RealGM #38

[penbeast0]

Snake my son, come over to the D-side . . . feel the power of the Squid

[ElGee]

Snake my son, come over to the D-side . . . feel the power of the Squid

Marques Johnson Over Sidney Moncrief

I wonder if you're partial to Moncrief over Marques because when they played side-by-side, Squid was better. In reality though, Marques' best years were before Sidney's. And I think Johnson's 1979 campaign was better than any year Moncrief had in his (also) short peak. What I have yet to see you mention is that Moncrief was injured in the 1986 playoffs which gives him 82-85 as good years. (86 is good too, but more like 1982 good, not the 83-85 peak).

During the RPOY, TrueLA referred to Marques as “the forgotten star” and I don't think anything could be more accurate. From 1978-1981, Johnson was a stud. Then an injured 1982 campaign (still worth of All-Star level play) and a solid 1983 before fading away.

In his rookie year, particularly by the end of the season, Marques was already a top-12 player in the league. He joined a Bucks team that was -3.0 SRS the year before that lost Bobby Dandridge, came in and played both forward spots and averaged 19.5 ppg and 10.6 rpg as a rookie. He was a stellar, versatile defender as well. We don't have splits then, but we do know that he led the team in the postseason with 24 ppg and 12.4 rpg (!) on 60% TS (.280 WS/48). Up from 56% in the RS...and as a ridiculously low TOV player, that produced a 124 Ortg, if that's your thing.

In the playoffs against Phoenix, Johnson scored 15 consecutive 3rd Q points en route to a career-high 33 to close out Phoenix in the mini series.

Then against Denver, down 2-0 after being overwhelmed in Colorado, Johnson exploded for 35, including 10 in a 40-point 3rd quarter for Milwaukee to answer back. This, by the way, being guarded by the venerable Bobby Jones. After a big David Thompson performance (34 points) in G4, the Bucks faced elimination in Denver in G5 and Marques fueled a 4th-quarter rally to stay alive, scoring 34 points 17 rebounds on 13-22 FG to overcome a 10-point deficit in the final period. Johnson grabbed 17 boards in G6 again.

(In G7, Thompson scored 37 and helped open a 57-44 lead Milwaukee never overcame. Marques had 22.)

In 1979, the Bucks improved even more to +2.1 SRS, but failed to make the PS. Marques led the team in scoring (25.6 pg), shooting (55% FG, 59% TS) and rebounding again (7.6 rpg). Again, a 117 Ortg and .211 WS/48 for those interested...the Bucks jumped from 12th in oRtg in 77 to 8th to 6th in 79. They still lacked substance in the middle (although I supposed Kent Benson helped) and were outrebounded by 139, almost the exact same deficit they saw in 78.

In 1980, two key members arrived: rookie Moncrief and aging Bob Lanier. Marques led the team in rebounding again, but this time Milwaukee almost broke even on the glass. Johnson, by this point, was also considered arguably the best all-around player in the game, providing excellent defense and nearly 4 apg.

With the additions of Lanier and Squid, the Bucks jumped to the 8th-best defensive team in the league and posted a +3.7 SRS. They lost game 1 to defend champ Seattle when Dennis Johnson hit a 26-footer with 1 second left. Marques only had 17 and 15 (7-17) in the first two games, respectively, a split in 2 OT battles. Then 16 and 10 (7-16, 2-4) in G3 as Mil won.

In G4, Johnson popped off for 32-7-4 (13-22, 5-7). For some perspective on normal rookie contributions, Moncrief had 6 points in the game in 21 minutes. The Seattle guards were merely too strong – combining for 27-41 shooting.

In the pivotal G5, Marques had 16-8-3 (6-16, 4-6) but the Bucks lost Dave Meyers (knee) and Junior Bridgeman (back). Harvey Catchings was already out with bone spurs, which left 8 Mil players in uniform.

In G6, shorthanded, Johnson had 22-6-3 (7-16, 8-8) to lead Milwaukee, who lost 86-85. G7 Johnson led Mil again with 22-5-5 (9-25, 4-5) but no one could stop Gus Williams and his 33 points (13-20 shooting).

