RealGM Top 100 List #56

[john248]

Thinking about Manu here but still want to read more about McAdoo and Lanier. I might side with Lanier between the 2 for the extra years, but I like McAdoo's peak better. Then there's Vince who I'm liking more and more around now along with Marques and Squid.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Manu Ginobili

There are obvious reasons why some won't have him this high, but I hope people realize what a singular player he is. He has simply always impacted the game like crazy when he's out there in a way. He's the low-minute superstar, and of course he plays for a coach who makes it a point not to use guys for 35 MPG simply because that's what most do with their stars.

If I'm building a contender, I have zero doubts that Ginobili can become a big contributor to pretty much any approach I'm planning to use.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'm a big fan of Vince Carter but I don't see any reason for him to go ahead of Allen Iverson.

Iverson vs Carter

Accodales:
MVP: 1-0: Iverson
Top 5 in MVP voting: 3-0: Iverson
All-star games: 11-8: Iverson
All-star MVP: 2-0: Iverson
All NBA 1st team: 3-0: Iverson
All NBA 2nd team: 2-1: Iverson
All NBA 3rd team: 2-1: Iverson

Stats comparison
Scoring champion 4-0: Iverson
Steals leader: 3-0: Iverson
Top 10 in APG: 4-0: Iverson
Top 10 PER: 3-2 (Iverson was 7th twice and 8th once, Carter was 2nd once and 10th once): Iverson
Top 10 Win shares: 3-2 (Iverson was 10th 3 times, Carter was 6th and 7th): Iverson

Scoring comparison
Seasons above 25PPG: RS/PS: Iverson
Iverson 10/6
Carter 2/1

Seasons above 55%ts: Carter
Iverson 1/1
Carter 3/2 (two of those were in Dallas: once in the regular season and once in the post season, and his volume isn't really that big)

RPG over 5: Carter
Carter 9
Iverson 0

Above 20 PER seasons: RS/PS: Iverson
Iverson 8/5
Carter 7/2

Career WS/48 RS/PS: Carter
Iverson 12.6/10.9
Carter 14.1/12.8

Seems to me pretty clear who has the advantage here. Carter has RPG (expected) and WS/48. Ts% goes slightly Carter's way but it's not even a big gap, and with the difference in volume I think it's pretty clear Iverson was the better scorer.

[Joao Saraiva]

If the votes go to Manu Ginobili I can understand it, even tough I don't agree.

There is such a diference in their role that is much harder to make a comparison. I doubt Manu could take a NBA team to the NBA finals as a 1st option, but there is no way to prove that. His numbers on his role look awesome and he has an impressive career in the NBA and for Argentina...

So yes, I can accept it. One of the few players I feel has a legit argument against Iverson in these last threads.

PS: Like I said I FEEL. Of course other posters have a diferent view of the game so if they like other players better I respect their opinion.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

Wilkins. Or it looks like you're talking about Lenny. We can probably infer from context but still.

On the stats point would you care to expound. Because otherwise I suspect few will find that persuasive.

On short peaks, this naturally varies according to participants own preferences. With regard to King, I guess that would depend how you define “best scorer”. In his truncated ’85 he’s close to the top for non-Jordan points per 100 possessions, though ’82 Gervin ranks higher (http://bkref.com/tiny/XYKu3). If this is meant as an advocacy for King though I’d note three concerns that might "drop" him relative to his peak (and peak stats)

1) Longevity of peak/prime: By the metrics ’84 and ’85 look like clear outliers, which mean the value he adds over his career low for a player with such a peak.

2) Defense: Hard to get a good read on it, but not generally considered great (if you go by team level stuff and DWS definitely concerning).

3) Utah: Both in and of itself as a risk to a franchise and as a microcosm or example of personal/personality issues that meant he got traded cheaply over his career. Both on court, off court and in court. For the damage it does to the franchise and potentially, for some, because of personal distaste (cf: http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2013/04/ ... of-a-king/ ).

I felt that Dominque Wilkens was better than Alex English who is on the list at 54. If we are letting short peak players in based on their peaks then Perhaps Bernard King should have made the top 30

Bernard King is the only player on the following list at Basketball-Reference : In the playoffs; from 1977-78 to 2014-15; requiring Points Per Game >= 30 and True Shooting Pct >= 0.620 and Games >= 6

Call Kings's peak the 83-84 through 84-85 seasons. In the 1984 playoffs King was incredible. 35 points a game with a 62% TS over 12 games. King almost knocked off the 1984 Celtics that won the championship that year. I watched that as a Celtic fan.

