RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #37 (George Gervin)

[trex_8063]

I think it's cool you're thinking this stuff through on an algorithmic level. I'm not entirely sure if you're expecting a particular thing from me, so feel free to further specify if I miss the mark.

Clearly I'm more in line with Formula A over Formula B, and since you made both I'm confident you can understand potential philosophical differences separating between the two.

I suppose the main thing I'm interested is how you're achieving your "calibration". Key point to me:

Do you hit an asymptote with it, or is there some level of longevity, even if it's 10,000 years, where eventually longevity rules all? For myself, I want an asymptote.

Yes, as I stated above the A-family of formulas is definitely superior [imo], mostly by way of far more inputs. Cynics would say "crap in, crap out", because certainly each and every one of the inputs has its own flaws and biases; but they're all different types of biases and weaknesses.....so I like to think that the biases/weaknesses of some are corrected for [or at least diluted] by the others.

As a large variety of statistical inputs, as well as multiple measures of team success [not just ringz], media awards and accolades, era impressions, and WOWY are all used......it's about as comprehensive as you can get "by the numbers", at least for cross-era comparisons.

I'd like to have used things like BPM and RAPM, too, but obv these things don't exist for all eras.
Individual relative DRtg does not exist for all either, but I made some crude estimates for older players based upon position, reputation, and team DRtg. I was reluctant to "round" too far from the team DRtg, so these estimates no doubt undercredit someone like Bill Russell, while grossly overcrediting someone like Bob Cousy or Sam Jones.
But I know that going in [and can thus hold it in mind]; and this is a relatively small-weighted consideration anyway.

For media accolades that didn't exist early on, I made some "hypothetical" Bill Russells and George Mikans, based on some educated guesses as to which accolades they WOULD HAVE received had they been available.

As to your question regarding my calibration: no, I do not have the mathematical [or spreadsheet] chops to construct it such that an asymptote is reached.
There is "a level" where longevity would rule all. Even the 100 years hypothetical is [I think] kind of throwing it a bit (so bear that in mind). Like I said, the calibration was meant to account for realistic longevity giants: the guys who play for ~19-21 seasons.


As to my expectation from you: nothing at all, good sir.
Just sharing, since I had been thinking about it, and it seems a worthwhile topic to explore.

There was something Colin McGowan said in one of his "30 Futures" pieces that sort of resonated with how I feel about meaningful longevity and the value of sub-star seasons: he said [paraphrased] "sometimes having a better 7th man than the other team is the difference between winning a series and losing it."

It's potentially true in a very literal sense in some very very tight series's; and where it's not literally true, the basic gist/sentiment is something I very much agree with. To me, guys like Alex Caruso or '19 Andre Iguodala matter.

[No-more-rings]

Doesn't anyone else think Westbrook is about due to get some traction here? If Kawhi is getting votes, then perhaps Westbrook should too. Neither have great longevity, though Westbrook's is better and his peak is at a similar level I'd say.

Relevant seasons:

Kawhi:

Bonified superstar seasons: 2017(ended in injury), 2019(missed 22 games), 2020

Borderline superstar seasons: 2015, 2016

All star caliber: 2013(missed 24 gm), 2014

Westbrook:

Bonified superstar seasons: 2015, 2016, 2017, I'd argue 2014 might be here if not for regular season injuries

Borderline superstar seasons: 2014(missed 36 gm), 2013(ended in injury), 2012, 2018

All star caliber: 2011, 2019

Then there's Westbrook's sophomore season where he's maybe not all star level yet, but clearly above average.

If someone votes Kawhi, without a single mention of Westbrook what's the reasoning? Is it rings? Defense? Is Kawhi that much better in his prime? I don't see it, many think they both peaked in 2017, and they were considered on the same level that year. Kawhi never played more than 74 games in a regular season, while Westbrook prior to the 2013 playoffs didn't miss a single game. His longevity is just clearly superior, and aside from his 2014 season he's been pretty durable you can't say that about Kawhi at all.

[Doctor MJ]

I think it's cool you're thinking this stuff through on an algorithmic level. I'm not entirely sure if you're expecting a particular thing from me, so feel free to further specify if I miss the mark.

Clearly I'm more in line with Formula A over Formula B, and since you made both I'm confident you can understand potential philosophical differences separating between the two.

I suppose the main thing I'm interested is how you're achieving your "calibration". Key point to me:

Do you hit an asymptote with it, or is there some level of longevity, even if it's 10,000 years, where eventually longevity rules all? For myself, I want an asymptote.

Yes, as I stated above the A-family of formulas is definitely superior [imo], mostly by way of far more inputs. Cynics would say "crap in, crap out", because certainly each and every one of the inputs has its own flaws and biases; but they're all different types of biases and weaknesses.....so I like to think that the biases/weaknesses of some are corrected for [or at least diluted] by the others.

