RealGM Top 100 List #67

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Nobody in the History of the NBA other than Bernard King has scored more than 33 points a game at a better than 55 FG% for a playoff season lasting more than 5 games. Yes that is a cherry picked stat but no player has managed to do for 6 games what King did for 12 games.

Bernard King scored 34.8 points per game at a 57.4 FG% during his 12 game 1984 playoff run before the Knicks were knocked off in seven games by the 1984 champion Celtics.

King's 1983-1985 peak is in my opinion a top 20 of all time peak. I think that Nate Thurmond at his peak or any player not already on the list at there peak are far more replaceable than Bernard King at his peak. I don't think that you can replace King with Carmelo Anthony or John Havlicek and get the 1984 Knicks to defeat the Pistons or take the 1984 Celtics to 7 games.

I suspect that some more modern center not even being consideredfor the top 100 list could replace peak Nate Thurmond and produce equal results if you could take them back in time. Peak Brad Daugherty would using time machine method probably be a better player than Nate Thurmond on Nate Thurmond's team. Brad Daugherty did not have a long career but I am talking about peaks.

The only player that I am confident could replace Bernard King on the 1984 Knicks and achieve the same or better playoff results is Michael Jordan. Kobe is King's height but there is no version of Kobe that I could ask to replace Peak King.


Should a cross era top 20 peak player player not be in our top 67 list?

King's non peak years were also very good.
My Vote: Bernard King

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

duplicate

[trex_8063]

King's 1982-1985 peak is in my opinion a top 20 of all time peak.

I don't think one could call all of those years his "peak". Prime maybe, but not peak. '82 and '83 are decidedly beneath (really not even all that close) what he was doing in '84 or '85.

I think that Nate Thurmond at his peak or any player not already on the list at there peak are far more replaceable than Bernard King at his peak. I don't think that you can replace King with Carmelo Anthony or John Havlicek and get the 1984 Knicks to defeat the Pistons or take the 1984 Celtics to 7 games.

I'd generally agree that King's peak was better than Thurmond's, but Nate absolutely trounces King in longevity.

I suspect that some more modern center not even being consideredfor the top 100 list could replace peak Nate Thurmond and produce equal results if you could take them back in time. Peak Brad Daugherty would using time machine method probably be a better player than Nate Thurmond on Nate Thurmond's team. Brad Daugherty did not have a long career but I am talking about peaks.

ick, time machine method..... so dismissive of a lifetime of context (though I guess there could be semantic debate on definition of "time machine method", as was seen in the Russell GOAT? thread recently). But at any rate, all this talk of peaks: you realize this isn't a peaks project, right? Such has been in discussion (having a forum-wide top 50-100 peaks project, similar to this one). Everyone's criteria is his own, but just clarifying that most are considering in some manner total career value.

And where peak is concerned....

Should a cross era top 20 peak player player not be in our top 67 list?

As you stated above: King's peak is top 20 in your opinion. Not sure how many would agree with that. Speaking for myself, I'm skeptical I'd even put it in the top 40 (though I don't have an actual peaks list, peaks are something I've done some studies on).
I see peak King as just a little better than peak Dominique: King was a better scorer by a.....not exactly a "small" margin, but I def can't say it's a "big" margin either; "small-to-moderate" margin, I would say. But Nique was a significantly better rebounding SF. Neither was a noteworthy passer/playmaker, or a noteworthy defender (though King probably gets a marginal edge defensively).

So King a bit better at their respective peaks. But King's peak lasted barely two seasons ('84 and an injury-hit '85), and---more importantly---his quality of play tapers off so quickly on either side of those years that I would say any one of Nique's NINE prime years ('86-'94) is better than any year of King's outside of '84 or '85. And Nique's prime lasted nearly twice as long, with similar caliber (and number) of non-prime seasons.

Anyway, I recognize everyone's criteria is different (and yours may be peak-heavy). But that's my 2c on King. Classy guy with a career narrative that's easy to get behind; but ultimately I think he's been a bit overrated historically.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Your right Trex. I did not mean 1982. I would need to look at December 1983 to see if I mean 1983. That was a multi tasking error.

