RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #61 (Nate Thurmond)

[trelos6]

Vote: Dikembe Mutombo

I have Dikembe as the 7th best defender of all time, and 5th amongst centers. His defensive value was phenomenal, and that puts him above the other centers on the board. Also had a few seasons where he was a good rim finisher.

Alt: Robert Parish

All hail the chief.

Nomination: Ben Wallace

Ben is my 4th best defensive center of all time, and 6th best defensive player overall. He is negative on offense, so it's a testament to his fantastic defense that he should be rated in the 60's. He has the 2nd best single season defensive peak, IMO.

Alt. Nom: Rasheed Wallace

Ball don’t lie.

[Owly]

I find myself a Hayes skeptic.

Me too in general.

The positives are despite a negative intangible rep he seemed to be regarded as a hard worker. And iirc (from an older project, perhaps) the teams he was on from arrival through his prime are consistently pretty good.

True. I'll say though the only reason we're really talking about either Hayes or Unseld is that the Bullets were good for an extended run, with 10 winning seasons in 13 years. Hayes was there for 7 of those winning seasons, and had 1 more winning season in Houston (joining the team after their finals trip) for a total of 8 winning seasons in 16 years.

As before not necessarily advocating for him here and being somewhat inclined toward a negative overall perspective ...
that said ...

I think "the only reason we're really talking about either Hayes or Unseld is that the Bullets were good for an extended run" is an oversimplification (at best). People will think of them, if they are so doing, because they think they were good and the Bullets performance might inform that in particular ways.

8 of 16 (expressing as a fraction) makes sense against a longevity argument. Would hope a pro-Hayes case isn't being done on raw numbers, the value of his late Houston career. Regardless this is a very blunt instrument (consistently good defenses is pretty blunt, though iirc - with some context stuff and looking at the degree of it - it moved me on him) Some relevant context regarding SD as an expansion franchise and the jump they made on Hayes' arrival (though they couldn't hold at circa neutral, zig-zagging somewhat) is missing.

"and had 1 more winning season in Houston (joining the team after their finals trip)" is a slightly cheeky framing given that by the criteria you were using '81's 40-42 is ... not a winning season.

There might be mileage in looking closer at the offensive game and the cost of that. Perhaps looking closer one would find the defensive team stuff was him being a beneficiary of circumstance. But I think 8/16 isn't, for me, terribly persuasive.

[Owly]

Also worth noting that Parish wasn't a #2 scorer in the playoffs in any championship year.

In '81 he dropped from #2 to #4 in the playoffs - Maxwell & Tiny passed him up.
In '84 he dropped from #2 to #3 in the playoffs - DJ passed him up.
In '86 he dropped from #3 to #5 in the playoffs - DJ & Ainge passed him up.

I do always feel a bit weird championing McHale over Parish given the brevity of McHale's prime, but the reality is that when the Celtics were beating all comers in the playoffs, Parish was never acting as a #2.

If we're doing it on contribution to in playoffs to title-winning teams though ... as I argued against McHale this time around earlier (and noting it's not really my bag) ...

'81
McHale is pretty good but very much a reserve (6th in minutes, closer to 9th than 5th, less than 40% of Bird's minutes.

'84
31.4mpg (5th in minutes, part of a clear 6 man core), rate box-aggregates ... okay, pedestrian for a top 100 guy [or top 50], a little better than Parish's.

It's only the one run '86 where he looks good as a proper regular. Doing things that way [contribution on teams that happened to win a title] might not hurt McHale ... as much (as Parish). It's not really a prism through which he looks good though.


As far as DJ passing Parish in points, DJ's trend (at least career-wise, not closely looked year to year) is upping his usage in the playoffs. Looking at his percentages and without the full context of how the shots are generated (the route taken and alternatives they might have created or might in future open up are important) I'm not sure that this usage increase was a good thing for Boston.

