RealGM Top 100 List #56

Joao Saraiva · Post #41 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Mon Dec 1, 2014 10:45 am

ronnymac2 wrote:Vote: Vince Carter

My true contenders for this spot are Nate Thurmond, Allen Iverson, and VC.

Vince was one of the most dynamic players in the golden era of shooting guards. His passing out of pick-n-roll while in New Jersey made him similar to his cousin, Tracy McGrady. His explosiveness, 3-point shooting, and low turnover rate in Toronto made him a super portable offensive menace for the Raptors.

After ending his prime in New Jersey, he willingly turned into a valuable role player, even coming off the bench for some strong teams like Dallas last year and Memphis this year. This in my opinion helps him overtake his contemporary, Allen Iverson, though I get the argument for AI as well.

Spoiler:
Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo

Worms: Dennis Rodman

Wings: Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Paul Arizin, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Mark Price

Carter's longevity is getting overrated a ton. Iverson has more than a case against Carter, and at this point it feels like people just refuse to vote for him. Peaked a lot higher, achieved more than VC in his career and even had more team success.

Spoiler:

Post #42 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Dec 1, 2014 4:08 pm

I'm looking at Iverson here, just like Carter but don't think either is a championship first option; Sam Jones is a better second option who proved it over a decade of championships . . . but I have questions about him too. Just need convincing that Iverson is not a player who improves mediocre teams but whose style doesn't fit in a championship level of talent.

Post #43 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Dec 1, 2014 4:12 pm

Quotatious wrote:For those who like Sam Jones here (so basically just penbeast, but I remember DQuinn voted for him as early as late 30s, when he was still active in this project) - what makes you like Jones over Hal Greer? I don't think I've seen Greer even being mentioned at this point as a serious candidate, but IMO Greer and Jones are just as close as Reggie Miller and Ray Allen. Hard to separate.

To a large degree it's winner's bias . . . those Celtic teams were so good and outside of Russell, who made them that way. Looking at it, Sam Jones, even more than Havlicek, really stands out from those squads (though I can see a case for Bailey Howell in the last years and for Sharman and Ramsey in the early years). He's more efficient than Greer, plays more off-ball, and seemed like Mr. Clutch when the Celtics needed it.

Owly · Post #44 » by **Owly** » Mon Dec 1, 2014 7:02 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
Quotatious wrote:For those who like Sam Jones here (so basically just penbeast, but I remember DQuinn voted for him as early as late 30s, when he was still active in this project) - what makes you like Jones over Hal Greer? I don't think I've seen Greer even being mentioned at this point as a serious candidate, but IMO Greer and Jones are just as close as Reggie Miller and Ray Allen. Hard to separate.

To a large degree it's winner's bias . . . those Celtic teams were so good and outside of Russell, who made them that way. Looking at it, Sam Jones, even more than Havlicek, really stands out from those squads (though I can see a case for Bailey Howell in the last years and for Sharman and Ramsey in the early years). He's more efficient than Greer, plays more off-ball, and seemed like Mr. Clutch when the Celtics needed it.

Greer career PER (or nearest thing we have to it for that era) 15.7 ; WS/48 .124
Jones career PER 18.7 ; WS/48 .182
Greer playoff PER 14.7; WS/48 .096
Jones playoff PER 17.5; WS/48 .152

Greer played quite a bit more and longer (enough to get ahead in career win shares). But as with Hayes, if the bar is something like wins above league average, wins above solid starter, wins above good (or even to a lesser degree wins above replacement level) you take quite a lot away. Jones is a bit like Manu (and maybe Bobby Jones) in that he's giving production thats quite a lot over most of the pack at the position (on a great team) in lower than ordinary minutes. I'd rather have the greatness than the extra years of solid, because solid doesn't tend to win championships (it moves the needle so much less, not that it can't be valuable but you need a lot of other good players).

Joao Saraiva · Post #45 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Mon Dec 1, 2014 8:24 pm

penbeast0 wrote:I'm looking at Iverson here, just like Carter but don't think either is a championship first option; Sam Jones is a better second option who proved it over a decade of championships . . . but I have questions about him too. Just need convincing that Iverson is not a player who improves mediocre teams but whose style doesn't fit in a championship level of talent.

Look, there is no way to prove that. Iverson played in Philadelphia for his best years, so that's the kind of game you need to evaluate in that particular situation. I think he really did what was best for his team, since his presence made them clearly better.

We can have a ton of what ifs, like if Iverson played with peak Barkley like Kevin Johnson did, or even with peak Shaq like Kobe Bryant, but we'll never know.

