RealGM Top 100 List #50

[E-Balla]

Maybe I am wrong, but I do not think that there is a single star in the history of the NBA who is defined by ONE game as much as Allen Iverson.

Walt Frazier says hi (imo).

And fwiw, I personally don't put much stock or consideration into that one game in the finals (for Iverson, I mean; well, not for Frazier either, actually). tbh, I'm not sure if everyone who DOES bring up that game in the '01 finals is actually basing a ton of their opinion of Iverson on that one game. Sometimes I think it's just one of those things that comes up when giving the sort of "bullet point" recap of his career.

My opinion of him is based more on the broad evaluation of his production and efficiency (with consideration of context, which obv I went out of my way to explore), and his degree of impact (which again: I attempted to explore pretty thoroughly). And based on those things, I think he has a more than sufficient top 50 case.

I mostly brought it up focusing on the leading a 56 win team to the Finals thing (appearently leading a 57 win team to the Finals is miles ahead when it comes to accomplishments. Who knew?). Still the game gets mentioned because its the most Iverson game ever. 41 shot attempts for 48 points in 52 minutes for a 107-101 win coming after 2 other 40 point games. Honestly he had better games that post season but that game was more Iverson. He wasn't super efficient and he wasn't the most effective player ever but he'd do anything in his power to win.

[Moonbeam]

Weird tangent, this 2001 76ers vs. 2011 Mavericks thing. I think context is important. Not all finals runs are equal. Looking at performance against SRS expectations, here is how each team fared:

2001 Philadephia: SRS 3.63

Code: Select all

Round  Opp  Opp SRS  Margin  Vs. Exp
  1    IND   -0.77    6.25     1.85
  2    TOR    1.69    0.71    -1.65
 ECF   MIL    3.13    0.29    -0.63
  F    LAL    3.74   -6.80    -7.27
Total         2.15   -0.09    -1.95


Hence going off of the regular season, Philadelphia played like a 3.63 - 1.95 = 1.68 SRS team in the playoffs. Granted, the numbers don't take into account that the Lakers had a dominant playoff run, but it still does not look nearly as good as Dallas.

2011 Dallas: SRS 4.41

Code: Select all

Round  Opp  Opp SRS  Margin  Vs. Exp
  1    POR    1.85    5.17     2.60
  2    LAL    6.01   14.00    15.60
 WCF   OKC    3.81    4.00     2.77
  F    MIA    6.76    2.33     4.68
Total         4.51    5.76     5.71


So in the postseason, Dallas played like a 4.41 + 5.71 = 10.12 SRS team!

[RSCD3_]

I think it's arguable that Philly in 2001 could have beat the blazers


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[trex_8063]

Weird tangent, this 2001 76ers vs. 2011 Mavericks thing. I think context is important. Not all finals runs are equal. Looking at performance against SRS expectations, here is how each team fared:

2001 Philadephia: SRS 3.63

Code: Select all

Round  Opp  Opp SRS  Margin  Vs. Exp
  1    IND   -0.77    6.25     1.85
  2    TOR    1.69    0.71    -1.65
 ECF   MIL    3.13    0.29    -0.63
  F    LAL    3.74   -6.80    -7.27
Total         2.15   -0.09    -1.95


Hence going off of the regular season, Philadelphia played like a 3.63 - 1.95 = 1.68 SRS team in the playoffs. Granted, the numbers don't take into account that the Lakers had a dominant playoff run, but it still does not look nearly as good as Dallas.

2011 Dallas: SRS 4.41

Code: Select all

Round  Opp  Opp SRS  Margin  Vs. Exp
  1    POR    1.85    5.17     2.60
  2    LAL    6.01   14.00    15.60
 WCF   OKC    3.81    4.00     2.77
  F    MIA    6.76    2.33     4.68
Total         4.51    5.76     5.71


So in the postseason, Dallas played like a 4.41 + 5.71 = 10.12 SRS team!