[Samurai]

Vote for #61: Willis Reed. MVP, two-time Finals MVP, and five-time All NBA team member (one first team, four second teams). While not a shot blocker, he was still and otherwise excellent defender (All NBA Defensive First Team in 1970). Finished in the top 20 in points/game six times and in rebounds/game seven times. His primary drawback is a lack of longevity and in that regards, I think he may be a victim of his era; with better training and medical/surgical knowledge, he could have had better longevity.

Alternate vote: Nate Thurmond. Best big man defender in the low post that I've seen. Five time member of the All Defensive Team (two firsts, three second team selections). Finished in the top ten in rebounds/game 7 times. His offensive game was marred by inefficient shooting; fell in love with the outside shot which hurt his shooting percentage and didn't have the moves or touch to be a strong low post shooter. As a Bay Area resident I was able to see a lot of his games during his Warrior days and appreciated what he did on defense and on the glass but his insistence on taking those 20+ foot shots made him very frustrating for a fan.

Nomination: Bobby Jones. Yes I have reservations about his lack of longevity and durability. But I'm pretty sure that I would take Jones and his reduced minutes over Draymond if I were drafting a team, so seeing Green get selected convinced me to consider him. Gotta admit that there is bias here since Jones is one of my favorite players of all time. Despite averaging less than 30 minutes/game during his NBA career, he still has ten All Defensive First Team awards and one Second Team selection (in his second to last season averaging only 20 minutes/game). He was nicknamed The Secretary of Defense for good reason. He didn't shoot much but he was highly efficient, leading the league in FG% three times and finishing in the top 20 in TS% nine times. But as good as he was at playing basketball, how he conducted himself may have been even more admirable. He was always a gentleman with honor; he didn't drink, smoke or use profanity, always raised his hand when called for a foul - even telling a ref who mistakenly called a foul on a teammate that he was the one who actually committed the foul, even though that was his fifth foul! When teammates tried to show him ways to "cheat" by grabbing an opponent's jersey or committing a foul when the ref wasn't looking, he adamantly refused to do so. He would reply "if I have to play defense by holding on, that's when I quit." Teammate Dr J described Jones as "a player who's totally selfless, who runs like a deer, jumps like a gazelle, plays with his head and heart each night, and then walks away from the court as if nothing happened." And former teammate Charles Barkley said "if everyone in the world was like Bobby Jones, the world wouldn't have any problems."

Alternate nomination: Sam Jones. Not at all sure on this one. Ten rings but some will take that with a grain of salt for being Russell's teammate. Three-time All NBA Second Team (cursed by playing guard at the same time that Oscar and West were in their primes) and had three top ten finishes in MVP voting. Seven top twenty finishes in both points/game and TS% indicates that he was not only a scoring threat but an efficient shooter as well. I don't have a good feel on how good he was on defense; he had 9 top twenty finishes in DWS but Russell was obviously the primary driver of the team's excellent defense and KC Jones typically drew the assignment of defending the opposing team's primary backcourt scorer. One of the greatest bank shot artists of all-time; he was banking in shots before Tim Duncan was even born.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote Pau Gasol

Great skillset, proven as a #1 option when he was with the Grizzlies - they didn't make it far in the playoffs but the team made huge progress in their play and making the playoffs. Proven as a #2 option and did prove a lot in the 10 finals and international play - it doesn't count but I can't separate it completely on my mind.

Alternate Robert Parish

Nomination Chauncey Billups

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Nate Thurmond
Alternate: Dikembe Mutombo
NOMINATE: Elvin Hayes
AltNom: Chauncey Billups

Conflicted feelings here.

- Thurmond’s missed postseasons cap his career value enough that I think it is absolutely plausible, and perhaps even likely, that extended stretches of all-star to sub-all-star play from Pau and Parish could provide more to title contention, and I feel more comfortable with that because of my assessment of Thurmond as only being an MVP-calibre force in his specific era.

- On the other hand, in his era I think Thurmond could have been the foundation of a title team in a way Pau and Parish never could have been in their eras, and neither Pau or Parish can lay claim to a Stockton-esque impact profile alongside their longevity.

- I value Dikembe’s peak and prime higher than Pau’s and Parish’s, but not much higher, and he had a steep prime drop-off in a way those two did not.