Bottom line I think his career and his overall impact in the situations he has been justify a top 50 spot, and Carter doesn't really have a good argument vs Iverson. With some of the other guys I feel like it's winning bias too...

Ultimately just look at what Iverson did and ask yourself: could he really have achieved more in the situations he was in? I really don't think so.

Post #46 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Mon Dec 1, 2014 8:37 pm

Joao Saraiva wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:I'm looking at Iverson here, just like Carter but don't think either is a championship first option; Sam Jones is a better second option who proved it over a decade of championships . . . but I have questions about him too. Just need convincing that Iverson is not a player who improves mediocre teams but whose style doesn't fit in a championship level of talent.

Look, there is no way to prove that. Iverson played in Philadelphia for his best years, so that's the kind of game you need to evaluate in that particular situation. I think he really did what was best for his team, since his presence made them clearly better.

We can have a ton of what ifs, like if Iverson played with peak Barkley like Kevin Johnson did, or even with peak Shaq like Kobe Bryant, but we'll never know.

Bottom line I think his career and his overall impact in the situations he has been justify a top 50 spot, and Carter doesn't really have a good argument vs Iverson. With some of the other guys I feel like it's winning bias too...

Ultimately just look at what Iverson did and ask yourself: could he really have achieved more in the situations he was in? I really don't think so.

I'm not voting for either player here, and if it came down to a runoff, I would have to look further into it, but carter is rather comparable in many areas during their most productive seasons:

http://bkref.com/tiny/PPvXq

His 3 role player seasons in dallas where he transformed his game do matter to me, especially after fizzling out in PHX. Unfortunately iverson could never make that transition. It’s too bad, because the 6th man spark plug off the bench role is in full force these days.

Post #47 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Dec 1, 2014 8:45 pm

Joao Saraiva wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:I'm looking at Iverson here, just like Carter but don't think either is a championship first option; Sam Jones is a better second option who proved it over a decade of championships . . . but I have questions about him too. Just need convincing that Iverson is not a player who improves mediocre teams but whose style doesn't fit in a championship level of talent.

Look, there is no way to prove that. Iverson played in Philadelphia for his best years, so that's the kind of game you need to evaluate in that particular situation. I think he really did what was best for his team, since his presence made them clearly better.

We can have a ton of what ifs, like if Iverson played with peak Barkley like Kevin Johnson did, or even with peak Shaq like Kobe Bryant, but we'll never know.

Bottom line I think his career and his overall impact in the situations he has been justify a top 50 spot, and Carter doesn't really have a good argument vs Iverson. With some of the other guys I feel like it's winning bias too...

Ultimately just look at what Iverson did and ask yourself: could he really have achieved more in the situations he was in? I really don't think so.

My answer is clearly YES. I saw him with Georgetown and he put in more defensive effort (Big East Defensive Player of the Year) and didn't screw around with skipping practices and the like. Coach Thompson would have benched him; Philly didn't. To some extent I blame Harold Katz who gave Iverson the keys to the franchise and when his first coaches tried to rein Iverson in, Katz backed Iverson instead. But I do blame Iverson for the laziness, the skipping practice, etc. He certainly could have achieved ore in the situation he was in by making that situation a better one; he was lucky to get Larry Brown and a defensive culture where his teammates took their lead from someone else which turned that team around. It could have been the Derrick Coleman/Chris Morris Nets.

Post #48 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Dec 1, 2014 10:09 pm

Doesn't look like there are any votes since Quotatious posted his count on page 2 so . . . I will change my vote over to Elvin Hayes so we can start the runoff. To some degree this is a homer vote as a fan who was a teenager during the Unseld/Hayes era in DC, but it seems to me that the offensive impact of the two is similar with the edge favoring Iverson but Hayes has superior durability, defensive impact, and rebounding (even for his position).

IVERSON (3) drza, trex_8063, Joao Saraiva

HAYES (3) Clyde Frazier, Quotatious, penbeast0

Owly · Post #49 » by **Owly** » Mon Dec 1, 2014 11:27 pm

Not a great fan of either, Hayes is slightly ahead on my WS/faux EWA pythagorean ranking. However with a low, (sub replacement level) baseline for WS Hayes' edge might be somewhat artificial. Iverson whilst he doesn't blow you away is better on my equivalent for peaks coming in at 105th

Spoiler:

where as I've said Hayes doesn't make it onto the board.