Kings whole career was very good.

King was a a descent defender, rebounder and play maker and unlike Adrian Dantley, King did dominate the ball and hurt his his teammates offense.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

Honestly i'm not even sure why billups is being me mentioned already. To me you can't be a top 55-60 player without having at least one season as a top 10 player. Billups never had that and probably only 4-5 years where he was all star caliber. That isn't top 60 to me, also he got to play on some of the best defenses this league has seen (03-06) pistons so i think his impact may be overstated a bit. He was a very good player so i'm not trying to take away from him but i don't think top 60 is an appropriate range.

Billups has one top 10 PER season and 6 top ten WS/48 seasons. And you think as few as four (and at most 5) were all-star calibre.



Iverson's issues are well documented at this point;

PER rewards efficient high volume 3 point shooters
Win shares rewards players on winning teams

Tim Hardaway's Career PER is about the same as Billups even though Hardaway never did reach Billups efficiency as a 3 point shooter.

Hardaway was a true point guard who created for his teammates and Hardaway was a defensive pest who got a lot of steals and made opposing point guards work hard.

Billups was more of a cross between a point guard and an off guard. Billups did shoot the 3 very well for the second half of his career but I just did not see Billups as a great player.

Iverson looked like a great player but most of us are having a problem with his shooting efficiency.
I feel like Mark Price was also better than Billups and Derek Harper was not much worse than Billups. Archibald was probably better than Billups but I did not see prime Archibald. Past has prime Celtics Archibald was a very good player.

Billups never was a top ten player in the league but most of the players left were never top 10 players in the league.

[Clyde Frazier]

I felt that Dominque Wilkens was better than Alex English who is on the list at 54. If we are letting short peak players in based on their peaks then Perhaps Bernard King should have made the top 30

Bernard King is the only player on the following list at Basketball-Reference : In the playoffs; from 1977-78 to 2014-15; requiring Points Per Game >= 30 and True Shooting Pct >= 0.620 and Games >= 6

Call Kings's peak the 83-84 through 84-85 seasons. In the 1984 playoffs King was incredible. 35 points a game with a 62% TS over 12 games. King almost knocked off the 1984 Celtics that won the championship that year. I watched that as a Celtic fan.

Kings whole career was very good.

King was a a descent defender, rebounder and play maker and unlike Adrian Dantley, King did dominate the ball and hurt his his teammates offense.

Well, it's not really a matter of "letting players in". We just don't have a large voter pool, and it was a runoff, so with much of the voter pool not thinking that highly of iverson, johnson made it in over him. Everyone has different criteria. I've personally valued longevity and durability a little more than the average voter, so I wasn't for Johnson. Huge fan of king, too, but i've been holding out a vote for him as a result. He's one of the most dynamic scorers in NBA history. Just didn't last that long. I had hoped iverson would get in at 55 as the discussion's been a little redundant over the last few threads, but he still missed out by 1 vote.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #56 - Elvin Hayes

- 16 year career
- 6x all NBA (3 1st, 3 2nd)
- 2x all defensive 2nd team
- 2 top 3 and 4 top 10 MVP finishes
- 1x NBA champion

Hayes had unbelievable durability: in his 16 seasons in the league, he played in 80+ games in every season, missing a total of 9 games.

REG SEASON 69-79
23.7 PPG, 14.5 RPG, 2 APG, 1 SPG, 2.5 BPG, 45% FG, 67% FT, 49% TS, .130 WS/48

PLAYOFFS 69-79
23.2 PPG, 13.1 RPG, 1.9 APG, 1.2 SPG, 2.6 BPG, 47% FG, 65.3% FT, 50.6% TS, .143 WS/48

While he wasn't a very efficient scorer in his prime, he wasn't abysmal, either. From 69-79, his TS% of 49% was slightly below the league avg of 50.6% during that span. I will still take a player's ability to score at ~average efficiency over a player who can't score at all. He used his above average athleticism on both ends of the floor to his advantage, and helped the bullets to 3 finals runs including a championship in 78.

