RealGM Top 100 List #60

[Quotatious]

Wanted to confirm that I'm changing my vote to Paul Arizin. Better player than Carter/Wilkins relative to their era, more efficient scorer for his day, better all-around player than Wilkins, better playoff performer than both, good enough longevity (9-year prime).

[Quotatious]

Dominique Wilkins (2) - JordansBulls, trex_8063

Sidney Moncrief (1) - penbeast0

Vince Carter (1) - RSCD3_

Bill Walton (1) - Notanoob

Sam Jones (1) - Moonbeam

Paul Arizin (1) - Quotatious

Still no clear run-off candidate to go against Dominique.

Owly is leaning towards Manu, Joao Saraiva towards Rodman (I believe Doctor MJ would vote for Manu, as he's been doing for the last few threads).

Would be nice to get votes from some of the other guys still participating in the project (SactoKingsFan, Clyde Frazier, tsherkin, there are probably more posters that I don't remember right now).

[SactoKingsFan]

Thought about voting for Carter to get a run-off going with Nique, but I've decided to go with Grant Hill since he's my top candidate, peaked higher and has a more valuable skill set than Nique and VC . Although Hill has relatively poor prime longevity/durability, you still get 5 elite seasons, a very portable skill set and excellent role player seasons in PHO which when added to a great rookie season and 5 top 5-10 seasons gives Hill decent longevity. I don't think any of the candidates being discussed have a clear edge over Hill.

Vote: Grant Hill

Sent from my LG G2

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Vince Carter

Vince Carter vs. Nique: Is there anything Nique does that is better? He's not even a better dunker than Vince, and that''s where Nique's entire aura comes from. Both were volume scorers with solid scoring efficiency and low turnovers (I think Nique actually takes care of the ball better, so there is that...I stand corrected), but Vince was one of the greatest playmaking wings of all-time. He's got over 4,000 assists despite not playing with an elite big man (or elite scorer FWIW) for the grand majority of his prime.

Vince Carter vs. Squid: Vince has played over 16,000 REG SEA minutes more than Sidney Moncrief. He was a far better offensive player considering he was a better jump shooter with greater range, an equal or better passer/playmaker (pick-n-roll wasn't as prevalent in Moncrief's day, so admittedly, stylistic differences keep down Moncrief here), and produced a far greater volume of points, both per game and overall. Vince was also generally an average or slightly above average defender, so it's not like you're getting a liability or a small guy who can be taken advantage of like say, Allen Iverson. Vince could play SGs and SFs and not be roasted in the post

Vince Carter vs. Bill Walton: VC has played roughly 3 times as many REG SEA minutes as Big Red. In many of Walton's seasons, he never even made it through the season healthy enough for the playoffs, so that 13,250 minutes actually overrates his availability as far as him increasing your odds of winning a title per season. Walton's 1977 Blazers are one of the most underrated supporting casts in NBA history. Lucas, who might be a top 100 player, was a great frontcourt mate. Def better than any frontcourt partner Vince had over the first 10 years of his career.

Vince Carter vs. Sam Jones: Vince has roughly 15,000 REG SEA minutes on Sam as well, despite Vince having to do way more heavy lifting in the REG SEA than Sam ever did for a chance to make the playoffs. Sam's scoring efficiency was solid if unspectacular, but he was never consistently putting up the volume Vince had to. Carter's playmaking is also an advantage. And Carter's defenses has been solid despite not having the GOAT defensive C backing him up.

Vince Carter vs. Paul Arizin: I see these 2 as equals on defense. Offensively, Arizin produces quite well for his era because he was a great jump shooter. He is to jump shooting what Russell was to shot-blocking as far as doing it at a superstar level when nobody else was. Props to Arizin. That said, Vince holds 2 legitimate advantages over Arizin: Longevity (nearly 15,000 REG SEA minutes) and playmaking (might be era specific, but I don't believe Arizin displayed even the in-era ball-handling to really break defenses down like VC was able to).

Vince Carter vs. Manu Ginobili: Despite playing in the same era with the same medicine and technology, Carter has played 17,000 more REG SEA minutes than Manu. Now, if you want to say prime vs. prime than Manu was equal or slightly better, that's reasonable. Vince takes peak for me, but prime vs. prime, Manu has a legit argument.

