RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #59

[trex_8063]

Thru post #20:

Adrian Dantley - 2 (Clyde Frazier, Joao Saraiva)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (trex_8063)
Dave Cowens - 1 (dhsilv2)
James Harden - 1 (pandrade83)
Vince Carter - 1 (Dr Positivity)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Dominique Wilkins - 1 (JordansBulls)

About 24 hours left till runoff….

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Outside]

Vote: Nate Thurmond

Alternate: Dave Cowens

Thurmond was among the very best all-time at individual defense, team defense, shotblocking, and rebounding, and he is acknowledged as an excellent leader and teammate.

He made it to the finals twice, with Wilt in his rookie season where they lost to the Celtics (a team Russell has called the best he played on) and in 1967 where they lost to Wilt's Sixers (who set the record for wins that season and a team considered among the best of all time).

He is one of the very few to have his jersey retired twice, by the Warriors and the Cavs. The retirement by the Cavs is the more instructive one for my argument, because he only played parts of two seasons there at the end of his career, yet his leadership and character were considered crucial to creating a winning team. Thurmond didn't play much and wasn't near the player he'd been previously -- 17.4 MPG, 4.6 PPG, 5.3 RPG -- but the team hadn't been to the playoffs in the five seasons since they entered the league, and Thurmond was instrumental in turning them around. He taught them how to win.

From a description of the "miracle at Richfield" team:

The principals in the four-player trade were Nate Thurmond and Steve Patterson. Thurmond, 34 and on the downside of what turned out to be a Hall of Fame career, was playing out of position at the high post for the Bulls.

Patterson, 27. was the high-post passing center Bulls coach Dick Motta sought. Thurmond, from Akron Central High and Bowling Green, brought more than rebounds and blocked shots to the young Cavaliers.

"The first time Nate walked into our locker room,'' said Fitch, "he had the respect of everyone on our team."

The Cavaliers were 6-11 and going nowhere when Thurmond arrived. They went 43-22 the rest of the way to finish the regular season 49-33, setting up the best-of-seven playoff series against the Bullets.

Playing 17.4 minutes a game behind Jim Chones, Thurmond averaged 4.6 points, 5.3 rebounds and 1.3 blocked shots. Fitch occasionally put Chones and Thurmond on the court at the same time. Chones, 26, was in awe of Thurmond.

"I loved playing with Nate,'' Chones said, "because you didn't have to rebound. See, Nate got every rebound. There were no offensive rebounds for the other team, because Nate got every defensive rebound.

"When the ball went off the rim, you just turned around and started going the other way. I learned so much from Nate. He had arrogance. He was cool, just one of those old cool guys."

From the statement by the Cavs when Nate died:

Nate’s jersey hangs in the rafters at The Q because of the unselfish way the Akron native and Hall of Famer approached the game we all love, the teammate that he was, his profound impact on one of the most special seasons in Cavaliers history, and the way that all translated on and off the court to reflect the 'All for One. One for All.' code. Just as Nate always held the Miracle team, the Coliseum crowds and his local roots dear to him, the Cavaliers franchise will always love and respect him as a true Cavalier legend.

This for a guy who played for them only a season and a half at the end of his career.

[Outside]

I think it was you (though I could be wrong) who had gone on about the effect of spring-loaded rims on shooting percentages......not that I didn't believe it previously, but if I hadn't, Jeremy Lamb just made a shot that would make me a believer. Never seen such a forgiving rim.

Hmmm ...

Wouldn't this have caused a spike in free-throw percentages at the point of transition?

Free throw percentages at a league level have held fairly constant around 75%, from say '56 onwards (with some dips arguably attributable to Chamberlain and O'Neal).

So far as I can tell the major league-wide alteration was the introduction of the breakaway rim, which seems to have been universal at the start of the 1981-82 season. Here free-throw percentage drops very slightly.

I was only being half-serious with that comment.
But anyway, good point. We should, theoretically, see a spike (or some manner of upward trend) upon their induction. Though fwiw, looking at league avg FT% isn't the best means of scrutinizing FT shooting, as it doesn't take into account WHO is doing the shooting. Suppose we have two leagues, and each league is only 10 players (to simplify):
In League 1, all ten players shoot 70% from the FT-line.
In League 2, two players shoot 40%, two players shoot 50%, four players shoot 60%, one player shoots 80%, and one shoots 90%.....but the guys shooting 40-60% only took 10 FTA each, while the guys shooting 80/90 took 50 FTA each.