He also had a good case for finals MVP in 78. Per writer Dave Heeren:

Remember the Elvin Hayes incident? During the 1978 playoffs, the Championship series between Washington and Seattle reached the seventh game. Rick Barry, whose Golden State team had not qualified for the playoffs that year, was announcing that game and doing his usual candid job. He pointed out that one of the referees had a short temper and that he was especially apt to make hasty foul calls against Hayes, whom he did not like because Hayes did a lot of complaining about his calls. Hayes, who had been the series' outstanding player to that point, picked up his fourth foul during the third quarter and argued before going to the bench. The same official whistled him for his fifth and sixth fouls in quick succession after he reentered the game early in the fourth quarter. Replays showed that Hayes had not committed either of the fouls. On one of them there had been no physical contact at all.

But Hayes was out of the game, and a vindictive referee could have deprived Washington of a league championship becaus the Bullets were ahead by 8 or 10 points when Hayes went out. Paced by Bob Dandridge, the Bullets did hold on to win. But Hayes was deprived of an award he wanted and deserved. Since he had not played during the closing minutes of the championship game, the championship series MVP trophy was given to Wes Unseld. Unseld, then in the twilight of his career, had produced little offense for the Bullets and had been victimized by Seattle center Marvin Webster for 30 points, or a basket more or less, in the final game.

There's talk about attitude problems with hayes, but that largely seemed to be off the court-related, and that doesn't matter to me unless it affects on the court performance.

However, once he came the Bullets, he instantly seemed to mesh with the team, both on and off the court. Combining with Wes Unseld to anchor a potent double post offense that dominated on the boards, Hayes' arrival allowed coach Gene Shue to play an up-tempo, fast breaking three guard lineup that improved from 38 to 52 wins in just one year. The team never looked back and was a legitimate juggernaut for the rest of the 1970s.

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2012/8/22 ... on-bullets

For those who pay attention to it, he coincidentally ranked 56th in RPOY shares. Will add more on Hayes if I get a chance.

[Quotatious]

Vote: Elvin Hayes

Great defender (top 15-ish all-time), very good rebounder, decent scorer (poor efficiency, but still someone that you could go to on offense, someone who could score in many different ways - his ability to create his own shot was pretty good for a bigman, in my estimation, based on what I've seen, and it's still fairly valuable - efficiency wasn't emphasized as heavily in the 70s as it is today, and the fact that Hayes had three seasons with 25+ PPG, and averaged 21 for his career, the fact that he was trusted to be a high usage offensive player, has to count for something - I mean, there aren't many players who average 20+ PPG, let alone 25+, no matter their efficiency, and there's a reason why some guys are trusted to be volume scorers, even if they aren't very efficient - I mean, we can't really dismiss guys like Baylor, Wilkins or Iverson as poor scorers, just because they didn't shoot a very high percentage, similar with Hayes).
Also, he was a pretty good playoff performer - certainly had a few really bad playoff series (1979 finals in particular, when he shot below 40% from the field - that's REALLY bad for a bigman), but overall, his PER (obviously incomplete before '77-'78, but still - 17.7 in RS and 19.1 in PS), WS/48 (11.6 up to 13.5) and TS% (49.1 up to 50.1) all go up in the postseason, which isn't really a common theme for most players, and it means that he was actually a more effective player in the playoffs, despite facing tougher defenses and playing more minutes (43.3, compared to 38.4 in RS).
The last thing about Hayes is his amazing longevity and durability. Averaged 21 points and 12.5 rebounds for his career, but basically averaged over 20 and 10 for 12 seasons, then over 15 and 9 for two more, and his final year in the league in '83-'84 (at 38 years old), was the only one when he wasn't really a serious contributor anymore, playing just 12.6 minutes per game (even in '82-'83, at age 37, he still averaged almost 13 and 8 in over 28 minutes).
He missed just 9 games in 16 seasons in the league, and never more than two games in any season. That's pretty incredible, and honestly, I feel like Hayes was kinda like an older, (much) worse version of Karl Malone, in terms of being an ironman, very athletic power forward with good size, very tough, fierce competitor, good defender (well, Hayes was most likely a better defender than Malone), and both really liked that turnaround midrange jumper. Also, both are from Louisiana. Obviously Malone was a much more efficient scorer and better passer, but they're pretty similar. FWIW (it's not worth much in terms of basketball value, but may be worth mentioning as a "fun fact") - Hayes was a relatively more reliable playoff performer than Malone (in absolute terms though, Karl was still a better playoff performer than Elvin, but it's not really a fair comparison for Hayes, because we're talking about a top 20 player of all-time like Malone). I think there's a really tangible benefit about having a bigman who competes hard on a daily basis, never misses a game, and plays excellent defense.
Frankly, I think Hayes belongs over Reed and Cowens, because of his longevity (Reed was IMO clearly better at his peak, but his longevity is a joke compared to Hayes, and I'm not sure if Cowens was any better than Hayes in their primes - even if he was, Elvin's longevity edge is more significant than that hypothetical advantage in terms of peak/prime play for Cowens).

