretty clearly, then he's ahead of Ginobili and Worthy too. That means he should be nominated soon...

Feeling a bit of whiplash here. Hard for me to imagine anyone believing in APM, and putting Melo ahead of Ginobili.

I mentioned before I've got ranked lists of multi-year studies by Ilardi & Engelmann. Here's how the 3 players in question stack up:

Code: Select all

Manu    3   7   8
Carter 72  16  43
Melo  102  97  99

Yeah, I understand that Melo does poorly in the APM studies compared to other stars, and Ginobili dominates it...but then I think of Carter vs Ginobili, and I don't see a clear edge for Ginobili there, as Carter's minutes do play a factor...then I think of Carter vs Melo, and I don't see any advantage outside of APM for Carter there...so by the additive (or transitive, or commutative???) property, Melo should be ranked ahead of Ginobili in my eyes.

Hmm, got to think about this one more, because Melo doing poorly in the APM studies, and then the fact that Denver didn't get worse, but in fact better, post-trade, and New York didn't really see a change is a cause for concern. Is Melo a high-impact player? The fact that the question is a legitimate one is pretty damning in fact. But I also don't think you can completely ignore box score production.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, I understand that Melo does poorly in the APM studies compared to other stars, and Ginobili dominates it...but then I think of Carter vs Ginobili, and I don't see a clear edge for Ginobili there, as Carter's minutes do play a factor...then I think of Carter vs Melo, and I don't see any advantage outside of APM for Carter there...so by the additive (or transitive, or commutative???) property, Melo should be ranked ahead of Ginobili in my eyes.

I think the thing you need to consider is why you're feeling the need to rely on Ginobili vs Carter to compare Ginobili vs Anthony. It would be one thing if Carter had a massive edge over Ginobili and you were just saving time, but you said yourself that Ginobili vs Carter gets you nowhere. You're using your own inability to do a comparison with Ginobili in one area as a crutch for what's presumably your own inability to do a comparison with Ginobili in another area.

I think the reality is that Ginobili is very, very tough to compare with other players, but when you see an APM gap like we're seeing here, that's kind of insane. I think we'd all agree that the impact curve of NBA player grows far faster than linear such that the gap between the 300th and 400th best player in the league is tiny compared to the gap between the 50th and 100th best players.

To be ranked around 100th in APM is to say you have only a small fraction of the impact that a true top 10 level player does. When the gap is that big, it's hard for me to imagine siding against a guy because his starter-level minutes are not heavy enough.

Hmm, got to think about this one more, because Melo doing poorly in the APM studies, and then the fact that Denver didn't get worse, but in fact better, post-trade, and New York didn't really see a change is a cause for concern. Is Melo a high-impact player? The fact that the question is a legitimate one is pretty damning in fact. But I also don't think you can completely ignore box score production.

Glad you're keeping an open mind.

I'd go back to the +/- stats again. You're not comfortable with the idea that a guy with huge stats can have minimal impact, a la Dantley. Okay, well consider just the offensive APM, which is how Melo racks up his numbers:

Ilardi's '03-09 has:

Ginobili +4.9, Melo +4.5

Seems pretty reasonable to you I'd think.

The difference comes on defense:

Ginobili +3.2, Melo -3.3

And here's Engelmann's most recent version of '05-11:

Ginobili +5.3, Melo +3.0

Ginobili has a more decisive edge here, but again it's the defense that's the big difference:

Ginobili +2.2, Melo -1.6


There's a tendency to dismiss defensive issues of guys like Melo as "eh, he doesn't seem THAT bad to me", and it's certainly true that the problems there aren't enough that you wouldn't want Melo on the court. That doesn't however stop them from being a pretty huge deal when comparing stars.

[ronnymac2]

How do you feel about Dantley's 1988 season?

I feel like the Pistons didn't see any major change when Dantley arrived or left, despite having no one in his league statistically. That doesn't make him a worthless player by any means, but we aren't having a discussion that includes players in the same stratosphere as Mark Aguirre.

How much do you value an efficient 20 ppg second option on a championship team (which, let's face it, those '88 Pistons essentially were), who has also shown himself capable of putting up major production on non-contending teams?

I know Dantley wasn't as awesome as his pre-DET numbers say he is, but I'm trying to gauge just how far off the raw numbers were from the correct evaluation.

The main accusation directed towards pre-DET Dantley was that he held the ball, broke down offensive continuity, and took his own teammates out of rhythm. This created the whole "Dantley effect" where everybody's efficiency was hurt, and his amazing efficiency was only able to get his teams to about average (or below at times). So the numbers meant little.

But he goes to Detroit and plays with more talented teammates, and he doesn't really have that effect anymore. Why? I feel it has to be one of these reasons (or a combination of them):

1. He changed his style of play when he got to Detroit.

2. Isiah was the base of the offense, and because of that, Detroit was able to reap the benefits of Dantley's efficient play- albeit not at 30 pgg/60 TS%, but still excellent offensive contributions nonetheless- while limiting the "Dantley effect" cons.

Mind you, Dantley was 30 and a 10-year vet when he arrived in Detroit. He lasted until 1991. It's reasonable to assume he was latter-stage prime in 1987 and 1988 (at best).

Could it be that Dantley was simply misused in terms of team style of play and/or role in his younger prime days? Maybe if Dantley was able to play as a second option or 1A or 1B option (Sounds like Marques, Parish, Manu, and Vince to me as far as roles go) from 1981-1985, his impact could look better.

Just because he individually succeeded as this ultra-efficient scorer doesn't necessarily mean he needs to play that exact same way, and in that same style, to be individually successful.

I think it's very possible that peak Dantley could be a 25 PPG 57% True Shooting player- sans the "Dantley effect'- on a contending team (where he's the second best player overall).

He either adapted in Detroit, or Detroit was able to adapt around him and make positive use of him. Does that signal to anybody else that peak Dantley could have been an impact player on a contender?


Just picture Dantley playing with Kevin Garnett for a second...

[ronnymac2]

BTW...in 1984, Dantley anchored the ninth-best offense in the league. Dantley averaged 30 PPG on 65 percent True Shooting. Utah made it to the second round before succumbing to PHX in six games. Dantley averaged 32 PPG on 60 percent True Shooting in the playoffs. Food for thought.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Bob McAdoo

Nominate: Bernard King

[Doctor MJ]

Ronny, I don't understand where this idea of Dantley adapting with great success in Detroit comes from.

Literally, he came, the offense didn't get noticeably better. The fact that this happened with Dantley putting up modest numbers by his own standards doesn't really matter. What matters is that when someone molds their game around other stars sacrificing their stats for the betterment of the team, we expect to find evidence that there was actually betterment of the team.

Of course, if you're simply trying to say "If you thought he would destroy the offense of a decent team, guess again", then I'm with you. I don't think Dantley is a net negative guy. He's just not someone with a whole lot of net positive.

Re: "picture him with Garnett". I said the same thing about Iverson when he was being traded from Philly and still believe they could have done great things together. Why? Because Garnett was so, SO much better than Iverson or Dantley AND could adopt his game to either be the focus of the offense or focus more on defense.

So yeah, if only Dantley could have played with a top 10-15 level player of all-time...who unlike Kareem or Malone had the insane versatility to adapt to around inferior players, Dantley could have been on a dynasty.

I'll say that again: If Dantley played with Russell or Garnett, he could have been on a dynasty.