As a large variety of statistical inputs, as well as multiple measures of team success [not just ringz], media awards and accolades, era impressions, and WOWY are all used......it's about as comprehensive as you can get "by the numbers", at least for cross-era comparisons.

I'd like to have used things like BPM and RAPM, too, but obv these things don't exist for all eras.
Individual relative DRtg does not exist for all either, but I made some crude estimates for older players based upon position, reputation, and team DRtg. I was reluctant to "round" too far from the team DRtg, so these estimates no doubt undercredit someone like Bill Russell, while grossly overcrediting someone like Bob Cousy or Sam Jones.
But I know that going in [and can thus hold it in mind]; and this is a relatively small-weighted consideration anyway.

For media accolades that didn't exist early on, I made some "hypothetical" Bill Russells and George Mikans, based on some educated guesses as to which accolades they WOULD HAVE received had they been available.

As to your question regarding my calibration: no, I do not have the mathematical [or spreadsheet] chops to construct it such that an asymptote is reached.
There is "a level" where longevity would rule all. Even the 100 years hypothetical is [I think] kind of throwing it a bit (so bear that in mind). Like I said, the calibration was meant to account for realistic longevity giants: the guys who play for ~19-21 seasons.


As to my expectation from you: nothing at all, good sir.
Just sharing, since I had been thinking about it, and it seems a worthwhile topic to explore.

There was something Colin McGowan said in one of his "30 Futures" pieces that sort of resonated with how I feel about meaningful longevity and the value of sub-star seasons: he said [paraphrased] "sometimes having a better 7th man than the other team is the difference between winning a series and losing it."

It's potentially true in a very literal sense in some very very tight series's; and where it's not literally true, the basic gist/sentiment is something I very much agree with. To me, guys like Alex Caruso or '19 Andre Iguodala matter.

Cool. Obviously it's okay to have your math model be whatever you're most comfortable working with, and frankly you want something that makes sense to you so that you have a sense for when you know something is missing for a given player that you can only correct in your own qualitative final assessment.

Re: guys like Caruso/Iguodala matter. Agreed. Here's what I'll say on that:

1. I'm someone who isn't that impressed with "more of the same but not as good" when talking about a guy's high primacy career.
2. But whatever your top level is, it matters. That Caruso can do what he's doing puts him above most guys that have passed through the league.
3. I should be clear that I do tend to care about players succeeding in a different role than they did before. Iggy's time in GS didn't give him a better peak, but it did illustrate how effective he could be in a particular vital role for a dynasty. That adds to what I call the "shape" of his career and what he was as a player. It adds dimensions to his story, and it gives a sense for how else he'd likely be able to adapt. To put another way: When that former superstar comes back from injury and learns to thrive in a new role, that matters to me even if he never has the impact he had before.

Last note, because I think my previous point brings up a question:

So Doc, imagine Player X in 2 universes. In one universe he has a normal arc with some C-list alpha years toward the end of his prime. In another, he gets hurt, doesn't have those C-list alpha years, but plays great as a role player. Are you literally saying you'd rank the guy with the role player years over the C-list alpha years? Possibly. It would depend on details, but I have no fundamental objection to it, and that's definitely a departure from what most of a quantitative bent would tend to conclude.

[Doctor MJ]

Doesn't anyone else think Westbrook is about due to get some traction here? If Kawhi is getting votes, then perhaps Westbrook should too. Neither have great longevity, though Westbrook's is better and his peak is at a similar level I'd say.

Relevant seasons:

Kawhi:

Bonified superstar seasons: 2017(ended in injury), 2019(missed 22 games), 2020

Borderline superstar seasons: 2015, 2016

All star caliber: 2013(missed 24 gm), 2014

Westbrook:

Bonified superstar seasons: 2015, 2016, 2017, I'd argue 2014 might be here if not for regular season injuries

Borderline superstar seasons: 2014(missed 36 gm), 2013(ended in injury), 2012, 2018

All star caliber: 2011, 2019

Then there's Westbrook's sophomore season where he's maybe not all star level yet, but clearly above average.

If someone votes Kawhi, without a single mention of Westbrook what's the reasoning? Is it rings? Defense? Is Kawhi that much better in his prime? I don't see it, many think they both peaked in 2017, and they were considered on the same level that year. Kawhi never played more than 74 games in a regular season, while Westbrook prior to the 2013 playoffs didn't miss a single game. His longevity is just clearly superior, and aside from his 2014 season he's been pretty durable you can't say that about Kawhi at all.

Not unreasonable at all to feel this way, but I do see things differently.

First thing I should say: I'm not voting for Kawhi yet, so I'm not actually the person you're speaking to here.