Hayes reminds me of Malone like Rick Barry reminds me of an older, worse version of Larry Bird. Bird and Barry may be a bit more similar, but I think Malone and Hayes are quite similar, too.

Why Hayes over guys like Iverson, Carter or Wilkins? I like his combination of offense and defense (Iverson and Wilkins weren't really efficient as scorers, so they don't really have a gigantic edge in this regard over Hayes), and they were generally mediocre defensively, while Hayes was elite. Also, I like Hayes more as a playoff performer (especially over Nique), and his longevity was definitely better, as well. Carter was a better all-around player than Wilkins and Iverson, but he lacks longevity as a superstar, compared to these two, and even more compared to Hayes.

Finally, why Hayes over Lanier? In my opinion, being a great defender is a little more important for a bigman than being a very efficient scorer, so I'd lean slightly towards Hayes for that reason (but I think their offense/defense combination was almost equally valuable), but longevity is a clearly more important factor, in Hayes' favor.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

i think that 61 or lower is the highest he could reaosnably go, therefore i don't think he should be mentioned yet.

You don't think Billups was ever a top-10 player; this is a highly debatable point, both for its veracity and its relevance to voting criteria, but it is your subjective criterion. ...........
.................
.....................
The Pistons were not a conventionally-constructed title squad, and had no obvious superstar on the offensive end. Instead, they had Chauncey orchestrating everything with an inefficient off-ball shooter who gamed for 2pt looks before eventually developing over a brief peak (Rip), Sheed (a low-volume stretch 4), and then Tay, with Big Ben contributing passing and offensive rebounding. It was an ensemble cast, and it wouldn't have worked without Chauncey's game management, which is something he translated well enough to Denver and New York, and even super late into his career when he became a member of the Clippers.

I think we consider ourselves at realgm to be superior evaluators of talent than all-star voters are.
That being said neither Billups or (Tim Hardaway who I say was better than Billups) ever cracked the top ten in All-Star voting.

Sometimes I think RealGM member opinions are too influenced by "advanced stats". Billups efficient 3 point shooting is what gets Billups the high PER seasons. Efficient 3 point shooting is important but I think the PER stat overweights efficient 3 point shooting.

Did Chauncey Billups really manage the championship Pistons offense? Where are his assists? 5.9 assists is not bad, but not good. You did not say Billups created the offense; you just just said he managed the offence so I guess you are correct. Chauncey managed the the offense more than any other player did but he had help.

I could not quite tell if you were criticizing Rip Hamiliton. Hamilton running around screens was the primary player causing defenses to switch and adjust while the rest of the team looked for opportunities. Hamilton's assist numbers are not much lower than Billups.

How much time did Tayshaun Prince have the ball in his hands? I don't think we have stats for this but it looks like Tayshaun Prince would actually be the championship Pistons playoffs leader in assists per minutes with the ball in his hands. Tayshaun had a little less than half as many assists as Billups but Tayshaun probably only had the ball in his hands about 1/8th as much of the time as Billups.

[magicmerl]

I don't understand why Dennis Rodman isn't getting more traction here. Dude did things that contribute to winning basketball.

Of the 36 player seasons where the player played more than 40 games with more than 20 rebounds per 100 possessions (arbitrarily chosen to find some but not too many results), Rodman has an astonishing 8! seasons, with no other player having more than 2.

If you switch to per36 minutes, he only falls behind Russell and Chamberlain, both of whom players were in the top 4.

I don't regard his low offensive usage as a problem. It means that he's very happy for his talented teammates to shoot the ball, which is very different from an Iverson type who must be the alpha and therefore is doomed to perennially play on teams that aren't talented enough to win a ring.

Rodman can clearly fit into different systems, although he needs a strong alpha on the team to keep him in line, or you get the San Antonio experience.