Could you explain how the above is calculated? The "Margin" and "Vs. Expected", I mean. I don't quite get where those numbers are coming from. Also, I don't quite get how 1) defeating a mediocre team (-0.77 SRS) by a margin BIGGER than would be expected for a 3.63 SRS team (if my general assumption at least---that "Margin" exceeding "Expected" is a good thing---is correct), then 2) defeating a 1.69 SRS team in 7 games, 3) defeating a 3.13 SRS team in 7 games, and then 4) making it a 5-game series against a 3.74 SRS team......somehow all equates to "playing like a 1.68 SRS team"?

[Moonbeam]

Weird tangent, this 2001 76ers vs. 2011 Mavericks thing. I think context is important. Not all finals runs are equal. Looking at performance against SRS expectations, here is how each team fared:

2001 Philadephia: SRS 3.63

Code: Select all

Round  Opp  Opp SRS  Margin  Vs. Exp
  1    IND   -0.77    6.25     1.85
  2    TOR    1.69    0.71    -1.65
 ECF   MIL    3.13    0.29    -0.63
  F    LAL    3.74   -6.80    -7.27
Total         2.15   -0.09    -1.95


Hence going off of the regular season, Philadelphia played like a 3.63 - 1.95 = 1.68 SRS team in the playoffs. Granted, the numbers don't take into account that the Lakers had a dominant playoff run, but it still does not look nearly as good as Dallas.

2011 Dallas: SRS 4.41

Code: Select all

Round  Opp  Opp SRS  Margin  Vs. Exp
  1    POR    1.85    5.17     2.60
  2    LAL    6.01   14.00    15.60
 WCF   OKC    3.81    4.00     2.77
  F    MIA    6.76    2.33     4.68
Total         4.51    5.76     5.71


So in the postseason, Dallas played like a 4.41 + 5.71 = 10.12 SRS team!

Could you explain how the above is calculated? The "Margin" and "Vs. Expected", I mean. I don't quite get where those numbers are coming from. Also, I don't quite get how 1) defeating a mediocre team (-0.77 SRS) by a margin BIGGER than would be expected for a 3.63 SRS team (if my general assumption at least---that "Margin" exceeding "Expected" is a good thing---is correct), then 2) defeating a 1.69 SRS team in 7 games, 3) defeating a 3.13 SRS team in 7 games, and then 4) making it a 5-game series against a 3.74 SRS team......somehow all equates to "playing like a 1.68 SRS team"?

Sorry for not being clear! The "Vs. Exp" column is the difference between the margin and what would be expected based on SRS and HCA. So for instance against Indiana in R1, Philadelphia's margin of 6.25 was 1.85 above SRS expectations taking into account HCA. So essentially, they played like a 3.63 + 1.85 = 5.48 SRS team in that series. The overall 1.68 SRS combines all playoff rounds (they underperformed expectations in every other series, badly so against the Lakers, though again that does not account for the fact that the Lakers were dominating everyone). I'll play around with a variation that does account for playoff performance too.

[trex_8063]

Weird tangent, this 2001 76ers vs. 2011 Mavericks thing. I think context is important. Not all finals runs are equal. Looking at performance against SRS expectations, here is how each team fared:

2001 Philadephia: SRS 3.63

Code: Select all

Round  Opp  Opp SRS  Margin  Vs. Exp
  1    IND   -0.77    6.25     1.85
  2    TOR    1.69    0.71    -1.65
 ECF   MIL    3.13    0.29    -0.63
  F    LAL    3.74   -6.80    -7.27
Total         2.15   -0.09    -1.95


Hence going off of the regular season, Philadelphia played like a 3.63 - 1.95 = 1.68 SRS team in the playoffs. Granted, the numbers don't take into account that the Lakers had a dominant playoff run, but it still does not look nearly as good as Dallas.