I think Top should mean best of all time and to me that really means what can a player do at his best against top level competition.

When I look at the old 1960s videos I just don't see the quality of competition. Somebody suggested that the old videos make players look slower because the videos are incorrectly calibrated. I don't know maybe that is true.

I read Celtics players saying the 1960s Celtics deliberately shoot quickly and with poor shot selection to wear down the competition mentally and physically. I guess the Celtics felt that their team had more depth and was in better shape. How do we translate that to evaluations of individual players? We already do pace adjustments but should we mentally upwardly adjust the 1960s Celtics fg% because their strategy lowered fg% ?

This is a top project. Define "top". Peaks should be part of top. It looks like I weight peaks more heavily then most people when deciding who the "top" players were.

[trex_8063]

Your right Trex. I did not mean 1982. I would need to look at December 1983 to see if I mean 1983. That was a multi tasking error.

I think Top should mean best of all time and to me that really means what can a player do at his best against top level competition.

When I look at the old 1960s videos I just don't see the quality of competition. Somebody suggested that the old videos make players look slower because the videos are incorrectly calibrated. I don't know maybe that is true.

I read Celtics players saying the 1960s Celtics deliberately shoot quickly and with poor shot selection to wear down the competition mentally and physically. I guess the Celtics felt that their team had more depth and was in better shape. How do we translate that to evaluations of individual players? We already do pace adjustments but should we mentally upwardly adjust the 1960s Celtics fg% because their strategy lowered fg% ?

When comparing the shooting efficiency of 50's or 60's players to more modern players, most of us scrutinize relative ts% (their ts% relative to league avg at the time).

This is a top project. Define "top". Peaks should be part of top. It looks like I weight peaks more heavily then most people when deciding who the "top" players were.

Peaks absolutely are part of the criteria I would say for all of us. It's just not the only piece, and I daresay (for most of us) not even the largest piece. You get to choose your own criteria; just letting you know where everyone else may be coming from.

As to quality of competition in the 60's (or other era), again: I strongly encourage people to view those with a consciousness of the rules, mentoring, media exposure of the game, coaching, game philosophies/theory, facilities, and the myriad of other factors they would have had available at the time. It's really the only way to view across eras usefully.

I think what that person suggested is true of some (but not all) videos from that time. Different camera angles can definitely alter the perceived verticality of the game, though. Also consider things like shoe technology, and dirty court floors (public was allowed to walk out on to the court, were throwing food/drinks/garbage the players and benches, etc).....those things effect mobility out there.

[Owly]

Bob Cousy -- trex_8063

Nate Thurmond -- Doctor MJ, SactorKingsFan, ronnymac2

Bernard King -- Clyde Frazier

Sam Jones -- Moonbeam

Dennis Rodman -- penbeast0


I can see the Cousy, King, or Sam Jones votes, they were the best left at what they did (playmaker, scorer, championship sidekick), I can't see the Thurmond votes. His strengths were defense and rebounding, he was a significant offensive minus to his teams from what I can see of team results for the second half of the 60s and into the early 70s.

The trouble is that Dennis Rodman is still out there. Rodman was a clearly superior rebounder, arguably a better defender, and unlike Thurmond (whose team only won once they traded him), was a key part of 5 championship teams. I didn't like him, didn't like his antics, and thought I would be the last person championing him in this project (can't wait until I have to write a post supporting Chris Webber!), but he's arguably the most valuable piece left if you are trying to put together a championship team, not Thurmond.

VOTE DENNIS RODMAN

Not voting Thurmond here, but to put the other side of the argument ...

he was a significant offensive minus to his teams from what I can see of team results for the second half of the 60s and into the early 70s

Couldn't we say the same of Russell, despite offensive talent arriving at the same time (admittedly Macauley was lost but Heinsohn and Ramsay were added/regained), and in his rookie year the net improvement wasn't huge.

