RealGM Top 100 List #67

[therealbig3]

And with regards to Hill, you can see where Carter can explode for a ton of points and keep his team in the game, or even win the game for his team...where have we seen that from Hill?

His playoff career high is 28 points, and he never averaged more than 23.6 ppg in a playoff run (on poor efficiency). And if we look closer at his 96 playoffs, in which he was super-efficient, that all came in game 1, when he went 10-13 from the field...for 21 points. Say what you want about Carter, but if he went 10-13 from the field...he'd probably have 30+ points. Hill only got to the line once in that game.

In general, Hill was not a guy who generated a lot of shots for himself, and he was not a guy who, like Dirk, and to a lesser extent, superstar perimeter scorers like Kobe, Carter, Pierce, T-Mac, etc., could score a ton of points while only taking 15-20 shots per game.

Is Hill really that much better as a creator, rebounder, and defender that it offsets Carter's considerable scoring advantage (I don't see it).

And keep in mind, Hill is probably the next guy I'm voting for, just don't see why he should go ahead of Carter.

[ElGee]

Don't know about definitely better than AI in 06, AI had a pretty monstrous regular season, at least statistically. But Carter does a) play 7 more games, b) gives you 11 playoffs games in which he plays extremely well (AI never had a playoff run in which he played a similar amount of games and scored at that kind of volume and at that kind of efficiency), c) based on the SIO numbers, AI doesn't seem to be having that much impact in 06, +3.7 to -1.4...Carter in 04, which is clearly one of his worst seasons, had +8.7 to -2.1. Carter played much better in 06, and although it's a little roundabout, I think it can be assumed that he was having bigger impact than AI in 06. And d) AI's stats are a little inflated compared to Carter's because he was much more ball-dominant, and he played 60's era minutes.

And Carter does better than AI in every multi-year RAPM study, FWIW.

Not trying to make a Carter vs AI argument, because AI is already voted in, but I don't know if Carter should even be behind AI, which indicates to me that either AI went too early, or Carter is getting kind of underrated.

Of course, I can say the same things and make the same highlights (not as pretty, of course) about John Salmons last year. Salmons ran constant pick and roll, was basically the only creator (and maybe only self-creator) for just an anemic Bucks offense. And they were 0.96 pts/100 w.out him and 1.06 with him in the PS series...which is nearly identical to the pattern we see with Carter in NJ.

I'm Not saying Carter's 06 impact = Salmons 10 impact, but what I am saying is it's never as simple as
"can create" or "lifts offense when in" or "scores a lot on x percentage." For these wings, besides a decent defensive impact they can have, I want to know to what degree they are doing these things and in what offensive environment. In many ways, I find these all-around wings to be the most complex players to evaluate because of all these factors.

For Carter, I know he can produce OC's (create). I don't think it's that frequent in that offense though. I know he helps on the court, both with his iso scoring, post-scoring and pretty good outside shot...but it's quite comparable to the impact I think AI is having in those kinds of offenses. I don't think he's a sieve on defense, but I don't think his defense is very good either (slightly positive in Ilardi's study ftr). I really like the comparison to AI because it's hard for me to find two closer wing players in that period...

AI I have 61st right now. Carter I have 75th. At this point, they are actually fairly close to each other. But I'd rather have AI at his peak. I'll say this about Iverson that I never got to say because I thought he was launched in prematurely:

In 2000 he lifted Philly 2.1 pts to 1.6 (2.1 simple)
In 2001 he lifted Philly 3.7 pts to 4.8 (4.3 simple)
In 2002 he lifted Philly 7.3 pts to 3.6 (5.7 Simple)

That means in those 45 games from 2000-02 his SIO was +4.45. Needless to say that's quite solid. Carter, OTOH, from 2001-04 missed 77 games and his SIO was +2.20.

And I do give a peak edge to Iverson -- I think his explosiveness (ie higher variance) gives him a bit of an edge for what he gives me, and as a result I favor AI in years like 2001 and 2006. Yes, AI didn't make the PS in 06, but in the last 20 games of his season he averaged:

33.0 ppg 7.5 apg 2.8 rpg 1.7 stls 4.1 56% TS and 12.1 FTA's.