That said, yes, I think Kawhi is a lot better than Westbrook. I think it's considerably easier to build a great offense with Kawhi and a great defense with Kawhi. On offense, things would be very, very different if Westbrook were a better shooter, but he's not. On defense, Kawhi's a beast, though I will say that I think Westbrook has very good defensive potential with the right coaching scheme.

So yeah, I've got Kawhi ahead of Westbrook, and probably AD & Giannis as well despite longevity concerns.

[penbeast0]

...On defense, Kawhi's a beast, though I will say that I think Westbrook has very good defensive potential with the right coaching scheme....

So, Scottie Brooks and the Wizards?

[Owly]

Last note, because I think my previous point brings up a question:

So Doc, imagine Player X in 2 universes. In one universe he has a normal arc with some C-list alpha years toward the end of his prime. In another, he gets hurt, doesn't have those C-list alpha years, but plays great as a role player. Are you literally saying you'd rank the guy with the role player years over the C-list alpha years? Possibly. It would depend on details, but I have no fundamental objection to it, and that's definitely a departure from what most of a quantitative bent would tend to conclude.

What are you thinking in terms of a "C-list" alpha?

[penbeast0]

DeRozan? Maravich?

[Doctor MJ]

Last note, because I think my previous point brings up a question:

So Doc, imagine Player X in 2 universes. In one universe he has a normal arc with some C-list alpha years toward the end of his prime. In another, he gets hurt, doesn't have those C-list alpha years, but plays great as a role player. Are you literally saying you'd rank the guy with the role player years over the C-list alpha years? Possibly. It would depend on details, but I have no fundamental objection to it, and that's definitely a departure from what most of a quantitative bent would tend to conclude.

What are you thinking in terms of a "C-list" alpha?

I'm mostly just trying to make a distinction between your best years compared to lesser years doing the same thing. I spoke on this in the Curry vs Paul stuff:

How many more MVPs should Curry need to surpass Paul? How many more titles, etc? The answer clearly has to be zero since he already is ahead of Paul by all those metrics.

So then any argument for Paul based on longevity is essentially arguing that Curry needs more 2nd round exists, and that's pretty silly given that after Curry retires, no one will think about Curry's career in terms of those 2nd round exits.

As I made clear at the time, this isn't a statement meant to knock anyone who actually thinks Paul is as good or better than Curry. It's specifically about the idea of longevity. If in your evaluation a player simply needs more years worse than he's already played in order to surpass someone he's already shown to be better than, why? Why is that meaningful?

[Doctor MJ]

DeRozan? Maravich?

So as I'm saying, my statement wasn't really about "If you're DeRozan bad then I don't care about you."

That said, I literally think Danny Green has had a more worthwhile career than either DeRozan or Maravich.
Not saying Green should get Top 100 consideration though because he's nowhere close, only that if we made the project long enough, I'd vote in Green before I voted in the other two.

[penbeast0]

I would too but you can't call Danny Green's career, or even someone's who should be top 100 like Bobby Jones, an alpha role (except in his first year or two in Denver and there are those who will argue even that).

By C-list alpha, I thought you meant those guys who lead non-contending (no real chance to win a title) teams in scoring consistently year after year. The highest end of this for me would be Allen Iverson or Dominique Wilkins. These guys are seen as alphas, given recognition and All-star games, but are guys would not add appreciable value to a championship team (think Nate Archibald on the Celtics). If I misunderstood the reference, what was meant by it?

[trex_8063]

37. George Gervin
I'm more of a peak/prime guy. I'd take 5-7 seasons with higher chance of winning than 9-10 season with lower chance of winning. This could be challenged by looking at results Drexler's Blazers and Miller's Pacers had but Gervin didn't get to play in such deep, well constructed rosters and good coaches. On individual level, Gervin was the better player and his prime lasted long enough for me.

38. Clyde Drexler
I think he could've been a better/greater player if he wasn't that limited on half court. Not saying he was just bad. Though he was limited for a player of his quality and stature.

39. Reggie Miller
Miller got this spot over Payton, Zeke and Gilmore because his prime duration was significantly longer and those 4 didn't make up for it with their quality. I doubt if they made some TBH. Miller's off-ball play had such significance. O'Neal had massive off-ball presence / gravity because you just can't leave him 1v1. Miller OTOH, worked his ass off without the ball. He didn't have big assist numbers but despite being a 3 apg shooting guard, he created more than 5 apg shooting guards.

Reggie Miller is the most overrated player I've ever seen. Top 40 discussion when he doesn't have a single all NBA 1st or 2nd team, or on the 1st or 2nd all defense. 0 top 5 MVP votes. 0 top 5 in single season total Points, Rebounds or Assists. I was shocked when his score was the lowest based out of 55 players. He isn't close to 39. Many players did way more than him.