Rodman was a clearly superior rebounder

When that was his primary focus.

arguably a better defender

Perhaps (I'll admit I'm not sure how to quantify defensive impact), when that was his primary focus. But if so, was he both at the same time (because focus on the former would tend to negate attention on the latter)? If so (maybe circa '92) was he for long?

unlike Thurmond (whose team only won once they traded him)

I'd say once they gained Rick Barry, Jamaal Wilkes, Phil Smith, George Johnson and Ray the whole deep supporting cast (and the great teams of LA, Milwaukee and New York crumbled and the age of parity came). But even then I'd just say it was a fluke. They won on the day(s), they were world champs, that's what will matter to them and no one can take that from them. But (to me) they weren't the best team in the NBA that year. The best team doesn't always win. And they won having got legit assets for a 33 year old at a time when there weren't a whole bunch of guys adding value aged 33 or over (the season prior http://bkref.com/tiny/OFFVE, that season http://bkref.com/tiny/NmG61).

But all of that is somewhat beside the point which is how good was Thurmond. And if you're looking at it from an angle of "How good were Thurmond's teams?" or "How good were teams with Thurmond as the best player?" maybe the answer is fairly average, if he stays healthy. But he does give you a punchers chance in the playoffs with the possibility that he'll play all-time great centers more or less to a tie. Which isn't nothing.

[whilst Rodman] was a key part of 5 championship teams

Chance factors aside (i.e. leaving aside the RINGZ tm debate, because obviously you're note using this as a be all and end all huge thing, just a supporting argument, and also because his importance on those Pistons teams might be underrated), the first two fair enough. But for the last three, is there perhaps a reason why he would only be on a contender? Perhaps that to a bad, rebuilding, middling etc team he wasn't worth the hassle and would make your life hell?

I don't know who should rate as better of the two (in general for Rodman are his early years including a huge scoring efficiency edge there and perhaps his WoWY/"impact" numbers in '93, though my suspicion is part of that impact might be a result of context/niche filling i.e. if you build a team expecting one guy to fulfill most of your needs in one are -here rebounding- and then you don't have them then your plan no longer makes sense, the team no longer fits) but I thought I should put the counter arguments.


Anyhow as it's late in the voting cycle I'll vote for the best player who already has (at least) a vote. Which I think is Sam Jones. There's minutes issues (RS wise), perhaps slight era issues, his playoff reputation might even be a touch overinflated (though he stepped up the minutes in the playoffs once Sharman left). Still after legends like West and Robertson, Jones was the next best thing as an efficient, volume scoring, floor spacing guard (doing so in a system that didn't particularly produce/favour efficiency). He didn't have their complete games (i.e. rebounding, passing) but he's probably the third best primarily 60s guard. It's hard to know but it seems like he was a fairly good defender and decent guy.

[ceiling raiser]

Bob Cousy -- trex_8063

Nate Thurmond -- Doctor MJ, SactorKingsFan, ronnymac2

Bernard King -- Clyde Frazier

Sam Jones -- Moonbeam

Dennis Rodman -- penbeast0


I can see the Cousy, King, or Sam Jones votes, they were the best left at what they did (playmaker, scorer, championship sidekick), I can't see the Thurmond votes. His strengths were defense and rebounding, he was a significant offensive minus to his teams from what I can see of team results for the second half of the 60s and into the early 70s.

The trouble is that Dennis Rodman is still out there. Rodman was a clearly superior rebounder, arguably a better defender, and unlike Thurmond (whose team only won once they traded him), was a key part of 5 championship teams. I didn't like him, didn't like his antics, and thought I would be the last person championing him in this project (can't wait until I have to write a post supporting Chris Webber!), but he's arguably the most valuable piece left if you are trying to put together a championship team, not Thurmond.

VOTE DENNIS RODMAN

pen - just a note, I voted for Nate as well (post #27). I'm still considering Rodman and might change my mind, depending on if the voters on the other side can show that offense is still too big a negative at this point.

[penbeast0]

pen - just a note, I voted for Nate as well (post #27). I'm still considering Rodman and might change my mind, depending on if the voters on the other side can show that offense is still too big a negative at this point.

