Re: RealGM Top 100 List #72

[penbeast0]

Dennis Johnson over World B. Free but some good options there.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #21:

Dennis Rodman (2) - penbeast0, Joao Saraiva

Tiny Archibald (2) - Quotatious, ronnymac2

Chris Webber (1) - trex_8063

Bobby Jones (1) - Doctor MJ

James Worthy (1) - Moonbeam

Bill Sharman (1) - Owly

Didn't see a vote from SinceGatlingWasaRookie or Clyde.

[penbeast0]

Dennis Rodman v. Nate Archibald

Come over to the Dark Side . . . .

[Moonbeam]

I'm going with Dennis Rodman for the runoff. I don't see a big case for Tiny over someone like Bill Walton, who had a shorter (but higher peak) and some valuable role player years for the Celtics, including a championship, just like Tiny. Rodman, on the other hand, had several high-impact years as a defender, efficient but low-volume scorer, rebounder, and sometimes a combination of these.

[RayBan-Sematra]

VOTE : Worm

Real force on the boards.
When Bulls lost Grant in 95 they went from +300 on the boards as a team to a measly +80 on the boards.
When Rodman arrived in 96 they were 540+ on the boards.
When Rodman joined the Spurs in 95 they went from last in offensive rebounds to first.

One of the best ever defenders for his position.
Absurdly strong core. Guy could even defend Shaq better then most in very short spurts.

I see Rodman as a great intangibles guy and a positive force on both ends. He is... a winner.
I think he was consistently having a good deal of positive impact for the teams he played for especially up until 96.
96 was probably his last really good year.

Tiny may have peaked higher but I will take the consistently significant impact of Rodman over the shorter but higher peaked career of Archibald.

[penbeast0]

I'm going with Dennis Rodman for the runoff. I don't see a big case for Tiny over someone like Bill Walton, who had a shorter (but higher peak) and some valuable role player years for the Celtics, including a championship, just like Tiny. Rodman, on the other hand, had several high-impact years as a defender, efficient but low-volume scorer, rebounder, and sometimes a combination of these.

Year . . . outside of 86, Walton played a total of 10 games in 87 for the Celtics before his feet failed again (though he did come back and play about 10 weak minutes a game in the postseason averaging 2 pts and 2 reb but I don't think that's what you mean by valuable role player). In his career, Walton only had a postseason impact in 2 seasons, once as a starter, once as a reserve.

OF course, he won rings both those years which is what makes his legend so enticing.

[trex_8063]

run-off vote: Dennis Rodman.

This was a tough one. No question I value Tiny's peak more than Rodman's. What he did in '73 is likely a top 50 player peak all-time, imo (though I don't have an extended peak list, I have done some extensive evaluations).

But Rodman's got such an edge in longevity and playoff accomplishment (where Tiny's performances were often lackluster, too, fwiw). I have these guys within 3-4 places of each other currently on my ATL, so it's not like it isn't really close (for me, at least). But I gotta go with the Worm.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Dennis Rodman

He's crazy, but there's just no doubt he contributed massive value to great teams for whom it was far from trivial that they could have such valued added from any other addition to their nominal stars.

[trex_8063]

Dennis Johnson over World B. Free but some good options there.

By far, imo.

[lukekarts]

I'm not completely comfortable voting for Archibald over Rodman. He had a good peak, but not something that if protracted over a longer period would have him 50 spots higher up the list. Rodman meanwhile had 10+ years of excellent contribution. Not as the main guy, of course, but as a defender and a rebounder that made the game easier for his team-mates.

VOTE: Dennis Rodman

[trex_8063]

Since Rodman is destroying Tiny in the run-off (vote is now 7-to-2, and we've rarely had more than a dozen people participating lately), I'm kinda wanting to move on and start talking about #73.

I voted C-Webb here, but I'm not married to that pick. Some of the counter-points (particularly the ones regarding intangibles) against him have me considering other options.

Where are people at with Tony Parker? Seems he should perhaps have some traction by now. Think I'm going to provide a post about him for next thread, as I'm seriously considering casting vote for him.