2011 Dallas: SRS 4.41

Code: Select all

Round  Opp  Opp SRS  Margin  Vs. Exp
  1    POR    1.85    5.17     2.60
  2    LAL    6.01   14.00    15.60
 WCF   OKC    3.81    4.00     2.77
  F    MIA    6.76    2.33     4.68
Total         4.51    5.76     5.71


So in the postseason, Dallas played like a 4.41 + 5.71 = 10.12 SRS team!

Could you explain how the above is calculated? The "Margin" and "Vs. Expected", I mean. I don't quite get where those numbers are coming from. Also, I don't quite get how 1) defeating a mediocre team (-0.77 SRS) by a margin BIGGER than would be expected for a 3.63 SRS team (if my general assumption at least---that "Margin" exceeding "Expected" is a good thing---is correct), then 2) defeating a 1.69 SRS team in 7 games, 3) defeating a 3.13 SRS team in 7 games, and then 4) making it a 5-game series against a 3.74 SRS team......somehow all equates to "playing like a 1.68 SRS team"?

Sorry for not being clear! The "Vs. Exp" column is the difference between the margin and what would be expected based on SRS and HCA. So for instance against Indiana in R1, Philadelphia's margin of 6.25 was 1.85 above SRS expectations taking into account HCA. So essentially, they played like a 3.63 + 1.85 = 5.48 SRS team in that series. The overall 1.68 SRS combines all playoff rounds (they underperformed expectations in every other series, badly so against the Lakers, though again that does not account for the fact that the Lakers were dominating everyone). I'll play around with a variation that does account for playoff performance too.

OK, gotcha on what "Vs. Expected" means (I was previously interpreting it as "the expected", but it's actually the difference between the actual result and the expected result). I'm still fuzzy on where the actual result ("Margin") comes from. Where does the 6.25 come from in the first round, for instance?

Also, wrt the "expected" result, what is the valuation given to HCA?

[Moonbeam]

Could you explain how the above is calculated? The "Margin" and "Vs. Expected", I mean. I don't quite get where those numbers are coming from. Also, I don't quite get how 1) defeating a mediocre team (-0.77 SRS) by a margin BIGGER than would be expected for a 3.63 SRS team (if my general assumption at least---that "Margin" exceeding "Expected" is a good thing---is correct), then 2) defeating a 1.69 SRS team in 7 games, 3) defeating a 3.13 SRS team in 7 games, and then 4) making it a 5-game series against a 3.74 SRS team......somehow all equates to "playing like a 1.68 SRS team"?

Sorry for not being clear! The "Vs. Exp" column is the difference between the margin and what would be expected based on SRS and HCA. So for instance against Indiana in R1, Philadelphia's margin of 6.25 was 1.85 above SRS expectations taking into account HCA. So essentially, they played like a 3.63 + 1.85 = 5.48 SRS team in that series. The overall 1.68 SRS combines all playoff rounds (they underperformed expectations in every other series, badly so against the Lakers, though again that does not account for the fact that the Lakers were dominating everyone). I'll play around with a variation that does account for playoff performance too.

OK, gotcha on what "Vs. Expected" means (I was previously interpreting it as "the expected", but it's actually the difference between the actual result and the expected result). I'm still fuzzy on where the actual result ("Margin") comes from. Where does the 6.25 come from in the first round, for instance?

Also, wrt the "expected" result, what is the valuation given to HCA?

I've put together a spreadsheet of league averages here.

In 2001, HCA was worth 2.92 points. In 2011, it was worth 3.17 points.

As for the margin, it is the average scoring margin. Philadelphia averaged 93.5 PPG in Round 1, while Indiana averaged 87.25 PPG, so the average margin for Philadelphia was +6.25.

[john248]

VOTE: Dominique Wilkins.

Finished top 2 in MVP voting in a league with prime Hakeem, Bird, Magic, Kareem to name a few. Carried a franchise for a decade. Was an excellent scorer, defender, rebounder and was clutch.

