RealGM Top 100 List #38

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

I may incorporate this into a gervin vote, but haven't made a final decision yet. Looking at gervin's best 5 seasons, they're very comparable to durant's last 5, who was voted in at 36.

GERVIN 78-82

AVG - 29.8 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.4 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.3 TOPG

PER 100 - 37.6 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 1.7 SPG, 1.2 BPG, 4.1 TOPG

~52% FG, 30% 3PT, 84% FT, 58% TS, 113/106 OFF/DEF RG, .185 WS/48

DURANT 10-14

AVG - 29.3 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.3 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.4 TOPG

PER 100 - 38.7 PPG, 10 RPG, 5.1 APG, 1.7 SPG, 1.4 BPG, 4.4 TOPG

~49% FG, 38% 3PT, 89% FT, 62% TS, 119/103 OFF/DEF RTG, .250 WS/48

Both players were selected to all NBA 1st team in all 5 of those seasons.

You can make arguments against gervin such as average longevity and so so team success, but I just wanted to point out how truly gifted he was offensively.

It's too bad Steve Smith's "Baby Ice" nickname didn't stick, because it's quite fitting.

I actually don't think those five Gervin years are terribly close to Durant's last five. No doubt Gervin was quite gifted offensively, but he doesn't compare very well statistically to Durant; and frankly it's all right there in the numbers you provided:

Per 100 Durant is +1.1 pts, +3.6 reb, +1.4 ast, +0.2 blk and on better shooting efficiency compared to Gervin; the only negative to counter-balance that is that he's also +0.3 turnovers.

PER is 26.8 to 23.9 in favor of Durant.
WS/48 is .250 to .185 in favor of Durant.
ORtg/DRtg gap is +16 to +7 in favor of Durant.

Some of these are actually kinda sizable gaps. Yes, Gervin's numbers are still pretty impressive compared to anyone else who's candidacy is presently being discussed. I just don't think they compare all that well to Durant.

That being said, Gervin still has quite a longevity claim over Durant at this point, which could validly be said to place him in the same ballpark. I think his longevity is a bit above average, fwiw. He had 11 pretty solid years (and was a solid/valuable role player the other three years, too). And with the exception of his rookie season, he never missed relevant games.

I'd still be interested in hearing more on Gervin, particularly anything pertaining to his impact on team success.

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

I may incorporate this into a gervin vote, but haven't made a final decision yet. Looking at gervin's best 5 seasons, they're very comparable to durant's last 5, who was voted in at 36.

GERVIN 78-82

AVG - 29.8 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.4 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.3 TOPG

PER 100 - 37.6 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 1.7 SPG, 1.2 BPG, 4.1 TOPG

~52% FG, 30% 3PT, 84% FT, 58% TS, 113/106 OFF/DEF RG, .185 WS/48

DURANT 10-14

AVG - 29.3 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.3 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.4 TOPG

PER 100 - 38.7 PPG, 10 RPG, 5.1 APG, 1.7 SPG, 1.4 BPG, 4.4 TOPG

~49% FG, 38% 3PT, 89% FT, 62% TS, 119/103 OFF/DEF RTG, .250 WS/48

Both players were selected to all NBA 1st team in all 5 of those seasons.

You can make arguments against gervin such as average longevity and so so team success, but I just wanted to point out how truly gifted he was offensively.

It's too bad Steve Smith's "Baby Ice" nickname didn't stick, because it's quite fitting.

I actually don't think those five Gervin years are terribly close to Durant's last five. No doubt Gervin was quite gifted offensively, but he doesn't compare very well statistically to Durant; and frankly it's all right there in the numbers you provided:

Per 100 Durant is +1.1 pts, +3.6 reb, +1.4 ast, +0.2 blk and on better shooting efficiency compared to Gervin; the only negative to counter-balance that is that he's also +0.3 turnovers.

PER is 26.8 to 23.9 in favor of Durant.
WS/48 is .250 to .185 in favor of Durant.
ORtg/DRtg gap is +16 to +7 in favor of Durant.

