Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #40

[LA Bird]

Same votes as last round:

1. Reggie Miller
Reggie is not all rounded if you are looking at the rebounds and assists but he is so good in the one area he excels in (efficient scoring) that the all in one advanced stats still rate him very highly despite his one dimensionality. WS may be a bit too generous in terms of rewarding solid players with great longevity but even in something more accurate like career VORP, Reggie is top 25 all time. For comparison, Rip Hamilton, who often get compared to Miller due to their similar playing style, is at #393 all time in careeer VORP. Miller is the highest remaining player in both WS and VORP, which is pretty impressive since off-ball players usually don't look that great in box score type stats. Reggie looks good in late 90s RAPM and the Pacers were around a +3 offense for more than a decade under his leadership. Consistently stepped up his game in the playoffs which corresponded with an improvement in the Pacers offense in the postseason as well.

Alternate: Paul Pierce

[pandrade83]

WRT Hayes vs. Unseld, I disagree with you for a couple reasons:

1) Unseld beats Hayes in regular season VORP/BPM every year but '74 & '81.

2) The above holds true for every playoffs as well except '74 & '78 (VORP only - Unseld still beats him on playoff scores)

BPM/VORP is just one stat though and since it favors player with a higher rebound*assist interaction term, it's not too surprising to see Unseld ahead of Hayes considering their difference in assists. Other HOF bigs with similarly low assists as Hayes don't look too good either in BPM/VORP - neither Moses nor Mourning ever topped 5 BPM in a season even though their plus minus stats (based on actual play by play data not box score derived) were among the best in the league. The biggest problem I have with BPM/VORP in this scenario is that they have Unseld as DPOY but Hayes as a merely good defensive player when it should be Hayes with the much higher DBPM.

3) Hayes is a big reason that he & Unseld have just 1 chip - they could've easily had 3 Championships but Hayes hurt them in both series.

The Bullet were 1-8 in the 75 and 79 finals. 45~46% TS is poor but league average was only 50% anyway and Hayes making 1 more FG a game to shoot above average is not going to easily win them those two series. I had Unseld ranked as the better offensive player anyway so those finals stats don't change anything - the difference between the two has always come down to defense where I think Hayes had a clear and decisive edge.

So if you think the blocks from Hayes outweigh the rebounding edge from Unseld, that's reasonable - and I generally agree that Hayes had a bigger defensive impact. Hayes anchored some pretty great defenses on otherwise awful teams before coming to play with Unseld, which is impressive in itself.

Aside from the fact that everyone hated Hayes - so he gets some sort of ding on intangibles - whatever you think that is - my bigger issue with Hayes is the offensive drag he brings.

His volume is really high - over 20 shots in most years. And his TS% is terrible - he rarely breaks 50%. He also has terrible assist #'s. The combination of those 2 creates a big drag offensively and it makes it hard to win. I know it's typically only a couple points below league average, but the volume is what hurts you. If his assist #'s weren't terrible or his TS%'s were better, it wouldn't be as big of a deal - but the combination of the two makes your team a lot easier to defend.

For me the offensive drag off-sets the defensive edge.

Almost forgot - Washington had HCA in both '75 & '79 - that's why I thought those series were winnable. The '75 Warriors & '79 Sonics were not world beaters and when you have HCA in both series and get hammered & Hayes plays pretty poorly in both, that's concerning.

[Joao Saraiva]

1st vote - Chauncey Billups
Can't believe he hasn't been voted yet. Better scorer than IT, more efficient play. More team success, better pace controller... I think he really should have been in before Isiah. He was also a better defender than most elite PGs on the list.


2nd vote - Dwight Howard

[trex_8063]

1st vote - Chauncey Billups
Can't believe he hasn't been voted yet. Better scorer than IT, more efficient play. More team success, better pace controller... I think he really should have been in before Isiah. He was also a better defender than most elite PGs on the list.


2nd vote - Artis Gilmore

Gilmore was voted in #36.