- I am trying to stay cognisant of era distribution here, and I think we have been and will continue to be skewed 1990s and onward. There is an extent to which that is expected — as the league grows, so should the number of “noteworthy” players — but when we have generally been (in my opinion) slow to admit older superstars, that sways me toward trying to give the older stars some recognition. Maybe if you all had been a bit quicker with Cowens and Hayes, then I would have felt differently.

For nominations, commentary on how Billups likely had a playoff advantage over Rasheed (and a “replaceability” advantage over Ben) sufficiently justifies that choice for me.

[Doctor MJ]

Me too in general.

The positives are despite a negative intangible rep he seemed to be regarded as a hard worker. And iirc (from an older project, perhaps) the teams he was on from arrival through his prime are consistently pretty good.

True. I'll say though the only reason we're really talking about either Hayes or Unseld is that the Bullets were good for an extended run, with 10 winning seasons in 13 years. Hayes was there for 7 of those winning seasons, and had 1 more winning season in Houston (joining the team after their finals trip) for a total of 8 winning seasons in 16 years.

As before not necessarily advocating for him here and being somewhat inclined toward a negative overall perspective ...
that said ...

I think "the only reason we're really talking about either Hayes or Unseld is that the Bullets were good for an extended run" is an oversimplification (at best). People will think of them, if they are so doing, because they think they were good and the Bullets performance might inform that in particular ways.

8 of 16 (expressing as a fraction) makes sense against a longevity argument. Would hope a pro-Hayes case isn't being done on raw numbers, the value of his late Houston career. Regardless this is a very blunt instrument (consistently good defenses is pretty blunt, though iirc - with some context stuff and looking at the degree of it - it moved me on him) Some relevant context regarding SD as an expansion franchise and the jump they made on Hayes' arrival (though they couldn't hold at circa neutral, zig-zagging somewhat) is missing.

"and had 1 more winning season in Houston (joining the team after their finals trip)" is a slightly cheeky framing given that by the criteria you were using '81's 40-42 is ... not a winning season.

There might be mileage in looking closer at the offensive game and the cost of that. Perhaps looking closer one would find the defensive team stuff was him being a beneficiary of circumstance. But I think 8/16 isn't, for me, terribly persuasive.

Well so let me just focus on Unseld here:

Do you think anyone would see Unseld as a legend if he had the same statistical profile but only played for bad teams? I think the answer is a clear No.

Hayes historically is different because of his shooting volume, but in an age where we're so aware of the cost of shooting inefficiency, it's hard to imagine that we'd still be focused on him in this project if the teams weren't good.

Re: blunt instrument. Absolutely, but so was what I was responding to. That post was saying that Hayes' teams were good, so I pointed out that over the course of his career Hayes really didn't have a big track record for being on successful teams. He mostly lost for the Rockets and won for the Bullets...but the Bullets mostly won with or without him.

Re: cheeky framing. Perhaps, but let's note that the SRS got slightly worse with Hayes arrival too. If the hope was that Hayes return to the Rockets would help them take a leap forward, it was a false hope.

Re: closer look at offense and defense. Wise to do. I think we see consistent signs that he was good on defense.

Offensively I think what we can say is that if you were trying to build a really good offense, you probably needed to ditch Hayes not simply because he wasn't very good at volume shooting, but because based on his first run on the Rockets, it seems clear that he wouldn't buy in to another role in another system. And with that attitude I'd say he simply doesn't get to the NBA in a more mature era.

[Owly]

True. I'll say though the only reason we're really talking about either Hayes or Unseld is that the Bullets were good for an extended run, with 10 winning seasons in 13 years. Hayes was there for 7 of those winning seasons, and had 1 more winning season in Houston (joining the team after their finals trip) for a total of 8 winning seasons in 16 years.

As before not necessarily advocating for him here and being somewhat inclined toward a negative overall perspective ...
that said ...

I think "the only reason we're really talking about either Hayes or Unseld is that the Bullets were good for an extended run" is an oversimplification (at best). People will think of them, if they are so doing, because they think they were good and the Bullets performance might inform that in particular ways.

