RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #42 (Reggie Miller)

[trex_8063]

Since Miller is going to be one of the frontrunners this thread, how confident are we that Miller > Allen?

RAPM holds very strongly in favor of Reggie, even though we just have it for his last few years.

Allen's RAPM in his prime is underwhelming, from 02 on in J.E.'s he finishes

02 - 180th
03 - 111th
04 - 61st
05 - 52nd
06 - 20th
07 - 57th

fwiw, using a different source there's quite a bit of variation in the results. I've a spreadsheet where I used shutupandjam's numbers for '02-'07 PI RAPM, and the now deceased GotBuckets? site's numbers for '08-'14. In '02, for example, according to shutupandjam, Ray Ray's PI RAPM was +3.5 (23rd in the league).

I don't quite understand how there can be that much variation in results, but then I only have a thin grasp of the math involved (I understand the gist of the math attempts to do, but not the specific inputs). In '03 he ranks 35th by this source, 22nd in '04, 45th in '05 (by that point the numbers between the two sites are very very similar for most players).
Even so (with using this alternate source), it's true Ray's impact (measured by RAPM) seems to lag a little bit behind his box-based metrics (and thus perhaps marginally behind Reggie).

[pandrade83]

1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: Dwight Howard


If you're not giving Unseld a look, you're missing a gem. You're getting a guy who is recognized as a high impact performer (VORP, BPM), was selected to be an MVP, was a strong playoff performer & enjoyed strong team success.

Advanced Metrics

Unseld hit 5+ scores for both BPM 3 times & VORP twice - that we know of - one of which didn't come in a double digit WS year. If we make the reasonably safe assumption that he hit those scores in ALL of his double digit WS year, that gives him 6 years of a BPM Score of 5+ and 5 years of a VORP Score of 5+ and It's highly likely that if we had RAPM, the metric would've loved him as well.

What's so impressive about that? Our run-off candidates from last round hit this level a combined twice.

MVP Season
In the '68-'69 season, Unseld was selected MVP over guys who are already in like Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor, Frazier & Hondo. He is clearly well respected by his peers. People have said that Unseld's MVP was a little weak - and I get that - but remember you're voting for slot #41, not slot #14. It's noteworthy that Unseld's arrival coincided with a 21 win improvement without a change in the team's core, or a change in the coach. Washington went from 36 to 57 wins and finished with the best record in the league - that's why he won MVP - he had a major impact on winning. A team with Unseld & Monroe as it's two best players beat out Wilt/West, Russell/Hondo, Frazier/Reed, which is pretty impressive.

Strong playoff performer

In the playoffs, he maintains his strong performance - averaging 10/15/4/with 1.8 TOs (on fairly limited data) which is right on par with his career averages.

The most infamous defeat one of his teams suffer isn't really on him (the '75 Finals). He does his thing - 12-17-4 on 54% TS. That's who he was. Hayes crippled the team offensively - yes, he scored 20 PPG but he shot a miserable TS% of just 46%.

Strong Team Success

Unseld was the team playoff leader in WS and then VORP/BPM for 4 Finals Teams* as he was vital to his teams' playoff success as mentioned by his strong playoff numbers above. Unseld only misses the playoffs once in a strong 13 year career that sees him pace his team in every year but 2# in VORP & BPM - and before that in WS.

* - Hayes outpaced Unseld in Playoff VORP; Unseld outpaced Hayes in Playoff BPM as well as regular season VORP and BPM
# - ('74 - injuries & '81 - injuries + final year)

Unseld would make a fantastic addition to our List. You're getting an MVP who is recognized as a high impact performer by advanced metrics, who had decent longevity, was a strong playoff performer and was the driver of a consistent winner.

You just don't see guys who achieved that much this late; there's guys left who achieved higher peaks, but had much worse longevity - Unseld brings very high impact years over a sustained run as a winner; the really high peak players remaining (Westbrook, Tmac, McAdoo, Walton) can't say that.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As much as I hate him, Howard is the next guy up. I wouldn't want to play with him and I think he's cancerous. Let's just get that out of the way off the bat. The problem is, he's too good to not put in at this point - he's too powerful of a defensive anchor and at his peak, was too much of an offensive weapon.

