RealGM Top 100 List #76

[ElGee]

I tend to agree with all of the above; the only trouble is that Parker's teams keep playing so well that I have to keep looking at him and asking how good he really is

Interested to see ElGee's take on Gus's team impact v. Parker's

Now here's a player who isn't discussed much. During the RPOY project, Gus jumped out at me in a couple of those years. Of course, he lost one in 1981 due to contract dispute. That's an issue. So his mention piqued my interest, and in trying to gauge where he falls, I started noticing the 1983 Sonics. What a fascinating team...

They trade for David Thompson. Thompson comes in and averages 16 ppg (55% TS) and is selected to the all-star team. Williams is also selected to the AS-game, despite lower numbers. The team turns out to be +3 SRS, balanced from -1.9 on defense and +1.2 on offense (9th in ORtg). I assume Gus has to take on more of a pure point role with that roster, and he's rewarded with an All-Star bid, an improved ORtg (and his apg jump to 8.0). I think this suggests good, although not spectacular, things about both Thompson and Williams.

Digging deeper into this team that had been previously outside my purview, it turns out they started 12-0 (+12.3 MOV), the best start since the 58 Celtics. Then they fell apart: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

After going 15-23 (-0.1 MOV), they went 21-8 (+4.9) before losing their final 3. They then lost to Portland in a mini series, with Gus scoring 65 points in the 2 days. Unfortunately, Sikma, Thompson and Brown couldn't hit the ocean from the shore -- those 3 were a combined 22-62 (35.4%) from the floor.

So my general thoughts on Williams:
-Like 79 a lot. 80 and 82 are there as well. I'm interested by 1983 and it looks like it had good value as a season. No idea what to make of 84 (Sonics offense falls off in 85 after he leaves) and 85 in Washington (averages 20-8 but offensive blip). Beast - thoughts on what he did in Was in 85?

-I'm a little hesitant about his true position/role. How does he fit on other teams then that aren't really offensively challenged and playing with a backcourt of all-around players (DJ/Thompson, Brown, Williams). He's not really a pure point...

-I'm a little cautious of his MVP placement as well. Not to say I didn't like his season relative to his competition, but they lost DJ in 81 as well and when Gus returned in 82 he was a relatively sexy candidate (2 first place votes) compared to the other secondary contenders behind Moses and Bird: Robert Parish, George Gervin, young Moncrief and Magic and Gus' teammate Jack Sikma. Roundfield and Tripucka were next in voting ftr so it wasn't a year of HOF peaks.

-Tony Parker is someone I also respect quite a bit and think is a really good offensive player, but his overall impact to me has never been all-nba level. To me, this is not a good peak player so we have to look at his longevity. (So yes, I think Gus clearly has a better peak.) Parker has decent +/- family numbers, which kind of syncs up with a moderate impact all-star type player. Parker will pressure defenses -- gets in the lane soooo well -- but he's also not a true creation PG IMO and that's reflected by many of the numbers/impressions that have him as a 3rd cog on a dynastic, but non-offensively oriented team.

[ElGee]

vote: Chris Webber
nominate: Bill Sharman

I could also go for Melo at this point -- I'm pretty flexible on really old players but I do have Sharman here. I don't consider him to be much different than Cousy on my GOAT list at all. Especially given how important I consider shooting and BBIQ to be.

As for Webber, I've talked with Doc about this in detail so I'm not sure how much to rehash. I object to his stance about Webber post injury based on 2 important things:

(1) He was clearly a different player post injury
(2) Not elevating an elite team isn't a total indictment of a player

Add to that that the 04 Kings in question added Brad Miller, who was a very good offensive center in his own right as a high post offensive hub who could pass extremely well. Peja exploded (43% 3-point shooting) and Mike Bibby played a full season and played very well. I see criticizing Webber like that criticizing Michael Jordan if he joined the Lakers in 1988 and the offense didn't explode (especially if there were other roster changes). In other words, it's a weak correlation with a totally weak causal explanation (how can we say Peja and Bibby don't shoot as well with Webber and the team is just as good, or even better, with a healthy Webber?). The decision to return to Webber as a primary role is as much coaching as it is Webber IMO.

Sometimes we get a little too hung up on a negative component of a player or two. Actually, that's a cognitive tendency of humans...we overweight details to get more black and white answers. LeBron's a choker so that undoes all the good. Nash isn't an elite defender so he can't be an overall great. Webber isn't an assassin down the stretch so I don't want him. Etc.

Webber has a lot of positives, and it's hard to deny that he started playing well in 1997 in Washington and the team showed good gains, then in 1999 he clearly spearheaded Sac's rise to prominence, and he had a large, primary-like role on the extremely successful 01 and 02 teams.

[drza]

Vote: Chris Webber
Nominate: Ben Wallace

[Doctor MJ]

(2) Not elevating an elite team isn't a total indictment of a player

And this is true. I don't mean to imply Webber accomplished nothing, I just think that even at this stage in the project, the competition is actually quite fierce. I'm not trying to NOT vote for Webber, I just keep doing comparisons and choosing other players.

The decision to return to Webber as a primary role is as much coaching as it is Webber IMO.

Okay, but it's not like Webber has a fantastic record of success as a secondary player that the coach chose to go against here.

Sometimes we get a little too hung up on a negative component of a player or two. Actually, that's a cognitive tendency of humans...we overweight details to get more black and white answers. LeBron's a choker so that undoes all the good. Nash isn't an elite defender so he can't be an overall great. Webber isn't an assassin down the stretch so I don't want him. Etc.

Webber has a lot of positives, and it's hard to deny that he started playing well in 1997 in Washington and the team showed good gains, then in 1999 he clearly spearheaded Sac's rise to prominence, and he had a large, primary-like role on the extremely successful 01 and 02 teams.

I may indeed be overweighting the negative, but I'm not simply doing the holistic approach here. We did the RPOY thing, I've got Webber as a guy in my top 10 twice. That's a nice player, but there are quite a lot of other players who've done that as well and also have a track record of being able to fit in with other talent.

EDIT: Actually that last standard, I think every single one of our current nominees fits in that category except Webber and Dantley.

[penbeast0]

One shouldn't also get caught up in the positive and overlook the negatives (White and Black). Webber had some huge negatives.

He has one of the worst foul draws by a 20+ppg big I've ever seen and there's a reason for it . . . he disliked contact. He was superathletic so could use his quicks to go around people on offense and get highlight blocks on defense but he didn't get physical and establish position defensively, block out, or get the And-1 plays that other top bigs did.

He was a whiny player with a record of choking. The personality of the star is often reflected in the team -- Webber quit on Golden State, quit on Washington (3rd highest payroll in the league with Strickland, Howard, Chaeney for support -- and got swept in their only playoff appearance, and quit defensively post injury. That's who he was. Further, the choker label is there for a reason. It's not just the phantom timeout, the playoff sweep in Washington, the loss to the Lakers in Sacramento . . . it's a long record of bonehead plays in the clutch. He didn't disappear, but he did seem to make a higher percentage of stupid decisions when the pressure got going.

Great athlete, absolutely -- Kevin Garnett level. Great player, most of the time -- but not as much as Jerry Lucas or even Shawn Kemp in terms of peak impact and I'm not a Kemp fan (even less of a Webber one). His pros are huge -- athletic freak with great passing skills for a big; but his negatives are too. You can't just ignore them.