In these examples, the league avg (as you're citing it) for League 2 would look marginally better at 70.6%, vs 70% for League 1.

But if we simply were looking at the average among the ten individuals (each weighted equally), League 2's avg is 59%; the median avg of League 2 would be 60% (meanwhile both are obviously 70% for League 1).


I'd done a study some months back looking at the year-by-year median FT% for three different groups---PG/SG/(SF), (SF)/PF, and C (and subsequently made a scaled FT% model from it).
Anyway, based on those position-specific FT%, I can say that FT% have not been stable since the late 50's, fwiw; though within the context of this discussion it proves nothing wrt breakaway rims (would more suggest they have no effect, actually), as there's no sudden improvement upon their induction.

It would be interesting to see a detailed shooting percentage analysis based on before and after the introduction of the breakaway rim. I don't know, but there could've been changes in the design of the breakaway rim along the way that made the rim's effect different at different points.

My observation about the effect of the breakaway rim isn't backed by data, but anyone who played on rigid rims and then breakaway rims can tell you there is a difference in how the ball bounces off it. Again, not backed up by science, but it seems logical that the difference would be practically negligible on shots near the rim to more significant on longer shots.

Did a search for info on it and came up with some interesting tidbits.

Apparently some rims are adjustable, so that a team that doesn't shoot many threes could adjust the rims tighter in their gym, while those that do shoot a lot of threes can make their rims looser and softer.

There is testing done to determine the elasticity (bounce) of rims, and there is an acceptable range.

The whole system -- rim, backboard, and support -- affect the elasticity of a rim, not just the rim itself.

A few links on the subject:

http://www.momentummedia.com/articles/cm/cm0304/testing.htm

http://blog.sportsystemscanada.com/blog/the-history-of-the-breakaway-basketball-rim

http://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4620192

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/colleges/basketball/basket-case-do-soft-rims-exist-answers-found-in-basketball/article_f76940e2-2877-527d-ae7d-7bb36efb3d86.html

That last article includes this video showing how to use a testing unit:

Watch on YouTube

At the 5:22 mark, they show how to hang the unit on the front of the rim, and when they do so, the rim drops noticeably, an inch or so. Old-style rims bolted to the backboard wouldn't do that.

[Outside]

Here's a video showing how to adjust the tension on a rim. You can make them softer, if you want to.

Watch on YouTube

[dhsilv2]

Not to get too off topic, but how did break away rims get into this thread? And why? Wondering if I'm supposed to be looking at stats differently based on this or if we're just gone off topic (don't mind if we did).

[penbeast0]

. . . Squirrel

[Outside]

Not to get too off topic, but how did break away rims get into this thread? And why? Wondering if I'm supposed to be looking at stats differently based on this or if we're just gone off topic (don't mind if we did).

It's my fault. Dock my profit sharing percentage for the project by 10 percent.

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM mobile app

[iggymcfrack]

Rather than just re-hash my previous arguments, I'm going to compare these two players to the runoff loser from last time: Vince Carter, and the current vote leader: Alex English which seems especially appropriate since they're all rather similar players.

Seasons with a PER over 25:
Harden: 3 (27.4, 26.7, 25.3)
McGrady: 3 (30.3, 25.3, 25.1)
Carter: 1 (25.0)
English: 0 (peak 24.1)

Seasons with 10+ WS:
Harden: 5 (16.4, 15.0, 13.3, 12.8, 12.8)
McGrady: 4 (16.1, 12.2, 12.0, 11.5)
Carter: 3 (12.9. 11.8, 10.5)
English: 1 (10.3)

Seasons with a BPM of +5 or better:
Harden: 5 (10.1, 8.4, 6.7, 5.7, 5.5)
McGrady: 5 (9.7, 6.8, 6.0, 5.8, 5.6)
Carter: 2 (7.0, 5.3)
English: 0