That said, I don't understand the whole "Vince wouldn't do what Manu did" as far as sacrificing minutes and numbers for the team. Vince isn't Allen Iverson. He's actually gained a reputation over the last 5 years of being a mentor to young guys and adapting his game to come off the bench or in whatever role his coach needs him to produce in. He has handled a decline in his skills about as gracefully as anybody ever. Far better than contemporaries like Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, and Allen Iverson. He doesn't have a me-first mentality, and he isn't stuck in the past.

When I think Manu Ginobili vs. Vince Carter, and what would happen if Vince could be in Manu's sneakers for even one year...I can't not think of the 2007 season. That season might be Manu's best season. 75 games, 27.5 MPG, 2,060 minutes. Vince Carter played 82 games for 38.1 minutes per game (3,126 total minutes), dragging a team with the worst frontcourt in the NBA to the playoffs while putting up 25.2 points, 6 rebounds, 4.8 assists, 55.9%TS. He was third in total minutes that year and put up prime Kobe/T-Mac numbers. He was the pseudo-point guard for that team, running the offense when Kidd was on the bench, and sometimes when Kidd was on the floor!

Carter has the skillset to be as portable and willing to sacrifice as Manu, and he has the team-first mentality. He just never had the opportunity to do that on a talented/winning team during his prime.

Vince Carter vs. Grant Hill: Despite playing since 1995, Hill comes in about 5,000 minutes short in the whole longevity argument, for some of those 34,000 minutes, he didn't even complete the season. Carter also displayed a talent for scoring that Hill only displayed once in the REG (2000, another season Hill couldn't complete due to injury).

Hill was never a greater defender in Detroit. He was solid. Above average, like VC.

Hill made the playoffs 3 times before injuries hurt him. Hill showed that he couldn't yet handle the increased USG% in the playoffs, having his volume and/or efficiency dip.

[penbeast0]

I disagree that Vince is a better offensive player than Sidney. Sid had a Dwayne Wade style attacking game that produced points more efficiently than Vince at close to .600ts% in his prime at 25+pp100possessions with a top end of 30pp100. Vince gets you a few more points when he is the featured scorer, in the 30-35pp100 range, but appreciably more ball dominance and on significantly lower efficiency at generally close to .550. Sid's rise to prominance coincided with the Bucks going from a below average to average defensive squad to one that was consistently top 5 in the league defensively despite having a rotating and unimpressive bunch of defensive centers (Lister, post-prime Lanier, Breuer, Mokeski, Pat Cummings, etc.). Vince never showed that kind of impact on either offense or defense.

Grant Hill hasn't even got appreciable longevity advantage over Moncrief at the star level, though his impact as a role player is certainly greater. He does give you more of a rebounder and playmaker from the 3 but without the truly elite defense or efficiency that makes Moncrief stand out from his peers.

I like Vince (gotta love a guy with Jordan's athleticism whose a secret band geek), but his argument over Sid is purely about longevity and consistency, it's not about impact.

[ronnymac2]

I disagree that Vince is a better offensive player than Sidney. Sid had a Dwayne Wade style attacking game that produced points more efficiently than Vince at close to .600ts% in his prime at 25+pp100possessions with a top end of 30pp100. Vince gets you a few more points when he is the featured scorer, in the 30-35pp100 range, but appreciably more ball dominance and on significantly lower efficiency at generally close to .550. Sid's rise to prominance coincided with the Bucks going from a below average to average defensive squad to one that was consistently top 5 in the league defensively despite having a rotating and unimpressive bunch of defensive centers (Lister, post-prime Lanier, Breuer, Mokeski, Pat Cummings, etc.). Vince never showed that kind of impact on either offense or defense.

Grant Hill hasn't even got appreciable longevity advantage over Moncrief at the star level, though his impact as a role player is certainly greater. He does give you more of a rebounder and playmaker from the 3 but without the truly elite defense or efficiency that makes Moncrief stand out from his peers.

I like Vince (gotta love a guy with Jordan's athleticism whose a secret band geek), but his argument over Sid is purely about longevity and consistency, it's not about impact.