The thing is the awards/accolades are an indirect proxy for player performance rather than a direct one (albeit direct ones might be incomplete [boxscore composites], noisy [impact] or both). If you trust those voters heavily Miller is a long way out, if you discount it based on the belief you have better tools one may conclude Reggie belongs here (or not).

Ranking thresholds will be arbitrary, using them in counting stats for single aspects of the game also doesn't mean much (Danny Fortson was an elite rebounder but not an elite player). Leaving aside that Miller has10 top 5 ts% seasons, these single factors don't mean that much. Depending on your box composite of choice, weighting of playoff performance (and means of analysis of such), your reading of the impact of his gravity etc, I can see ways of having him here.

If you are say, into Win Shares (15th all time NBA only, 18th with ABA included) weigh the playoffs highly, factor in opponents for playoff analysis, believe that the Knicks strong defense overall in that era makes them a tough defense for shooting guards to the same degree (in appraising his playoff performance) and take a bullish view on his impact you could justify a high ranking. That's not necessarily me but I wouldn't necessarily object either if applied as a consistent criteria and if I did disagree I'd want to be clear in the reasoning for the criticism (e.g. "criteria is fundamentally flawed because ...." or "I don't think you can have applied this criteria consistently, because ..."). That Miller doesn't rate here for you is fine. Belief that he absolutely shouldn't rate here justified by him not doing so by your own criteria (without exposition why that criteria is better than the flawed, alternate angles) ... is harder to get behind.

Some fine points.
Doctor MJ already replied to him on this topic in a prior thread, particularly regarding Reggie's "standing" in terms of media-awarded accolades.
The thing about these types of awards [especially pre-databall] is that if fans or media persons were looking at two players: one averages 26 ppg on league-average TS% for a slightly below average offense, while the other averages 23 ppg on +10% rTS for a top 5-7 offense (and let's say neither is exceptional [though not necessarily "equal"] at everything else).......almost all of them will favour the first player. The reason: 26 is more than 23. It's literally that simple of an equation to them.

At some point one really needs to look at what is earned/not earned, and who is snubbed.

Where Reggie is concerned, even noting a few years of interest kind of illustrates the point.....
'91
Reggie averaged 22.6 ppg on a league-leading +11.6% rTS ( ) along with 4 apg and a 2.03 Ast:TO ratio, as the clear best player and offensive anchor of the 7th-rated offense in the league. Didn't miss a single game either, fwiw.
He is not invited to the All-Star game (even as a replacement for the injured Isiah Thomas), nor given All-NBA honours.

Hersey Hawkins [in the same conference]---who admittedly is better defensively, though still no All-D, fwiw----averages 22.1 ppg on +5.8% rTS, along with 3.7 apg and a 1.40 Ast:TO ratio, for the 13th-best offense [despite playing with Charles Barkley]; team no better overall either.......he IS invited to the All-Star game.

Joe Dumars [also same conference] is definitely a better defensive player [though probably overrated in this regard, imo], averaged 20.4 ppg @ +1.8% rTS, with 5.5 apg and a 2.34 Ast:TO ratio for the 12th-rated offense [and even less rebounding than Reggie]. He not only gets invited to the All-Star game, but receives All-NBA 3rd Team honours.

Bernard King [also in the same conference]----who is definitely NOT better defensively than Reggie in this year----averages 28.4 ppg @ -0.7% rTS [just want to emphasize this is more than 12% worse than Reggie] with 4.6 apg though a horrid turnover economy (4.0 topg--->double what Reggie averaged) for the offense that is tied for 23rd [of 27] in the league; a team that won just 30 games total. AND King missed 18 games besides.
He is invited to the All-Star game AND receives All-NBA 3rd Team honours [though as a forward, but still: a "wing"].

Does all of this^^^^ seem fair, justified, or correct?
I would say that quite obviously it does not.


'92
Reggie averaged 20.7 ppg @ +9.8% rTS, with 3.8 apg and a 2.00 Ast:TO ratio, as the clear best player and offensive anchor for the 6th-rated offense in the league. A somewhat better than usual 3.9 rpg this year, too, fwiw, and again not missing a single game.
He is not invited to the All-Star game, nor does he get All-NBA honours.

Michael Adams [in the same conference] averages 18.1/4.0/7.6 on -2.5% rTS (again: more than 12% worse than Reggie) for the 24th-rated offense, a team that won just 25 games. AND Adams was a clear defensive liability [Reggie was not].
Adams is invited to the All-Star game.

Reggie Lewis [same conference, same position] averages 20.8 ppg (with just 4.8 rpg and just 2.3 apg, similar overall turnover economy) @ +1.9% rTS for the 8th-rated offense.
He is invited to the All-Star game.

Joe Dumars again, too, fwiw.