In 1981, with a mature Moncrief, Mil posted a 7.1 SRS. Marques finished 6th in MVP voting (behind Gervin, Moses, Kareem, Bird and Doctor J). He averaged 20-7-5 on 58% TS and in November SI implied he is generally conceded to be the best all-around player in the game.

In 1981, five months after that SI feature, Marques arguably outplayed MVP Julius Erving in their seven game playoff battle. In game 4, he started 7-7, and finished with 35 points and seven offensive rebounds. In game 5 he was saddled with back spasms, but recovered by game 7 to pour in 36 while playing the entire game. He averaged 25-9-5 on 58% TS for the series.

In 1982, Marques held out at the start of the year. The Bucks played +2.8 MOV basketball before Marques joined, then +6.2 MOV the rest of the way (+3.4 net) (I can only find 1 of Johnson's 4 remaining DNPs). And that was with Marques having a down year statistically.

In 1983, Lanier missed more than half the year and again Milwaukee's D regressed a bit probably due to rebounding (-74 differential). Marques averaged 21-7-5 on 54% TS, second to leading scorer Moncrief. (Moncrief was clearly better by 1983.)

Still, in the PS he was prominent in overwhelming the Celtics in a first round sweep. His athleticism, along with Sidney Moncrief, created serious problems for Boston and even Larry Bird. As Moncrief said after Johnson popped off for 33 points 9 rebounds and 6 assists in the closing game, “it was Marques and Marques tonight.” In the next round against the champion 76ers, Marques again outplayed Erving and was arguably the best player in a series involving MVP Moses Malone. Johnson averaged 28-7-3 on 60.9% TS in the first two games and had 19-10-8 in the lone series win.

For the statistically inclined, Marques was 6th in Win Shares in that 78-83 stretch:
Kareem 77
Moses 76
Julius 68
Gilmore 65
Gervin 65
Marques 63

This is a player with multiple top 4-7 seasons, who battled (and sometimes out-battled) the top forwards of the time like Bird and Doctor J, who was incredibly versatile and easy to build around. By comparison, someone very close to him both ITO of peak and longevity, Moncrief, had 72 WS in his best 6-year stretch (81-86) and posted a net in/out of -0.8 in 1986 (Mil was +9.8 in 9 games without him...I haven't done 1985).

[Lever2Beaver]

Manu Ginobili is generally a top 5ish perimeter player in the league.

your forgot the one before the five, that must be what you meant
top five annually? Is your head buried in cement
The got has a single all-NBA nod
he's not a top 100 player
Erg, argh, god!

[Laimbeer]

Vote: Willis Reed
Nominate: Bob Cousy

[lorak]

In 1982, Marques held out at the start of the year. The Bucks played +2.8 MOV basketball before Marques joined, then +6.2 MOV the rest of the way (+3.4 net) (I can only find 1 of Johnson's 4 remaining DNPs). And that was with Marques having a down year statistically.

He missed first 20 games of that season because of contract holdout. He also had drug problem and then several injuries during '83 season:
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-09-28/ ... es-johnson


Friday, Johnson told reporters that his hospitalization at St. Mary's had been in the summer of 1982. In the 1981-82 season, Johnson had missed the first 20 games in a contract holdout and averaged only 16.5 points a game in 60 games.

"It goes back to 1981-82," Johnson said. "I talked to people in Milwaukee, and they told me they heard rumors about me involved in drugs. And I had experimented, to a small degree, with some drugs. I told (the Bucks) I'd be willing to go through whatever they wanted me to go through because they invested a lot of money in me. I had signed a new contract and so I felt obligated to do so.

"I didn't think I had a problem before, but I went through that program, and they showed me I did. I came out a better person for it.

"I also want it known that during that season in Milwaukee, I didn't miss any games or practices, or anything like that, that was drug related. I think I played below par that year because I missed training camp and 20 games as a holdout."

Last season, Johnson's statistics were the lowest in his career. He said Friday that it was because of a broken hand in training camp, several nagging injuries during the season and "outside distractions" that contributed to his poor showing.