Only thing I'll really disagree with is that Vince was ball-dominant, even relative to Sidney. Vince has always been extremely effective in an off-ball role, either as a stand-still 3-point shooter or as a jump shooter/attacker coming off picks after running without the ball. He attacked that way a lot in Toronto, which helped him to extremely low turnover rates for a 25-27 PPG scorer. He did in in NJ, too, but he had to take more of an on-ball role for that team because aside from Kidd, nobody else could create anything. He was their back-up PG most of the time.

[trex_8063]

It's well past the 48-hr mark, so I'll assume we're in a run-off between VC and Nique.

I know it's just subjective anecdotal stuff, but fwiw (it may suggest an undue amount of negative slant on Nique's legacy)......
From "Basketball's Greatest Stars" by Michael Grange:

....Because Wilkins was the focal point of the franchise, whatever problems arose were laid at his feet. Those who worked with him knew the truth: Whatever success the Hawks had was because of him, not in spite of him.

"It's easy to forget about it now, but there was a widespread media impression in those years that we never could win because of Dominique," recalled Stan Kasten, the Hawks' general manager who swung the trade with the Utah Jazz to acquire Wilkins before his rookie season. "I always thought, and I said so at the time, that all those people were always wrong. Whatever we accomplished during the decade we won, we did because of him."

"He's probably the most underrated player of our generation," said fellow Hall of Famer Charles Barkley, who remains one of Wilkins' biggest fans. "He carried the Hawks. When you went to Atlanta, you had to bring it....because of him."

[penbeast0]

Despite the fact that Nique has the coolest nickname in NBA history whereas "Half Man, Half Amazing" is pretty lame . . . I have to go with Carter here. He is more efficient, better defensively, spreads the floor more, and is more versatile. Nique's main advantage is that he was a class guy, never quit on Atlanta the way Carter did on Toronto, and that's a big deal in my book, but I still have to go Vince here.

[tsherkin]

I should point this out regarding Wilkins: when you factor in his offensive rebounding and his turnover rate, then you realize that he had a long stretch where he was posting ORTGs very similar to what peak Vince managed. To whit:

Over a 9-year stretch from 86-94 (663 G), he posted an average ORTG of 114, peaking at 119. Carter peaked at 114 and that was his only season over 112. Nique, during this stretch, recorded 113, 114, 115, 116, 118 and 119 (among others), so you're looking at five seasons equivalent or superior to the single-best season of Vince's career. His scoring efficiency was lower, certainly, but I'm just trying to peek at the overall offensive picture here.

He was over league average efficiency in all but three of those seasons... not by much in some of them, but he had a solid peak where he was 2 - 3.4 percent over league average scoring efficiency. That's not a tier one volume scorer, of course, but that's still better than the "Nique is inefficient" mantra which is repeated so often... including, at times in the past, by me. He was a lot like Carmelo, actually, in terms of his scoring efficiency and the fluctuations therein; if you stop and think about it, his peak is even a little higher, actually. His absolute single-season peak, 92-93, he posted +3.4% TS, which is comparable to what prime Kobe Bryant was doing. It was only one season, but with his low turnover rate (as a counterpoint to his considerably inferior playmaking) helped him put forth offensive efficiency that Kobe was showing at his own absolute peak (and, indeed, actually noticeably higher in a couple of seasons).

So there's something to say about what Nique's individual offense looked like by comparison to Vince's. Now, what kind of team offenses was he on? You could look at that, but it starts to get into quality of team and sensibility of roster: the Hawks had this distressingly odd tactic of putting two or three guys on the same squad who all loved to use the left low post for their primary moves... which wasn't blindingly intelligent.


This is an interesting comparison, though, because Vince showcased more in the way of dynamic playmaking than did even peak Nique (this is particularly true of his New Jersey years) and obviously had a lot more range, which helped him evolve into a quality roleplayers.

[Moonbeam]

Interesting matchup! Both guys are worthy candidates at this point, IMO. My gut tells me to go with Dominique, as despite his relative shortcomings as a playmaker and with efficiency, he was a potent offensive threat all the same, as tsherkin and trex have illustrated. The postseason numbers are a little worrying for Nique, though. I've worked on postseason versions of Score+ and O+ (a comparison of ORating to opponent DRating), and while it does not include Nique's first 2 postseasons (still working out how to best handle incomplete playoff data), those seasons wouldn't do anything but widen the gap between Nique and Carter.