Orlando goes from +7.5 to +1.2 in his first year. They improve to 3rd or better from '09 to '11 - peaking out at a relative -6 - even though the rest of that team had no business being an elite defense and he dominated in '09 - keeping Lebron out of the Finals. Those Magic teams shouldn't have been contenders - but there they were - in the ECF & Finals and winning 59 games in back to back years. Even during his post-peak, we can see his defensive impact on the '15 Rockets and even the '17 Hawks who finished 4th in defensive efficiency.

His playoff #'s are strong - 18/14 on 2.5 blocks and his offense isn't a drag on your team - he has 4 years over 20 PPG plus 6 more with at least 15 on 60% TS.

His 4 year RAPM from '08-'11 is 4th, he hits VORP 5+ twice & has > .200 WS/48 4 times.

He's a major pain in the rear but his impact is too high to keep out for much longer.

[dhsilv2]

Since Miller is going to be one of the frontrunners this thread, how confident are we that Miller > Allen?

or Manu for that matter. Completely willing to list out his RAPM numbers, too.

Ginobili played much fewer minutes and did so disproportionately against bench competition compared to other stars.

I'm not going to say you're crazy for putting Ginobili over Miller, but in general I think it's very hard to place Ginobili. I could see someone siding with him here, I'd also understand him being far lower.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Isnt this an issue with say curry? More and more players are playing less minutes, a lot less. I dont see us down voting guys playing 33 a game today, so why not give manu credit?

His biggest issue is being a 25 year old rookie and of course the stigma of coming off the bench, but his role was always that of a starter, uncluding closing games out.

[trex_8063]

Since Miller is going to be one of the frontrunners this thread, how confident are we that Miller > Allen?

They do feel very very close; until very recently I basically had them adjacent on my ATL. And fwiw, I do kinda feel like Allen could have filled Miller's role in Indiana better than Miller could have filled Allen's role in Milwaukee/Seattle. Allen's got better on-ball/iso skills, is a marginally better passer/play-maker [imo], and he is a slightly better rebounder, while basically being an equal shooter.

Reggie was distinctly better at one thing, which was drawing fouls: he averaged 7.6 FTA/100 with a .402 FTr (vs 5.6 and .260 for Allen). If memory serves, he did a lot of that via kicking the one leg out on his shot, which the defender would periodically bump into (and Reggie would fall down for show), and the ref would blow the whistle. That distinctly higher FTr is the reason Reggie was more efficient overall. And the fact that he operated somewhat more off-ball enabled him to produce similar volume with a marginally lower turnover rate, as well. Gun to my head, I'd say Miller was the marginally better defender, too.


As has been mentioned previously, Miller appears to win the battle of impact slightly, has the more consistently awesome playoff resume, and appears to have a marginal longevity/durability edge: very similar career arc, but Miller managed to maintain at a slightly higher level during those final two seasons, and also tended to be injured less often.
^^^^These are the things that push Miller a little ahead for me recently.

[trex_8063]

I've not been swayed off of Paul Pierce for my top pick. A 10-time All-Star, 17 seasons as an above average player in the league, peaking at roughly an All-NBA 2nd/3rd team player (in an era with quite a few top-tier forwards: Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, and in the 2nd half of his prime---Lebron; to say nothing of the Elton Brands, Shawn Marions, etc)--->similar tier as players like Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, or Pau Gasol at their respective peaks.

Has a statistical resume roughly comparable many other recent candidates, especially if you compare same number of years. e.g. if comparing him to Gervin, for example, I'd suggest doing so by comparing only Pierce's first 14 seasons ('cause that's all Gervin played); and then remind yourself that Pierce had three more pretty good seasons after that.
I'd also point out that Pierce was the best defensive wing player of basically all the wings presently being considered (defense being something that isn't well-captured in that "statistical resume").

Sticking with Reggie as my alternate pick for reasons stated in prior posts itt.