Some of these are actually kinda sizable gaps. Yes, Gervin's numbers are still pretty impressive compared to anyone else who's candidacy is presently being discussed. I just don't think they compare all that well to Durant.

That being said, Gervin still has quite a longevity claim over Durant at this point, which could validly be said to place him in the same ballpark. I think his longevity is a bit above average, fwiw. He had 11 pretty solid years (and was a solid/valuable role player the other three years, too). And with the exception of his rookie season, he never missed relevant games.

I'd still be interested in hearing more on Gervin, particularly anything pertaining to his impact on team success.

I'll clarify a bit more: durant clearly edges out gervin in most areas, but relatively speaking, they have similar "production models", for the lack of a better term. My point was that durant got voted in before gervin on those 5 seasons alone (yes, he has 2 seasons prior, but people weren't focusing on them). When you add in the rest of gervin's career, which was pretty impressive, the entire package gives him a good case of being considered in this range.

If I do end up voting for him here, I'll expand on team impact / success.

[penbeast0]

Isiah Thomas -- JordansBulls, ronnymac2, lukekarts, batmana, Jim Naismith,

Doctor MJ -- Reggie Miller

George Gervin -- tsherkin

I didn't get the "Steamwhistle" reference by tsherkin if anyone wants to clue me in.

[Owly]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Led the Pistons to back to back titles in an era that was tough as nails.

Led how. An important personality for sure. But performance wise? In '89 this has been covered previously ...

Spoiler:

How many players get to say they led their team to the title when they don't have their teams best playoff PER, don't have their teams best playoff WS total, don't have their team's best WS/48 in the playoffs, aren't close to their team's best defender (on a team winning primarily with D), aren't the finals MVP and you can ditto those facts (which could be applied) to the regular season. Also they didn't make so much as the All-NBA third team. That's Isiah in '89. How low is the bar to have to have "led" a team to a title? Out of curiosity as much as anything, who's the best player on champ to fit all those criteria?

Without much of a rebuttal except pointing to raw stats (whilst ignoring other stats - turnovers, %s, etc).

Had to deal with peak Bird and Magic in the process.

Are the years he didn't win part of the process? If so sure. If not, he went through '89 Celtics (No Bird, top 5 by minutes descending order: Lewis, Shaw, McHale, Parish, Kleine) and '89 Lakers (Magic peak, but injured, tried to play through, couldn't and is low on minutes, Scott also out. This means Tony Campbell, a forward who would be exposed to expansion was playing significant guard minutes). They played neither the following year. So in the relevent years I wouldn't say he ever dealt with those two players or teams at their peak. The team beat a stronger version of Boston in '88, but even if you thought that was peak Bird (he was injured), you'd have to be giving Rodman the lion's share of the credit for their win (Bird was below par, the degree to which it was Rodman or injuries is debatable but if not one ...), not Isiah.

Also won finals mvp,

Where's Kawahi, Maxwell, Parker etc. Soon?

lost only 1 series in his career with HCA.

Not even biting on this one.

Took a franchise from the bottom to the top as well in the process.[/quote]By himself? He replaced awfully low baseline players and was considered less important than Tripucka initially (14 MVP points in the voting to Isiah's 3), other's arrived simultaneously or around that time too (Johnson, Laimbeer are these two being voted in soon?).

If it's about carrying a team in the playoffs (on offense) one year, there's Hagan with better stats. If it's career playoff performances Gus Williams was better per minute as was Baron Davis in a smaller sample (or away from position, Schayes, Yardley, Kemp, Arizin, Gasol, Lanier etc and many others at least simililar; esp after accounting for dubiousness of Isiah's DWS, e.g. Chauncey).

If it's just about titles Rodman, Salley and Edwards went on to win others on other teams.

I just don't understand where Isiah is creating (such) separation from Gus Williams or Billups.


Vote: (may yet change, looking at Miller, but) Paul Pierce. Very good for very long. By every metric. Rarely absolutely blew you away. But a tough defender was an all-star+ level for 14 years and (otoh) there's only him and Parish left like that. Swung between two positions and did so well. Generally I would say a pretty tough defender though that's very subjective. Changed role and remained effective (trading usage for efficiency something many stars struggle with and thereby helping Boston be as incredible as they were that first year).