Dominique Wilkins postseason since 1985:

Score+: -1.405
O+: +0.68

Vince Carter postseason:

Score+: -0.228
O+: +3.91

Both appear more effective offensively than their scoring efficiency suggests, but neither have been world-beaters in that regard. Still, it appears that Vince Carter has a healthy edge. Beyond that, neither is that highly regarded defensively. I'm undecided at this point but hope to vote prior to the runoff closing.

[Quotatious]

Run-off vote: Vince Carter

Better all-around player (playmaker and defender), a little more versatile offensive player, more range on his jumper, better off-ball player. Slightly more efficient scorer, era-relative. Finally, higher peak (I'd take '01 Vince over any version of Nique).

Both seem like worthy candidates at this point, but I prefer Carter's game.

Speaking of Worthy...Isn't it already the time for Big Game James to gain traction? Fantastic 2nd/3rd option, highly efficient scorer, excellent playoff performer, decent defender.

[Joao Saraiva]

My run off vote goes to Vince Carter.

Good scorer, rebounder and playmaker. He has showed us he can adapt to some diferent roles and have a positive impact on his teams. I believe he could have had a better career, but when he was in his prime he didn't really have good enough casts to win it all. He had a good team with the Nets, with Kidd and Jefferson, but the front court was too weak.

Here are some of my favourite Carter moments:

Just a reminder of the best dunk ever:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMrPjl-927Q[/youtube]

His best playoff game:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5qm5wVj0U0[/youtube]

Carter with his own Tracy McGrady act! And what a game winner in OT
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMwT4BLeKTc[/youtube]

Great until the end of his career
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWnyg-Q3VOg[/youtube]

And a good docmentary about him if you haven't seen it before: (not about his entire his career)
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d-NkC_L1PI[/youtube]

[tsherkin]

Slightly more efficient scorer, era-relative. Finally, higher peak (I'd take '01 Vince over any version of Nique).

Was he?

If you ignore his roleplaying seasons, which aren't really fair point nof comparison to Nique, then you look at Carter's period from 99-00 through 08-09 (all of his 20+ ppg seasons, basically Toronto and New Jersey).

727 games, 23.9 ppg, 109 ORTG, 33.5 PTS100, 53.8% TS.

"Era-relative," though, you said:

00: +2.0
01: +3.3
02: -0.5
03: +1.3
04: -1.5
05: +1.1
06: +0.1
07: +1.8
08: +1.0
09: +0.0

That looks almost identical to Nique's efficiency relative to league average, except that his peak was at the beginning, not the end. Typically under +2.0% efficiency, peak around +3.3, +3.4 that was a total outlier compared to the rest of his seasons, occasionally under league average or right at the average mark...

So no, it does not at all appear as if Carter was more efficient relative to league average AND he was posting consistently lower ORTGs. Something to consider as you evaluate your perception of the two in terms of league-relative offense.

[tsherkin]

To quantify my point:

Nique

86: -0.5
87: +0.5
88: -0.4
89: -0.67
90: +2.0
91: +2.1
92: +2.0
93: +3.4
94: +0.1

You see that his peak is actually higher and extended compared to what Vince did in terms of league-relative scoring efficiency, yes? Carter has exactly two seasons during that stretch where he was at or better than +2.0% TS relative to league average, whereas Nique (in one fewer year) has four... consecutively posted, as it happened. And for what little it means, his single-season peak is marginally higher. Carter has injuries in several of those seasons, and that does play into this comparison some, but it does actually appear as if Wilkins was performing at a more efficient rate (and typically on higher usage/volume, no less) than was Carter. Then you add in the dramatic difference in ORTG and it appears as if Wilkins was the more productive player per possession. Carter was certainly more dynamic with the ball by the time he got to New Jersey, but of course Nique was doing better in the 90s than he'd done in the 80s as well, and it's not as if Vince was doing the sorts of things McGrady and Bryant were doing in their hey day either.

Food for thought.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Nique

Not a huge Nique guy by any means, but I do think the reality is that you could build a perfectly solid offensive team around him. I think at best about Carter you could say "him too! him too!", but I have more faith in Nique than Carter.