Russell Westbrook

fwiw, I don't quite understand dropping Cousy as your alternate pick because you don't feel he has the traction [even though he just finished 3rd in the last thread], and then replacing him with Westbrook, who [iirc] hasn't even received a single alternate vote yet.

[Joao Saraiva]

1st vote - Chauncey Billups
Can't believe he hasn't been voted yet. Better scorer than IT, more efficient play. More team success, better pace controller... I think he really should have been in before Isiah. He was also a better defender than most elite PGs on the list.


2nd vote - Artis Gilmore

Gilmore was voted in #36.

Russell Westbrook

fwiw, I don't quite understand dropping Cousy as your alternate pick because you don't feel he has the traction [even though he just finished 3rd in the last thread], and then replacing him with Westbrook, who [iirc] hasn't even received a single alternate vote yet.

Thanks. Edited it for Dwight Howard.

[THKNKG]

Vote: Reggie Miller
2nd: Dikembe Mutombo

The short of it: Reggie scored on great efficiency, could elevate his volume while keeping that efficiency when needed, played in the most optimal offensive position, and played for 15+ high level seasons.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Reggie Miller
Alt: Paul Pierce

Same guys I've been voting for. Reggie, the prototype for the off-guard of the future, was damn special.

I should say I have more ambivalence toward Pierce. He's great, but not as singular. The people mentioning Unseld tempt me to go in that direction, but I can't in all honesty claim I that I'd draft Unseld ahead of Pierce in any era, really. Pierce has an all-around game without warts which he used consistently for his team.

[Doctor MJ]

And of course Iveson was a contemporary for Pierce's entire pre-Big Three career. Not ONCE, not one single time did Pierce finish ahead of A.I. in MVP voting up to and including the year the new Big Three Celts won it all in 2008. And Pierce was 30 at that point. So now we come along, not even a decade after these guys retire, and decide to rewrite all that? Pierce wasn't considered at A.I.'s level only 10 years ago, but now he is better? Because he suddenly got better teammates?

There's some truth in this. All 3 of the Celtic Big 3 had their legacy changed by the far-better-than-expected success they had together. That might seem crazy given that they only one a single title, but at their best that team was an absolute juggernaut that experts didn't see coming. People thought they'd be good, but not as good as they were.

So what that means is that Pierce can be seen as a more-than-the-sum-of-parts guy which when combined with his ability to put up big stats on weaker teams and his longevity makes him a pretty typical Top 50 lock.

There is also the matter though that Iverson was a less-than-the-sum-of-parts guy. To my mind he got massively overrated for a time because of the way that '00-01 played out. It made people think of him as someone on the same order as Shaq or Duncan, but he just wasn't. To be the star on a great team he needed the defense to be great, because he couldn't make the offense great. And since he had very little to do with the defense...

I loved AI at the time. He was my favorite player. I loved his pluck. But basically everything I've seen in more rigorous analysis has shown to me he wasn't having the impact I thought he was. Beyond that, while AI's attitude helped his team in that perfect situation, most of the time that attitude was a liability. Stars who don't recognize their effect on how well their role players play tend to be problematic, stars who outright blow off the chance to develop better on-court chemistry with their teammates are considerably more problematic.

What all this means is that while I acknowledge Pierce moved up due to the Big 3 era, and that he was fortunate for us to see that, I don't actually think Pierce is the real thing. The real thing is that a lot of us don't take AI seriously as a franchise player.

[Doctor MJ]

WRT Hayes vs. Unseld, I disagree with you for a couple reasons:

1) Unseld beats Hayes in regular season VORP/BPM every year but '74 & '81.

2) The above holds true for every playoffs as well except '74 & '78 (VORP only - Unseld still beats him on playoff scores)

BPM/VORP is just one stat though and since it favors player with a higher rebound*assist interaction term, it's not too surprising to see Unseld ahead of Hayes considering their difference in assists. Other HOF bigs with similarly low assists as Hayes don't look too good either in BPM/VORP - neither Moses nor Mourning ever topped 5 BPM in a season even though their plus minus stats (based on actual play by play data not box score derived) were among the best in the league. The biggest problem I have with BPM/VORP in this scenario is that they have Unseld as DPOY but Hayes as a merely good defensive player when it should be Hayes with the much higher DBPM.

