RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #70 (Wes Unseld)

[Cavsfansince84]

.

Your extended listing keeps changing thread-to-thread; keeps me on my toes.
I'm not complaining, mind you; I actually dig it: it means you're fluid, considering [presumably] arguments, and constantly reconsidering your order as a result. You're not married to a pre-determined hierarchy which doesn't shift regardless of what you read, and only searching for argumentation that defends it.
I sincerely compliment you for that approach.

ty. I appeciate it. Ya, I definitely find myself going over it when I have time and trying to tweak it according to the methodology I try to use. The guys I have in my 87-100 range are really giving me trouble for a proper order. Dumars and Hagan I moved down quite a bit after going more in depth on them then added in Butler and Richmond. It pains me a lot to have Price outside of my 100 but that could change.

[HeartBreakKid]

.

Your extended listing keeps changing thread-to-thread; keeps me on my toes.
I'm not complaining, mind you; I actually dig it: it means you're fluid, considering [presumably] arguments, and constantly reconsidering your order as a result. You're not married to a pre-determined hierarchy which doesn't shift regardless of what you read, and only searching for argumentation that defends it.
I sincerely compliment you for that approach.

ty. I appeciate it. Ya, I definitely find myself going over it when I have time and trying to tweak it according to the methodology I try to use. The guys I have in my 87-100 range are really giving me trouble for a proper order. Dumars and Hagan I moved down quite a bit after going more in depth on them then added in Butler and Richmond. It pains me a lot to have Price outside of my 100 but that could change.

Why are you relatively low on Rasheed Wallace compared to some of the fellows being mentioned these days?

[Cavsfansince84]

Your extended listing keeps changing thread-to-thread; keeps me on my toes.
I'm not complaining, mind you; I actually dig it: it means you're fluid, considering [presumably] arguments, and constantly reconsidering your order as a result. You're not married to a pre-determined hierarchy which doesn't shift regardless of what you read, and only searching for argumentation that defends it.
I sincerely compliment you for that approach.

ty. I appeciate it. Ya, I definitely find myself going over it when I have time and trying to tweak it according to the methodology I try to use. The guys I have in my 87-100 range are really giving me trouble for a proper order. Dumars and Hagan I moved down quite a bit after going more in depth on them then added in Butler and Richmond. It pains me a lot to have Price outside of my 100 but that could change.

Why are you relatively low on Rasheed Wallace compared to some of the fellows being mentioned these days?

I'm not that high on his peak and overall not high on his intangibles. I know he has the narrative of how good the Pistons became in 04 after he joined but that's not enough for me to change my perspective on his whole career. At the end of the day he's a 4x all star who made no all nba teams(regular or defensive). I'm not sure how much argument there is for him over someone like Paul Silas who played on more winning teams and was better chemistry wise imo.

[HeartBreakKid]

ty. I appeciate it. Ya, I definitely find myself going over it when I have time and trying to tweak it according to the methodology I try to use. The guys I have in my 87-100 range are really giving me trouble for a proper order. Dumars and Hagan I moved down quite a bit after going more in depth on them then added in Butler and Richmond. It pains me a lot to have Price outside of my 100 but that could change.

Why are you relatively low on Rasheed Wallace compared to some of the fellows being mentioned these days?

I'm not that high on his peak and overall not high on his intangibles. I know he has the narrative of how good the Pistons became in 04 after he joined but that's not enough for me to change my perspective on his whole career. At the end of the day he's a 4x all star who made no all nba teams(regular or defensive). I'm not sure how much argument there is for him over someone like Paul Silas who played on more winning teams and was better chemistry wise imo.

It's pretty crazy he was never awarded all-defense. Looking at some past winners it seemed like he deserved a few selections.

[Cavsfansince84]

Why are you relatively low on Rasheed Wallace compared to some of the fellows being mentioned these days?

I'm not that high on his peak and overall not high on his intangibles. I know he has the narrative of how good the Pistons became in 04 after he joined but that's not enough for me to change my perspective on his whole career. At the end of the day he's a 4x all star who made no all nba teams(regular or defensive). I'm not sure how much argument there is for him over someone like Paul Silas who played on more winning teams and was better chemistry wise imo.

It's pretty crazy he was never awarded all-defense. Looking at some past winners it seemed like he deserved a few selections.

Part of it is he wasn't really liked by the media much at all so that could be a factor but Rodman was similar but was still winning things like dpoy. Sheed was known for not giving his all every night also though.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm not that high on his peak and overall not high on his intangibles. I know he has the narrative of how good the Pistons became in 04 after he joined but that's not enough for me to change my perspective on his whole career. At the end of the day he's a 4x all star who made no all nba teams(regular or defensive). I'm not sure how much argument there is for him over someone like Paul Silas who played on more winning teams and was better chemistry wise imo.