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

I should point this out regarding Wilkins: when you factor in his offensive rebounding and his turnover rate, then you realize that he had a long stretch where he was posting ORTGs very similar to what peak Vince managed. To whit:

Over a 9-year stretch from 86-94 (663 G), he posted an average ORTG of 114, peaking at 119. Carter peaked at 114 and that was his only season over 112. Nique, during this stretch, recorded 113, 114, 115, 116, 118 and 119 (among others), so you're looking at five seasons equivalent or superior to the single-best season of Vince's career. His scoring efficiency was lower, certainly, but I'm just trying to peek at the overall offensive picture here.

He was over league average efficiency in all but three of those seasons... not by much in some of them, but he had a solid peak where he was 2 - 3.4 percent over league average scoring efficiency. That's not a tier one volume scorer, of course, but that's still better than the "Nique is inefficient" mantra which is repeated so often... including, at times in the past, by me. He was a lot like Carmelo, actually, in terms of his scoring efficiency and the fluctuations therein; if you stop and think about it, his peak is even a little higher, actually. His absolute single-season peak, 92-93, he posted +3.4% TS, which is comparable to what prime Kobe Bryant was doing. It was only one season, but with his low turnover rate (as a counterpoint to his considerably inferior playmaking) helped him put forth offensive efficiency that Kobe was showing at his own absolute peak (and, indeed, actually noticeably higher in a couple of seasons).

So there's something to say about what Nique's individual offense looked like by comparison to Vince's. Now, what kind of team offenses was he on? You could look at that, but it starts to get into quality of team and sensibility of roster: the Hawks had this distressingly odd tactic of putting two or three guys on the same squad who all loved to use the left low post for their primary moves... which wasn't blindingly intelligent.


This is an interesting comparison, though, because Vince showcased more in the way of dynamic playmaking than did even peak Nique (this is particularly true of his New Jersey years) and obviously had a lot more range, which helped him evolve into a quality roleplayers.

Spoiler:

Slightly more efficient scorer, era-relative. Finally, higher peak (I'd take '01 Vince over any version of Nique).

Was he?

If you ignore his roleplaying seasons, which aren't really fair point nof comparison to Nique, then you look at Carter's period from 99-00 through 08-09 (all of his 20+ ppg seasons, basically Toronto and New Jersey).

727 games, 23.9 ppg, 109 ORTG, 33.5 PTS100, 53.8% TS.

"Era-relative," though, you said:

00: +2.0
01: +3.3
02: -0.5
03: +1.3
04: -1.5
05: +1.1
06: +0.1
07: +1.8
08: +1.0
09: +0.0

That looks almost identical to Nique's efficiency relative to league average, except that his peak was at the beginning, not the end. Typically under +2.0% efficiency, peak around +3.3, +3.4 that was a total outlier compared to the rest of his seasons, occasionally under league average or right at the average mark...

So no, it does not at all appear as if Carter was more efficient relative to league average AND he was posting consistently lower ORTGs. Something to consider as you evaluate your perception of the two in terms of league-relative offense.

Spoiler:

To quantify my point:

Nique

86: -0.5
87: +0.5
88: -0.4
89: -0.67
90: +2.0
91: +2.1
92: +2.0
93: +3.4
94: +0.1

You see that his peak is actually higher and extended compared to what Vince did in terms of league-relative scoring efficiency, yes? Carter has exactly two seasons during that stretch where he was at or better than +2.0% TS relative to league average, whereas Nique (in one fewer year) has four... consecutively posted, as it happened. And for what little it means, his single-season peak is marginally higher. Carter has injuries in several of those seasons, and that does play into this comparison some, but it does actually appear as if Wilkins was performing at a more efficient rate (and typically on higher usage/volume, no less) than was Carter. Then you add in the dramatic difference in ORTG and it appears as if Wilkins was the more productive player per possession. Carter was certainly more dynamic with the ball by the time he got to New Jersey, but of course Nique was doing better in the 90s than he'd done in the 80s as well, and it's not as if Vince was doing the sorts of things McGrady and Bryant were doing in their hey day either.

Food for thought.

You appear to be in favor of Nique here (have sure lent him ample support itt), but I don't see that you've cast a vote in the run-off. Only bring it up because, you know.....tick tock tick tock...

[penbeast0]

Dominique Wilkins -- JordansBulls, trex_8063, Doctor MJ,

Vince Carter -- RSCD3_, ronnymac2, penbeast0, Quotatious, Joao Saraiva,

Looks like this one goes to Vince Carter