I had Dwight Howard ranked higher going into this project, but have soured on him a little. Ironically, I still think he's one of the highest peaks left on the table, but noting his mediocre longevity, his immaturity issues and the distractions they've created, and seeing impact lagging behind his box metrics (almost year after year)......I just don't feel as good supporting him ahead of guys like Reggie Miller, or perhaps Walt Frazier (already in, just mentioning him because I had Howard just ahead of Frazier going into the project).

I LOVE Willis Reed's game, and I'll make a [potentially] bold statement in that I think his peak is roughly equal to Dwight's, especially when factoring in some leadership intangibles. But I just cannot support him here due to the longevity factor if I'm being honest about my values. His entire career is just 650 games, and barely half of that is prime Reed......that can't be overlooked as far as I'm concerned. How can ~4 seasons of prime Reed be worth more than ~12 seasons of prime Paul Pierce or Reggie Miller, for example? I just don't see it.

1st vote: Paul Pierce
2nd vote: Reggie Miller

[trex_8063]

1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: Dwight Howard

Just so I'm not misinterpreting (the "HM" label has thrown me): Dwight Howard is your secondary pick, yes?

[pandrade83]

1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: Dwight Howard

Just so I'm not misinterpreting (the "HM" label has thrown me): Dwight Howard is your secondary pick, yes?

Sadly, yes.

[trex_8063]

1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: Dwight Howard

Just so I'm not misinterpreting (the "HM" label has thrown me): Dwight Howard is your secondary pick, yes?

Sadly, yes.

What's sadly? He's a perfectly valid candidate at this stage, imo. It would have been acceptable to me if he'd had traction even 3-5 places ago.

[Doctor MJ]

or Manu for that matter. Completely willing to list out his RAPM numbers, too.

Ginobili played much fewer minutes and did so disproportionately against bench competition compared to other stars.

I'm not going to say you're crazy for putting Ginobili over Miller, but in general I think it's very hard to place Ginobili. I could see someone siding with him here, I'd also understand him being far lower.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Isnt this an issue with say curry? More and more players are playing less minutes, a lot less. I dont see us down voting guys playing 33 a game today, so why not give manu credit?

His biggest issue is being a 25 year old rookie and of course the stigma of coming off the bench, but his role was always that of a starter, uncluding closing games out.

It's about what you do relative to norms. Superstars of any era get played basically as much as their coach can get away with. They aren't being taken out because of bad matchups nor played specifically against the opponent's bench players. Hence, RAPM-style stats on them are all basically apples-to-apples comparisons. Once you start get guys who play less than that though, you have to ask whether the coach is cherry picking more fortunate situations, and the reality is with Manu that Pop thought very hard about how best to use him.

There's also the matter that for a true alpha there's not really any way to cherry pick it. Teams never prepared for Ginobili like a true alpha the way they did with Duncan, or Curry for that matter.

To be clear I'm not saying to refuse to give Ginobili credit. I'm just saying you need to consider whether it was a bit less impressive than RAPM would have you think given the context. Analogously, those who use volume stats very much underrate Ginobili imho.

ftr, I consider Ginobili above Parker. The fact that Parker played full minutes isn't enough to give him the edge over Ginobili for me.

[pandrade83]

Just so I'm not misinterpreting (the "HM" label has thrown me): Dwight Howard is your secondary pick, yes?

Sadly, yes.

What's sadly? He's a perfectly valid candidate at this stage, imo. It would have been acceptable to me if he'd had traction even 3-5 places ago.

I don't think anyone wants to support Howard but it's the right thing to do. Objectivity/consistency certainly calls for it. I wish that I wasn't one of the leaders in doing so.

[JordansBulls]

1st Vote: Reggie Miller (had water in his veins in the playoffs and had to play superior players generally in them as well). One of the top 3-4 most clutch players all time and this matters when you are a superstar where you have to create your own shot. Came thru in big moments in the playoffs as the key guy on the squad. Never backed down from anyone nor showed any fear on the floor no matter the odds.