8 of 16 (expressing as a fraction) makes sense against a longevity argument. Would hope a pro-Hayes case isn't being done on raw numbers, the value of his late Houston career. Regardless this is a very blunt instrument (consistently good defenses is pretty blunt, though iirc - with some context stuff and looking at the degree of it - it moved me on him) Some relevant context regarding SD as an expansion franchise and the jump they made on Hayes' arrival (though they couldn't hold at circa neutral, zig-zagging somewhat) is missing.

"and had 1 more winning season in Houston (joining the team after their finals trip)" is a slightly cheeky framing given that by the criteria you were using '81's 40-42 is ... not a winning season.

There might be mileage in looking closer at the offensive game and the cost of that. Perhaps looking closer one would find the defensive team stuff was him being a beneficiary of circumstance. But I think 8/16 isn't, for me, terribly persuasive.

Well so let me just focus on Unseld here:

Do you think anyone would see Unseld as a legend if he had the same statistical profile but only played for bad teams? I think the answer is a clear No.

Hayes historically is different because of his shooting volume, but in an age where we're so aware of the cost of shooting inefficiency, it's hard to imagine that we'd still be focused on him in this project if the teams weren't good.

Re: blunt instrument. Absolutely, but so was what I was responding to. That post was saying that Hayes' teams were good, so I pointed out that over the course of his career Hayes really didn't have a big track record for being on successful teams. He mostly lost for the Rockets and won for the Bullets...but the Bullets mostly won with or without him.

Re: cheeky framing. Perhaps, but let's note that the SRS got slightly worse with Hayes arrival too. If the hope was that Hayes return to the Rockets would help them take a leap forward, it was a false hope.

Re: closer look at offense and defense. Wise to do. I think we see consistent signs that he was good on defense.

Offensively I think what we can say is that if you were trying to build a really good offense, you probably needed to ditch Hayes not simply because he wasn't very good at volume shooting, but because based on his first run on the Rockets, it seems clear that he wouldn't buy in to another role in another system. And with that attitude I'd say he simply doesn't get to the NBA in a more mature era.

So I would say

I haven't seen a push for Unseld (as I say I'm not really pushing for Hayes), I'm not following super closely. Yeah Unseld's ranking high in general historical sense is predicated on that arrival impact signal and the MVP attached to it. IIrc the SRS change and Pythag wins change are a quite a bit less impressive than the raw wins change too (underachieved their dif in terms of wins the year before, overachieved on his arrival).

I granted that my defensive goodness case was crude (don't know if you're talking to that or someone earlier). My impression from recollection of a prior project posting (maybe Trex?) was that they're consistently very good and there's stuff like arrival impact, the consistency of the defensive signal in addition his defensive boxscore and his body that make Hayes as a really good defender really plausible to me and move him off the players I was highly cynical about. SD in year 2 (his first year) go to the 3rd best D (of 14). SRS from circa 8 to circa 0 (as before they don't hold there). He goes and the D drops off quite a bit. Offense gets quite a bit better too sooo ... yeah. But on the Washington side they clearly improve, they get good on D and stay there for 4 years. It is clunky and noisy but less so than the .500 threshold. There's something of a signal for a really good defender there. And one able to play big minutes/ How much the offense takes away or is limiting ... and the cost of that ... could hurt him.

Bullets won with or without him ...
Bullets jumped up to 4.05 SRS with Unseld's arrival with Loughery, Monroe, Marin and a bit of Gus Johnson.

Then it's
1.94
0.94
-1.26

One could index in on the finals run and whilst it's nice that they got past a solid New York team, they got trounced by a much better team once they met one of the Western giants.

Now the Hayes era team aren't exactly giants so I'm not saying these Bullets "need representation" anyhow. But there's evidence of him driving some improvement in Baltimore. So I'm not sure they would have won so much without him in Washington. As before San Diego were an expansion team (and improved a lot on his arrival) so to say he's a "loser" off that would seem unfair. Latter Houston Hayes ... is probably not the reason for any support he does get (which covers your next point also).