[Quotatious]

Where are people at with Tony Parker? Seems he should perhaps have some traction by now. Think I'm going to provide a post about him for next thread, as I'm seriously considering casting vote for him.

Parker is a good candidate at this point. Him and Melo both should be getting traction (I'd likely put Parker higher though, because his non-boxscore impact is clearly better, at least comparing their peaks - for example let's take a look at their 2013 season, when both were probably at their very best - Parker was just slightly worse in terms of boxscore metrics, except for WS/48 where he was better, and he had a pretty big edge in RAPM).

Neither is a good playoff performer, and I'll probably vote for James Worthy ahead of both, but both Parker and Anthony deserve some serious talk at this point (as does Chris Bosh, perhaps even more so).

Damn, I really hope that Tiny will finally get in, at 73, so that I can look at other guys.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Just to add something to it - Timmy had two more All-Star seasons, which are also probably the two best seasons of his career, in '97 and '98 in Miami. His GSW seasons in the early 90s might be slightly more impressive in terms of basic boxscore averages, but his impact was likely higher in Miami (for example he had an amazing rating in '97 NPI RAPM, where he's at the top of the league among stars, just marginally behind MJ, at +5.79, and his '98 NPI score was also pretty good, +2.78, as well as +5.60 in RPI for '98). I doubt he had such high impact in Golden State. Also, his PER, WS/48, BPM and VORP are all higher in Miami.

For total career value, I'd take Tim over Penny and Mullin (Hardaway vs Mullin is close, but both are clearly ahead of Penny in terms of longevity).

Young Tim Hardaway before his first major injury really was better than he was later with the heat. I think the reason Hardaway's impact may appear better on the Heat is because the Heat had a better team that went further in the playoffs.

Young Hardaway's Warriors had a problem at center and power forward. You could see that Tyrone Hill had the makings of a good role player but Tyrone was young and raw. Ever other Warrior big was either past their prime and fading, could not stay healthy, were under sized, were too young or just were not good players.

Knocking off the Spurs in the playoffs in 1991 and winning 55 games in 1991-92 were good accomplishments and Hardaway was the most valuable player on those teams.

Always seemed to me that golden state gave up too early on Run TMC. As far as I remember, they traded richmond for owens because they were lacking big men. However, owens wasn't the defensive center they really needed. He was an undersized 4 who ended up playing the 3 later in his career.

I know they won 55 games the season after the trade, but I think they would've been better off keeping richmond and scrapping together big men piecemeal from elsewhere. Things didn't work out with webber, and then they blew 2 of the 3 draft picks they got for him. Maybe if either of those scenarios worked out, trading richmond wouldn't stick with me as much.

Sacramento drafted Owens with the 3rd pick in the draft. Owens refused to sign with Sacramento and was then traded for Richmond. Dikembe was the 4th pick in that draft. Dikembe for Richmond would have made sense. Surunas Marciulionis was showing signs of becoming an excelent player and that made Richmond expendable but the Surunas had a career ending injury.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Run off vote Rodman

I believe that Archibald was as talented as his peak stats looked. Archibald vs the Worm is relatively equal to me.

If anybody explained to me why the Kings with Taylor and Boone were better than the Kings with Archibald and Walker then I might choose Archibald over Rodman. Robinzine and Wedman got an extra year of experience. Maybe Jimmy Walker did not play defense.

The Worm was so good at what he did.
His unorthodox rebounding technique of 1 defeating box outs with constant motion, 2 knowing where the rebound would go before the shot hit the rim, 3 getting the first touch on the rebound through quick jumping even if boxed out, 4 tapping the ball with one finger to a open space that he was aware of due to his great court vision rather than trying to secure the ball with two hands while being boxed out, 5 an amazingly quick second jump with horizontal motion to the open space where he tapped the ball on the first jump.

Rodman was often playing volley ball with himself on those rebounds in which he did not have the best position. Nobody has used that method of rebounding as well as Rodman but I think that Rodman changed rebounding and has influenced other players to rely more on getting the first touch of the rebound rather than to muscle for position against a stronger man.

[penbeast0]

Sorry, I'm late, but looks like Rodman is in.