[tsherkin]

Isiah Thomas -- JordansBulls, ronnymac2, lukekarts, batmana, Jim Naismith,

Doctor MJ -- Reggie Miller

George Gervin -- tsherkin

I didn't get the "Steamwhistle" reference by tsherkin if anyone wants to clue me in.

"Do one thing; really well" is Steamwhistle's motto. They are a beer company.

[ElGee]

Remember why portability is such a key concept:

Let's say most teams fall between a range of -8 and +8 SRS (i.e. 19-win team to 63-win team). A player won't always be on the same quality of team; sometimes he'll have great defensive teammates, sometimes great isolation scorers, sometimes good shooters, etc. All told, he'll play on a distribution of teams in his career.

What the original title odds research uncovered was the quantification of a concept many people had discussed for years: It doesn't really matter how well you improve a bad team. And while it's true that you are less likely to be on great teams, there is still some likelihood (and thus, some inherent value). Consider how the following two players scale up -- I've listed the SRS of the team without the player, then with the player:

Player A (Team w/out --> Team with)
8 to 9
7 to 8
6 to 8
5 to 7
4 to 7
3 to 6
2 to 6
1 to 5
0 to 5
-1 to 4
-2 to 4
-3 to 3
-4 to 2
-5 to 1
-6 to 0
-7 to -1
-8 to -1

Player B
8 to 11
7 to 10
6 to 9
5 to 8
4 to 7
3 to 6
2 to 6
1 to 5
0 to 4
-1 to 3
-2 to 2
-3 to 1
-4 to 0
-5 to -1
-6 to -2
-7 to -2
-8 to -3

I rounded values for simplicity but go through the different cases with me:

-Each guy joins terrible teams and Player A "carries" them to 38-wins and an 8th-seed. They are exposed in the first round, but Player A averaged 35 ppg on low efficiency and is heralded as a great scorer. Meanwhile, Player B averages 20 ppg on solid efficiency in the team concept, but can only "lead" (not "carry") them to 32-wins. Doesn't even make all-star team.

-Each guy joins a 32-win team. Player A's isolation volume scoring continues to have value and he "carries" his defensively talented but offensively inept team to 50 wins. The 50-wins and huge scoring attention garner him MVP consideration. Meanwhile, Player B is the "best player" on his 44-win team, makes the AS game but has essentially no MVP consideration.

-Each guy joins a 47-win team. Big things are expected from Player A "adding" his 30 ppg to the lineup. At the end of the year, Player A and B's teams both win 58 games and make the Conference Finals. Player A gets lots of MVP consideration. Player B has other good players on his team and gets only a little MVP consideration.

-Each guy joins a 55-win team. Player A's team is regarded as a super-team and is considered a title favorite by many. Player B is considered a "missing piece" guy by many. Player A's team wins 59 games and doesn't reach the Finals - there are issues of redundancy and some disappointment. Player B's team wins 63 games, has an enormous ORtg and Player B again picks up small MVP consideration behind his MVP-contender teammate.

And as the teams get better and better, Player B carries more and more value playing alongside better and better players, whether those players are distributed (e.g. defensive teams) or concentrated (i.e. in one or two superstars). Now, what are the title odds both these players carry with them? Almost exactly 16% for each. Yet by definition, Player A is a 1-1.5 points more valuable on bad teams and will have lavish stats and tremendous praise for his individual abilities. I was kind to his portability -- if he really becomes redundant, he could drop down to the 13-14% range.

What has happened in basketball culture is we've idealized and romanticized players who are good at carrying bad teams, and marginalized players who fit with good teams well. A natural reaction is to say "but yeah, all players aren't lucky enough to play on good teams." This is true, but that's the only way most players ever win titles! In short, having the game to fill in any dimensions of a horrible team does not mean you have the game suited to improve good teams that already succeed in numerous dimensions.