Dominique Wilkins was voted by the other players in a TSN poll as the player who put the least effort in on defense in the league. He was not an excellent rebounder, he was a high volume scorer of average efficiency who was the focal point of an iso offense, more comparable to Iverson than to someone like Dantley or English, and his playoff struggles are legendary.

You are embarassing yourself with this one JB.

Not really disagreeing with anything. I'd probably still take early 90s Wilkins over Iverson; his 93 RS season was very impressive. I just want to throw this out there that Wilkins over a 10 year period versus English and Drexler had a TS% just 0.01-0.02% less (truelafan posted it somewhere). Not calling him a high efficiency guy but I thought that was interesting. But yea, the playoff struggles are real.

[Notanoob]

Vote: Bill Walton

Best player left on the board, IMO of course.

MVP, Finals MVP, 6th man of the year, 2xChampion, 2xAll Defensive First Team, First Team All-NBA, 2nd Team All NBA

Walton had the most awful luck in terms of injuries, giving us only a handful of years of play. However, the magnitude of his greatness should get him some more traction here.

In Walton's only prime season where he was healthy for the playoffs, Walton lead the league in rebounding and blocks. He anchored Portland's 2nd ranked offense and 5th ranked defense (first team all-defense, remember). In the playoffs, he helped sweep the Lakers led by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, then defeated the favored 76ers after going down by two games, and earned the Finals MVP.

The next year, he lead his team to win 50 of their first 60 games, earning 1st Team All-NBA honors and the MVP over Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who is ranked 2nd on our Top 100 list here. Sadly, he basically didn't have a healthy season after this until 1986, when coming off the bench for the Celtics he won 6th Man of the Year and got his second ring.

Walton was a beautiful player to watch with a complete game. His IQ was off the charts, as was his effort level (why else would he suffer through so many injuries to play if he didn't love the game?). He was a very active and mobile defender, using his instincts to contest every shot possible, giving him a huge defensive impact. Despite the fact that this level of activity would drag him away from the basket and out of rebounding position, Walton was an incredible rebounder, as demonstrated by the fact that he led the league in RPG with 14.4 at the same time he led the league in BPG with 3.2 (his '76 season). Walton also led the league in DRB% 4 times, topping out at 34.2% in his MVP season.

On the other end of the court, Walton was the centerpiece of Jack Ramsay's offense, serving as a high post hub and spreading the wealth. His passing was incredible for a big man, and he is one of the best passing centers to ever play the game, dishing 5 dimes a game in his MVP season. Walton was also a credible scorer, possessing a solid jump shot and post up game, peaking at 18.6ppg on 56.3TS%. Later in his career he'd work more on the offensive glass as well.

Here's some footage:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmxRIEyBiXo[/youtube]

[Moonbeam]

Vote for #50 for Adrian Dantley.

He has a great case to be considered one of the top 10 scorers ever, if not top 5. In fact, he's the all-time leader in Score+, PosScore+, and TeamScore+ (metrics aiming to combine volume and efficiency) for players with over 5000 MP.

I don't want to make a marathon post, but I'll link to some posts I've made about Dantley:

Scoring comparison (volume x efficiency) of Dantley, Wilkins, and English.

A look at whether his gaudy offensive statistics were poaching from his teammates by examining expected offensive win shares.

A similar comparison for other leading 80s SFs.

Head to head matchup summaries of leading 80s SFs. Dantley had the biggest margin in scoring and efficiency, and surprisingly, his high-flying SF opponents did not tend to torch him, even when Utah had poor defenses from 1980-1982.

Addressing his impact for the 1982-83 season. Open question: was he part of a rebounding problem?

Frank Layden talking about the 1984-85 contract holdout. This formed the basis of their relationship going south, and Layden takes his share of the blame.

An overview of Dantley's playoffs with Detroit in 1987 and 1988 and how important his offense was, as well as quotes about his changed role and his noticeable effort on defense.