He had four 40-point games (all wins) in the stretch and that was a year in which Iverson's raw on/off was 99 --> 110 on offense. I think he used Korver well, played off Webber well and set up a young Iggy well. And we know NJ's offense looks worse that year: 98--> 108 with Carter. 2 points may sound small, and there's certainly noise to consider, but in a vacuum it's worth about 5 wins a year.

**Deep Breath**

All that is to say that both these guys are in the top 10-12 range in 2006. I have Iverson 5th and Carter in my top-8 in 2001 RPOY voting. I'm not wild about drafting either guy (have them in similar spots on my Big Draft Board). And I do think with some of these guys in the 60s and 70s were splitting hairs, but in this case I do give a slight edge to Iverson.

[ElGee]

And with regards to Hill, you can see where Carter can explode for a ton of points and keep his team in the game, or even win the game for his team...where have we seen that from Hill?

His playoff career high is 28 points, and he never averaged more than 23.6 ppg in a playoff run (on poor efficiency). And if we look closer at his 96 playoffs, in which he was super-efficient, that all came in game 1, when he went 10-13 from the field...for 21 points. Say what you want about Carter, but if he went 10-13 from the field...he'd probably have 30+ points. Hill only got to the line once in that game.

In general, Hill was not a guy who generated a lot of shots for himself, and he was not a guy who, like Dirk, and to a lesser extent, superstar perimeter scorers like Kobe, Carter, Pierce, T-Mac, etc., could score a ton of points while only taking 15-20 shots per game.

Is Hill really that much better as a creator, rebounder, and defender that it offsets Carter's considerable scoring advantage (I don't see it).

And keep in mind, Hill is probably the next guy I'm voting for, just don't see why he should go ahead of Carter.

Hmm. I will say that before last year's RPOY I was sort of low on Hill -- never loved him that much when he played. Upon review, I was quite high on Hill. So let me say this in response to his scoring:

He played 13 playoff games in his prime. That's a super small sample. In 96 he played them against Orlando with a lineup of

Houston, Dumars, Thorpe, Mark West

There were 81 possessions in the game. Hill's 13 FGA's led them team (as did his 4 assists and 11 reb). The second game had 77 possessions! Hill wasn't great (keep in mind it's his second career PS game). The third game Hill had foul trouble.

In 97 -- his peak year -- they play Atlanta in a really competitive 5-gamer. That's the 3rd-ranked D in the league. I do remember being impressed with him watching that series. He takes 19-24 shots a game in the series and scores between 20-28 each game. You are right in that he wasn't an explosive scorer, but neither was Scottie Pippen. He did everything though -- go back and watch his 20 pt 14 reb 7 ast game 1. He's all over the court IIRC. And that was a 76 possession game. G4 was the fastest game of the series at 87 pos.

IN 99, the Hawks again and the 2nd-best defense in the league. G3 he plays 25 min in a blowout. G1 he has 26-7-8 3 steals in 65 pos. He has an off G2 but a big G4 (23-6-9) in 59 pos played. There were 77 pos in G5 and took 27 shots with 11 assists. This WAS a guy who at his best had a large role.

[therealbig3]

Fair enough, personally, I think I may prefer Carter, because I think his rebounding and defense is better than AI's, and as you said, that can have a pretty decent impact. I also don't think there's much of an offensive difference between them, despite AI's volume scoring and volume playmaking. I think Carter is more versatile and can thus be plugged into different situations in an offense and do fine...I don't think AI could do that as well.

And why not use 04 for AI in that SIO sample as well?

He missed 34 games, and when he was in the lineup, he had a negative impact, similar to Carter in 02. And this would give them comparable sample sizes.

I'm not sure how to get that Simple rating if we included it, but I feel like there wouldn't be much of a difference there between Carter and Iverson.

[ElGee]

^^^Yes it brings it to 2.2 also. Wasn't trying to be selective, was just using the consecutive years during that period. Agree on the versatility point. I'll also say that if Carter plays on the Lakers or something he has a totally different rep in all likelihood.

[penbeast0]

Vote-Schayes
Nominate-Greer

WHY?

[therealbig3]

Yeah, agreed on Hill and the small sample size, but it's all there really is to work with if we want to compare Hill to Carter, or Hill to anybody really. But I will say, he didn't really show that he could score on an elite level in the regular season either, until 00...but unfortunately, we didn't really get to see what he was capable of in the playoffs that year.

