RealGM Top 100 List #46

[Doctor MJ]

I've probably given a false impression of how much I've talked to this individual about it.

I remember a few offhand exchanges in which they talked about the importance of statistics in general, and a condemnation of win shares.

Other than that its not something I've ever really pressed them on.

And honestly, I get that you're saying they are just an approximation, but I can't help but look at your posts on Chris Paul and it seems to be the cornerstone of your argument, whether you are calling it that or not. You may say its not a "perfect" stat, but it really seems to me that you're treating it that way.

I aknowledge that Chris Paul's peak is among the best for a player at his position in NBA history. And that is whether you're looking at win shares or not (so I guess in some ways Win-Shares could be considered a moot point). But with such a limited peak to look at and relatively little proven in the playoffs (something you also seem to value quite highly), I simply don't see the justification in placing him here just yet.

Hehe. Good on you for owning up when you realized you'd projected a little to self-important an image. I've been there.

I think it's just important to realize that Paul basically always looks amazing by any advanced metric.

He's the GOAT PER point guard.
His Win Share numbers are huge.

Then in +/-, Engelmann's flagship 6 year RAPM study has him at one of only 7 starter-level people scoring at +6 or higher (and only 14 are +4 or higher). The others?

James, Dirk, Garnett, Nash, Ginobili and Wade.

I've yet to see any metric that doesn't rank Paul as a top tier superstar, so I just don't see it as a real debate and feel comfortable just posting one stat for short hand.

So the question is really where Hill stacks up to top tier superstars. I've always seen him as a 2nd tier guy who happened to have his team decided to focus absolutely everything through him.

[Doctor MJ]

Alright, going with...

Nominate: Lanier

[Laimbeer]

Vote: Hayes
Nominate: Lanier (a bit early and homerish, but he's better than some guys we've already listed)

[Laimbeer]

Walton over Hayes? How so? Hayes has incredible longevity over him - Walton's superior peak lasted for a grand total of two all-star games. Hayes? Like a dozen, a few first teams, top ten all-time scorer and rebounder, and he matches Walton's title.

AI is a different breed than Allen, or Miller for that matter. A guy capable of being first option on a finalist and an MVP. Allen never had that level of impact.

[drza]

Re: AI vs Allen

Really quickly, my feeling is that Iverson was better at his peak than Allen ever was at any point in his career. I see the point about fitting Iverson onto a team, but to me I see teams where each might fit better than the other...AI fit better on those Larry Brown Sixers (Ray couldn't have created enough IMO)... Ray fit better next to Sam Cassell in Milwaukee...I actually think AI would have fit better than Ray next to an off-ball shooter like Shard and good offensive rebounder in Seattle...I'm not sure who would have fit better next to Melo, to be honest, because the team still needed an initiator (Melo is more of a finisher) though I could imagine Melo getting Ray some open 3s, so call that one a push. I actually think AI would have fit great in Boston, though I think he would have been a better version of Pierce more-so than the Allen role.

Point is, fit wise I think there are teams where each would fit better than the other. But talent and production wise, I think Allen peaked higher and had plenty sufficient longevity to be voted in at this point.

Vote: Allen Iverson
Nominate: Dennis Rodman

[Snakebites]

I suppose I view Grant Hill's definitive season as the 1996-97 season, and I remember it quite clearly. The team had failed to acquire Mutombo and lost Allan Houston for good measure. It was widely perceived to be a one man show with no real center, no true point guard, and a loose collection of aging and marginal veterans all around one young star. Most people didn't even think they'd make the playoffs.

Grant Hill did 21/9/7 on nearly 50% shooting, and was an All NBA first team selection who lead a team with a frankly marginal supporting cast (second best player was an aging Joe Dumars) to 54 wins, and they were projected to be even better before they lost a bit towards the end of the season. And make no mistake, this was all Hill. The only thing he really had working in his favor was the shortened three point line that allowed Dumars and Terry Mills to open up the floor.

That was his best season, but it by no means was an outlier season. This was not a lower level player who had a team revolving around him. For 5 years, this WAS an honest to goodness superstar who never ventured far into the playoffs because he played on teams renowned for never having a center, point guard, or serious second option (unless you include Jerry Stackhouse for one year, and while they scored lots of points together they never really clicked).

Even if you think Chris Paul was better at his apex I still don't think those two years are enough to put him on another level than Grant Hill's five solid injury-free seasons, and that is essentially what we are saying if Paul gets voted in here and Hill doesn't even garner a nomination.

I personally believe Lanier should be over Hill as well, my vote for Hill is more of a gesture in hopes of generating some discussion about a player who I firmly believe warrants discussion at this stage in the process.

[therealbig3]

My count:

Vote:

Iverson-6 (DavidStern, ronnymac2, lukekarts, Snakebites, FJS, drza)

Paul-3 (therealbig3, Doctor MJ, ElGee)

Walton-2 (JordansBulls, Fencer reregistered)

KJ-1 (Dr Mufasa)

Hayes-1 (Laimbeer)

Moncrief-1 (penbeast0)



Nominate:

Lanier-5 (ronnymac2, therealbig3, ElGee, Doctor MJ, Laimbeer)

Unseld-3 (penbeast0, Fencer reregistered, lukekarts)

Rodman-2 (DavidStern, drza)

Hill-1 (Snakebites)

Penny-1 (JordansBulls)

Gasol-1 (Dr Mufasa)

Worthy-1 (FJS)

[TMACFORMVP]

I'd like to clarify, I don't think Paul's '07 season didn't help his team at all; what I said was I think it's almost irrelevant b/c that season doesn't shift anything in my mind in a comparison with the people left on the board. 17/9 is good, no doubt, but he wasn't very efficient, he missed 18 games on the year, and his team didn't miss too much a beat w/out him; 31-33 w/him (.484%), opposed to 8-10 w/out him (.444%). If we're putting this apart of his prime, then this would almost give KJ eight seasons during his prime (seven seasons of 18/9+ and another year where he did roughly 16/8). IMO, CP3 has a four year prime, which is a bit flawed, one where he missed half the entire season, another where he got outplayed in the playoffs, and another year which wasn't clearly as good as his '08/'09.

Re: winshares being a baseline; I understand that. But I'm questioning if it's even a good baseline to begin with. I just don't understand how a stat that shows Marbury and Billups having more OWS than Nash in '05 and '06 respectively is one that could be used as the crux of an argument. Or that Nene and David Lee were better offensive players than Kobe in 2010. Again, I'm not arguing, nor is anyone else that Paul wasn't an elite player in '08 and '09; but by how much more is he better is it at the expense of other very good years from other players? I mean, if we go by OWS/PER, Magic Johnson has never had a season with 13+ OWS, or reached a level of PER that Paul did. Even guys like Adrian Dantley peak higher than Magic, while guys like Billups are similar in OWS. This isn't even just an aberration, there are many more instances where OWS comes out with some real head scratchers. I like advanced stats, I just don't like the results OWS produce when it clearly goes against a lot of what the eye test would give you. As just an interesting tidbit, sure, but weighted too heavily, I have my doubts.

I love Paul's peak, but I guess the difference lies that I don't believe his peak is at THAT much levels above some of the guys on the board that we forgo a few extra seasons that a few of them give you. While I see the other side of the argument, using metrics like PER/OWS would give the impression that Paul's peak was as good, if not better than a guy like Magic's, where his peak WAS that good to ignore the lack of longevity. I'm just not too sold on that notion, and not ridiculously impressed in an all time sense with his longevity. Obviously, with few more years under Paul's belt, he'll be discussed at a much higher spot than even this one.

And I'll pile on:
Nominate: Lanier