A brief look at the 1988 Finals, in which I think Dantley had a great case for Finals MVP had the Pistons won.

After Dantley, I've got Robert Parish (could be persuaded to switch my vote), then Alex English, then Pau Gasol/Sam Jones/Dave Cowens. Nique would soon follow. Not sure yet where to put Vince Carter or Iverson. I'm interested in hearing more about Ginobili, Hayes, Thurmond, Lanier, Worthy, Squid, Rodman, etc. A name I haven't heard mentioned yet but I think merits a look soon is Chauncey Billups. How does he compare to these guys, and to his Wallace teammates? What about some old-timers like Neil Johnston, Paul Arizin, or Bob Cousy? Torn about Bill Walton - amazing peak but very, very short. I'd have to hear some solid support based on his Clipper and Celtic days to consider him soon, I think.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Today we appreciate floor spacing and stretch big men. In the early days of 3 pointers NBA coaches were overly concerned about the long rebound and feared that outside shooting would lead to fast breaks. I feel that Alex English benefited from Issel and Schayes outside shooting. English always had good offensive talent around him. That should have reduced the number of shots he got but the Nuggets fast pace would offset the reduced number of shots English got from the Nuggets having other good scorers.

In the early part of English's career with the Nuggets I thought the Nuggets and to a degree the Western Conference as a whole had a culture of poor defensive effort.

Wilkens and English are probably the 2 easiest guys to compare to each other of the players being considered for 50th best player. Their careers overlapped and they both are small forwards though their styles are different.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ial01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ido01.html
Even without giving Wilkens any extra credit for being the human highlight reel I think that both my eyes and the stats place Wilkens a little above English.

Dantley had great efficiency but I feel the accusation that he stagnated team offenses is somewhat justified so I put Dantley below English and Wilkens.

Young Vince Carter seemed a bit like Wilkens. Carter had more range. Carter very much in the group with Wilkens and English. I think I take Wilkens 1st the Carter 2nd and English 3rd.

My heart actually goes with Bernard King. Bernard King for one playoff season was such an incredible scorer. But Bernard was not playing at that level long enough to rank him above Wilkens, English and Carter even though those guys best was not as good as Bernard King's best.

Magic Johnson said that if the Bulls won the coin flip he would have stayed in school. That means Mocreif to the Lakers, Parish and McHale stay with the Warriors and Magic and let's say Rick Mahorn ( instead of Ricky Brown) join the Celtics. I ask myself do the Celtics win championships with Magic and Bird and find myself saying maybe no because the Celtics need Robert Parish. Everybody concedes that McHale is better than Parish but it is hard to win championships without a quality defensive Center.

Parish is not spectacular and has very little wow factor but can the Celtics with Magic Johnson defeat Moses Malone and the Rockets with Rick Robey as their Starting center? Could the Celtics defeat the 76ers with Dawkins and Caldwell Jones with Rick Robey as their Starting Center. The Lakers won game 7 the year before with Chones at Center and Magic at power forward so maybe the Celtics could win without Parish.

My point is that Parish might be more valuable than Wilkens and English.

Bob Mcadoo needs to be seriously considered. Not Bob Mcadoo the role player on the Lakers or Bob McAdoo who helped the Pistons, Knicks and Celtics lose games but Bob McAdoo who was great in Buffalo.

[Moonbeam]

Today we appreciate floor spacing and stretch big men. in the early days of 3 pointers NBA coaches were overly concerned about the long rebound. I feel that Alex English benefited from Issel and Schayes outside shooting. English always had good offensive talent around him. That should have reduced the number of shots he got but the Nuggets fast pace would offset the reduced number of shots English got from the Nuggets having other good scorers.

I think English benefited from having great offensive teammates - definitely. I think they also benefited a lot from having him! Kiki had his best offensive seasons in Denver, though he was still a potent scorer with Portland. Issel was a constant with Denver, but his career appears to have hit a bit of a lull in 1978-79 and then he bounced back to have some strong offensive seasons again (in the conversation for his very best) once English arrived. I think that kind of symbiosis should be seen as a credit though, overall, to all three players (and to Calvin Natt, Fat Lever, etc. as well later on).