Total career WS:
Carter: 122.1
English: 100.7
McGrady: 97.3
Harden: 92.8

Total career VORP:
Carter: 54.4
McGrady: 50.6
Harden: 42.5
English: 35.6

Postseasons with a PER over 25:
McGrady: 4 (27.2, 27.0, 26.8, 25.6)
Carter: 1 (26.8)
English: 1 (25.7)
Harden: 0

Postseasons with 2+ WS:
Harden: 3 (2.7, 2.2, 2.0)
English: 1 (2.4)
Carter: 1 (2.0)
McGrady: 0

Postseasons with a BPM of +5 or better:
McGrady: 4 (9.3, 9.3, 8.0, 5.4)
Harden: 4 (7.9, 7.5, 7.0, 6.3)
Carter: 3 (8.6, 6.7, 5.6)
English: 1 (6.0)

Total postseason WS:
Harden: 10.5
Carter: 7.4
English: 6.5
McGrady: 4.5

Total postseason VORP:
Harden: 6.0
Carter: 4.1
McGrady: 3.5
English: 2.5

I think looking at these metrics as a starting point, we can pretty much eliminate English right off the bat since his numbers are so much consistently worse in a weaker era. Then, it gets a little more interesting between Carter, Harden, and McGrady. It comes down to where you value peak vs. career and where you value defense/intangibles. On defense, it's pretty clearly Carter > McGrady > Harden with Carter generally scoring as a positive defender, McGrady pretty neutral, and Harden negative. However, Harden's also an amazing passer who can singlehandedly orchestrate an offense which is something that's not captured properly by box score metrics. Especially when he has so many assists and hockey assists that lead to wide open 3s. I think overall on items not captured in the box score, it's an edge to Carter but not a big one.

As for the peak vs. career argument, how much do you value being a league average starter or a role player? McGrady did it the last 5 years of his career and Carter did it the last 8 of his. I'd say that in total, the combined value of those years has to be less than that of one really good season where you're actually dominating the league. If you take those years, and give the same numerical value of one good to great season, all of a sudden, the longevity advantage for Carter just disappears, and obviously at peak value, it's not close, even taking out one great season. Thus, I'm voting:

Vote: James Harden
Alternate: Tracy McGrady

[trex_8063]

Thru post #28:

Adrian Dantley - 2 (Clyde Frazier, Joao Saraiva)
James Harden - 2 (iggymcfrack, pandrade83)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (trex_8063)
Dave Cowens - 1 (dhsilv2)
Nate Thurmond - 1 (Outside)
Vince Carter - 1 (Dr Positivity)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Dominique Wilkins - 1 (JordansBulls)

This is where it stands right now; will go to runoff in about ~17-18 hours more.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Dr Positivity]

On defense, it's pretty clearly Carter > McGrady > Harden with Carter generally scoring as a positive defender, McGrady pretty neutral, and Harden negative.

Ftr Tmac had the better defensive reputation for his career as he has the elite tools/wingspan, started off in Toronto on track to become an elite defender (Pippen comps) before caring less when he became an offensive star, and has some high moments like locking down Dirk in the playoffs as a thread on this forum recently outlined. Since his DRAPM is better it's possible Vince was subtly better on D, but it could also be inflated by going to NJ and playing beside Kidd. Vince's defensive career was the definition of mediocrity.

[LA Bird]

Still the same votes.

1. Vince Carter
Carter has a clear longevity advantage against McGrady and Harden who peaked higher. Against volume scorers with similar longevity, Carter's 3pt shot spaces the floor better and he is a better passer than Wilkins, a better defensive player than Iverson.
A great all round player who wasn't far off from Pierce (who was voted in 15 places ago BTW) during their primes. Somewhat questionable intangibles early on especially in how he left Toronto but turned into a great teammate towards the end of his career. FWIW, I have Carter ranked as 2nd best sixth man in the league in his first season off the bench with the Mavs and it's not often you see a star of his caliber transition into a bench role this successfully.

2. Nate Thurmond

[Owly]

I think it was you (though I could be wrong) who had gone on about the effect of spring-loaded rims on shooting percentages......not that I didn't believe it previously, but if I hadn't, Jeremy Lamb just made a shot that would make me a believer. Never seen such a forgiving rim.