It's pretty crazy he was never awarded all-defense. Looking at some past winners it seemed like he deserved a few selections.

Part of it is he wasn't really liked by the media much at all so that could be a factor but Rodman was similar but was still winning things like dpoy. Sheed was known for not giving his all every night also though.

This is true though I'm not sure to what degree, I think even when slacking he still played defense.

But the real reason why I responded is I noticed Shaq made 2nd team in 2003. Talk about a guy known for slacking on defense.

[Clyde Frazier]

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

[HeartBreakKid]

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

Same.

[Cavsfansince84]

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

I have him at 76. He was really good for like 5-6 years no doubt. I'd be interested to hear how people rate him defensively in those years. I think he should be getting some talk now.

[Odinn21]

70. Tony Parker
His peak is underrated, also how long his peak lasted is underrated. I'd personally pick 2013 as his peak but I definitely see someone going for 2009 which was only to be disrupted by injury in 2010 in the future. In 2009, he was in the top 10% percentile in impact numbers. In 2012 and 2013 he was in the very top 1%. He usually is considered as not so great impact player but he really was at his best. His prime duration beyond peak duration was also good. He had 9 seasons of actual prime with 4 seasons worthy of peak. Even before going into extended prime which I usually refer as just prime, he was a force for a decade and a half. Yeah, his overall longevity is worse than Parish without a doubt but I think edges going in his favour for peak and prime are more than that.
Some of us in here usually look at WS or VORP but in Parker's case, sheer numbers are more telling.
He's #10* in total points and #5 in total assists in the pro playoff history. It's very likely that Durant will surpass Parker for that #10 spot in 2021 playoffs but the point stands still. Parker is the only player in top 20 to make the list yet it's obvious that his peak/prime/longevity stack more than enough at this point in the list.
(*He's #9 in the NBA playoff history. Erving's ABA career.)

71. Wes Unseld
Well, like I keep saying I'm bigger on higher scoring thus better floor raisers but I think Unseld's combination of defense, rebounding and facilitating is tad better than McGrady's insane offensive output with considering the prime durations and the times they played in.

72. Rasheed Wallace
This is where it gets psychological. I also have that feeling of having Vince Carter close to McGrady and Iverson. But when I did ordering among the players with traction, McGrady and Iverson were yet to make the list and I had Sheed over Carter. I think that was the more logical decision, so I'm going to stick with it.
I'm big on Sheed's peak and prime. Arguably, they are not as good as Carter's. Carter had a very respective 8 season of 25+ ppg prime with good impact (he was in the top 5% in 14 year RAPM from '99 to '13). Though Sheed's impact was better with the tiniest edge (only 2 player between them). But Sheed's last 3 seasons in Detroit and that 1 season in Boston feel more valuable than what Carter added to his career after 2006-07 season.

Nique > Giannis > B. Jones > Walton

[sansterre]

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

I have him on my list because he's a name that TRex threw out. But McAdoo doesn't come out looking particularly good. His PIPM and Win Shares are about average for this group, his VORP is fairly below average and his BackPicks BPM, WOWYR and Resiliency are all unusually low. I let myself make judgment calls between players who the formula spits out as close together, but of 38 players that I've got waiting, McAdoo is #38. His WOWYR is the lowest at 0.1 (TRex has fairly pointed out that WOWYR from that far back may be questionable, but it's certainly not a *good* sign to have it that low) and his Resiliency looks weak. In fairness to him, his prime was when he was super-young and on a weak team. But from '74 to '79 (ages 22 to 27):

Regular Season: 26.5% Usage, +5.4% rTS, +3.7 OBPM
Postseason: 26.0% Usage, +0.4% rTS, +2.5 OBPM

This is only a 28 game sample so it's hardly dispositive. Still. From the numbers he seems to have a pretty narrow prime and his numbers fall pretty drastically in the playoffs.

Obviously these are just numbers. They could be wrong. But since I have quite a lot of players who are showing none of these problems McAdoo probably won't be showing up for me for a while.

If I were voting for him I'd need to be focusing on some combination the following:

1) Older players;
2) Peak over CORP;
3) Awards/Hardware;
4) Volume Scoring;
5) Giving him a pass on resiliency because he was carrying some weak teams

[penbeast0]

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

I know McAdoo was a great volume scorer and has an MVP, but in terms of short primes, is he really better than Giannis or even Moncrief?

[HeartBreakKid]

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

I know McAdoo was a great volume scorer and has an MVP, but in terms of short primes, is he really better than Giannis or even Moncrief?

How long would you consider his prime?

[Dutchball97]

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

I know McAdoo was a great volume scorer and has an MVP, but in terms of short primes, is he really better than Giannis or even Moncrief?

How long would you consider his prime?

I'd say 74-78, which would be 5 years. Compared to other short primes like Giannis, Moncrief or say a Penny Hardaway the most noticeable difference is that McAdoo was pretty lackluster in the play-offs.