Dantley had great efficiency but I feel the accusation that he stagnated team offenses is somewhat justified so I put Dantley below English and Wilkens.

Yes, Dantley was a clinician on offense, carefully dissecting whatever the defense threw his way with strength, pump fakes and amazing footwork. But he could score on the break, too, and his style of offense did not prevent the Jazz from having among the top paces in the league once Layden became coach:

1982: 3rd
1983: 2nd
1984: 3rd
1985: 2nd
1986: 9th

There's also this, which does suggest that in L.A. and in Detroit, Dantley's presence was associated with his teammates tending to underperform on offense, but not in Utah on the whole (where his offensive reputation is greatest). Even with the potential that he didn't have the same kind of symbiosis with teammates as a player like English or Wilkins, his individual offense still measures out to be quite a bit higher, and I think it is more than enough to eclipse those players in terms of overall offensive impact. Where English has a case over Dantley is in durability, and perhaps in leadership/getting along with teammates, though Dantley's issues are far, far overblown. Wilkins has a bit of a longevity edge, too, but his tendency to fall off quite a bit in the playoffs keeps him in 3rd here, in my opinion.

My heart actually goes with Bernard King. Bernard King for one playoff season was such an incredible scorer. But Bernard was not playing at that level long enough to rank him above Wilkens, English and Carter even though those guys best was not as good as Bernard King's best.

Yeah, Bernard was incredible for the Knicks! Like Dantley, he had a very poor cast of teammates but managed to have amazing seasons while facing all of the defensive pressure regardless, and he had some legendary playoff performances to boot. It's a shame that some issues got in the way of his career really being transcendent (off the court issues at times, particularly in Utah, as well as injuries). Loved watching him play.

Magic Johnson said that if the Bulls won the coin flip he would have stayed in school. That means Mocreif to the Lakers, Parish and McHale stay with the Warriors and Magic and let's say Rick Mahorn ( instead of Ricky a Brown) join the Celtics. I ask myself do the Celtics win championships with Magic and Bird and find myself saying maybe no because the Celtics need Robert Parish. Everybody concedes that McHale is better than Parish but it is hard to win championships without a quality defensive Center.

Parish is not spectacular and has very little wow factor but can the Celtics with Magic Johnson defeat Moses Malone and the Rockets with Rick Robey as their Starting center? could the Celtics defeat the 76ers with Dawkins and Caldwell Jones with Rick Robey as their Starting Center. The Lakers won game 7 the year before with Chones at Center and Magic at power forward so maybe the Celtics could win without Parish.

It's hard to say what moves Boston may have made had they gotten Magic (!) and not traded for McHale and Parish. I imagine they would have pushed hard for a center regardless, and not fielded the likes of Rick Robey as their starting center.

My point is that Parish might be more valuable than Wilkens and English.

He certainly has the proven track record over nearly everyone else of contributing in meaningful ways to championship teams.

Bob Mcadoo needs to be seriously considered. Not Bob Mcadoo the role player on the Lakers or Bob McAdoo who helped the Pistons, Knicks and Celtics lose games but Bob McAdoo who was great in Buffalo.

Yeah, I forgot about McAdoo! Some crazy seasons with Buffalo and some decentish ones as a role player on some of those Showtime Lakers teams. He definitely should enter the conversation around now, I think.

[Clyde Frazier]

FIXED

Through post #52:

Alex English (2) - penbeast0, ronnymac2

Pau Gasol (2) - john248, RayBan-Sematra

Allen Iverson (3) - Basketballefan, Joao Saraiva, E-Balla

Adrian Dantley (2) - Clyde Frazier, Moonbeam

Robert Parish (1) - trex_8063

Dominique Wilkins (1) - JordansBulls

Bill Walton (1) - Notanoob

[trex_8063]

I've put together a spreadsheet of league averages here.