Does all of this seem fair, justified, or correct?
I would again say quite obviously no (Michael Adams at the very least).


'93
Reggie averaged 21.2 ppg @ +8.1% rTS, with 3.2 apg for the 5th-rated offense [just 1.0 worse than Jordan's Bulls, and BETTER THAN the Malone/Stockton Jazz]. Again doesn't miss a single game.
He is not invited to the All-Star game, nor does he get All-NBA honours.

Drazen Petrovic [same conference] averaged 20.6 ppg @ +5.1% rTS, with 3.1 apg and a worse turnover economy for the [tied for] 18th-rated offense. No better defensively or rebounding, either.
He is invited to the All-Star game, and gets All-NBA 3rd Team.

Isiah Thomas is still putting up somewhat big(ish) numbers (17.6/8.5), though is at this point in his career really tanking in efficiency (-4.8% rTS, 13% worse than Reggie), while "anchoring" the [tied for] 18th-rated offense, a team that wins only 40 games.
He is invited to the All-Star game.

For that matter Isiah's teammate Joe Dumars is again an All-Star and All-NBA 2nd Team. So apparently the team that had one All-NBA 2nd team guard, another All-Star guard, AND an All-Defensive 1st Team forward........was incapable of even a winning record. That in and of itself is suggestive that they may have got some of these wrong. But I'll again ask: does all of ^^^this seem fair, justified, or correct?


'94
Reggie averages 19.9 ppg on a league-leading +10.8% rTS, with 3.1 apg for the 11th-rated offense (47 wins, +3.26 SRS overall).
He is not invited to the All-Star team, nor does he get All-NBA honours.

BJ Armstrong [same conference] averages 14.8 ppg @ +1.9% rTS with 3.9 apg, solid turnover economy, though an obvious defensive liability; this for part of a solid 55-win team, though only 14th-rated offense.
He makes the All-Star Team.

Kenny Anderson [same conference] averages 18.8 ppg and 9.6 apg, though on -3.7% rTS (14.5%! worse than Reggie), for the offense tied for 12th in the league (45 wins overall).
He makes the All-Star team.

John Starks [same conference] is admittedly a much better defensive guard than Reggie. otoh, he averages 19.0 ppg @ -1.2% rTS (12% worse than Reggie) and 5.9 apg for the 16th-rated offense in the league; AND misses 23 games [Reggie missed only 3].
He makes the All-Star team.

Does all of this seem fair, justified, and correct?


I'll stop there, but one is hopefully getting the picture. Reggie was arguably snubbed of at least All-Star selections in '97 and '99, as well.

Magic Is Magic, I might suggest as an experiment--->see what happens if instead of 5 All-Star appearances and 3 All-NBA 3rd Teams, input into your formula TEN All-Star appearances, 3 All-NBA 3rd Teams, and 2 All-NBA 2nd Teams......because that's more in line with what Reggie actually merited (even before getting into things like the "Reggie assist" or how he frequently elevated his play in the playoffs).
Where does your formula put him then?

[LA Bird]

Doesn't anyone else think Westbrook is about due to get some traction here?

I will be adding Westbrook to my vote in a couple of rounds. He has a good case over Payton, Isiah and Cousy as the best point guard left.

If someone votes Kawhi, without a single mention of Westbrook what's the reasoning? Is it rings? Defense? Is Kawhi that much better in his prime? I don't see it, many think they both peaked in 2017, and they were considered on the same level that year.

2017 Westbrook was actually ranked above 2017 Kawhi in the POY vote. It is only after the 2019 ring that opinions of Kawhi on this board skyrocketed because of championship bias.

[trex_8063]

Doesn't anyone else think Westbrook is about due to get some traction here?

I will be adding Westbrook to my vote in a couple of rounds. He has a good case over Payton, Isiah and Cousy as the best point guard left.

I'm higher on Payton than most, so I'm very likely holding Payton ahead of him. I might put Isiah ahead too [though very close]. Cousy [despite him being one of my historical favorites], I agree: I definitely have Westbrook ahead now.

I'd personally probably favour Westbrook slightly ahead of Kawhi, too; though I imagine both will be voted in before I get around to lending either my support.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #33:

Kawhi Leonard - 3 (Dutchball97, Joao Saraiva, Magic Is Magic)
George Gervin - 3 (DQuinn1575, Odinn21, penbeast0)
Reggie Miller - 2 (Doctor MJ, LA Bird)
Clyde Drexler - 1 (Dr Positivity)
Artis Gilmore - 1 (trex_8063)
Isiah Thomas - 1 (Hal14)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)


No new votes in hours, so gonna tally now. 12 votes requires 7 for a majority, so we'll eliminate the bottom four. That transfers two to Miller and ghosts two.....