The majority of the title value players carry comes from playing on good teams. More than 75% of the championship value of Player B comes from being on +3 teams or better. Thus, a player like this can either be the "best" player on a multipolar, synergistic championship-level team (e.g. 04 Pistons, 70 Knicks) or he can be a "second-banana" on a team with a traditional superstar -- someone who will trump him in the MVP voting. Think Stockton to Malone, unless you think Stockton is some Grade A superstar.

(Indeed, why Stockton over Miller? I have Miller over Stockton, but I have them very close. And the only reason I ask is that these players are very similar in career profile to me -- similar level peaks, similar level longevity.)

The point here is that while I fully believe a player like Reggie Miller will not help some bad teams as much as Allen Iverson or Carmelo Anthony -- he won't look like a better "first option" usually -- Miller destroys them in all the ripe championship scenarios IMO and thus that makes him a better NBA player by a good margin. Said another way, being the second-best player on championship teams can be way more valuable than being the best player on an 8th-seed.

[trex_8063]

^^^^^

While I don't entirely agree with your conclusion or final "valuation" of things, I love the content. Very pertinent hypothetical, very thought-provoking.

[colts18]

Here is a comparison between Howard and Mourning. Howard has played 10 seasons so far. I will compare his numbers to Mourning's first 10 seasons (through 02):

Per 100 possessions:
Howard: 27-19-2, 4.5 TOV, 3.1 blk, .599 TS%, 22 PER, .179 WS/48, 110 O rating
Mourning: 31-15-2, 4.6 TOV, 4.6 blk, .583 TS%, 22 PER, .174 WS/48. 109 O rating

Very close. Howard does have the advantage with 768 games to Zo's 622. Zo was injured in the last 2 years of that stretch.

Peak
2011 Howard: 32-20-2, 5 TOV, 3.3 blk, .616 TS%, 26 PER, .235 WS/48, 113 O rating
2000 Mourning: 34-15-2, 4.2 TOV, 5.7 blk, .596 TS%, 26 PER, .226 WS/48, 112 O rating

Another very close comparison. Zo is the better scorer while Howard is much better on the boards. Zo's passing and blocking was better. Both were great on defense but I would give Zo a slight edge on defense


Overall its very close. But Howard actually played more minutes than Zo. 28K vs 26K. Howard was effective for 10 of those years while Zo was only effective 8 years. Because of that I have Howard ahead of Mourning slightly.

[DQuinn1575]

Said another way, being the second-best player on championship teams can be way more valuable than being the best player on an 8th-seed.

I vote for Sam Jones

2nd best player on many championship teams - you can talk a lot about theories of portability, he was the guy who lived it. Probably 3rd best guard of 60s, behind 2 all-time greats.

Major Contributor to more championship teams than most anyone ever, and definitely more than any one left.

By far top offensive player on Celtics for many years.
Solid defender.

[trex_8063]

Here's my top candidate (p.pierce) vs some other guys very present on my radar at this time....

Paul Pierce ('01-'09)
Per 100: 32.5 pts, 8.7 reb, 5.6 ast, 2.0 stl, 0.8 blk with 4.4 tov @ 56.4% TS%
PER 21.2, .166 WS/48 109 ORtg/103 DRtg (+6) in 38.0 mpg
**Collective look might suggest a minimal step down in playoffs overall, but really it’s just one atrocious 4-game series in ‘04 that drag his numbers down. He’s had more than a few big playoff series.
Career rs WS: 143.6
Career playoff WS: 15.2
RAPM--->his best 5 seasons added is +19.9, pretty identical to that of guys like Vince Carter, Chris Bosh, Dwight Howard, and the years we have data for of Dikembe Mutombo; and significantly better than that of Kevin Durant, too, fwiw.