In 2001, HCA was worth 2.92 points. In 2011, it was worth 3.17 points.

As for the margin, it is the average scoring margin. Philadelphia averaged 93.5 PPG in Round 1, while Indiana averaged 87.25 PPG, so the average margin for Philadelphia was +6.25.

Yes, I feel a little embarrassed , I realized shortly after I asked that "margin" referred to the average pt differential.
Thanks for clarifying the HCA value.

[trex_8063]

Through post #52:

Alex English (2) - penbeast0, ronnymac2

Pau Gasol (2) - john248, RayBan-Sematra

Allen Iverson (3) - Basketballefan, Joao Saraiva, E-Balla

Adrian Dantley (2) - Clyde Frazier, Moonbeam

Robert Parish (1) - trex_8063

Dominique Wilkins (1) - JordansBulls

Bill Walton (1) - Notanoob

Fixed. E-Balla voted Iverson (post #9).
Would still like to see a vote from Quotatious, fplii, Owly, Doctor MJ, Chuck Texas.

[Clyde Frazier]

Fixed. E-Balla voted Iverson (post #9).
Would still like to see a vote from Quotatious, fplii, Owly, Doctor MJ, Chuck Texas.

Whoops, thanks. Time to go grab some coffee!

[colts18]

Vote Kevin Johnson

Kevin Johnson had some amazing offenses in his prime:

89:
Suns: +5.3 Ortg above LA, 2nd, 55 wins
Johnson: 20-12, .597 TS%

90:
Suns: +5.0 Ortg, 3rd, 54 wins
Johnson: 23-11, .585 TS%

91:
Suns: +4.7 Ortg, 4th, 55 wins
Johnson: 22-10, .604 TS%

92:
Suns: +3.9 Ortg, 5th, 53 wins
Johnson: 20-11, .561 TS%

93: Add Barkley
Suns: +5.3 Ortg, 1st, 62 wins
Johnson: 16-8, .576 TS%

94:
Suns: +5.4 Ortg, 1st, 56 wins
Johnson: 20-10, .566 TS%

95:
Suns: +6.2 Ortg, 3rd, 59 wins
Johnson: 16-8, .561 TS%

96:
Suns: +2.7 Ortg, 7th, 41 wins
Johnson: 19-9, .617 TS%

97: No Barkley
Suns: +2.6 Ortg, 6th, 40 wins
Johnson: 20-9, .631 TS%

Average: Suns, +4.6 Ortg above League Average, 3.6 average finish in O rtg, 52.8 wins.

His numbers are incredible too:
89-97: 20-10-3, .590 TS%, 119 O rating
He had 5 20-10 seasons in that span a 20-9 and 19-9 season. He had 4 60 TS% seasons and 4 120 O rating seasons.

In the playoffs he was great too:
21-10-4, .561 TS%, 114 O rating
He had 3 amazing playoff runs
89: 21-11, .618 TS%
90: 21-11, .555 TS% (beats Magic Johnson by posting 22-11-6)
95: 24-9, .663 TS%, 130 O rating, 27 PER (led playoffs) (He had a 46-10 Game 7 vs. Hakeem)

Phoenix had some good offensive playoff runs:
89: 113.4 O rating
90: 110.5 (beats Magic Johnson's Lakers)
92: 116.0
93: 111.0
94: 110.5
95: 118.4
96: 109.3


We only have plus/minus data on Johnson's final 2 relevant seasons (97 and 98) and he was pretty good in it:
97:
109.6 O rating with him on court
100.72 O rating with him off court
+8.9 offensive impact (amazing impact considering his backup PG were Kidd, Cassell, and Nash), +6.3 overall plus/minus
The Suns had a +2.5 MOV in the games he played and a -9.9 without him (+12.5 overall impact). Johnson missed the first 11 games of the season. The Suns had an 0-11 record and 94.3 O rating in those games without Kevin Johnson.