Hmmm ...

Wouldn't this have caused a spike in free-throw percentages at the point of transition?

Free throw percentages at a league level have held fairly constant around 75%, from say '56 onwards (with some dips arguably attributable to Chamberlain and O'Neal).

So far as I can tell the major league-wide alteration was the introduction of the breakaway rim, which seems to have been universal at the start of the 1981-82 season. Here free-throw percentage drops very slightly.

I was only being half-serious with that comment.
But anyway, good point. We should, theoretically, see a spike (or some manner of upward trend) upon their induction. Though fwiw, looking at league avg FT% isn't the best means of scrutinizing FT shooting, as it doesn't take into account WHO is doing the shooting. Suppose we have two leagues, and each league is only 10 players (to simplify):
In League 1, all ten players shoot 70% from the FT-line.
In League 2, two players shoot 40%, two players shoot 50%, four players shoot 60%, one player shoots 80%, and one shoots 90%.....but the guys shooting 40-60% only took 10 FTA each, while the guys shooting 80/90 took 50 FTA each.

In these examples, the league avg (as you're citing it) for League 2 would look marginally better at 70.6%, vs 70% for League 1.

But if we simply were looking at the average among the ten individuals (each weighted equally), League 2's avg is 59%; the median avg of League 2 would be 60% (meanwhile both are obviously 70% for League 1).

I'd done a study some months back looking at the year-by-year median FT% for three different groups---PG/SG/(SF), (SF)/PF, and C (and subsequently made a scaled FT% model from it).
Anyway, based on those position-specific FT%, I can say that FT% have not been stable since the late 50's, fwiw; though within the context of this discussion it proves nothing wrt breakaway rims (would more suggest they have no effect, actually), as there's no sudden improvement upon their induction.

As you would be aware from my allusions to Chamberlain and O'Neal, and in any case doubtless assume, I'm well aware that individuals can distort the picture of the level of league-wide free-throw ability.

The problem is though isn't limited to FT%. If you wanted a perfect measure of the reliability of rims and the quality of shooting, you'd have all [significant minute?] players shoot a large sample of shots at all different rim/basket set-ups. But that can't happen. And you'll note already grey areas (if we want to know how good the league's players are at shooting, do we want all, players who made a roster, who played a minute; or do we want, say, 820 minutes plus players. Then too, if your emphasis is more on the player side than on the rims, it is debateable that stars who take more shots and more free throws aren't more representative of what happens in the league, depending on what exactly it is that you want to measure.

You say that league FT% "Isn't the best" (my emphasis) using an absolute term. But in your second league, is there any number you'd that you'd feel represents such an erratic distribution of shooters. I understand using extremes to make a point, but, as I say, I don't think that this hypothetical league could be represented with one number (or even a set notional averages).

Even if one didn't think your example does so, it would be easy to create an example where the median would be unrepresentative.

You outline median and unweighted mean, but only seem then seem to discuss an only median based methodology, am I missing something here? Or is the unweighted mean just to reinforce the accuracy of the median?

The is the statement "I can say that FT% have not been stable since the late 50's" ... but without the data, with a partial [i.e. incomplete, rather than biased] methodology. The most I can say (at this point) is that that could be true within a specfic framework of interpretation, but seems entirely too bold given that free-throw percentage has stayed fairly consistent where all other league statistics fluctuate more, and as noted, moreso when you are aware of (and mentally compensate/account for) high volume outliers.

Insofar as the point is that free throw percentage is not the perfect tool, and can certainly be supplemented (or joined) by other information - all forming part of a fuller, richer, picture - sure.

But the post frustrates as is, speaking in absolutes, and does so without giving the full picture about the alternative[s], which isn't to say I'd necessarily be against their use. I guess it's because of a combination of time and not wanting to go off topic. Also, sorry, I realise this is going off topic.

Not to get too off topic, but how did break away rims get into this thread? And why? Wondering if I'm supposed to be looking at stats differently based on this or if we're just gone off topic (don't mind if we did).

Apparently Outside had discussed these rims as harming shooting percentages in the past.