Marques again outplayed Erving and was arguably the best player in a series involving MVP Moses Malone. Johnson averaged 28-7-3 on 60.9% TS in the first two games and had 19-10-8 in the lone series win.

Best player in that series?!
Marques averaged 21 ppg on 49.1 TS%, 8 rpg, 4 apg, 3 tpg, 44 mpg

He was also outplayed badly by Erving in 1982 playoffs:
Dr J: 21.7 ppg, 61.3 TS%, 8 rpg, 7.2 apg, 37.3 mpg
Marques: 18.8 ppg, 47.7 TS%, 7.3 rpg, 3.3 apg, 39.2 mpg


BTW, here are Marques highlights from that great 1981 G7 vs 76ers:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2AW-AKgLiY[/youtube]

and here from 1982 G4 vs 76ers:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcOny_AanA[/youtube]

[penbeast0]

I have always been a Marques Johnson supporter and think his peak was better than Nique's, but it isn't any longer than Sidney Moncrief's and I consider Moncrief's peak appreciably higher.

Scoring -- they both scored around 20ppg in their peak's, slight edge to Marques
Efficiency -- Sid was appreciably more efficient, about equal as shooters but Sid got to the line extremely well
Passing/Rebounding -- both very good rebounders for their positions, Sid the slight playmaking edge
Defense -- Easily Sidney Moncrief although Marques was a solid two way star

Sidney was also the team's best player during it's best years and seems to be a more unique type of talent -- there were a lot of great scoring 3's around in Marques's era, Sid's only peers historically as a high scoring super defender are Jordan, Kobe (a level up), Dumars (similar level, lesser peak, greater longevity as a star), and DJ (not close to Sid's impact offensivley and a bit lower defensively too).

[drza]

I would not, as a blanket statement, say Willis Reed's peak was higher than Dwight Howard's 2011 season. More importantly though, there seems to just be a lot of ignorance around Reed's longevity (I don't know what else to call it at this point).

You get rookie Willis, second year Willis, 1967 "prime" Willis to 1968, then his 2-year peak. Then the hobbled 1971 season, in which he warriored his way through the season taking injections on his leg regularly. In RPOY standings:

1970 4th
1969 3rd

That's it. And that was it for a reason.

I'm not sure that your recount of RPoY results really helps the case against Reed this thread...Reed had those two top-5 finishes, both of which he was receiving 1st/2nd/3rd place votes as well.

Pierce had only 2 seasons in which he received a RPoY vote at all, and in both instances he received a single 5th place vote (and one of those votes was a spite vote). Again, I freely stipulate that Pierce has a longevity edge over Reed. But Reed was playing at a higher level and had 8 good years including a legit multi-year peak...again, we're not talking Walton here (and frankly, I think it's about time TO start talking Walton, but that's another issue).

[ElGee]

I have always been a Marques Johnson supporter and think his peak was better than Nique's, but it isn't any longer than Sidney Moncrief's and I consider Moncrief's peak appreciably higher.

Scoring -- they both scored around 20ppg in their peak's, slight edge to Marques
Efficiency -- Sid was appreciably more efficient, about equal as shooters but Sid got to the line extremely well
Passing/Rebounding -- both very good rebounders for their positions, Sid the slight playmaking edge
Defense -- Easily Sidney Moncrief although Marques was a solid two way star

Sidney was also the team's best player during it's best years and seems to be a more unique type of talent -- there were a lot of great scoring 3's around in Marques's era, Sid's only peers historically as a high scoring super defender are Jordan, Kobe (a level up), Dumars (similar level, lesser peak, greater longevity as a star), and DJ (not close to Sid's impact offensivley and a bit lower defensively too).

I think this is more about Moncrief than Marques since I've seen you refer to his peak as better than Paul's (!) and others that I don't even think he was close to. Let's discuss that peak.

In 1985, he missed 9 games and Milwaukee was better without him, with a +7.3 MOV, up from +6.8 (-0.5 net).