Elvin Hayes *('74-'80)
Per 100: 24.5 pts, 14.5 reb, 2.1 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.7 blk with 3.2 tov @ 50.2% TS%
PER 18.4, .141 WS/48, *102 ORtg/100 DRtg (+2) in 40.3 mpg
*only have Per 100 data for '74 and on; O/DRtg numbers from only '78-'80
**During playoffs in same years, Hayes actually has his PER go up to 19.3, WS/48 staying same at .141 despite playing 43.0 mpg.
Career rs WS: 120.8
Career playoff WS: 11.7

George Gervin ('77-'84) going with NBA prime only here
Per 100: 35.8 pts, 6.3 reb, 3.8 ast, 1.7 stl, 1.2 blk with 4.1 tov @ 57.5% TS%
PER 22.6, .173 WS/48, 112 ORtg/107 DRtg (+5) in 35.1 mpg
*Playoff numbers appear to hold pretty steady, too.
Career rs WS: 116.3 (88.1 in NBA)
Career playoff WS: 9.7 (6.3 in NBA)

Robert Parish (‘79-’91)---damn long prime, fwiw
Per 100: 25.8 pts, 15.6 reb, 2.5 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.5 blk with 3.6 tov @ 58.4%
PER 20.2, .168 WS/48, 113 ORtg/102 DRtg (+11) in 32.4 mpg
**More than the above three candidates, Parish does take a more noticeable dip in the playoffs.
Career rs WS: 147.0
Career playoff WS: 15.6

One other guy I’m sort of interested in at least bringing up at this time (difficult to compare, due to era) is Dolph Schayes.
Dolph Schayes (‘50’61)---another pretty long prime
Per 100: VERY rough estimates--->~23-26 pts, 15-17 reb, ~4 ast @ 49.1% TS% (+4.4 to league avg)
PER 22.9, .206 WS/48 in ~36+ mpg.
**Playoff numbers same to even marginally BETTER.
Career rs WS: 142.4
Career playoff WS: 14.0
Strength of era considerations obviously apply, but he’s a player who is much more “relevant” than the others by measures like MVP Awards Shares, where he ranks #44 all-time (and MVP was not something that was even awarded during his first SIX seasons). He was in the top 5 in MVP voting three times, six times in the top 8. In ‘58 he finished 2nd only to Bill Russell (even ahead of Bob Pettit!).
In the RealGM RPoY project, he was rated the 3rd-best player in both ‘57 and ‘58 (behind only Russell and Pettit), was rated THE BEST player in the game in ‘55. Is at least top 6 two other seasons. Overall he’s #24 in RealGM RPoY Shares.

These have been the main guys I’m considering at this spot, Pierce and Schayes perhaps at the top. But it doesn’t seem Schayes will get any serious consideration just yet, and I might not get a chance to vote tomorrow.

I think I’ll just go ahead and make it official…..My vote: Paul Pierce.

[Texas Chuck]

^^^^^

While I don't entirely agree with your conclusion or final "valuation" of things, I love the content. Very pertinent hypothetical, very thought-provoking.

Agreed. I know I don't agree with judging players the way ElGee does at all, but it's an interesting exercise in hypotheticals.

I wonder then what he makes of a guy like Ray Allen who plays like player A when he is on a bad team, but then plays like player B on a good team. Seems like a guy who would be clearly more valuable than the Reggie Miller who can't do as much for the bad teams, but doesn't really do much more for the good teams.

But this kind of thinking certainly is part of why I hold David Robinson in such high regard. He lifted bad teams as much as just about anyone ever did and then slid over to play a different role when Duncan showed up and he had a great team. KG to a lessor extent did the same thing. Kidd as well.

[Texas Chuck]

So I have been looking into Dave Cowens some more as I think he really belongs around this spot. Found some interesting tidbits:

longtime Boston sportswriter Bob Ryan considers him one of the 4 most important Celtics(Cousy, Russell, Bird).

I saw a note that said he had a personal 10 game win streak against Kareem. So I checked them out h2h and well, the Celtics didn't win 10 straight based on reputed good defender Cowens holding down Kareem.

Kareem's first 10 games against Cowens:

44
40
44
53
26
43
55
30
51
45


Now obviously Cowens gave up a ton of size to Kareem, but that's an incredible scoring run by Kareem against a very good defender in Cowens. Only 2 of his first 10 games against him did he score under 43!