Trex, seeing either this shot https://youtu.be/cSdE97RD6hk?t=16, or more likely this one https://youtu.be/cSdE97RD6hk?t=90, was inspired to comment on the forgivingness of rims ...

.

I think it was you (though I could be wrong) who had gone on about the effect of spring-loaded rims on shooting percentages......not that I didn't believe it previously, but if I hadn't, Jeremy Lamb just made a shot that would make me a believer. Never seen such a forgiving rim.

The suggestion that he was a believer in this phenomenon, led me to suggest [in summary] that such an effect would have led to a spike in free throw percentage.

Trex accepted the broad point, whilst questioning the use of league wide free-throw percentage as the best barometer.

Outside has defended his stance.

And now I've come in with a [partial, as in not complete] defense of free throw percentage and an encouragement for more completeness in alternatives.

[Owly]

Seeing the quote of Harden having the best non Walkton Peak, thought I'd take a look. Since WS is really our best long term stat I just took that in.

best RS left is Bob Feerick, don't see anyone from the 40's getting in, and his guys' career was too short.
Next is Neil Johnston who I would think should get consideration, but likely not here.
Alex Grozal has the next 2 spots and had he not been banned for life, maybe he would get considerations.
Next is Bob McAdoo who has 2 really standout WS years.
Now we get to 2015 Harden.

Other names of note in this group are Tmac, and Arzin who should be consideration for best peak left as well.

Switching to WS/48 and knocking out sub 1000 minute seasons.

Larry Foust
Kawhi Leonard (who if we're talking peaks, I think has a case against Harden here)
Anthony Davis
Vern Mikkelsen
Chet Waler
Multiple Niel Johnston years
Harden
Tmac
Amar'e
Arzin

Interestingly enough Gobert scores out really highly here and just ahead of McAdoo. Surprised on this but 96 Terrell Brandon and that ultra slow paced cavs offense score really highly on this list.

Dantley scores 28th on this list as his best performance. English's best is 732nd of those remaining. Wilkins is 192nd.

For not yet in guys, some of the top boxscore composite peaks (this isn't comprehensive, doesn't include the last six or so years). These numbers aren't necessarily from the same season.

Player PER Single S WS/48 Single S
Tracy McGrady 30.27 0.2617
Amare Stoudemire 27.57 0.2619
Neil Johnston 26.62 0.2666
Paul Arizin 25.53 0.2614
Bob McAdoo 25.76 0.2416
Walt Bellamy 26.3 0.23332
Terrell Brandon 25.24 0.2365
Elton Brand 26.55 0.2294
Ed Macauley 24.27 0.2515
Arvydas Sabonis 24.74 0.23334
Adrian Dantley 24.64 0.235
Larry Foust 23.77 0.2823
Grant Hill 25.54 0.22317
Kevin Love 25.36 0.22323
Harry Gallatin 24.142 0.23241
Anfernee Hardaway 24.58 0.2293
Yao Ming 26.46 0.2199
Bernard King 25.21 0.2177
John Drew 25.31 0.2157
Brandon Roy 24 0.2231
Bill Walton 24.83 0.2152
Kevin Johnson 23.72 0.2202
James Harden 22.95 0.2303
Andrew Bynum 22.94 0.2296
Clyde Lovellette 23.47 0.2214
Vince Carter 25.01 0.208
Brad Daugherty 23 0.2263
Kenny Sears 22.58 0.2562
Shawn Kemp 23.598 0.2156
Marques Johnson 23.94 0.2113
Shawn Marion 23.611 0.2143
Sidney Moncrief 22.64 0.2329
Derrick Rose 23.54 0.2112
Cliff Hagan 22.743 0.22
Vern Mikkelsen 21.87 0.2696
Chris Bosh 25.04 0.2002
Charlie (Chuck) Share 21.965 0.2317
George Yardley 23.29 0.20808
Chris Webber 24.66 0.1998
Chet Walker 21.79 0.2685
Dan Issel 23.06 0.2083
Tony Parker 23.37 0.2064
Andrei Kirilenko 24.36 0.19865
Dominique Wilkins 24.59 0.1966
David Thompson 23.19 0.2016
Terry Porter 21.65 0.2349
Sam Cassell 22.84 0.2045
Bob Houbregs 21.99 0.2145
Mark Price 22.699 0.205
Kenneth Faried 21.9 0.212
Sam Jones 21.7 0.2218
Darrell Armstrong 22.18 0.2051
Blake Griffin 23.43 0.1961
Brook Lopez 24.73 0.19076
Bailey Howell 21.558 0.2264
Gilbert Arenas 23.99 0.1933
Larry Nance 22.195 0.2036
Nate Archibald 25.19 0.1892
Paul Westphal 23.81 0.19041
Ryan Anderson 21.18 0.2187
Marcus Camby 20.89 0.233
Bobby Jones 21.1 0.2186
Carlos Boozer 24.09 0.1872
Predrag Stojakovic 21.77 0.1986
Terry Cummings 22.83 0.1893