All up I think he's the sort of person you really want to have on a championship team, even if he's clearly never going to be your anchor.

[Owly]

I'm voting Bob Lanier once again, another composite post of my previous stuff why below

I'm voting Bob Lanier
Reasoning: looks like the best career added value by crude faux-EWA/WS combination. He's also high on a similar peak based ranking which I ended up posting a few threads back (43rd, and all those above him still available didn't maintain their peak anything close to how he did, and/or have era concerns).

Spoiler:

PPR Score PPR Rank name
29.69848481 17 Amare Stoudemire
32.80243893 18 Neil Johnston
43.56604182 25 Paul Arizin
47.38143096 26 Bob McAdoo
54.3783045 30 Walt Bellamy
55.90169944 31 Terrell Brandon
63.07138812 33 Elton Brand
65.30696747 35 Ed Macauley
67.53517602 36 Emanuel Ginobili
68.01470429 37 Arvydas Sabonis
76.53103945 42 Larry Foust
77.46612163 43 Bob Lanier

All with era concerns; longevity/peak maintainance issues and/or problems defense/intangiables (Manu probably the least but minutes is an issue; for a comp see http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2015).

Team level D might be held against him but his Drtg (hardly perfect, but I think sufficient for the point/claim being made) in '74 when he played 81 games led the league.

A concern might be that he missed quite a few games, including playing (just) less than 65 games and 2500 minutes for three of his five short prime/extended peak years ('76, '77 and '78 of '74-'78). Still for that 5 year span he looks like the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league (even after minutes are factored in) and he lasted much better than McAdoo.
cf:
The five year span in question http://bkref.com/tiny/64BQL
The 70s: http://bkref.com/tiny/0DbJe

Reviews on D

Lanier is the big difference. He played only when in the mood before last season. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.

[individual bio]
Called "Moses" by his teammates ... For leading them out of the wilderness ...... trimmer last season ...... Defense was his biggest improvement

Depending on who's in there, the Pistons can make you work. When one of the "whos" is either Trapp or Howard Porter, the opponents can relax a bit. But Rowe, Ford, Mengelt, Kevin Porter, Money and Lanier will get down and play some defense. Lanier, in fact often surprises people by jumping out to pick up guards or forwards. He also clogs the middle nicely.
[individual bio]
Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards.

Somewhat confusing. Lanier is a mammoth figure to try and get around [and some other decent players but the Porters are bad and the bench "woefully weak" ... comunication and fouling called a problem, perhaps coaching semi-implied as a problem based on that?]
[individual bio]
Can rebound, block shots, play defense, do everything but clean the kitchen floor ...... [unrelated but I've touched on this] Injuries have been a problem, though, but he has always played hurt

[Vitale will be looking to emphasize D] Lanier gives him a head start. That is the advantage of having a big center. Lanier seals off the middle and is tough and aggressive.

[individual bio]Devensively he can be as imposing as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore

Depending on how much you allow hypotheticals, you might also consider that Detroit rushed him back in his rookie year which may have been detrimental to his long term health.

One quick and dirty study of his impact.

'76 Pistons
team points differential over the year -86 over 82 games, -1.048780488 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -92 over 18 games, -5.111111111 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier +6 over 64 games, 0.09375 per game


'77 Pistons
team points differential over the year -85 over 82 games, -1.036585366 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -107 over 18 games, -5.944444444 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier 22 over 64 games, 0.34375 per game

Lanier('s impact) looks a little worse in '78
'78 Pistons
team points differential over the year -102 over 82 games, -1.243902439 per game
team points differential over 19 games without Lanier -100 over 19 games, -4.347826087 per game
team points differential over 63 games with Lanier -2 over 63 games, -0.031746032 per game

Players with as many or more top 2000(ish) player seasons (as before not absolutely up to date- LeBron should now be on there) by PER (17.9+)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
Karl Malone 17
Shaquille O'Neal 17
Kevin Garnett 17
John Stockton 17
Tim Duncan 16
Hakeem Olajuwon 16
Kobe Bryant 16
Moses Malone 16
Charles Barkley 15
Paul Pierce 14
Clyde Drexler 14
Michael Jordan 13
Wilt Chamberlain 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Robert Parish 13
David Robinson 12
Oscar Robertson 12
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Larry Bird 12
Jerry West 12
Patrick Ewing 12
Dominique Wilkins 12
Steve Nash 12
Allen Iverson 12
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Adrian Dantley 11
Elgin Baylor 11
Vince Carter 11
Larry Nance 11
Pau Gasol 11
Alex English 11
Chris Webber 11