In 1986, he missed 9 games and Milwaukee was better without him, with a +9.8 MOV, up from +9.0.

Now, that's not a large sample, nor would it be definitive if it were. And let's note that Squid missed 5 games in the 86 PS and they were 1-4 without him.

But what we can clearly glean from this is those Nelson teams -- and he did love the small, quirky lineups -- with Terry Cummings (Jan 1985 NBA Player of the Month), Paul Pressey, Ricky Pierce and a host of depth -- were really really good teams, even without Moncrief. It's not the case that he was lifting them to these heights because he came into his peak, it just coincided with Milwaukee's improvement.

In 1987, when Moncrief is done basically (misses more than 1/2 the year, averaged 11 ppg), the Bucks still post a 4.0 SRS and finish 4th in Drtg and 7th in ORtg. (With almost no difference with Squid playing or not, +0.3 if you were wondering.)

Consider that of all the In/Out runs I have in my library (182), only 11 players have had teams play +6.0 MOV basketball or better without their star. And in those 11 cases, there have been only 4 increases in MOV when the star is in the lineup:

Positive on Elite Teams:
Rodman 96 (9.9 to 12.9)
Rodman 97 (8.9 to 11.7)
Garnett 08 (8.8 to 10.5)
McHale 86 (7.3 to 9.9)

(1) I think it's ridiculously hard to boost teams that are that elite
(2) Just want to note that with Dennis Rodman the 96-97 Bulls were a +12-13 MOV team! Yikes. (And IMO, Dennis is able to have impact at that level because he has a unique, non-redundant impact that still has value even around all-star offensive players.)

Negatives on Elite teams:
Moncrief 86 (9.8 to 9.0)
Dumars 89 (10.5 to 8.8)
Webber 03 (7.7 to 6.2)
Dantley 89 Det (7.7 to 4.1)
Moncrief 85 (7.3 to 6.8)
Dantley 88 (6.9 to 4.9)
Erving 78 (6.9 to 4.9)

Make of that what you will -- I'm not suggesting Moncrief's a negative, especially if we factor in his missed time in the 86 PS -- but whatever special sauce is needed to push elite clubs up, he didn't seem to possess it. For me, I don't see much evidence that he had some superhuman defensive impact from his guard spot. I also feel the same way about Joe Dumars (very overrated by some), and coincidentally he's also on that list. In general, the important point here is that it's not correct to say "Moncrief made Milwaukee elite," in the same way our other high-peak superstars lifted teams to +5.0 or better.

Defensively, you can say "easily Moncrief" but to what degree? It's not Duncan vs. Bargnani here. Marques, as you noted, was a great 2-way player and a pretty darn good defender. I believe Moncrief was a leg up, but it's on order of a point or two value, which brings his peak close.

Furthermore, you keep compartmentalizing offense, which isn't how it works. Offense is my real issue with Moncrief. He's just not in the same stratosphere as someone like Chris Paul on offense. Maybe that's unfair because CP3 is a PG, but Moncrief himseld is a wing player and we've seen some of the best offensive impacts in history from that position.

You say his scoring is comparable to Johnson's at "around 20 ppg," but that's not even true. Marques scored 26 ppg on +5.5% TS (117 ORtg) before the 3-point line. His rookie year in the PS he averaged 24 on +8.4% TS (124 ORtg) and in 81 25 on +4.6% TS (129 oRtg), (leading the NBA PS in PER a 27.7, a scorer's stat). He was a good passing, good creating/low turnover guy who exerted pressure in the post and with the drive.

Moncrief, OTOH, peaked at 23 ppg on +7.1 TS% (120 ORtg) in 1983. But his best PS scoring was 23 ppg in 85 on 70% TS...which doesn't impress me much bcause he was taking about 12 shots a game against (1) the horrible Bulls defense and (2) a 76ers team that they were overwhelmed by and (3) in a multipolar system where better shots were easier to come by. (Kudos on the high percentage for 8 games though.)