[trex_8063]

Thru post #33:

Adrian Dantley - 2 (Clyde Frazier, Joao Saraiva)
James Harden - 2 (iggymcfrack, pandrade83)
Vince Carter - 2 (Dr Positivity, LABird)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (trex_8063)
Dave Cowens - 1 (dhsilv2)
Nate Thurmond - 1 (Outside)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Dominique Wilkins - 1 (JordansBulls)

Well, I was hoping we'd get one more vote that would break this 3-way tie; eliminating those with 1 vote doesn't transfer a vote to any of the three; one of the Dantley voters had Carter as his 2nd choice, but that still leaves us with both Dantley and Harden as runoff candidates. So we'll have to start with 3way runoff:

Adrian Dantley - 2 (Clyde Frazier, Joao Saraiva)
James Harden - 2 (iggymcfrack, pandrade83)
Vince Carter - 2 (Dr Positivity, LABird)


If you're name is not shown there, please specify the ONE player you'd choose among these three with reasons why. Hopefully at least narrow the runoff down in 24 hours (or less)....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[penbeast0]

RUNOFF VOTE: Adrian Dantley, despite some questionable team results, he's Barkley without the rebounding (and without the idiocy). Just hard to believe you can't build around one of the most efficient scorers of all time and Chuck Daly raved about his professionalism and defense when he was in Detroit so he did mature and learn.

[trex_8063]

Runoff vote: Vince Carter

I think James Harden peaked the highest; I'd say he was better in '15 and '17 (and arguably '16, too) than Carter and Dantley ever were, and is clearly the most dominant offensive force among the three. But he's also [a relatively distant] third in terms of longevity, and also the worst defender of the three. For me, these factors pull him out of contention for #1 among the three (and possibly even put him in last).

Carter has arguably the second-highest peak (his '01 season was fairly special), is the clear best in terms of meaningful longevity, and also [imo, anyway] the best defender of the three. Some intangible issues early in his career, but has molded into a model teammate in later years, and continued to be productive well into his twilight by willingly embracing lesser roles.

In terms of impact metrics, there's some variability depending on your source. For instance, J.E.'s RAPM (google sites) doesn't rate him very impressively in the early-mid 2000's; but shutupandjam's PI RAPM (NPI for '01) rates him MUCH more favorably. Side note: this is one of the reasons I won't put all my eggs into the "impact basket"--->it troubles me that there can be such drastic variation in the same metric based upon nothing but methodology.

I've a spreadsheet that catalogs RAPM's (PI whenever available; and three seasons of APM used) which utilizes the following sources for the specified years:
colts18's APM for '94-'96
ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt's RAPM for '97-'00
shutupandjam's PI RAPM for '02-'07
GotBuckets? (now gone) PI RAPM for '08-'14
J.E.'s spreadsheets for '15-'17

From those, Vince Carter has a best 10-years RAPM that is in the neighborhood of guys like Bo Outlaw, Andrei Kirilenko, and Andre Iguodala....but also guys like Karl Malone (from '94 on) and Kobe Bryant; and just slightly ahead of Paul Pierce.

And of course, in more conventional advanced metrics he looks none too shabby:
In the 8-year stretch of '00-'07, he was a 22.2 PER, .158 WS/48, ~+4.6 BPM in 37.8 mpg. Was averaging 24.6 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.2 apg with a very low turnover rate during that span.