I'm not convinced by either as a centerpiece to build around. Some similarities in their flaws (volume scorers on below average efficiency, though Iverson shouldered a larger burden and I think was closer to league norms, both with abrasive personalities or some personality issues). I'm not entirely convinced Iverson's best asset (shot creation) is that valuable on better teams (because of inefficiencies), but then I'm not wholly convinced Hayes had such a huge impact either (generally pedestrian per minute metrics, the only thing in his favour is big minutes, which if you're not great doesn't mean that much, WoWY/impact type stuff, in which there might be too many moving parts and player development to isolate Hayes' impact). Fwiw both share positives too (seeming to work hard on court, big minutes).

I presently lean AI, but am not sure if I'm doing so to get him out of the way, plus I'm not confident on Hayes' impact, maybe as has been suggested he was having a large defensive impact though only two 2nd teams over his long career with those forward spots, I would suggest, quite open (at least later, and on the 2nd team, at first DeBusschere and Havlicek, but they and Silas age/retire only Bobby Jones really comes in and there are a lot of historical non-notables making Defensive 2nd team as forward) gives me pause. Not that such accolades are perfect. Maybe his reputation preceded him. The Hollander handbooks don't give the impression that he was the clear leader in defensive impact, noting Chenier and Riordan as much as Hayes, later Dandridge comes in with a good rep at that end.

As I said, leaning AI, but not confident enough to vote either way.

SactoKingsFan · Post #50 » by **SactoKingsFan** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 12:54 am

I've soured a bit on Hayes after taking a closer look at his peak, skill set and overall career. Hayes' combination of great longevity, ironman durability and defense makes him a legit top 50-60ish candidate, however his inefficient volume scoring is a significant issue. Recently been leaning towards Thurmond and Lanier over Hayes.

Although Iverson's not my top candidate, I've decided to move him ahead of Hayes on my ATL. Iverson has become the poster child of inefficient chucking, but inefficient/high volume scoring from a big like Hayes can be just as problematic if not more so. IMO, Iverson's peak and prime impact are being overlooked due to his well documented poor efficiency and character issues. Ultimately, I think Iverson peaked higher and was generally a better player during his prime.

Runoff vote: Allen Iverson

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Post #51 » by **tsherkin** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 1:08 am

Vote Elvin Hayes

Not really any better a scorer, but I like his defense and his rebounding compared to the other elements of Iverson's game.

Post #52 » by **Moonbeam** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 1:09 am

Really not sure how to vote in this. Both have issues with efficiency and both apparently have off-the-court issues. trex in particular has done a great job in highlighting the benefit Iverson's presence had on his teams' offenses, so I'd definitely give Iverson an edge offensively. However, Hayes is clearly the better defender of the two, and he has a notable edge in longevity. I'll have to let this one stir a bit.

Post #53 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 1:13 am

SactoKingsFan wrote:I've soured a bit on Hayes after taking a closer look at his peak, skill set and overall career. Hayes' combination of great longevity, ironman durability and defense makes him a legit top 50-60ish candidate, however his inefficient volume scoring is a significant issue. Recently been leaning towards Thurmond and maybe Lanier over Hayes.

Although Iverson's not my top candidate, I've decided to move him ahead of Hayes on my ATL. Iverson has become the poster child of inefficient chucking, but inefficient/high volume scoring from a big like Hayes is just as problematic if not more so. IMO, Iverson's peak and prime impact are being overlooked due to his well documented poor efficiency and character issues. Ultimately, I think Iverson peaked higher and was generally a better player during his prime.

Runoff vote: Allen Iverson

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I don't see how it could be more problematic when hayes was doing it on lower volume, and his impact defensively was far greater than iverson's. Iverson's efficiency dropped even further in the playoffs, whereas hayes' increased.

HAYES 69-79
League average TS% - 50.6%
Reg season TS% - 49%
Playoffs TS% - 50.6%

IVERSON 98-08
League average TS% - 52.5%
Reg season TS% - 52%
Playoffs TS% - 48.9%

Post #54 » by **tsherkin** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 1:20 am

Joao Saraiva wrote:[Iverson] Peaked a lot higher, achieved more than VC in his career and even had more team success.

Iverson didn't really peak a lot higher, though. He had higher scoring volume, but that's literally it. Yes, he had more team success, but he also had more team help the one year that he went further than did Carter's Raps, and the Raptors roster fell apart due to injuries and management incompetence fairly quickly, so this isn't really a super-salient point either... and then Carter went to New Jersey and added to his team success resume, then re-invented himself as a high-quality roleplayer later on in his career, of which Iverson was never capable.