I watch some of these games and don't think "hey, Squid's a better playmaker than Marques" simply because he has slightly higher assist numbers. I actually think he's generating a lot more Rondo assists because he's on such a good, balanced team. Marques played on much weaker teams, carried more of the load, and to my highly myopic eyes, appeared to create much more for weaker teammates.

Finally, to pretend they are equal on the glass seems strange to me when early Sid peak's at about 10% TRB% and later drops (6-7.5% in the in his 85-86 PS's). Marques posts a 16.2% number as a rookie (!) and then is consistently about 11-12%, which is way above average for a 3 and right around average for a 4...we know he played both. In the PS, he hit 19% as a rookie at the 4 (!) and in 81 almost 15%, then 12% in 82. That, coupled with his epically low TOV%, boost his offense and bring his defensive impact up as well in my eyes.

[ElGee]

I would not, as a blanket statement, say Willis Reed's peak was higher than Dwight Howard's 2011 season. More importantly though, there seems to just be a lot of ignorance around Reed's longevity (I don't know what else to call it at this point).

You get rookie Willis, second year Willis, 1967 "prime" Willis to 1968, then his 2-year peak. Then the hobbled 1971 season, in which he warriored his way through the season taking injections on his leg regularly. In RPOY standings:

1970 4th
1969 3rd

That's it. And that was it for a reason.

I'm not sure that your recount of RPoY results really helps the case against Reed this thread...Reed had those two top-5 finishes, both of which he was receiving 1st/2nd/3rd place votes as well.

Pierce had only 2 seasons in which he received a RPoY vote at all, and in both instances he received a single 5th place vote (and one of those votes was a spite vote). Again, I freely stipulate that Pierce has a longevity edge over Reed. But Reed was playing at a higher level and had 8 good years including a legit multi-year peak...again, we're not talking Walton here (and frankly, I think it's about time TO start talking Walton, but that's another issue).

(1) I agree with talking about Walton
(2) Willis only has 6 good years (maybe a funky 7th if you count 71)
(3) My point about those 6 good years is they weren't some awesome, MVP-level play that we think of when we think of 1970. Indeed, he only had 2 years at that level.

IN general, I'm noticing a lot of bleeding of older player's peaks into other parts of their careers, in that people seem to check B-R or something and just assume "hey, I remember that dude [at his best]...looks like he did that for x number of years."

[drza]

(1) I agree with talking about Walton
(2) Willis only has 6 good years (maybe a funky 7th if you count 71)
(3) My point about those 6 good years is they weren't some awesome, MVP-level play that we think of when we think of 1970. Indeed, he only had 2 years at that level.

IN general, I'm noticing a lot of bleeding of older player's peaks into other parts of their careers, in that people seem to check B-R or something and just assume "hey, I remember that dude [at his best]...looks like he did that for x number of years."

Reed had 5 straight seasons in which he averaged between 20.8 and 21.7 points, and between 13.2 and 14.6 rebounds every season. He was All NBA in all 5 of those years, and in 3 of the years he finished in the top-4 of the MVP vote...why would he only get credit for 2 years worth of peak? And in addition to those 5 years he had another year in which he was an All Star, then another year (his rookie season) in which he was both an All Star and Rookie of the Year. And an 8th season in which he was more of a role player, but was considered an important enough part of the team that he won Finals MVP (deserved or not, that's at least a pretty strong indication that he was still an important part of the team).

That sounds like a long enough level of high play that he should not be disqualified at this stage of the game for reasons of longevity...especially when the player that he's about to lose to has NONE of those high end season-long accomplishments (and wouldn't have any no matter how much consideration is taken for losing bias in accolade votes).

[TrueLAfan]

After reading over the last couple of selections, I can’t help but think the pendulum for Wilt Chamberlain has swung too far in the opposite direction. Willis Reed was, indeed, a terrific player. But people are putting up numbers out of context with regard to both the 1970 Finals and Reed’s rebounding overall as compared to Dwight Howard.