[penbeast0]

I agree it's not unreasonable to be considering Chris Webber. In the context of his career, though, I can't see him above Jerry Lucas and I'd take Amare over him too; I also prefer great defenders with good offensive skills like Larry Nance ... and, as I've said, probably Terry Cummings or Elton Brand as well. He's in the mix, just not at the top of it.

Compared to Lucas, Webber is a better scorer, passer, and possibly a better defender (better help defender); Lucas is the better shooter, better rebounder, more clutch, and better team guy, adapting his game to fit with Oscar Robertson in those really good Cinncinnati offenses then again to fit with the Knicks in NY whereas Webber whined and cried when asked to play C out of need.

Similar with Nance, Webber scores and passes better and may have a rebounding edge but Nance was clearly the better defender and much more efficient plus Nance was a team guy too who his coaches loved.

Amare has an edge in both scoring and efficiency -- a big edge; big enough to counter Webber's edge in defense (Webber wasn't good either but Amare is worse), passing, and even rebounding. And Amare also is a better team guy (there are worse -- maybe Shawn Kemp? but Webber wasn't a locker room plus)

Terry Cummings before the injury is another guy who doesn't quite score as much but is more efficient and a much better defender; Elton Brand too. I'm just not as impressed with Webber; great great talent but his unwillingness to body up on either end leads to low foul draw and high opposing fg% which were his main issues.

[MarJJMar]

Amare over Webber? As of yet that is totally nuts. Webber in his prime did everything as good or better than Amare except attacking the rim. Comparable midrange game, better rebounder, better defender and much better passer.
Webber was good enough that he could have been a legit MVP, Amare was never close so far and likely never will be.

[penbeast0]

As Warner Wolf would say, "Let's go to the videotape" or in this case the numbers.

Using only the first 9 seasons of both to avoid the Webber decline years (Amare came straight out of HS but he wasn't appreciably younger than Webber so it shouldn't matter much). I will look at per 36 minutes because of Amare's injury issues which have him playing a little over 10% less per game than Webber (which is a point in Webber's favor).

Amare 9.2reb 1.5 ast 22.8pts .537fg% , fga 15.4, fouls made per 36 6.2
Webber 9.6reb 4.1ast 20.8pts .498fg%, fga 17.5, fouls made per 36 3.0

The numbers are pretty clear; Webber is a helluva lot better passer, Amare a much better shooter -- I give Webber a defensive advantage too although he was not a particularly good defender. So, what is more valuable . . . Webber's passing or Amare's efficiency, to me clearly the scoring efficiency.

How about playoffs? Amare's PER (a reasonable shorthand look at two scoring bigs) goes up a little from 22.6 to 23.0; Webber's drops significantly from 22.2 to 19.6 -- a bit more than the drop Shawn Marion (frequently slammed for it) suffers and without Marion's defensive value.

Yeah it seems pretty clear to me that Amare is better and as for MVP . . . Webber was never close to the best player in the league; or even the best PF. He did finish 4th once; Amare's best finish was 6th but they are pretty close there too, each with 5 mentions despite Amare's relative youth (he's only 29).

[MarJJMar]

Amares scoring efficiency is influenced heavily by playing with Steve Nash most years. And obviously Webber took more jumpers in the system.

Webber had 6 10+ rebounding seasons and played decent defense at least while Amare's defenense is one of the worst you will see from any annual allstar ever.

Really what is Amare doing better than Webber nothing except scoring efficiency when playing next to Nash.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Robert Parish again

I certainly see the arguments for Grant Hill, but I continue to come down with the Chief.

Nominate: Hmm, really not dead set on things here. Think I'll join beast nom'ing Chauncey Billups.

[penbeast0]

I am happy to come off Schayes to Robert Parish, not nearly as thrilled about choosing between Vince and Grant Hill so hopefully someone else will either shift to Parish or shift to one of the wings.

In terms of nominations, I think Billups is clearly the best; Thompson was a gunner and not a great effort guy without the ball in his hands ignoring the whole cocaine issue while Worthy was a miserable rebounder and his playoff PER (his main claim to fame) is actually below that of Billups. Worthy v. Thompson I'd go with Worthy for the team game even though his numbers don't stack up as well and probably I'll have to make that choice.