Players with as many top 2000ish player seasons as Lanier by WS/48 (.144+)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
John Stockton 18
Karl Malone 17
Tim Duncan 16
Reggie Miller 16
Shaquille O'Neal 15
Hakeem Olajuwon 15
Charles Barkley 15
Kevin Garnett 14
Kobe Bryant 14
Moses Malone 13
Paul Pierce 13
Wilt Chamberlain 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Robert Parish 13
David Robinson 13
Oscar Robertson 13
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Jerry West 12
Adrian Dantley 12
Bill Russell 12
Ray Allen 12
Michael Jordan 11
Larry Bird 11
Steve Nash 11
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Larry Nance 11
Bailey Howell 11
Detlef Schrempf 11

Other discussion from earlier threads

I'm not as familiar with Lanier, but those WOWY numbers Owly is posting make him certainly worth a big look. Still, I wonder whether he is a superior candidate to someone like Elvin Hayes.

Look at any boxscore metric and it will say Lanier peaked (much) higher, I suspect they'd all say he added more career value and tbh how "valuable" at this point in the list are, for instance, Hayes' Win Shares garnered from sub .100 WS/48 seasons - he gets 19 Win Shares from such seasons - set greatness impact replacement level at something like .120 WS/48 and you'd take a huge chunk out of his apparent contribution, ditto with PER - where he never hit 20, which Eric Murdock and Matt Geiger did, okay that's OTT, and as I've said before the range/SD seems like it might be less in the 70s but in any case that affects Lanier just as much anyway.

Lanier doesn't have Hayes' baggage as a teammate (not sure he was entirely happy/positive by the end in Detroit but nothing like Hayes) and he rates as better by the metrics in the playoffs despite playing a large chunk of his playoff career past his prime in a tough conference (80s East). Lanier being a more willing passer might make him easier to build around too.

What does Hayes have an edge in? D, probably (though positional competition isn't equal on the accolade front), and minutes. To me, it's not nearly enough.

I can't think really of another angle to analyse this from. I'd guess he's portable as he can score from the post, he space the floor and shoot the J, and it seems like at his best (anecdotally) he could defend guys out on the floor as well as play a more conventional anchor, and his assist % is pretty strong for a big man (double Hayes' 14.4 to 7.0).

[Sasaki]

although he needs a strong alpha on the team to keep him in line, or you get the San Antonio experience.

This isn't a small thing at all. I mean, if Dennis Rodman could play in today's league, how many teams could really control him? I think there are teams that could do it ( namely the Spurs), but there isn't a single team that I would be 100% confident that Rodman would stay relatively sane. Combine that with his general uselessness in scoring and his tendency to look for his own rebounds at the expense of everything late in his career and I think there are better candidates.

I mean, if we're talking about elite defenders/rebounders who did all the little things, why not Wes Unseld? One of the most well known outlet passers, won a MVP ( which he didn't deserve, but neither did Iverson), solid chemistry guy,

[Owly]

I don't understand why Dennis Rodman isn't getting more traction here. Dude did things that contribute to winning basketball.

Of the 36 player seasons where the player played more than 40 games with more than 20 rebounds per 100 possessions (arbitrarily chosen to find some but not too many results), Rodman has an astonishing 8! seasons, with no other player having more than 2.

If you switch to per36 minutes, he only falls behind Russell and Chamberlain, both of whom players were in the top 4.

I don't regard his low offensive usage as a problem. It means that he's very happy for his talented teammates to shoot the ball, which is very different from an Iverson type who must be the alpha and therefore is doomed to perennially play on teams that aren't talented enough to win a ring.

Rodman can clearly fit into different systems, although he needs a strong alpha on the team to keep him in line, or you get the San Antonio experience.

All up I think he's the sort of person you really want to have on a championship team, even if he's clearly never going to be your anchor.

Whilst I think Chuck Daly certainly did a very good job with him, I don't know that you in his early years he needed "a strong alpha" to keep him in line.