[dhsilv2]

This one is maddening.

Adrian Dantley should be an easy pick here. I could easily say his 84 season was MVP level, stats show he was possibly the best player in the league that year and that's not too shabby with Magic and Bird well established. But then his team results and then the pistons winning after he left. Yes, I can rationalize all of this but it feels off.

Harden likely has the best peak, 15 being a pretty strong year and his defense seemed decent that year, or Howard got underrated for hiding Harden's defense. I struggle with the question if Harden is a mad scientist toying with us or what is the deal. The guy is brilliant with the ball, all those fouls people complain about are from his mastery of so many tiny small skills. And then he speaks....or shows up out of shape in 16...and I hear stories about how he's going to start talking on defense this year (he wasn't talking before? Really?). Longevity is going to be more and more a factor for me as we clear out the really elite guys and get into these more flawed cases and it's a factor here.

Carter imo was better than Pierce who's in or at least right there with him. His longevity is great and I really love how he's changed his game. Even winning teammate of the year. His 01 and I believe 06 years both look strong enough for peak purposes for me to not have a problem taking him here.

I'm also struggling with just how this will rank these guys. I can't get over the idea of Tmac being ranked behind Carter, that's just wrong imo. Harden too should be behind Tmac. Meanwhile Dantley should be behind English and Wilkins. I know that's not the way we should be voting here, but I was hoping for an out...doesn't look like it.

Vote Dantley - This is silly, but ultimately Harden needs another good playoff run for me. Too many of his total games are off the bench. The same can be said of Carter. Dantley like Harden made a finals, and while neither was the star I think Dantley was a bit better. I want to take Carter here, but his lack of playoff success combined with his early career issues are just a bit too much for me. I went into this assuming I'd bite my tongue on that early stuff and vote for him. After digging through the 3, Dantley came out ahead.

FYI tonight rockets game kinda has me regretting not taking harden, but i told myself i'd not view anything from this season when i rank. I think Harden could easily jump 10 spots after this season.

[Goudelock]

Hey Trex, I know that I have been MIA when it comes to this project, but I'd like to cast my vote in this one (if that's ok with you).

My first pick is Harden

My second choice is Dantley

As great as Dantley was at efficient scoring, and damn he was great at that, Dantley didn't give you anything else besides that. On the other hand, Harden gives you that efficient scoring along with great facilitating and good rebounding. Neither is known for defense so I give neither the edge in that department. Lastly, from watching both players, I never got the impression that Dantley's scoring lifted the team's performance like Harden's does.

[70sFan]

Hey Trex, I know that I have been MIA when it comes to this project, but I'd like to cast my vote in this one (if that's ok with you).

My first pick is Harden

My second choice is Dantley

As great as Dantley was at efficient scoring, and damn he was great at that, Dantley didn't give you anything else besides that. On the other hand, Harden gives you that efficient scoring along with great facilitating and good rebounding. Neither is known for defense so I give neither the edge in that department. Lastly, from watching both players, I never got the impression that Dantley's scoring lifted the team's performance like Harden's does.

Although Harden gives you more on offense indeed, he's clearly worse defensively from what I've seen and I've seen a lot from Dantley. At this moment, Harden has much shorter career too and his longevity is clearly worse.

Dantley defensive reputation is quite strange to me. He's definitely not shutdown defender and he has his limitations. He's not long and undersized for his position. He also didn't have good lateral quickness. He didn't run through screens well, so shooters can expose him. On the other hand, he was really good post defender despite lack of height. He could be very physical and he gave you much more effort on average than Harden.

What is impressive, he had more success against Bird than Rodman in 1988 playoffs. He really made him work and Pistons didn't help him that much.

I won't vote here because I feel too biased forward my 2nd favorite player of all time. Keep in mind thiugh that Dantley would be much higher regarded with 1989 ring and Pistons would beat injured Lakers with ease.

[penbeast0]

Was watching Dantley v. Bird in those Piston/Celtic matchups and Dantley actually outplays Bird on both sides of the floor from just the eye test without looking at numbers. He has Bird looking really clueless on defense, sometimes with his back turned to the play as Dantley (his man) scores.