In a world where Bagley and Wiseman are high end picks I think the NBA that Hayes doesn't make because the the offense is lacking polish, despite some volume scoring ... I think that mature era is a while away (mind you I don't care about time-travel stuff so I'm not invested in this). One could hypothesize he takes advantage of better gym and health stuff plays even more monstrous minutes (or with greater intensity for the same minutes) or someone gets him to buy all in primarily into defense and analytics and people don't think you're good when you want shots and aren't creating for others but if you save that motor for D, be a play finisher, go to the offensive glass more, polish up a more straight up J for occasionally keeping defenders honest ... I won't pretend to know what he might be.

I'm not that up for him as I've repeated, I do thing some of the framings have been a bit harsh or inconsistent, but we're in agreement that low percentage, low assist offense isn't some great boon, and the traditional reason to rate him highly (counting stats, especially points) was misplaced.

[Cavsfansince84]

I've noticed that quite a few players who were top 50 in the last list have slipped through on this rendition and the only question I have is are these players just being dismissed out of hand this time around or are voters actually looking over why they were top 50 last time to get an idea of the reasoning that went on behind it? Not that I'm here to point fingers or anything like that really. I just hope people can realize that there were well thought out reasonings for why people voted for them that high last time around that might be worth looking into.

[AEnigma]

I've noticed that quite a few players who were top 50 in the last list have slipped through on this rendition and the only question I have is are these players just being dismissed out of hand this time around or are voters actually looking over why they were top 50 last time to get an idea of the reasoning that went on behind it? Not that I'm here to point fingers or anything like that really. I just hope people can realize that were well thought out reasonings for people voting for them that high last time around that might be worth looking into.

Can you specify which names you mean.

[Cavsfansince84]

I've noticed that quite a few players who were top 50 in the last list have slipped through on this rendition and the only question I have is are these players just being dismissed out of hand this time around or are voters actually looking over why they were top 50 last time to get an idea of the reasoning that went on behind it? Not that I'm here to point fingers or anything like that really. I just hope people can realize that were well thought out reasonings for people voting for them that high last time around that might be worth looking into.

Can you specify which names you mean.

Some who aren't yet in(Billups, Gasol, Sam Jones and prob a couple others) and some who are but dropped quite a bit(Gervin, forget who else off the top of my head).

[AEnigma]

I've noticed that quite a few players who were top 50 in the last list have slipped through on this rendition and the only question I have is are these players just being dismissed out of hand this time around or are voters actually looking over why they were top 50 last time to get an idea of the reasoning that went on behind it? Not that I'm here to point fingers or anything like that really. I just hope people can realize that were well thought out reasonings for people voting for them that high last time around that might be worth looking into.

Can you specify which names you mean.

Some who aren't yet in(Billups, Gasol, Sam Jones and prob a couple others) and some who are but dropped quite a bit(Gervin, forget who else off the top of my head).

Will focus on Billups with this one as he has now fallen at least ten spots from last time when factoring active player gains.

Penbeast voted for him and this time around has made more of a point of advancing Bobby Jones.

You voted for him.

Dutchball voted for him:

It's a bit strange as I didn't expect to vote Billups anywhere close to top 50 before the start of the project but I've been convinced. He has 5 straight years of elite post-season runs, something which even some of the top guys can't replicate. Longevity for me isn't necessarily about how many total points are scored or how many total minutes/games are played but more about the ability to play at a high level consistently. Billups played a huge role for one of the biggest underdog title teams ever. With the majority of the remaining candidates having like 1-2 really good post-seasons, it's refreshing to see a candidate who delivered year after year.
…
Billups was traded to the Nuggets at the start of the 08/09 season. The year before they got swept in the first round but Billups immediately became their best player (yes, better than Melo) and they took the Lakers to 6 games in the WCF.

Joao voted for him:

Billups is for me the prototype of what a great PG is. Superb tempo control, can shoot and delivers big plays, involves his teammates, defends well enough so he isn't a mismatch on defense and he can exploit on offense: posting up smaller guards, pulling back to shoot or driving against bigger guys. He has a complete arsenal, and that's what made him such a great post season player.