3) Hayes is a big reason that he & Unseld have just 1 chip - they could've easily had 3 Championships but Hayes hurt them in both series.

The Bullet were 1-8 in the 75 and 79 finals. 45~46% TS is poor but league average was only 50% anyway and Hayes making 1 more FG a game to shoot above average is not going to easily win them those two series. I had Unseld ranked as the better offensive player anyway so those finals stats don't change anything - the difference between the two has always come down to defense where I think Hayes had a clear and decisive edge.

So if you think the blocks from Hayes outweigh the rebounding edge from Unseld, that's reasonable - and I generally agree that Hayes had a bigger defensive impact. Hayes anchored some pretty great defenses on otherwise awful teams before coming to play with Unseld, which is impressive in itself.

Aside from the fact that everyone hated Hayes - so he gets some sort of ding on intangibles - whatever you think that is - my bigger issue with Hayes is the offensive drag he brings.

His volume is really high - over 20 shots in most years. And his TS% is terrible - he rarely breaks 50%. He also has terrible assist #'s. The combination of those 2 creates a big drag offensively and it makes it hard to win. I know it's typically only a couple points below league average, but the volume is what hurts you. If his assist #'s weren't terrible or his TS%'s were better, it wouldn't be as big of a deal - but the combination of the two makes your team a lot easier to defend.

For me the offensive drag off-sets the defensive edge.

Almost forgot - Washington had HCA in both '75 & '79 - that's why I thought those series were winnable. The '75 Warriors & '79 Sonics were not world beaters and when you have HCA in both series and get hammered & Hayes plays pretty poorly in both, that's concerning.

I'll just chime in and say:

I really think that Hayes vs Unseld gets distorted because Hayes scoring made him feel like a more complete star than Unseld, but the reality is that Hayes wasn't all that good of a scorer. I think it was a mistake to let him shoot like he did.

And the thing is, if you ignore scoring, to me Unseld has the edge quite easily. So if Hayes' scoring was actually something close to a liability, while Unseld was a master at contributing in other ways to offense (outlet passes, screens), and then you remember that Unseld was an inspirational presence while Hayes was universally loathed, I just don't see a lot of room for conversation.

But I will say, beast is a Bullet fan, he knows more than I do on this, and I believe he sides with Hayes.

[penbeast0]

To be fair, I go back and forth, but yes, much as I loved Unseld (and he was my favorite player throughout my youth), he really didn't stand out as a dominant player past his first few years. The knee injuries really slowed down an already undersized and not superathletic big. Hayes, for all his warts, was the guy opposing teams game planned around.

[eminence]

Looks like I came back just in time to throw another name into the mix, lol.

Vote: Dolph Schayes

Only player left on the board who I think could make a serious claim to being the best in the world(non-Walton category), even if only for a short time between Mikan and Russell. Also had absolutely spectacular longevity for a player of his era, with a career spanning '49-'64 (he was ROY in the NBL in '49 before jumping to the NBA to start his career there). Pretty routinely beat Cousy and his Celtics prior to Russell arriving. Data we have available seems to point towards him being a very good defender during his prime. Won an NBA Coach of the Year award later in '66 while with the Sixers.

Alternate: Dwight Howard
Went back and forth on this one quite a bit, and am very open to having my mind changed, but for now went with the guy I felt had the highest (non-Walton/current guys) peak remaining, though a bit short on star longevity. Think he takes too much heat for locker room stuff as well.

[Winsome Gerbil]

And of course Iveson was a contemporary for Pierce's entire pre-Big Three career. Not ONCE, not one single time did Pierce finish ahead of A.I. in MVP voting up to and including the year the new Big Three Celts won it all in 2008. And Pierce was 30 at that point. So now we come along, not even a decade after these guys retire, and decide to rewrite all that? Pierce wasn't considered at A.I.'s level only 10 years ago, but now he is better? Because he suddenly got better teammates?