[Doctor MJ]

Here is a comparison between Howard and Mourning. Howard has played 10 seasons so far. I will compare his numbers to Mourning's first 10 seasons (through 02):

Per 100 possessions:
Howard: 27-19-2, 4.5 TOV, 3.1 blk, .599 TS%, 22 PER, .179 WS/48, 110 O rating
Mourning: 31-15-2, 4.6 TOV, 4.6 blk, .583 TS%, 22 PER, .174 WS/48. 109 O rating

Very close. Howard does have the advantage with 768 games to Zo's 622. Zo was injured in the last 2 years of that stretch.

Peak
2011 Howard: 32-20-2, 5 TOV, 3.3 blk, .616 TS%, 26 PER, .235 WS/48, 113 O rating
2000 Mourning: 34-15-2, 4.2 TOV, 5.7 blk, .596 TS%, 26 PER, .226 WS/48, 112 O rating

Another very close comparison. Zo is the better scorer while Howard is much better on the boards. Zo's passing and blocking was better. Both were great on defense but I would give Zo a slight edge on defense


Overall its very close. But Howard actually played more minutes than Zo. 28K vs 26K. Howard was effective for 10 of those years while Zo was only effective 8 years. Because of that I have Howard ahead of Mourning slightly.

Good fair breakdown I think.

Just on that, Zo seems like a clear cut choice. Add in Zo's (apparent) superiority by RAPM and his vastly better and more professional attitude, I'm taking him in that particular comparison.

[trex_8063]

Here is a comparison between Howard and Mourning......

First 10 seasons.....(snip)

....Very close. Howard does have the advantage with 768 games to Zo's 622. Zo was injured in the last 2 years of that stretch.

Peak....(snip)


Another very close comparison.......(snip)

...Overall its very close. But Howard actually played more minutes than Zo. 28K vs 26K. Howard was effective for 10 of those years while Zo was only effective 8 years......

Good fair breakdown I think.

Just on that, Zo seems like a clear cut choice.......

I'm not sure how "just on that" you can declare a clear cut choice.....I'm not sure I've ever seen such an even-looking comparison; dang near mirror images. I'd have to concur with colts18 that it's "very close" (and no clear-cut choice in either direction).

If you want to give Mourning a small edge based on RAPM data, that's another matter.

fwiw (this in response to something colts18 said), I'd not definitively give Zo any kind of edge as a scorer: slight bigger volume (both in raw numbers and per 100), but on slightly lower efficiency; and also Dwight's have come after somewhat more extensive rule changes made to favor perimeter players on offense.
So I'd be inclined to call them pretty even as scorers (pretty even as overall offensive players).

I'd otherwise give Howard the obv edge as a rebounder, but give Zo the edge as a defender. Based on number of relevant seasons/minutes played, probably we could give Howard a small longevity/durability edge. But then Zo's impact numbers look a little better.

idk....this seems like a super-close comparison no matter how you slice it.

[DQuinn1575]

So I have been looking into Dave Cowens some more as I think he really belongs around this spot. Found some interesting tidbits:

longtime Boston sportswriter Bob Ryan considers him one of the 4 most important Celtics(Cousy, Russell, Bird).

I saw a note that said he had a personal 10 game win streak against Kareem. So I checked them out h2h and well, the Celtics didn't win 10 straight based on reputed good defender Cowens holding down Kareem.

Kareem's first 10 games against Cowens:

44
40
44
53
26
43
55
30
51
45


Now obviously Cowens gave up a ton of size to Kareem, but that's an incredible scoring run by Kareem against a very good defender in Cowens. Only 2 of his first 10 games against him did he score under 43!

The Celtics played a pressing game against the Bucks, as evidenced by 58 steals, over 8 a game, in the 74 championship series. They pressured the Bucks to bring the ball up, leaving Cowens to guard Jabbar one-on-one way more than any other team did back then.
As a result, Jabbar scored well against him, but it was a lose the battle win the war mentaliy. In the early and mid 70s Jabbar was simply incredible, and he was scoring 34 a game even with every other team double teaming him.