Willis Reed sure did outscore Wilt something huge in the 1970 Finals. In the first four games—the full games where both players were healthy—Willis averaged almost 32 points a game. Wilt averaged 18.8. Huge difference. But Wilt’s rebounding difference is, contextually, larger. Wilt doubled Reed’s rebounding in those first four games—99 to 50. Wilt had more assists. Wilt shot 54% from the field; almost 6% higher than Reed. Wilt had 20% more assists. And Willis Reed’s TS% in those four games was .505 in those games.

And, for God’s sake, everyone, Wilt Chamberlain shouldn’t even have been on the court. He had torn his patellar tendon in November. Today, with advances in surgery and rehab, the schedule looks like this. Surgery after a week or so, after inflammation decreases. 4-6 weeks of immobilization (to ensure tendon properly reattaches). 6 months of rehab. Wilt should have been back in late May or early June at the earliest. He played the final three games of the regular season in Mid-March. Then he played 47 minutes a game in the playoff series leading up to the Finals. And the Lakers needed every minute he played. They had been down to the Suns in the opening round; Wilt scored 30 and snagged 27 boards in Game 7 of that series.

Everyone talks about how an injured Reed came out for game 7 after “outplaying” Wilt earlier in the series. Nobody talks about how Wilt was hobbling (how could he not be after coming 3 months early?) and playing superhuman minutes. Nobody talks about Reed shooting only 48% in the series, or getting outrebounded two to one. Even Reed knew that Wilt was hurting. There is a slanted perspective about that series and matchup. I’m kind of surprised others haven’t noted it, since Reed’s series has been brought up with some frequency.

Willis Reed was never a great rebounder. He peaked as a rebounder in 1969 and 1970, with a Reb % of around 17.3. That’s good. Most years, he was between 16 and 17. After he was injured, he was pretty poor. But at his peak, he was a good—not great—rebounder. To put it in perspective, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had two years in his first ten with Reb % under 17.3, with a majority of years over 18, and a peak of close to 20.

Dwight Howard is on a completely different plane as a rebounder. His Reb % is around 20. He’s an elite rebounder, at a level where few players have stayed for more than a season or two. He’s a far, far more efficient scorer than Reed ever was. D12 can’t really pass…but neither could Willis Reed. I personally think Howard is a better defender.

There’s a good case to be made for Willis Reed. It largely involves things that are totally non-statistical. The Knicks were a team with miserable rebounding from the shooting guard and small forward position (they were outrebounded as a team virtually every year, usually by a lot), mediocre to poor efficiency in the frontcourt, and lack of depth in the frontcourt. They made up for it with toughness and team play and exemplary leadership—and a lot of that came from Willis Reed. The MVP and All-NBA voters of the time thought so. I can see that as an argument. I can make that argument. But it is not a statistical argument. And a good amount of the arguments being put forward for Wilis Reed—such as that the previous year’s MVP runner up outscored a larger, hobbling, likely exhausted opposing C that hadn’t been in MVP voting in the last couple of years while getting massively outrebounded and being less efficient—don’t really hold up as well.

[ElGee]

I'm not talking about DQing Reed, I'm talking about placing his career into the proper perspective, since I'm guessing many people don't know much about it. The 5th of those seasons you mentioned (1971) he was injured. That matters to me. That's why he only gets credit for 2 years. If being injured at the end of the year doesn't matter to someone, then Walton has a 2-year peak. (!)

In 67 and 68, Reed made all-nba over whom exactly? Bob Boozer? Bailey Howell? Bill Bridges? Rudy LaRusso? Chet Walker? Silas? Not exactly MVP stuff...where the next year he lost out to one guy at the Center position...the (undeserving) MVP of the league.

In 1969 and 1970, he was clearly a better player (as evidenced by his 2nd and 1st place MVP finishes). Dude bumped his shooting up from 65 and 66, then again in 69 and 70. The change is also neatly reflected in the advanced metrics.

You literally just did what I was lamenting people are doing, which is to take a cursory glance at B-R and equate someone's level of play as a constant with a few basic stat checks. I mean, hey, in 2009 Kevin Durant averaged 25 ppg on 58% TS and this year 27 ppg on 59% TS...those two players aren't nearly the same.