Miller - 4
Kawhi - 3
Gervin - 3
(ghosted) - 2

Next would eliminate both Gervin and Kawhi, making Reggie a "default winner". But as per previous stipulations, we'll have to validity check default winners via Condorcet; and again: Reggie does not have to BEAT both of Kawhi and Gervin.....he simply can't lose to one of them for his default victory to be upheld.
If he DOES lose to one of them, we'll enter a runoff between Reggie and the Condorcet front-runner.

So I need to ask of all the original 12 voters listed above to please make clear their preferred hierarchy between Reggie, Kawhi, and Gervin [if it's not already clear from your votes]. Specifically, that's LA Bird, Joao Saraiva, Magic Is Magic, Hal14, Dr Positivity, and euroleague I need to hear from.
I've got a super-early shift tomorrow and need to get to bed soon, so I likely won't have this settled till tomorrow morning sometime.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[DQuinn1575]

Reggie Miller is the most overrated player I've ever seen. Top 40 discussion when he doesn't have a single all NBA 1st or 2nd team, or on the 1st or 2nd all defense. 0 top 5 MVP votes. 0 top 5 in single season total Points, Rebounds or Assists. I was shocked when his score was the lowest based out of 55 players. He isn't close to 39. Many players did way more than him.

The thing is the awards/accolades are an indirect proxy for player performance rather than a direct one (albeit direct ones might be incomplete [boxscore composites], noisy [impact] or both). If you trust those voters heavily Miller is a long way out, if you discount it based on the belief you have better tools one may conclude Reggie belongs here (or not).

Ranking thresholds will be arbitrary, using them in counting stats for single aspects of the game also doesn't mean much (Danny Fortson was an elite rebounder but not an elite player). Leaving aside that Miller has10 top 5 ts% seasons, these single factors don't mean that much. Depending on your box composite of choice, weighting of playoff performance (and means of analysis of such), your reading of the impact of his gravity etc, I can see ways of having him here.

If you are say, into Win Shares (15th all time NBA only, 18th with ABA included) weigh the playoffs highly, factor in opponents for playoff analysis, believe that the Knicks strong defense overall in that era makes them a tough defense for shooting guards to the same degree (in appraising his playoff performance) and take a bullish view on his impact you could justify a high ranking. That's not necessarily me but I wouldn't necessarily object either if applied as a consistent criteria and if I did disagree I'd want to be clear in the reasoning for the criticism (e.g. "criteria is fundamentally flawed because ...." or "I don't think you can have applied this criteria consistently, because ..."). That Miller doesn't rate here for you is fine. Belief that he absolutely shouldn't rate here justified by him not doing so by your own criteria (without exposition why that criteria is better than the flawed, alternate angles) ... is harder to get behind.

Some fine points.
Doctor MJ already replied to him on this topic in a prior thread, particularly regarding Reggie's "standing" in terms of media-awarded accolades.
The thing about these types of awards [especially pre-databall] is that if fans or media persons were looking at two players: one averages 26 ppg on league-average TS% for a slightly below average offense, while the other averages 23 ppg on +10% rTS for a top 5-7 offense (and let's say neither is exceptional [though not necessarily "equal"] at everything else).......almost all of them will favour the first player. The reason: 26 is more than 23. It's literally that simple of an equation to them.

At some point one really needs to look at what is earned/not earned, and who is snubbed.

Where Reggie is concerned, even noting a few years of interest kind of illustrates the point.....
'91
Reggie averaged 22.6 ppg on a league-leading +11.6% rTS ( ) along with 4 apg and a 2.03 Ast:TO ratio, as the clear best player and offensive anchor of the 7th-rated offense in the league. Didn't miss a single game either, fwiw.
He is not invited to the All-Star game (even as a replacement for the injured Isiah Thomas), nor given All-NBA honours.

Hersey Hawkins [in the same conference]---who admittedly is better defensively, though still no All-D, fwiw----averages 22.1 ppg on +5.8% rTS, along with 3.7 apg and a 1.40 Ast:TO ratio, for the 13th-best offense [despite playing with Charles Barkley]; team no better overall either.......he IS invited to the All-Star game.

Joe Dumars [also same conference] is definitely a better defensive player [though probably overrated in this regard, imo], averaged 20.4 ppg @ +1.8% rTS, with 5.5 apg and a 2.34 Ast:TO ratio for the 12th-rated offense [and even less rebounding than Reggie]. He not only gets invited to the All-Star game, but receives All-NBA 3rd Team honours.

Bernard King [also in the same conference]----who is definitely NOT better defensively than Reggie in this year----averages 28.4 ppg @ -0.7% rTS [just want to emphasize this is more than 12% worse than Reggie] with 4.6 apg though a horrid turnover economy (4.0 topg--->double what Reggie averaged) for the offense that is tied for 23rd [of 27] in the league; a team that won just 30 games total. AND King missed 18 games besides.
He is invited to the All-Star game AND receives All-NBA 3rd Team honours [though as a forward, but still: a "wing"].