2nd vote: Nique

[trex_8063]

1st Vote: Reggie Miller (had water in his veins in the playoffs and had to play superior players generally in them as well)
2nd vote: Nique

Give us a little bit more please. I mean, the one line you've offered is largely true to Robert Horry, too (i.e. we can't even isolate the rough tier of who you're talking about based on what you've stated). So please put in a tiny bit more to have your vote counted, in keeping with stipulated rules:

2) Each eligible voter can cast their vote for ONE player. Votes MUST be accompanied by some arguments that demonstrate you have given serious consideration to your choice (i.e. something like “won six MVP’s” or “highest ppg of all-time” or similar is not adequate; your vote will not be counted if adequate justification is not provided).

[mikejames23]

Really wondering how far apart Billy Cunningham and Willis Reed/Unseld are from the same era. Cunningham was great supporting player, unselfish, rebounded with the toughest of them and was a key part of Wilt's title run in 67. Tough to rate due to playing in limited data era and short career (much like Reed's actually), but he should be in the up and coming.

[dhsilv2]

Ginobili played much fewer minutes and did so disproportionately against bench competition compared to other stars.

I'm not going to say you're crazy for putting Ginobili over Miller, but in general I think it's very hard to place Ginobili. I could see someone siding with him here, I'd also understand him being far lower.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Isnt this an issue with say curry? More and more players are playing less minutes, a lot less. I dont see us down voting guys playing 33 a game today, so why not give manu credit?

His biggest issue is being a 25 year old rookie and of course the stigma of coming off the bench, but his role was always that of a starter, uncluding closing games out.

It's about what you do relative to norms. Superstars of any era get played basically as much as their coach can get away with. They aren't being taken out because of bad matchups nor played specifically against the opponent's bench players. Hence, RAPM-style stats on them are all basically apples-to-apples comparisons. Once you start get guys who play less than that though, you have to ask whether the coach is cherry picking more fortunate situations, and the reality is with Manu that Pop thought very hard about how best to use him.

There's also the matter that for a true alpha there's not really any way to cherry pick it. Teams never prepared for Ginobili like a true alpha the way they did with Duncan, or Curry for that matter.

To be clear I'm not saying to refuse to give Ginobili credit. I'm just saying you need to consider whether it was a bit less impressive than RAPM would have you think given the context. Analogously, those who use volume stats very much underrate Ginobili imho.

ftr, I consider Ginobili above Parker. The fact that Parker played full minutes isn't enough to give him the edge over Ginobili for me.

How did parker play full minutes? He made an allstar team under 30 minutes a game and as an allstar he got up to 34.1 minutes a game. Most were under 33. Not to quibble but it's not that big a difference!

I transition back to Manu, and if we take his 2005 season as our point in time. He started 74 out of 74 games (remember manu during his prime was the starter the majority of games he played in). He played 29.6 minutes per game that year and lead the league in RAPM (if the cheap site I"m looking at is correct).

There are two arguments here that need to be separated.

1. Manu was not the focus of other team's defenses. This is a fact and I do not plan to argue with it. We could possible talk about how he was at least the number 2 and teams game plan for 2's, but I doubt we disagree on that so on the points you made about how Curry was the primary offensive player (I hate calling people alphas unless we're talking about who gets more girls in a bar as that's a real use of the term, sports steal weird things).

2. Manu's lower minutes mean he was used in more specialized spots. This I agree with in the sense that if you play less minutes then yes your minutes are more special, but not in the sense that WHEN manu played was some driving force. The easiest counter here is that Manu was brought in as soon as the spurs struggled, so by that very nature he was coming in when the team was playing poorly. I don't buy that the so called "spark" off the bench is advantageous. More than likely that role is a hit or miss role that mostly misses, but we as fans remember the hits. Given he mostly played as the actual starter even when he did come off the bench and that he ended games (the most critical time), I don't buy minute manipulation over this peak years (05-11).

Now I do agree that we should always use RAPM data in context. I'll point out that if Ray Allen was 180th in the league in it in 02, then the stat was doing a horrible job! I'd buy he wasn't a top 40 guy maybe, though I'd struggle. But 180th? There's clearly a LOT of context being missed which is why I hate when RAPM is blindly used or people just say "well he did well in impact stats". But this is not really directed at you but to the group so I'll save a further rant.