PS I don't see what relevance role players have when we were discussing stars for a top100.

[drza]

I'm not talking about DQing Reed, I'm talking about placing his career into the proper perspective, since I'm guessing many people don't know much about it. The 5th of those seasons you mentioned (1971) he was injured. That matters to me. That's why he only gets credit for 2 years. If being injured at the end of the year doesn't matter to someone, then Walton has a 2-year peak. (!)

In 67 and 68, Reed made all-nba over whom exactly? Bob Boozer? Bailey Howell? Bill Bridges? Rudy LaRusso? Chet Walker? Silas? Not exactly MVP stuff...where the next year he lost out to one guy at the Center position...the (undeserving) MVP of the league.

In 1969 and 1970, he was clearly a better player (as evidenced by his 2nd and 1st place MVP finishes). Dude bumped his shooting up from 65 and 66, then again in 69 and 70. The change is also neatly reflected in the advanced metrics.

You literally just did what I was lamenting people are doing, which is to take a cursory glance at B-R and equate someone's level of play as a constant with a few basic stat checks. I mean, hey, in 2009 Kevin Durant averaged 25 ppg on 58% TS and this year 27 ppg on 59% TS...those two players aren't nearly the same.

PS I don't see what relevance role players have when we were discussing stars for a top100.

To be honest, I've never understood the point of looking at an injury in the context of this project unless we're looking at something habitual like Walton's. For the RPoY, sure, I could see an injury hurting a player in a given season because we were judging them specifically on that season against their direct competitors from that season. But that's not what this project is, as far as I know. For this project, I thought we were supposed to be judging them on how good they were as basketball players. And to that end, 1971 was part of 3 straight years in which, as a basketball player, Reed was among the top few in the league. That he was playing through injury in one of those seasons has next to no bearing on that, as I don't see how it's relevant.

Now moving forward then yeah, it's relevant because that injury meant that he was no longer the same player that he was before. Which has an impact on his longevity...which of course doesn't bother me to nearly the extent that it bothers others. But I have no interest in counting 1971 as 7/8 of a year since he only played in 73 games and was playing hurt. Instead, to me I just see it as part of 3 seasons when Reed was near the top of his league.

As for the rest, I'm not saying that Reed was exactly the same player. I'm simply saying that over 5 years, Reed had very similar box score stats AND several high end accolades that frankly, Pierce at his best wasn't getting. I could also have pointed out that, over that 5 years, Reed had 4 years of top-10 finishes in win shares (peaking at 1st and 3rd) and an overlapping but different set of 4 years finishing in the top-8 of PER (3 of which were top-6). I don't have to be suggesting that Reed played every year on the exact same level to point out that he had a 5-year peak of accomplishments (in both accolades and advanced box score stats) that Pierce can't touch. And since Pierce is the player that is going to win this vote, that seems to be a legit thing to point out.

Now, TLAF's post was excellent, and I wish we had more of it from him or someone else. Because there's no substitute for actual perspective, and the context that he put that series vs Wilt into was outstanding (though you'll note that I've never been one touting that performance as a reasoning for Reed). In point of fact, I've been arguing for Howard over Reed in this thread. But I think both Howard and Reed belong above Pierce, and since Pierce became the frontrunner with only Reed offering any token resistance this thread most of my subsequent posts have focused on the comparison between the 2 of them.

[pancakes3]

In 67 and 68, Reed made all-nba over whom exactly? Bob Boozer? Bailey Howell? Bill Bridges? Rudy LaRusso? Chet Walker? Silas?

not to mention Nate Thurmond and John Havlicek. Beat out Jerry Lucas in '69. Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, and a rookie Kareem in '70.

[ElGee]

To be honest, I've never understood the point of looking at an injury in the context of this project unless we're looking at something habitual like Walton's. For the RPoY, sure, I could see an injury hurting a player in a given season because we were judging them specifically on that season against their direct competitors from that season. But that's not what this project is, as far as I know. For this project, I thought we were supposed to be judging them on how good they were as basketball players. And to that end, 1971 was part of 3 straight years in which, as a basketball player, Reed was among the top few in the league. That he was playing through injury in one of those seasons has next to no bearing on that, as I don't see how it's relevant.