Does all of this^^^^ seem fair, justified, or correct?
I would say that quite obviously it does not.


'92
Reggie averaged 20.7 ppg @ +9.8% rTS, with 3.8 apg and a 2.00 Ast:TO ratio, as the clear best player and offensive anchor for the 6th-rated offense in the league. A somewhat better than usual 3.9 rpg this year, too, fwiw, and again not missing a single game.
He is not invited to the All-Star game, nor does he get All-NBA honours.

Michael Adams [in the same conference] averages 18.1/4.0/7.6 on -2.5% rTS (again: more than 12% worse than Reggie) for the 24th-rated offense, a team that won just 25 games. AND Adams was a clear defensive liability [Reggie was not].
Adams is invited to the All-Star game.

Reggie Lewis [same conference, same position] averages 20.8 ppg (with just 4.8 rpg and just 2.3 apg, similar overall turnover economy) @ +1.9% rTS for the 8th-rated offense.
He is invited to the All-Star game.

Joe Dumars again, too, fwiw.

Does all of this seem fair, justified, or correct?
I would again say quite obviously no (Michael Adams at the very least).


'93
Reggie averaged 21.2 ppg @ +8.1% rTS, with 3.2 apg for the 5th-rated offense [just 1.0 worse than Jordan's Bulls, and BETTER THAN the Malone/Stockton Jazz]. Again doesn't miss a single game.
He is not invited to the All-Star game, nor does he get All-NBA honours.

Drazen Petrovic [same conference] averaged 20.6 ppg @ +5.1% rTS, with 3.1 apg and a worse turnover economy for the [tied for] 18th-rated offense. No better defensively or rebounding, either.
He is invited to the All-Star game, and gets All-NBA 3rd Team.

Isiah Thomas is still putting up somewhat big(ish) numbers (17.6/8.5), though is at this point in his career really tanking in efficiency (-4.8% rTS, 13% worse than Reggie), while "anchoring" the [tied for] 18th-rated offense, a team that wins only 40 games.
He is invited to the All-Star game.

For that matter Isiah's teammate Joe Dumars is again an All-Star and All-NBA 2nd Team. So apparently the team that had one All-NBA 2nd team guard, another All-Star guard, AND an All-Defensive 1st Team forward........was incapable of even a winning record. That in and of itself is suggestive that they may have got some of these wrong. But I'll again ask: does all of ^^^this seem fair, justified, or correct?


'94
Reggie averages 19.9 ppg on a league-leading +10.8% rTS, with 3.1 apg for the 11th-rated offense (47 wins, +3.26 SRS overall).
He is not invited to the All-Star team, nor does he get All-NBA honours.

BJ Armstrong [same conference] averages 14.8 ppg @ +1.9% rTS with 3.9 apg, solid turnover economy, though an obvious defensive liability; this for part of a solid 55-win team, though only 14th-rated offense.
He makes the All-Star Team.

Kenny Anderson [same conference] averages 18.8 ppg and 9.6 apg, though on -3.7% rTS (14.5%! worse than Reggie), for the offense tied for 12th in the league (45 wins overall).
He makes the All-Star team.

John Starks [same conference] is admittedly a much better defensive guard than Reggie. otoh, he averages 19.0 ppg @ -1.2% rTS (12% worse than Reggie) and 5.9 apg for the 16th-rated offense in the league; AND misses 23 games [Reggie missed only 3].
He makes the All-Star team.

Does all of this seem fair, justified, and correct?


I'll stop there, but one is hopefully getting the picture. Reggie was arguably snubbed of at least All-Star selections in '97 and '99, as well.

Magic Is Magic, I might suggest as an experiment--->see what happens if instead of 5 All-Star appearances and 3 All-NBA 3rd Teams, input into your formula TEN All-Star appearances, 3 All-NBA 3rd Teams, and 2 All-NBA 2nd Teams......because that's more in line with what Reggie actually merited (even before getting into things like the "Reggie assist" or how he frequently elevated his play in the playoffs).
Where does your formula put him then?

Good points, but I guess my counter is that Reggie is getting beat out by John Starks, Michael Adams, Kenny Anderson etc.
It's not like he's Hal Greer or Sam Jones finishing behind West and Oscar, or forwards in the 90s always behind Barkley and Malone. His point is that Reggie wasnt 1st or 2nd team all-nba, so not in top 10 players in league (basically), which is what he was looking at.

[DQuinn1575]

I would too but you can't call Danny Green's career, or even someone's who should be top 100 like Bobby Jones, an alpha role (except in his first year or two in Denver and there are those who will argue even that).