The individual inefficiency has been done to death; I will focus on his team's offensive inefficiency with him playing a major role:

64 OFF 7th/9, DEF 2nd (Warriors had Wilt; Nate played less than 2000 minutes)

65 OFF 9th/9, DEF 3rd (traded Wilt midseason; Nate played over 3000 minutes)
66 OFF 7th/10, DEF 3rd (added Rick Barry and had an expansion team in his conference)
67 OFF 7th/11, DEF 2nd (another expansion team, also in the West)
68 OFF 10th/12, DEF 3rd (1 more expansion teams added in the West, Rick Barry signs with ABA)
69 OFF 13th/14, DEF 5th (2 expansion teams added, one to each conference)
70 OFF 13th/14, DEF 7th (Nate plays less than 2000 minutes)
71 OFF 15th/17, DEF 5th (Nate back in featured role)
72 OFF 13th/17, DEF 4th
73 OFF 11th/17, DEF 6th (Rick Barry back, Nate scores less than 20/game)
74 OFF 2nd/17, DEF 8th (Nate drops significantly in minutes to less than 2400 and his shots drop to about half of what he had been shooting through 72; Warriors have first above average offensive season of his career)

75 OFF 2nd/17, Def 5th (Cliff Ray traded for Thurmond, offense stays good, defense doesn't see a drop, Warriors win title!)

I won't bother with Nate's declining years in Chicago and Cleveland since they are not what his rep is based on. Looking at a full decade of results, what it says to me is that Thurmond's offensive problems were a significant problem for the Warriors. It is not a coincidence that the Warriors become serious contenders and a good offensive team when they stop giving the ball to Thurmond; it might be a fluke that they won in 75 after trading him, it might not, but it sure seems they were a better team without the "Nate the Great" show that represents the majority of his actual career. In theory, he might have accepted a Bill Russell role, we don't know but we do know what actually happened which is why I favor Rodman over Thurmond.

[penbeast0]

Going to give another couple of hours (it's NY eve and I'm not going out this year)


Nate Thurmond -- Doctor MJ, SactorKingsFan, ronnymac2

Bernard King -- Clyde Frazier, SinceGatlingWasARookie

Sam Jones -- Moonbeam, Owly

Dennis Rodman -- penbeast0

Bob Cousy -- trex_8063

[trex_8063]

Going to give another couple of hours (it's NY eve and I'm not going out this year)


Nate Thurmond -- Doctor MJ, SactorKingsFan, ronnymac2, fplii

Bernard King -- Clyde Frazier, SinceGatlingWasARookie

Sam Jones -- Moonbeam, Owly

Dennis Rodman -- penbeast0

Bob Cousy -- trex_8063

FYP.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I was wondering whether Cousy would have been awarded more assists by modern scorekeepers. Interesting discussion about awarding assists including an excerpt from a 1958 newspaper article: http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/201 ... riple.html

[penbeast0]

OK, I will change my vote to Sam Jones; winner, efficient scorer, played well within a team context, generally more convinced he could play a key role on a dynasty without changing his game significantly than either of the other two. Runoff ends at 5P EST or so tomorrow evening despite this late start to it.

[Quotatious]

Wasn't sure who I should vote for, as Bosh is my top candidate right now, and he isn't really getting traction, so I'll just cast my vote for Nate Thurmond in the run-off.

Sam Jones was an excellent player, kinda reminds me of Manu Ginobili (both efficient scorers and good defenders at SG for two of the greatest dynasties of all-time, good playoff performers), but I believe that Thurmond had greater overall impact due to his dominant defensive and rebounding presence - he's a true all-time in both areas (especially on defense, he's top 10 all-time level, basically the same level as Dwight Howard, Alonzo Mourning, Artis Gilmore, but he's also one of just 5 players in NBA history who averaged over 20 RPG for for an entire season, actually he even did that twice - played just 65 and 51 games those two years, but still, it's an impressive accomplishment). Sam Jones isn't anywhere close to the top 10 all-time level in any area of the game.

Thurmond was a very mediocre scorer, and his value probably would've been higher had he shot less, but FWIW, he was trusted to average over 20 PPG several times in his career, so he certainly had some scoring ability, even if his efficiency left a lot to be desired.

Finally, Thurmond's longevity is much better. He had 11 seasons with more than 30 MPG (8 of those were 40+ minutes), Jones had just 6 (peaked at 36.1, but never even averaged more than 33, other than that one season with 36).