I can't speak for others, but for me, this is what I dub "career value." It's NON-hypothetical. It's precisely based on an RPOY-style, "how well did he help his club win" approach.

You approach the slippery slope: "I thought we were supposed to be judging them on how good they were as basketball players." Well, for a clear period of time, Bill Walton was one of the 10 or 12 best players ever. Period. He was just better at basketball than everyone else. But that's called "peak." The "greatness" that exists in this project, at least for me, pertains to durability, flexibility and longevity ITO of helping a team win a title. That's greatness to me. You may have different criteria, but that's how I see it.

As for stats and accolades, they mean very little in this comparison because the situations are totally different. Smaller league, different positional competition. Statistically, Reed has 69 and 70 as a better peak...bc well hey, he had a better peak. I'm voting Pierce by a country mile here (and I've been criticized in this project for valuing peak too much!) But if we use Win Shares as a statistical outline:

Reed's 8 seasons (73 total)
5.5
3.6
7.9
10
14.7
14.6
10.6
5.8

Pierce's 13 seasons (124)
4.9
8.2
10.4
12.9
10.1
7.1
11.2
11.5
5.4
12.4
10.3
8.3
11.6

So, Reed has 3 years over 10 WS and Pierce has 8. Reed has the two-year peak over 14.5 WS...which is is a whopping 1.6 WS better than Pierce's peak year by that metric. I don't see how that's something "Pierce can't touch." *shrug* Maybe 14.5 WS slips onto the outer edge of the Bell Curve and really is significantly better than 12.9 WS...except it turns out 14.5 WS isn't a top-100 season by that stat. http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

(And PS, I consider Reed to have a top-50, maybe top-45 peak of all-time...Pierce's is more like top-60.)

[ElGee]

In 67 and 68, Reed made all-nba over whom exactly? Bob Boozer? Bailey Howell? Bill Bridges? Rudy LaRusso? Chet Walker? Silas?

not to mention Nate Thurmond and John Havlicek. Beat out Jerry Lucas in '69. Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, and a rookie Kareem in '70.

No.

Reed was a forward in 67 and 68. He didn't beat out Havlicek or Lucas (Lucas was first team). In 69 he was a center as Bellamy missed a majority of the season. Beating out Wes Unseld doesn't exactly excite me, and he beat out rookie Kareem in 1970 because he was MVP of the league. Note that he was 4th in RPOY voting, behind Kareem, who IMO was a better player than Willis Reed in 1970.

[penbeast0]

It’s been a long hiatus for mysticbb and he hasn’t had a vote left for multiple threads. Not sure if I should keep counting his nomination forever . . . feedback?

VOTE

Dwight Howard – penbeast0, ronnymac2

Dominique Wilkins -- JordansBulls

Paul Pierce – therealbig3, Fencer, DoctorMJ, ElGee, RoyceDa59

Willis Reed – lukekarts, Laimbeer

Dave Cowens – Snakebites


NOMINATE

Sidney Moncrief – penbeast0

Reggie Miller – mysticbb,

Bob Cousy – JordansBulls, Fencer, Laimbeer

Kevin Johnson – therealbig3

Chris Paul – Doctor MJ, ElGee, ronnymac2, RoyceDa59

Bob McAdoo – Snakebites

[Fencer reregistered]

I don't feel like mysticbb is participating in the conversation at this point.

I also don't like the idea of somebody making his mind up up front and not being open one iota to changing it.

[Doctor MJ]

It’s been a long hiatus for mysticbb and he hasn’t had a vote left for multiple threads. Not sure if I should keep counting his nomination forever . . . feedback?

Umm, didn't Miller get voted in last thread? So the issue is moot right? His last choice for nomination has been nominated.

[penbeast0]

oops, you are right. However, he still has one nomination that hasn't gone it . . . .

CHAUNCEY BILLUPS

It's been over a month now, though, so I will discontinue it.