[dhsilv2]

Sadly, yes.

What's sadly? He's a perfectly valid candidate at this stage, imo. It would have been acceptable to me if he'd had traction even 3-5 places ago.

I don't think anyone wants to support Howard but it's the right thing to do. Objectivity/consistency certainly calls for it. I wish that I wasn't one of the leaders in doing so.

I've had him as my alt for 2 rounds now. I think the negative personality stuff is completely fair though I feel a few people are blowing it up. We have a lot of personality issues and possible drug issue types at this level. Kidd and Iverson both are if we believe the news stories (I don't follow closely so correct me if we know better now) pretty awful people and treated their wives pretty horribly. I can't imagine some of that didn't impact the locker rooms. Guys on drugs might make a locker room more "fun" but sure as heck doesn't make a team win. I tend to try and stay out of these things on this list in part because I feel team success should go down with it. For me I don't think howard needs a lot of negative credit here given his success has been fairly poor outside of his finals run in orlando.

I also give him a 100% pass for the LA year for anyone wondering, full disclosure on that one! (I give pretty much full passes for anyone not winning in LA or NYC as I think both cities are just bad for players).

[dhsilv2]

Since Miller is going to be one of the frontrunners this thread, how confident are we that Miller > Allen?

They do feel very very close; until very recently I basically had them adjacent on my ATL. And fwiw, I do kinda feel like Allen could have filled Miller's role in Indiana better than Miller could have filled Allen's role in Milwaukee/Seattle. Allen's got better on-ball/iso skills, is a marginally better passer/play-maker [imo], and he is a slightly better rebounder, while basically being an equal shooter.

Reggie was distinctly better at one thing, which was drawing fouls: he averaged 7.6 FTA/100 with a .402 FTr (vs 5.6 and .260 for Allen). If memory serves, he did a lot of that via kicking the one leg out on his shot, which the defender would periodically bump into (and Reggie would fall down for show), and the ref would blow the whistle. That distinctly higher FTr is the reason Reggie was more efficient overall. And the fact that he operated somewhat more off-ball enabled him to produce similar volume with a marginally lower turnover rate, as well. Gun to my head, I'd say Miller was the marginally better defender, too.


As has been mentioned previously, Miller appears to win the battle of impact slightly, has the more consistently awesome playoff resume, and appears to have a marginal longevity/durability edge: very similar career arc, but Miller managed to maintain at a slightly higher level during those final two seasons, and also tended to be injured less often.
^^^^These are the things that push Miller a little ahead for me recently.

Peak vs Peak thoughts? Love this post btw. Especially on miller's shall we call it "90's style flopping" which I wanted to hint at before, but just didn't trust my memory enough to go there.

[Outside]

Vote: Nate Thurmond
Alternate: Dave Cowens

Will provide my argument for Nate later tonight, other than to say that he should win this thread based on his jersey number.

[pandrade83]

What's sadly? He's a perfectly valid candidate at this stage, imo. It would have been acceptable to me if he'd had traction even 3-5 places ago.

I don't think anyone wants to support Howard but it's the right thing to do. Objectivity/consistency certainly calls for it. I wish that I wasn't one of the leaders in doing so.

I've had him as my alt for 2 rounds now. I think the negative personality stuff is completely fair though I feel a few people are blowing it up. We have a lot of personality issues and possible drug issue types at this level. Kidd and Iverson both are if we believe the news stories (I don't follow closely so correct me if we know better now) pretty awful people and treated their wives pretty horribly. I can't imagine some of that didn't impact the locker rooms. Guys on drugs might make a locker room more "fun" but sure as heck doesn't make a team win. I tend to try and stay out of these things on this list in part because I feel team success should go down with it. For me I don't think howard needs a lot of negative credit here given his success has been fairly poor outside of his finals run in orlando.

I also give him a 100% pass for the LA year for anyone wondering, full disclosure on that one! (I give pretty much full passes for anyone not winning in LA or NYC as I think both cities are just bad for players).