98:
108.3 O rating with him on court
102.7 O rating without him
+5.6 net offensive rating

[ceiling raiser]

Through post #52:

Alex English (2) - penbeast0, ronnymac2

Pau Gasol (2) - john248, RayBan-Sematra

Allen Iverson (3) - Basketballefan, Joao Saraiva, E-Balla

Adrian Dantley (2) - Clyde Frazier, Moonbeam

Robert Parish (1) - trex_8063

Dominique Wilkins (1) - JordansBulls

Bill Walton (1) - Notanoob

Fixed. E-Balla voted Iverson (post #9).
Would still like to see a vote from Quotatious, fplii, Owly, Doctor MJ, Chuck Texas.

I like Dantley, Gasol and Parish here of the above.

Do you guys think we should reconsider Thurmond soon-ish? Or is the offense still holding him back?

[Owly]

Sure they could win (and one of my personal bugbears is the absolutes people sometimes speak in on this type of forum; "Who would win in series?" "Team A, no question." No nuance, no balance of probability, anyhow ... ). But you could say that of a lot players on the board, that you could build 3.5ish SRS team around them (especially with a late prime guy who has just got voted in). And I wouldn't say awfully close. As noted the finals appearance is somewhat misleading. Narrowly coming out of a weak East (covered above) then being defeated very convincingly does not suggest a team that you could typically expect to be a contender. They were much closer, for instance to being eliminated in the second round, thinking they got to the finals so they're close isn't far from merely emphasizing luck (and only emphazining the positive). They could have gotten lucky having got that far, it's a small sample, someone might get injured. Or his peak might not coincide with an awful conference which he happens to play in. Or his team might lose in one of the much closer series.

As I said it's not (I would suggest) an, "AI led teams can't win", it's a "He seems an awkward piece to build around, it might be difficult to build a really good team, a probable contender, around him."

A 3.5 SRS team isn't his cap though. That team was insanely inept on offense. You honestly think you couldn't build a better team around AI with as little money as he was getting paid?

3.5 isn't his cap, but it is about as good as any team with him actually did ('08 Denver also in this ballpark, at 3.74). And as has been said this a team that was good through it's D.

And whilst it isn't his cap I am amongst those who see diminishing returns from AI on better offensive teams. He didn't, generally, seem to trade off usage for efficiency well (one AI advocate suggested he barely did so at all) so his talents are better suited to hauling a poor offense towards the middle. So as the team gets better on O it becomes Iverson's importance to it arguably decreases.

By comparison see, say, a KJ: a guy consistently the best player (and best offensive player and playmaker; then later 2nd best player on other good teams) on a team winning with offense that had SRS in the area of 6-7 and a team winning through offense. Okay this is very crude analysis. Completely different teammates etc. But it is at least a question whether AI could fulfill that sort of role, the sort which adds value to a plausible title contender rather than an occasional and very peripheral one. Heck the 'Nigue vote got some stick, but he was on some good teams with unfabled, though better than AI's, supporting casts.


I'm inclined to vote Parish for the usual reasons (best career value added, including factoring in peak, which is underrated, as covered in a previous thread), though I don't particularly want to send it to a 4 way tie and a 5 man runoff. Ah what the heck ...

Vote: Parish

(Note: This was basically written before the KJ vote but just hit the preview)

[trex_8063]

I like Dantley, Gasol and Parish here of the above.

Pick one, imo.
While the discussion is the larger point, nonetheless where the resulting list is concerned, I don't think the project benefits from solid knowledgeable posters finding reason to abstain from the vote.

Do you guys think we should reconsider Thurmond soon-ish? Or is the offense still holding him back?

Probably somewhat soon-ish. Offense and average-ish longevity are certainly holding him back. Though sometimes it just takes one person sort of breaking the ice on a new nominee, and others supporters come to the surface.