So, easy choice for me. Respect to Jones for his solid all-around game and being an excellent team player, but Thurmond was IMO better.

[penbeast0]

OK, I will change my vote to Sam Jones; winner, efficient scorer, played well within a team context, generally more convinced he could play a key role on a dynasty without changing his game significantly than either of the other two. Runoff ends at 5P EST or so tomorrow evening despite this late start to it.

I have to admit, I think I made this vote because I had just argued for Rodman over Thurmond. And I still think that's correct BUT . . .

Although Thurmond was a major offensive problem, he was a defensive force. Jones was a very nice complementary player, think Klay Thompson, but I don't think he was the difference maker that Thurmond was. Changing my vote to Nate Thurmond.

[trex_8063]

Run-off vote: Nate Thurmond

Had actually wrote in I was switching my vote to Nate, thinking it would avoid run-off; then quickly deleted it when recount showed it actually would not circumvent a run-off.

Reasons: arguably the GOAT low-post man defender. Awhile back I'd done some H2H studies of the following bigs: Thurmond, Russell, Wilt, Walton, Hakeem, Duncan, Garnett, Mutombo, DRob, and Shaq. The CLEAR (not even close) stand-out based on H2H's was Nate Thurmond; which is consistent with testimonial evidence (iirc both Russell and Wilt declared no one gave them a harder time than Thurmond). He was also---apparently simultaneously---a great rebounder (which is somewhat in contrast to Rodman, whose defense seems to suffer a touch when he became rebound-centric). Was a very good rim-protector, as well.

I'm more forgiving of his shooting inefficiency, especially during the front half of his career, for reasons previously mentioned: that shooting efficiency barely appears to have been on anyone's radar in the hyper-paced 60's. I'd like to think that if coaching had better encouraged him to take fewer (and wiser) shots, that he would have done so, and could have been a fine low volume/decent efficiency center. At any rate, I'll still credit him with being a big who was able to shoot a fade-away or a mid-range J.
Decent passing big, too, from what I can tell; and with decent longevity.

[RayBan-Sematra]

I like Sam Jones.
Super clutch performer and deadly shooter who could raise his volume when needed ala Reggie Miller.
His efficiency (50%TS) doesn't blow you away but I give him some slack because he played on those run and gun Boston offenses.
I could see him being highly efficient in a more modern offense where horrible shots are discouraged rather then encouraged and with the 3pt shot buoying his TS%.

That being said Thurmond was also a great player who played heavier minutes and seemingly has slightly better longevity but that may just be because Jones was under-used in certain years (check his p36 stats).
Jones gives you a great scorer and a decent playmaker.
Thurmond gives you a great defensive anchor and a solid rebounder.

Gonna vote for Jones because of his playoff and big stage dominance and also partly because I think Thurmond lowered his impact by volume shooting.

VOTE : Jones

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

It looks like Thurmond has won. Unless I find game footage of prime Thurmond quickly I won't feel qualified vote.

I have a good idea of what Sam Jones was like. I have recently seen Thurmand as a rookie and Sam Jones was better than Rookie Thurmond but I can't vote based on seeing rookie Thurmond. With me feeling that 1960s and even early 1970s big man stats are inflated I am not taking Thurmond over Jones on stats alone. I am not going to vote based on reputation and I don't even know what the past consensus was on Thurmond vs Jones. I am not going to vote based on championships won.

I wonder if I will find time today to watch 1/2 hour of some prime Thurmond game. I have seen a 1967 finals game. I should watch that again. My memory isn't good enough.

December 24, 1967 Warriors at Sonics 4th quarter http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N-qjW-DfFKk
At first glance it looks like the 1967-68 Warriors go 32-19 before Thurmond's injury and go 11-20 after his injury

[trex_8063]

December 24, 1967 Warriors at Sonics 4th quarter http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N-qjW-DfFKk
At first glance it looks like the 1976-68 go 32-19 before Thurmond's injury and go 11-20 after his injury

For a lot of the people who are "skeptical" of the talent that was present in pro ball in the 60's (or earlier), one of the things they'll often cite as evidence is something to the effect of, "the ball-handling is terrible; they look like they barely know how to dribble" or similar.