There's some truth in this. All 3 of the Celtic Big 3 had their legacy changed by the far-better-than-expected success they had together. That might seem crazy given that they only one a single title, but at their best that team was an absolute juggernaut that experts didn't see coming. People thought they'd be good, but not as good as they were.

So what that means is that Pierce can be seen as a more-than-the-sum-of-parts guy which when combined with his ability to put up big stats on weaker teams and his longevity makes him a pretty typical Top 50 lock.

There is also the matter though that Iverson was a less-than-the-sum-of-parts guy. To my mind he got massively overrated for a time because of the way that '00-01 played out. It made people think of him as someone on the same order as Shaq or Duncan, but he just wasn't. To be the star on a great team he needed the defense to be great, because he couldn't make the offense great. And since he had very little to do with the defense...

I loved AI at the time. He was my favorite player. I loved his pluck. But basically everything I've seen in more rigorous analysis has shown to me he wasn't having the impact I thought he was. Beyond that, while AI's attitude helped his team in that perfect situation, most of the time that attitude was a liability. Stars who don't recognize their effect on how well their role players play tend to be problematic, stars who outright blow off the chance to develop better on-court chemistry with their teammates are considerably more problematic.

What all this means is that while I acknowledge Pierce moved up due to the Big 3 era, and that he was fortunate for us to see that, I don't actually think Pierce is the real thing. The real thing is that a lot of us don't take AI seriously as a franchise player.

I think the point people miss with Iverson, or Iversonesque players, is that he 'bought" the Sixers those defensive players that made them successful. And by that I mean that he was an offensive force all by himself, and so because of him, everybody else could be a defender. Iverson may not have been a great defender himself (although the impact numbers don't support him actually being terrible -- he could be disruptive, but just small), but he may have helped the Sixers be strong defensively anyway by allowing them to run out lineups of Theo Ratliff, Tyrone Hill, Eric Snow and George Lynch and just count on him to do all the scoring

My own problems with Iverson (who was NOT my favorite player in the era) was the impression that maybe that was the only way it would work, but it DID work to some degree whether people like it or not. In fact in the dozen years since he's been gone, Philadelphia has never actually broken .500. And it's impossible to separate however well it did work from Allen Iverson.

You want to hear a staggering fact? In the past 25 years the Philadelphia 76ers have finished above .500 a grand total of 5 times. All 5 of those happened with Iverson as the franchise player.

[eminence]

The Sixers broke .500 in '12.

[Winsome Gerbil]

The Sixers broke .500 in '12.

You're right. Strike year, forgot.

[SactoKingsFan]

Going with Pierce as my top candidate for his overall game and longevity. In addition to great longevity, Pierce provides volume scoring on well above league average efficiency, solid/underrated defense, good rebounding and playmaking for a SF and high bball IQ. Was generally a reliable playoff performer capable of elevating his level of play and volume scoring in big moments. After being the lone star on teams with consistently subpar supporting casts, Pierce was able to adjust his game to fit within a co-starring role on a championship team and perennial title contender. This is a positive in my book since not all star players would be willing or able to make such a transition.

Vote: Paul Pierce

Alt Vote: Reggie Miller

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Winsome Gerbil]

Going with Pierce as my top candidate for his overall game and longevity. In addition to great longevity, Pierce provides volume scoring on well above league average efficiency, solid/underrated defense, good rebounding and playmaking for a SF and high bball IQ. Was generally a reliable playoff performer capable of elevating his level of play and volume scoring in big moments. After being the lone star on teams with consistently subpar supporting casts, Pierce was able to adjust his game to fit within a co-starring role on a championship team and perennial title contender. This is a positive in my book since not all star players would be willing or able to make such a transition.