By C-list alpha, I thought you meant those guys who lead non-contending (no real chance to win a title) teams in scoring consistently year after year. The highest end of this for me would be Allen Iverson or Dominique Wilkins. These guys are seen as alphas, given recognition and All-star games, but are guys would not add appreciable value to a championship team (think Nate Archibald on the Celtics). If I misunderstood the reference, what was meant by it?

So Wilkins and the Hawks had 4 straight years with 50 wins plus, and top 5 or so SRS. So I'm not sure where you are drawing the line on no-chance to win a title. League had Lakers, Celtics, Pistons - put this team in a down year, and not sure. And if we do say they arent really a contender, it probably is due to fact that number 2 and 3 guys on those teams were well below what a championship teams. Give him Bosh and Wade or Grant and Pippen, Kyrie and Love in place of WIllis and Doc Rivers.

[DQuinn1575]

DeRozan? Maravich?

So as I'm saying, my statement wasn't really about "If you're DeRozan bad then I don't care about you."

That said, I literally think Danny Green has had a more worthwhile career than either DeRozan or Maravich.
Not saying Green should get Top 100 consideration though because he's nowhere close, only that if we made the project long enough, I'd vote in Green before I voted in the other two.

So Green really benefits because we probably see best case for him - maybe 4th best player on a championship team. Maravich was never in that situation, so dont really know how he would do if teamed with 3 players better than him.

And on the reverse, Maravich took a 2nd year awful expansion team to a near 500 record in 1975 - No way Danny Green takes that team anywhere near that. I don't really know how to look at seasons like that.

[penbeast0]

I would too but you can't call Danny Green's career, or even someone's who should be top 100 like Bobby Jones, an alpha role (except in his first year or two in Denver and there are those who will argue even that).

By C-list alpha, I thought you meant those guys who lead non-contending (no real chance to win a title) teams in scoring consistently year after year. The highest end of this for me would be Allen Iverson or Dominique Wilkins. These guys are seen as alphas, given recognition and All-star games, but are guys would not add appreciable value to a championship team (think Nate Archibald on the Celtics). If I misunderstood the reference, what was meant by it?

So Wilkins and the Hawks had 4 straight years with 50 wins plus, and top 5 or so SRS. So I'm not sure where you are drawing the line on no-chance to win a title. League had Lakers, Celtics, Pistons - put this team in a down year, and not sure. And if we do say they arent really a contender, it probably is due to fact that number 2 and 3 guys on those teams were well below what a championship teams. Give him Bosh and Wade or Grant and Pippen, Kyrie and Love in place of WIllis and Doc Rivers.

He played for over a decade of outstanding consistentcy but I don't remember ever thinking the Hawks were a legit contender, even with 50 wins. I do think the Nique, Mike Fratello, and the Hawks performed better than the team's talent in that stretch; they actually had better talent in the Mookie years.

DeRozan had some good teams in Toronto too. Iverson went to the finals and won an MVP. You can challenge any and all of these characterizations but I was just trying to figure out what a C list alpha player was.

[DQuinn1575]

I would too but you can't call Danny Green's career, or even someone's who should be top 100 like Bobby Jones, an alpha role (except in his first year or two in Denver and there are those who will argue even that).

By C-list alpha, I thought you meant those guys who lead non-contending (no real chance to win a title) teams in scoring consistently year after year. The highest end of this for me would be Allen Iverson or Dominique Wilkins. These guys are seen as alphas, given recognition and All-star games, but are guys would not add appreciable value to a championship team (think Nate Archibald on the Celtics). If I misunderstood the reference, what was meant by it?

So Wilkins and the Hawks had 4 straight years with 50 wins plus, and top 5 or so SRS. So I'm not sure where you are drawing the line on no-chance to win a title. League had Lakers, Celtics, Pistons - put this team in a down year, and not sure. And if we do say they arent really a contender, it probably is due to fact that number 2 and 3 guys on those teams were well below what a championship teams. Give him Bosh and Wade or Grant and Pippen, Kyrie and Love in place of WIllis and Doc Rivers.

He played for over a decade of outstanding consistentcy but I don't remember ever thinking the Hawks were a legit contender, even with 50 wins. I do think the Nique, Mike Fratello, and the Hawks performed better than the team's talent in that stretch; they actually had better talent in the Mookie years.

DeRozan had some good teams in Toronto too. Iverson went to the finals and won an MVP. You can challenge any and all of these characterizations but I was just trying to figure out what a C list alpha player was.

Far enough, I guess I might call Iverson and WIlkins B list alphas - teams could make a good playoff run, but not really win it. Probably put Gervin on that list too. I'd call the C list Maravich scoring a lot for a crummy team.

[Dr Positivity]

1. Miller 2. Kawhi 3. Gervin