From about '93 on I don't think anyone did, or could "keep him in line". Popovich certainly didn't (as GM) and he's one of the absolute greats (indeed Rodman went out of his way to criticise Popovich). I don't think he was particularly "in line" in Chicago, but the team was both good enough and perhaps mentally strong enough (with MJ PJ and 3 prior titles, a fairly unique situation) to ignore him.

I don't find low usage a problem but as I've noted before, I do find super low usage, yet still low efficiency, passing up putbacks an issue.

I like early Rodman, I like transitioning Rodman. I don't like volatile, disruptive, rebound-centric Rodman.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I don't understand why Dennis Rodman isn't getting more traction here. Dude did things that contribute to winning basketball.


Rodman can clearly fit into different systems, although he needs a strong alpha on the team to keep him in line, or you get the San Antonio experience.

Rodman should be getting in the list but maybe about 15 players from now.

Rodman put up some great numbers in San Antonio. Rodman was on the 62 win Spurs in 1994-95

I have looked into the Pre-Popovitch/Duncan Spurs and read some articles about them. I do think David Robinson failed to provide leadership that Rodman and Rod Strickland and the rest of the team could have benefited from. The Spurs had some good talent but under achieved.

Articles that I read suggest that the Spurs ownership was providing bad leadership during the good young David Robinson teams. Red McCombs bad / Peter Holt good.

Holt ought the team in 1993 and brought in Popovich as the GM in 1994.

Sean Elliot is traded for Rodman who plays for coach John Lucas on the 55 win 1993-94 Spurs. Then Sean Elliot is traded back to the Spurs and the Spurs have a fine season under Bob Hill as coach with Pop as GM.

Rodman wrote in his book that he did not like Popovich. But the best pre Tim Duncan Spurs team features Rodman playing 32 minutes a game and grabbing 17 rebounds per game in 1994-95 with Pop GM. Then Rodman is traded to the Bulls and the Spurs drop from 62 wins to 55 wins.

[tsherkin]

I think we consider ourselves at realgm to be superior evaluators of talent than all-star voters are.
That being said neither Billups or (Tim Hardaway who I say was better than Billups) ever cracked the top ten in All-Star voting.

All-Star voters are idiots; Yao made the team in a season during which he played 5 games and averagd 10/5. All-Star voting is utterly meaningless.

Did Chauncey Billups really manage the championship Pistons offense? Where are his assists? 5.9 assists is not bad, but not good.

You are already wrong because you are assuming a connection between volume assist production and quality of playmaking, especially in a distributed offense.

I could not quite tell if you were criticizing Rip Hamiliton. Hamilton running around screens was the primary player causing defenses to switch and adjust while the rest of the team looked for opportunities. Hamilton's assist numbers are not much lower than Billups.

Rip was a crappy scorer outside of a few seasons, but he had offensive value due to his distraction effect. When he could hit threes, he was very good.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Vince Carter

My true contenders for this spot are Nate Thurmond, Allen Iverson, and VC.

Vince was one of the most dynamic players in the golden era of shooting guards. His passing out of pick-n-roll while in New Jersey made him similar to his cousin, Tracy McGrady. His explosiveness, 3-point shooting, and low turnover rate in Toronto made him a super portable offensive menace for the Raptors.

After ending his prime in New Jersey, he willingly turned into a valuable role player, even coming off the bench for some strong teams like Dallas last year and Memphis this year. This in my opinion helps him overtake his contemporary, Allen Iverson, though I get the argument for AI as well.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo

Worms: Dennis Rodman

Wings: Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Paul Arizin, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[tsherkin]

Vote VC.

In my opinion, the best combination of performance, longevity and ability/talent remaining. King is on my list in the near future, but not just yet. Lanier and McAdoo as well.

[Quotatious]

Vote count

Allen Iverson (3) - drza, trex_8063, Joao Saraiva

Elvin Hayes (2) - Clyde Frazier, Quotatious

Vince Carter (2) - ronnymac2, tsherkin

Manu Ginobili (1) - Doctor MJ

Bob Lanier (1) - Owly

Sam Jones (1) - penbeast0

[Quotatious]

For those who like Sam Jones here (so basically just penbeast, but I remember DQuinn voted for him as early as late 30s, when he was still active in this project) - what makes you like Jones over Hal Greer? I don't think I've seen Greer even being mentioned at this point as a serious candidate, but IMO Greer and Jones are just as close as Reggie Miller and Ray Allen. Hard to separate.