[penbeast0]

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

I know McAdoo was a great volume scorer and has an MVP, but in terms of short primes, is he really better than Giannis or even Moncrief?

How long would you consider his prime?

To me remembering him, it's the 3 great years in Buffalo; he still was a scorer in New York for another 3 but he had a lot of issues there and they trashed his rep when they traded him from Buffalo. A lot of drug rumors and things.

By any statistical measure, he blows Moncrief away but he was a weak defender (at center; his true position should probably have been PF) and Sid was a great one who led a small ball defensive culture in an era of big man domination.

[penbeast0]

I'd say 74-78, which would be 5 years. Compared to other short primes like Giannis, Moncrief or say a Penny Hardaway the most noticeable difference is that McAdoo was pretty lackluster in the play-offs.

I'm a major Moncrief stan, but his playoffs were inconsistent. Sometimes he was peak Kawhi Leonard, others he was just Dennis Johnson (without DJ's long prime and consistency). Giannis gets slammed for his playoffs too. Not sure about Penny, Shaq's gravity certainly made it easier for him; Shaq had arguably the strongest gravity of any player I've ever seen (didn't see young Wilt).

[Dutchball97]

I'd say 74-78, which would be 5 years. Compared to other short primes like Giannis, Moncrief or say a Penny Hardaway the most noticeable difference is that McAdoo was pretty lackluster in the play-offs.

I'm a major Moncrief stan, but his playoffs were inconsistent. Sometimes he was peak Kawhi Leonard, others he was just Dennis Johnson (without DJ's long prime and consistency). Giannis gets slammed for his playoffs too. Not sure about Penny, Shaq's gravity certainly made it easier for him; Shaq had arguably the strongest gravity of any player I've ever seen (didn't see young Wilt).

Yeah I'm not trying to paint any of those guys as play-off gods but they do all have a couple pretty good runs (at least statistically), something you can't really say about McAdoo.

Players like Lanier and T-Mac didn't have much post-season success either but they did consistently play well, I just find McAdoo a bit lacking here to consider him within my next couple of picks.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Bob McAdoo
Vote 2 - Wes Unseld
Vote 3 - Dominique Wilkins

The Rest

Bobby Jones
Parker
Giannis
Greer
Moncrief
Rasheed
Rodman
Jokic
Walton

McAdoo's MVP season in 75 was quite impressive posting 34.5 PPG, 14.1 RPG, 2.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, 2.1 BPG on 56.9% TS (+6.7 rTS). The Braves would lose in 7 games to the #1 SRS ranked Bullets that year, with a valiant effort by McAdoo: 37.4 PPG, 13.4 RPG, 1.4 APG, .9 SPG, 2.7 BPG, 52.8% TS. He was an efficiency darling in general during his prime with rTS ranging from +3 to +9. I think at this point in the project every player will have their flaws, and his defense comes off more as knocking him down a peg as opposed to a major liability.

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

I know McAdoo was a great volume scorer and has an MVP, but in terms of short primes, is he really better than Giannis or even Moncrief?

The contributions to the lakers 82 and 85 championship teams give him the edge over someone like giannis for me. In the 82 run he put up 16.7 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 1.6 APG, .7 SPG, 1.5 BPG on 58.7% TS. I just don't value short careers, even as impressive as giannis' as much. Anythony Davis got in much higher than I had him, even with the championship run for example.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #38:

Dominique Wilkins - 2 (Cavsfansince84, Hal14)
Wes Unseld - 1 (trex_8063)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 1 (Dutchball97)
Tony Parker - 1 (Odinn21)
Bobby Jones - 1 (penbeast0)
Rasheed Wallace - 1 (sansterre)
Bob McAdoo - 1 (Clyde Frazier)


9 votes spread over 8 candidates, makes Wilkins the default winner; though it needs to be validated against ALL other candidates in this circumstance....

Wilkins beats Walton 8-1 [sorry HBK] in Condorcet findings
Wilkins beats Jones 6-3
He beats Giannis 5-4
So those^ three are eliminated.

He trails Sheed and Parker 4-5 each, and trails Unseld 2-7.

So we have to enter a FOUR-way runoff between Wilkins/Sheed/Parker/Unseld.

***Looking for NEW voters from the panel to chime in on their order between these four.

Hal14, I need to know your order between those four [obviously I know you have Wilkins highest, but I don't know the order among the rest (or among ANY of the other candidates above, for that matter)].

In the event runoff criteria are not satisfied, all-around Condorcet leader will take the spot.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Hal14]

Still have to put in my vote, but surprised mcadoo hasn’t really gotten mention yet even on the extended getting traction list.

Same.

He'll be on my ballot soon. For centers I have Bellamy/Unseld/Walton/Mcadoo all on the same tier, all to be voted on soon..