I noticed you were ahead of me in pushing Dwight - that's why I was careful to write "one of" the leaders instead of the first.

In 80-85% of cases, I don't really care about the intangibles - I feel like they should/do manifest themselves in the results enough of the time that it takes care of itself. I know others on the board care about them a lot - you saw it in the group that was pushing for Isiah, and though I wasn't voting then, I saw it on the Russell debate; it's the only way he's as high as he is and Wilt is as low as he is.

Dwight's been punished enough on the intangibles and here's one way to illustrate this:

Let's say an AI had all the information that we know about basketball dumped into it's core. It only knew the data - all of it that we have & the team results. It doesn't know about locker room stuff, it doesn't know about off the court stuff. The AI is told that it can have any player left put into a time machine, given nutritional benefits to compensate for the era and that's it to build a franchise around. The AI is told that it has to give the player a gigantic $400 M contract - but it can figure out how to pay the player that $400 M any way it wants over the next 20 years, and it's locked into it's production.

The AI's goal is to maximize likelihood of success and told that over a 20 year window, building around this player if it doesn't achieve 30 points based on the below scale, it will be destroyed.

Playoff Series Win = 1 Point
Division Title = 1 Point
Playoff Appearance = 1 Point
Finals Appearance = 4 points
Title = 10 Points

I feel pretty confident that the AI would be picking Howard in this spot - and that the AI would select Howard over a fair number of players we've already voted in if given the choice. That last part - that's how I know that Howard has been punished enough. It's time to start the process of getting him in there.

[LA Bird]

Same votes again...

1. Reggie Miller
Reggie is not all rounded if you are looking at the rebounds and assists but he is so good in the one area he excels in (efficient scoring) that the all in one advanced stats still rate him very highly despite his one dimensionality. WS may be a bit too generous in terms of rewarding solid players with great longevity but even in something more accurate like career VORP, Reggie is top 25 all time. For comparison, Rip Hamilton, who often get compared to Miller due to their similar playing style, is at #393 all time in careeer VORP. Miller is the highest remaining player in both WS and VORP, which is pretty impressive since off-ball players usually don't look that great in box score type stats. Reggie looks good in late 90s RAPM and the Pacers were around a +3 offense for more than a decade under his leadership. Consistently stepped up his game in the playoffs which corresponded with an improvement in the Pacers offense in the postseason as well.

Alternate: Paul Pierce

Thoughts on some of the other players since I've been voting Miller/Pierce for a while...
- Dwight Howard: Honestly think he might be getting a bit underrated with all the retrospective devaluation of his prime Orlando years. He ranked 39 in the 2011 project but has somehow dropped after adding 6 seasons averaging 16/12? Account for pace and Howard's post prime seasons (2012~now) is practically half of Willis Reed's whole career. His intangibles aren't great but then again, we already voted in Rick Barry so that shouldn't be too much of an issue.
- Willis Reed: Lack of longevity aside, I don't see him as being particularly dominant. Reed is credited with the Knicks success since he is the captain but it seems to me that the arrival of DeBusschere, Frazier and Holzman as coach was more important in lifting the Knicks from 30 win teams into championship contenders. Reed has two seasons as a top 5 player but that's not enough here considering how short his career was.

[Dr Positivity]

I don't think anyone wants to support Howard but it's the right thing to do. Objectivity/consistency certainly calls for it. I wish that I wasn't one of the leaders in doing so.

I've had him as my alt for 2 rounds now. I think the negative personality stuff is completely fair though I feel a few people are blowing it up. We have a lot of personality issues and possible drug issue types at this level. Kidd and Iverson both are if we believe the news stories (I don't follow closely so correct me if we know better now) pretty awful people and treated their wives pretty horribly. I can't imagine some of that didn't impact the locker rooms. Guys on drugs might make a locker room more "fun" but sure as heck doesn't make a team win. I tend to try and stay out of these things on this list in part because I feel team success should go down with it. For me I don't think howard needs a lot of negative credit here given his success has been fairly poor outside of his finals run in orlando.