SactoKingsFan · Post #55 » by **SactoKingsFan** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 1:24 am

Clyde Frazier wrote:
SactoKingsFan wrote:I've soured a bit on Hayes after taking a closer look at his peak, skill set and overall career. Hayes' combination of great longevity, ironman durability and defense makes him a legit top 50-60ish candidate, however his inefficient volume scoring is a significant issue. Recently been leaning towards Thurmond and maybe Lanier over Hayes.

Although Iverson's not my top candidate, I've decided to move him ahead of Hayes on my ATL. Iverson has become the poster child of inefficient chucking, but inefficient/high volume scoring from a big like Hayes is just as problematic if not more so. IMO, Iverson's peak and prime impact are being overlooked due to his well documented poor efficiency and character issues. Ultimately, I think Iverson peaked higher and was generally a better player during his prime.

Runoff vote: Allen Iverson

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I don't see how it could be more problematic when hayes was doing it on lower volume, and his impact defensively was far greater than iverson's.

Hayes was still an inefficient scorer taking 20+ shots per 100 and wasn't a noteworthy passer. Both were taking too many shots but Iverson was clearly a much better/more impactful offensive player.

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Post #56 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 1:39 am

SactoKingsFan wrote:
Clyde Frazier wrote:
SactoKingsFan wrote:I've soured a bit on Hayes after taking a closer look at his peak, skill set and overall career. Hayes' combination of great longevity, ironman durability and defense makes him a legit top 50-60ish candidate, however his inefficient volume scoring is a significant issue. Recently been leaning towards Thurmond and maybe Lanier over Hayes.

Although Iverson's not my top candidate, I've decided to move him ahead of Hayes on my ATL. Iverson has become the poster child of inefficient chucking, but inefficient/high volume scoring from a big like Hayes is just as problematic if not more so. IMO, Iverson's peak and prime impact are being overlooked due to his well documented poor efficiency and character issues. Ultimately, I think Iverson peaked higher and was generally a better player during his prime.

Runoff vote: Allen Iverson

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I don't see how it could be more problematic when hayes was doing it on lower volume, and his impact defensively was far greater than iverson's.

Hayes was still an inefficient scorer taking 20+ shots per 100 and wasn't a noteworthy passer. Both were taking too many shots but Iverson was clearly a much better/more impactful offensive player.

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Was editing my post to include the following when you replied:

Iverson's efficiency dropped even further in the playoffs, whereas hayes' increased.

HAYES 69-79
League average TS% - 50.6%
Reg season TS% - 49%
Playoffs TS% - 50.6%

IVERSON 98-08
League average TS% - 52.5%
Reg season TS% - 52%
Playoffs TS% - 48.9%

When hayes went to the bullets, he cut his shot attempts down to 18.3 per game from 75-79 vs. 69-74 where he took 23.4 per game. He adapted his game and became a major factor in helping them win the championship.

magicmerl · Post #57 » by **magicmerl** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 1:50 am

Not really a fan of either of the options here. I guess I'll vote for Iverson.

Without an explanation, this vote does not count.

RSCD3_ · Post #58 » by **RSCD3_** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 6:06 am

Vote : Elvin Hayes

Much more portable

Great defender and rebounder and scored on decent efficiency during his era which increased during the playoffs as opposed to AI whose efficiency dropped.

I think it's easier to build a team with Hayes as a main piece.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Post #59 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 6:37 am

RSCD3_ wrote:Vote : Elvin Hayes

Much more portable

Great defender and rebounder and scored on decent efficiency during his era......

The bolded is a bit dubious, even when being compared to Iverson. Hayes wasn't even "decently efficient" relative to his own era:

Hayes' relative ts% (to league average in same years) was -1.84% during his prime ('69-'80); for his career he was -2.52%.

That being said, I'd be content with him getting voted in here. But let's be honest about the reasons why.

ThaRegul8r · Post #60 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Tue Dec 2, 2014 7:03 am

Quotatious wrote:For those who like Sam Jones here (so basically just penbeast, but I remember DQuinn voted for him as early as late 30s, when he was still active in this project) - what makes you like Jones over Hal Greer? I don't think I've seen Greer even being mentioned at this point as a serious candidate, but IMO Greer and Jones are just as close as Reggie Miller and Ray Allen. Hard to separate.

For those who rank Allen over Miller, Greer can be ranked over Jones for some of the same reasons. Greer was a better all-around player, received more accolades as a direct contemporary, and was also a better defender. If one ranks Jones over Greer, playoff performance will heavily factor into it, as he was the better clutch player, which is also one of the reasons for ranking Miller over Allen. Unlike Miller though, Jones played for the best defense of his era and thus never had to face the Celtics' defense.