But players in this time period were under MUCH tighter regulations as far as what was allowed while dribbling. And there's actually a great example of this in the video you've provided link to: check out the 3:23 mark. You think that would have been called for palming in the NBA anywhere in the last 35-40 years? And this was in the late 60's; officiating of the dribble was probably even more restrictive 10 or 15 years earlier.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

December 24, 1967 Warriors at Sonics 4th quarter http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N-qjW-DfFKk
At first glance it looks like the 1976-68 go 32-19 before Thurmond's injury and go 11-20 after his injury

For a lot of the people who are "skeptical" of the talent that was present in pro ball in the 60's (or earlier), one of the things they'll often cite as evidence is something to the effect of, "the ball-handling is terrible; they look like they barely know how to dribble" or similar.

But players in this time period were under MUCH tighter regulations as far as what was allowed while dribbling. And there's actually a great example of this in the video you've provided link to: check out the 3:23 mark. You think that would have been called for palming in the NBA anywhere in the last 35-40 years? And this was in the late 60's; officiating of the dribble was probably even more restrictive 10 or 15 years earlier.

Thanks. The carefulness about not travellling is something that I understand and make adjustments for when looking at 1960s players. I don't have that problem. I am irritated that current players are not held to 1980s standards for travellling and I can see that 1960s standards for travellling are much tougher than 1980s standards and If I was following the rule book I would have to say that the 1960s standards were the correct standards.

Some 1960s announcers keep referring to pushing fouls. Despite the legend of rough play in the 1960s ( perhaps punches thrown ) I see fouls being called tighter in the 1960s. When a little guy boxes out a big guy the big guy can't just shove the little guy under the basket. What Moses Malone was doing on rebounds in the 1980s would not have been legal in the 1960s.

I have some problem with recovery speed for the defenders coming off being scraped by screens in the 1960s. I have problems with letting players shoot without a hand in the face and still despite the lack of a hand in the face the shooting was still bad.

I will look at the 3:23 mark again. Thanks

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

December 24, 1967 Warriors at Sonics 4th quarter http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N-qjW-DfFKk
At first glance it looks like the 1976-68 go 32-19 before Thurmond's injury and go 11-20 after his injury

For a lot of the people who are "skeptical" of the talent that was present in pro ball in the 60's (or earlier), one of the things they'll often cite as evidence is something to the effect of, "the ball-handling is terrible; they look like they barely know how to dribble" or similar.

But players in this time period were under MUCH tighter regulations as far as what was allowed while dribbling. And there's actually a great example of this in the video you've provided link to: check out the 3:23 mark. You think that would have been called for palming in the NBA anywhere in the last 35-40 years? And this was in the late 60's; officiating of the dribble was probably even more restrictive 10 or 15 years earlier.

I looked at that violation at 3:23 a few times and never saw anything that would have been called in 1980, never mind 2014. I don't actually see the palming.

Thurmond missed shot at 2:07 is interesting. Thurmond was quick for a big man and very fluid and smooth while driving to the basket where he had what should have been either an easy layup or an easy dunk. Then something went wrong. Maybe he did not decide if it was going to be a lay up or a dunk until too late. The shot was rather high off the backboard but there was no shot blocker around so why did he put the ball higher off the backboard than he needed to? Why did he use the backboard at all? The result looked like a bad case of stone hands is you sometimes see with Dwight Howard. The short shot was too hard and innaccurate and and a slightly more difficult shot then it needed to be. Maybe stone hands is why a guy a big and mobile as Thurmond had a bad shooting percentage.

At 13:26 Thurmond makes a few offensive moves and then hits a fairly difficult short mid range jump shot over the outstretched arms of the defender. If Thurmond could hit that shot all day long he would be a Tim Duncan sort of scorer. We can tell from the stats that Thurmand can't hit that shot with any consistency but that scoring move and shot did look good.

I can't read the numbers on the Warriors shirts at all but Nate Thurmond's bright white knee bands make it easy to recognize him.