I also give him a 100% pass for the LA year for anyone wondering, full disclosure on that one! (I give pretty much full passes for anyone not winning in LA or NYC as I think both cities are just bad for players).

I noticed you were ahead of me in pushing Dwight - that's why I was careful to write "one of" the leaders instead of the first.

In 80-85% of cases, I don't really care about the intangibles - I feel like they should/do manifest themselves in the results enough of the time that it takes care of itself. I know others on the board care about them a lot - you saw it in the group that was pushing for Isiah, and though I wasn't voting then, I saw it on the Russell debate; it's the only way he's as high as he is and Wilt is as low as he is.

Dwight's been punished enough on the intangibles and here's one way to illustrate this:

Let's say an AI had all the information that we know about basketball dumped into it's core. It only knew the data - all of it that we have & the team results. It doesn't know about locker room stuff, it doesn't know about off the court stuff. The AI is told that it can have any player left put into a time machine, given nutritional benefits to compensate for the era and that's it to build a franchise around. The AI is told that it has to give the player a gigantic $400 M contract - but it can figure out how to pay the player that $400 M any way it wants over the next 20 years, and it's locked into it's production.

The AI's goal is to maximize likelihood of success and told that over a 20 year window, building around this player if it doesn't achieve 30 points based on the below scale, it will be destroyed.

Playoff Series Win = 1 Point
Division Title = 1 Point
Playoff Appearance = 1 Point
Finals Appearance = 4 points
Title = 10 Points

I feel pretty confident that the AI would be picking Howard in this spot - and that the AI would select Howard over a fair number of players we've already voted in if given the choice. That last part - that's how I know that Howard has been punished enough. It's time to start the process of getting him in there.

Ftr here is the list I made of total WS rank and MVP share rank averaged, players are in bold are voted in already.

Spoiler:

1 Kareem-Abdul Jabbar 2
2 Michael Jordan 2.5
3 Lebron James 4.5
4 Karl Malone 5.5
5 Wilt Chamberlain 6.5
6 Tim Duncan 7.5
7 Shaquille O'Neal 9.5
8 Bill Russell 12.5
8 Julius Erving 12.5
10 Kevin Garnett 13
11 Magic Johnson 14
11 Kobe Bryant 14
11 David Robinson 14
14 Moses Malone 14.5
15 Larry Bird 15.5
15 Oscar Robertson 15.5
17 Dirk Nowitzki 17.5
18 Charles Barkley 18.5
19 Hakeem Olajuwon 19.5
20 Jerry West 22.5
21 Bob Pettit 25.5
22 Chris Paul 26
23 Artis Gilmore 28 (includes ABA)
24 Steve Nash 30
25 Kevin Durant 31
26 Rick Barry 32 (includes ABA)
27 Patrick Ewing 37
28 Jason Kidd 38
29 Gary Payton 39
30 Dwight Howard 40.5
31 Dan Issel 42.5 (includes ABA)
31 Dolph Schayes 42.5
33 Clyde Drexler 43
34 Scottie Pippen 48
35 Dominique Wilkins 49.5
36 George Gervin 51
37 Dwyane Wade 51.5
38 Elgin Baylor 52.5
39 John Stockton 53.5
40 Elvin Hayes 55
41 Robert Parish 58
42 Allen Iverson 58.5
43 Wes Unseld 59
44 Bob Lanier 59.5
45 Zelmo Beaty 61.5 (includes ABA)
46 Chauncey Billups 62.5
47 John Havlicek 62.5
48 James Harden 65.5
49 Alonzo Mourning 66.5
50 Tracy McGrady 68

So on a list that correlates very well with our voting with 37 of the top 41 matching (and one of the others being ABA driven in Issel, and on the other end Mikan couldn't make the above list) Howard rates highest, although the real most impressive is Schayes considering he would have rated higher if there was MVP voting in his first 6 seasons

Where to put Bob Lanier is interesting, he never got that relevant champion team, but he has a 3rd and 4th place in MVP voting, finishes top 5 in WS 3 times (3rd once), is a fantastic BPM player including a 1st place and a 2nd place in VORP. Compared to other players with non-limited longevity that looks like a good resume