He has only one championship and FMVP, but he has several long playoff runs that I consider successfull ones.
2005 is an obvious one, where 1 shot only is the difference in a 7 game series. He also was the best player on the court in the 05 finals.

I beleive the Pistons had success from 03 to 08 with 6 ECF consecutive appearences, and then in 09 he was also in the WCF with the Nuggets, putting up a great fight against the Lakers. This type of longevity and consistency is something I value a lot about Billups.

Like someone pointed out earlier Billups didn't exactly succeed out of the gates, but being successfull later didn't hurt guys like Nash or Dirk, so why should it hurt Billups?

Sansterre voted for him:

Kind of like Pierce, except that he got to play on good teams. He was never great at anything, yet his strong teams seemed surprisingly dependent on his efficient offense. Very few weaknesses as a player.

And DQuinn voted for him basically because “playoffs”.

So again I come back to the question, what there is being overlooked by the current voting bloc, and what there enshrines a player as fringe top 50 rather than ~65?

[Cavsfansince84]

Will focus on Billups with this one as he has now fallen at least ten spots from last time when factoring active player gains.

Penbeast voted for him and this time around has made more of a point of advancing Bobby Jones.

You voted for him.

Dutchball voted for him:

It's a bit strange as I didn't expect to vote Billups anywhere close to top 50 before the start of the project but I've been convinced. He has 5 straight years of elite post-season runs, something which even some of the top guys can't replicate. Longevity for me isn't necessarily about how many total points are scored or how many total minutes/games are played but more about the ability to play at a high level consistently. Billups played a huge role for one of the biggest underdog title teams ever. With the majority of the remaining candidates having like 1-2 really good post-seasons, it's refreshing to see a candidate who delivered year after year.
…
Billups was traded to the Nuggets at the start of the 08/09 season. The year before they got swept in the first round but Billups immediately became their best player (yes, better than Melo) and they took the Lakers to 6 games in the WCF.

Joao voted for him:

Billups is for me the prototype of what a great PG is. Superb tempo control, can shoot and delivers big plays, involves his teammates, defends well enough so he isn't a mismatch on defense and he can exploit on offense: posting up smaller guards, pulling back to shoot or driving against bigger guys. He has a complete arsenal, and that's what made him such a great post season player.

He has only one championship and FMVP, but he has several long playoff runs that I consider successfull ones.
2005 is an obvious one, where 1 shot only is the difference in a 7 game series. He also was the best player on the court in the 05 finals.

I beleive the Pistons had success from 03 to 08 with 6 ECF consecutive appearences, and then in 09 he was also in the WCF with the Nuggets, putting up a great fight against the Lakers. This type of longevity and consistency is something I value a lot about Billups.

Like someone pointed out earlier Billups didn't exactly succeed out of the gates, but being successfull later didn't hurt guys like Nash or Dirk, so why should it hurt Billups?

Sansterre voted for him:

Kind of like Pierce, except that he got to play on good teams. He was never great at anything, yet his strong teams seemed surprisingly dependent on his efficient offense. Very few weaknesses as a player.

And DQuinn voted for him basically because “playoffs”.

So again I come back to the question, what there is being overlooked by the current voting bloc, and what there enshrines a player as fringe top 50 rather than ~65?

Honestly I'm not involved enough to answer your question to know to what degree a case has been made for Billups but given that he isn't even nominated yet I wouldn't think too much of one has been made yet. I'm not arguing against anything per se here. Just asking whether its crossed anyone's mind to look at why they were voted in much earlier than this time around. There's obviously no obligation to do so but sometimes things are missed due to voter turnover and whatnot.

[AEnigma]

Okay, then I would say I do not think people just forgot about Billups, no.

[penbeast0]

...So again I come back to the question, what there is being overlooked by the current voting bloc, and what there enshrines a player as fringe top 50 rather than ~65?