VOTE:

Dolph Schayes – penbeast0, drza, Laimbeer

Vince Carter -- Dr Mufasa, therealbig3, ronnymac2

Grant Hill – JordansBulls, DavidStern, ElGee

Robert Parish – FJS, Doctor MJ



NOMINATE:

Chauncey Billups – penbeast0, Doctor MJ

David Thompson – Dr Mufasa, therealbig3, ElGee

Shawn Kemp – JordansBulls

James Worthy – DavidStern, lukekarts, FJS

Chris Webber – drza

Adrian Dantley – ronnymac2

Hal Greer – Laimbeer

[penbeast0]

As it is a tie and I don't have a strong enough preference between Hill and Carter to break it; I will leave the voting open for another day -- hopefully we can get some movement there and possibly in the nomination as well.

[lukekarts]

I'll vote Robert Parish, if that helps complicate things for you

[ElGee]

I'm going to throw out a name that absolutely no one has said (or probably thought of) who needs some legit consideration for the final 23 slots: Eddie Jones. He has a good 6-year stretch from 98-03, fits on a lot of teams and despite being a relatively low peak player shows great value, especially during his best years from 99-01.

Just saying, if Chauncey Billups is going to almost be nominated right now (7-year run?) and Bobby Jones already is nominated people need to look at Eddie Jones at some point.

[penbeast0]

I'll switch my vote to Parish too.

And as for Eddie Jones, he'd have been a terrific player if he hadn't been invisible in the clutch pretty regularly -- don't know why but it seemed like he never took shots in the last two minutes of tight games despite his skills.

How do you feel about Bill Sharman, ElGee? I find him more interesting than Greer (not necessarily better, just my ignorance level is higher).

[lukekarts]

Jones is an interesting call. He was a good all round player in his prime but never got the reputation for being dominant; and certainly what I saw in Miami was a scorer who played very much within the flow of the game and never 'took over' (at least not in the same way someone like Rice did for us).

I'd take everyone on the nomination list - except maybe Kemp over him.

I'd also take Rice over him, and Greer, and guys like Dumars who haven't had a look in yet. Beyond that it gets a bit grey.

[ElGee]

I'll switch my vote to Parish too.

And as for Eddie Jones, he'd have been a terrific player if he hadn't been invisible in the clutch pretty regularly -- don't know why but it seemed like he never took shots in the last two minutes of tight games despite his skills.

How do you feel about Bill Sharman, ElGee? I find him more interesting than Greer (not necessarily better, just my ignorance level is higher).

Wait a second, what does clutch have to do with it? Was Dennis Rodman clutch? Bobby Jones? Ben Wallace? Jones made plenty of big clutch shots/plays, he just wasn't an aggressive on-the-ball player so it's possible it created the illusion he "disappeared" down the stretch was individual scoring was never his forte.

In 1999 he's traded with Elden Campbell for Glen Rice (basically). The Hornets improve 7.6 points in the 30 games with Jones to a +2.9 MOV team with him in the lineup. He was basically an addition to the lineup because Rice did not play for Charlotte that year.

OTOH, Rice basically replaces Jones (and Elden) in LA and the Lakers are 3.8 points worse without him, dropping from +5.3 play to +1.5 after the trade. In 2000, Jones misses 10 games and the results are monstrous: +11.4 points up to a +4.6 MOV team with him in. That 10-game stretch featured a brutal schedule, but even adjusting for HCA and strength of schedule is still produces -3.9 SRS play.

In 2001 he misses 19 games in Miami, and the Heat are 2.6 points better, playing +3.0 MOV ball with him. And that schedule was lopsided in the opposite direction, with 12 of those games at home against a slightly easy schedule, making it another point worse in SRS without Jones.

--

Bill Sharman I consider to be the best early shooter in the NBA, and if we've harped on one thing repeatedly in this project it's that shooting matters in basketball. He was also a smart player from what I can gather (and his coaching record) and I consider him very close to Bob Cousy actually. If my guys were voted in on time, I would be ready to VOTE for Sharman.

[penbeast0]

So switching my nomination to Worthy too . . .