[Notanoob]

fwiw (this in response to something colts18 said), I'd not definitively give Zo any kind of edge as a scorer: slight bigger volume (both in raw numbers and per 100), but on slightly lower efficiency; and also Dwight's have come after somewhat more extensive rule changes made to favor perimeter players on offense.
So I'd be inclined to call them pretty even as scorers (pretty even as overall offensive players).

I'm inclined to give more credit to Zo because I have more respect for him when it comes to creating his own shot. Dwight's post game is decently effective, but I bet you that he got more buckets created for him than Zo did.

[drza]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

I've been voting for Zeke (and previously Jason Kidd alternatingly) for awhile now. For Zeke, a quick bullet point (but non-exhaustive) list of some of my thoughts:

*There was a clear improvement in the Pistons' offense from dead-last the 2 years consecutively before his arrival to a peak of #1 about 4 years into his career and a steady top-10 offense for almost all of his prime. He wasn't alone, with other talented players and coaches coming and going during this period, but I believe him to be clearly the key ingredient

*We have an IMO reasonably established (and growing) set of data indicating that scoring efficiency is not necessarily all that important at determining point guard impact (nor overall player impact, but here we're talking about a PG). Lots of point guards with questionable or poor efficiency have been shown to have a much more positive influence than expected. I believe Zeke is one of those players, and my history perusal which led to bullet point 1 supports this

*Zeke was very strong willed, a good leader, and the big stage wasn't too big for him. We've had some debate as to whether Zeke was truly leading the '89 Pistons statistically or whether those Pistons really went through the best of the Lakers or Celtics, and the points raised have been fair. However, I will say, at the time when the playoff games were billed/hyped as Isiah vs Larry or Isiah vs Magic, it didn't feel like a mismatch. Like for instance, when the '09 Lakers played the Magic and it was billed as Kobe vs Howard, it was clearly a personality mismatch at the top. This is unquantifiable and if it were just about me as a fan largely irrelevant, but I think that the other players in the Pistons locker room felt it too. Isiah was strong enough to look any player in the eye and say I'm better, then go out and do his thing on the biggest stage. I think this leadership/confidence was of tangible value to his teams, helped them establish an identity.

*Along those lines, Isiah is famous for some of his big postseason performances and pretty consistently stepping up his game in the second season.

*My eye test. I'm a very stat-based evaluator, as is abundantly clear in my posts. But I do pay attention to what my eyes tell me, especially lacking strong contradictory evidence to the contrary. And at the time, I always felt like Isiah was one of the best, with the only players clearly better having long been voted in here. I would have been fine with him going in 10 slots ago. Now feels like a good time

[drza]

If/when Zeke goes in, I'm looking at a big-man-palooza for the next few spots. I like the Zo/Howard comp. I like the Cowens mentions. Dike and the Worm will get looks. Seen fplii with some Thurmond talk. Seen some 70s Bullets bigs mentions in Hayes and Unseld. I'm likely to go off the board and start talking Sheed soon. Someone said Parrish. Just lots of big guys to discuss soon.

I'm also hearing a lot of Pierce and Reggie talk, which both naturally lead to Ray Allen. And if we're starting to talk 90s/00s wings of this level I've got to start looking harder at TMac, Vinsanity, GINOOOOOBILI, and AI as well.

Probably others I'm forgetting off the top of my head too. But this will soon get wide open for me

[DQuinn1575]

(6) Isiah Thomas -- JordansBulls, ronnymac2, lukekarts, batmana, Jim Naismith, drza

(1) Reggie Miller -Doctor MJ

(1) George Gervin -- tsherkin

(1) Sam Jones - DQuinn1575

(2) Paul Pierce - Owly, trek_8063


Right now Isiah has 6 out of 11

[Clyde Frazier]

(6) Isiah Thomas -- JordansBulls, ronnymac2, lukekarts, batmana, Jim Naismith, drza

(1) Reggie Miller -Doctor MJ

(1) George Gervin -- tsherkin

(1) Sam Jones - DQuinn1575

(2) Paul Pierce - Owly, trek_8063


Right now Isiah has 6 out of 11

Posting my vote for gervin in 5 minutes.