Chauncey is definitely upcoming for me. You are making your question cut off at a ranking differential of 10. There are roughly 12 active players we have voted in so far; 6 of whom were voted top 50 last time. Not sure if that pulls the differential into a reasonable margin of error for you.

[trelos6]

I've noticed that quite a few players who were top 50 in the last list have slipped through on this rendition and the only question I have is are these players just being dismissed out of hand this time around or are voters actually looking over why they were top 50 last time to get an idea of the reasoning that went on behind it? Not that I'm here to point fingers or anything like that really. I just hope people can realize that there were well thought out reasonings for why people voted for them that high last time around that might be worth looking into.

It’s Pau, Reed and Billups. 2 of which are nominated.

I personally have Reed at 64, Pau at 70 and Billups at 62.

While I’m here, I have Hayes at 88 and Unseld at 98.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Just going to play devil's advocate with Mutombo - whom I've always thought highly of - for a minute here, as there's some data points I've come across while deciding who to vote for that are giving me pause.

First, let's look at the 1996-97 Hawks. They were, in terms of both W/L record and SRS, the best team he ever played on. His box numbers look solid in the RS and great in the playoffs.

13.3ppg/11.6rpg/3.3bpg, .134 WS/48, 2.1BPM, 58.4% TS(+4.8 rts) over 80 games
15.4ppg/12.3rpg/2.6bpg, .204 WS/48, 6.3BPM, 67.4% TS over 10 games

But he comes in third in RS on/off, at +6.2, behind Christian Laettner(+20.2) and Mookie Blaylock(+16.5), and he comes in fourth in PO on/off, at +4.9, behind Mookie Blaylock(+56.0), Christian Laettner(+24.7), and Steve Smith(+6.1). Further, his RAPM that year, from JE's RS+PO set, was 1.96, well below Laettner(6.09) and Blaylock(5.29), and his fourth lowest from 96-97 to 08-09(the two lower ones coming in 02-03, 07-08, and 03-04). It just struck me that his impact metrics weren't more dominant within the team that year.

Second, and sort of piggybacking off the first point, in the lockout-shortened 1999 season, the Hawks went 31-19(.620 winning percentage) and had a 2.82 SRS. That summer, Blaylock and Smith were traded away(Laettner was already gone). In 1999-00 - with Mutombo playing all 82 games - the Hawks went 28-54(.341 winning percentage) and had a -5.41 SRS. Ok, so that's not really fair because the Hawks had blown it up by that point and were a bad team, and Mutombo posted a +13.1 on/off and a 6.69 RAPM(the highest of his career). But it does speak again to the notion that he may not have been as important to the 97 Hawks as one might think.

Third, he is given a lot of credit around here for the Sixers' 2001 Finals run, and rightly so. But Theo Ratliff was having similar defensive impact before he got hurt, and it remains a question if the Sixers could've gotten to the Finals with him too

This all makes it seem like I'm down on Deke when I'm absolutely not. I've always held him in high esteem. But these are just some things I thought about tonight. But I'll end the post on a more positive note for Deke by responding to something AEnigma said:

- I value Dikembe’s peak and prime higher than Pau’s and Parish’s, but not much higher, and he had a steep prime drop-off in a way those two did not.

He did have a dropoff, but I wouldn't completely write off those Houston years. He was backing up Yao and playing fewer minutes, so all his counting stats took a hit(though in Per 100 terms, only his scoring - his rebounds and blocks per 100 kept pace with where he'd always been). His first four years in Houston, these are his WS/48:

.186
.156
.192
.178

These are his RS+PO RAPMs for his five seasons in Houston:

2.63
2.24
3.71
1.07
2.30

He had a strong on/off for three of the four playoff runs(though he had negative on/off in all but one regular season in Houston):

+19.8 (2005, 7 games)
-5.2 (2007, 7 games)
+10.9 (2008, 6 games)
+32.2 (2009, 2 games)

I make a special note of the 2008 playoffs, where Yao was out and 41, almost 42 year old Mutombo was starting in his place. His raw counting numbers were small, but he posted .190 WS/48, 4.5 BPM, and +10.9 on/off in 20.5mpg over 6 games.

Yes, he fell off, but he was still providing positive production in Houston and he was pretty old then(he was 38 when he got there).

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Willis Reed

Induction Vote #2: Dikembe Mutombo

LA Bird's post about Reed's lack of longevity gave me pause but, in the end, I'm still going with Reed because I can't shake the notion that he had the highest peak of these five, particularly if you care about two-way peak. And that 1970 title run carries some weight. He was going up against Unseld, Kareem, and Wilt, and in 16 games(I'm not counting the last two games of the Finals where he was hurt), he averaged 25.9ppg and 15.3rpg on 50.8% TS(which, while certainly lower than his RS 55.2%, is still just .3 below league average). Also, in 1969, even though the Knicks lost the series, he put up 24/13.5 on 56.4% TS against Russell. And he was playing at that level for four years.

I'm not super confident on this, but that's where my gut is.

Nomination Vote #1: Cliff Hagan

Hagan looks like the highest peak of the players currently up for nomination, and he had a hell of a playoff run when the Hawks won the 58 title.

[HeartBreakKid]

Will focus on Billups with this one as he has now fallen at least ten spots from last time when factoring active player gains.

Penbeast voted for him and this time around has made more of a point of advancing Bobby Jones.

You voted for him.

Dutchball voted for him:

It's a bit strange as I didn't expect to vote Billups anywhere close to top 50 before the start of the project but I've been convinced. He has 5 straight years of elite post-season runs, something which even some of the top guys can't replicate. Longevity for me isn't necessarily about how many total points are scored or how many total minutes/games are played but more about the ability to play at a high level consistently. Billups played a huge role for one of the biggest underdog title teams ever. With the majority of the remaining candidates having like 1-2 really good post-seasons, it's refreshing to see a candidate who delivered year after year.
…
Billups was traded to the Nuggets at the start of the 08/09 season. The year before they got swept in the first round but Billups immediately became their best player (yes, better than Melo) and they took the Lakers to 6 games in the WCF.

Joao voted for him:

Billups is for me the prototype of what a great PG is. Superb tempo control, can shoot and delivers big plays, involves his teammates, defends well enough so he isn't a mismatch on defense and he can exploit on offense: posting up smaller guards, pulling back to shoot or driving against bigger guys. He has a complete arsenal, and that's what made him such a great post season player.

He has only one championship and FMVP, but he has several long playoff runs that I consider successfull ones.
2005 is an obvious one, where 1 shot only is the difference in a 7 game series. He also was the best player on the court in the 05 finals.

I beleive the Pistons had success from 03 to 08 with 6 ECF consecutive appearences, and then in 09 he was also in the WCF with the Nuggets, putting up a great fight against the Lakers. This type of longevity and consistency is something I value a lot about Billups.

Like someone pointed out earlier Billups didn't exactly succeed out of the gates, but being successfull later didn't hurt guys like Nash or Dirk, so why should it hurt Billups?

Sansterre voted for him:

Kind of like Pierce, except that he got to play on good teams. He was never great at anything, yet his strong teams seemed surprisingly dependent on his efficient offense. Very few weaknesses as a player.

And DQuinn voted for him basically because “playoffs”.

So again I come back to the question, what there is being overlooked by the current voting bloc, and what there enshrines a player as fringe top 50 rather than ~65?

Honestly I'm not involved enough to answer your question to know to what degree a case has been made for Billups but given that he isn't even nominated yet I wouldn't think too much of one has been made yet. I'm not arguing against anything per se here. Just asking whether its crossed anyone's mind to look at why they were voted in much earlier than this time around. There's obviously no obligation to do so but sometimes things are missed due to voter turnover and whatnot.

Only one player can be nominated/voted in at at time. If people can think of one player better than him then he won't be voted in. It's as simple as that.

[Cavsfansince84]

Only one player can be nominated/voted in at at time. If people can think of one player better than him then he won't be voted in. It's as simple as that.

I know how the nominating/voting system works in this year's iteration.