Vote: Paul Pierce

Alt Vote: Reggie Miller

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Quick note: Paul Pierce could be clutch, but overall I'm not at all sure Pierce as big playoff performer works:

Pierce Regular: 34.2min 19.7pts 5.6reb 3.5ast .568TS% 19.7PER
Pierce Playoffs: 36.6min 18.7pts 5.8reb 3.4ast .554TS% 17.2PER

[Dr Positivity]

Ftr I changed my vote to McHale last night after looking over his case closer

The thing is, not only was Pierce not an MVP candidate, but we got to see him as a #1, and he still wasn't a MVP level guy. he wasn't even a First Team All NBA guy. He was almost more of a Mitch Richmond level guy until the Celts suddenly got him big help. Tough, well rounded, played defense...but not transformative. Not enough to lift the franchise by himself.

I don't think Pierce was an MVP level guy and yes he needs help to contend, but so does everyone, the reigning MVP won 47 games last year. Even if Pierce is more of an ideal #2 option there's value in that especially if you do it as long as he did.

These are the Celtics' records with Pierce as a solo star:
19-31
35-47
36-36
49-33
44-38
36-46
45-37
33-49
24-58 (missed half that season)

Now I am not the guy to say "see! See!! Loooozer!!" when a guy doesn't win solo. I largely consider the "win solo" thing to be a myth unless you are Top 10 all time. But I DO think its a problem when the best/only arguments being made for a guy and against his competitors is that they didn't win the big one. Well, of course they didn't. Neither did Pierce until it started raining HOFers in Boston.

So it's not like the Reggie situation where he was always on good teams and fans can just make up whatever they want to about his individual abilities. We know exactly what Pierce was. So why exactly do we bump Pierce up over much more decorated guys, true MVP candidates in their prime, like Gervin or Nique, just because he suddenly got lucky enough to play with several other HOFs? I'm sure Gervin or Nique would have loved to suddenly have '08 KG and Allen and Rondo show up.

I'm usually not the one pushing team results to rate individual players unless it's an extreme situation, it's a team sport with lots of context, and even players way better than anyone here like Jordan, Kareem, Garnett had seasons where their teams wasn't a contender in their prime so it's well within reason Pierce can be. Pierce had mediocre supporting cast and coaching and still got Boston to an ECF, they didn't do that bad.

And of course Iveson was a contemporary for Pierce's entire pre-Big Three career. Not ONCE, not one single time did Pierce finish ahead of A.I. in MVP voting up to and including the year the new Big Three Celts won it all in 2008. And Pierce was 30 at that point. So now we come along, not even a decade after these guys retire, and decide to rewrite all that? Pierce wasn't considered at A.I.'s level only 10 years ago, but now he is better? Because he suddenly got better teammates?

The media thought Iverson was better than Pierce or Miller but they can be wrong. Basically the Iverson story is that raw PPG is overrated. He was dropping 30ppg seasons but taking a lot of shots on mediocre/below average TS to do it, and was doing it on inflated MPG. Pierce is more efficient, more of a floor spacer and a better defender than Iverson, it passes the smell test to me he that can make him good or better in a way the MVP votes missed at the time but some of the stats we have like RAPM, WS and VORP do better at. I think MVP votes has value especially the farther you go back, but there is clear reason for me to believe that they just botched the 2001 vote, the evidence that Shaq and Duncan at minimum should have finished ahead of AI is a mountain. I don't consider it meaningful at all that AI has a win and guys like Gervin and Dominique don't but came close. Gervin has a better case for being a deserving MVP of a season in my opinion than AI

Longevity
Pierce does have good longevity, but is longevity minus production really a marker of "greatness"? If Player A is able to put up similar career numbers and achievements in 10 years that it takes Player B 15 years to accumulate...what has Player B done that is so much better? Clearly he wasn't as good year to year, and overall the accumulated contributions were similar. So what is "longevity" then other than "congratulations, you were slow in making your contributions"?

I mean, taking these 5 players' career totals (names provided underneath) can you tell me who the ones with "longevity" are, and who don't have it? And given the very similar overall stats is it a good thing the "longevity" players too so long to accumulate the stats that their MVP caliber peers accumulated in less time?

26595pts 5602reb 2798ast 1283stl 1047blk 2909TO
24369pts 3394reb 5624ast 1983stl 164blk 3262TO
25279pts 4182reb 4141ast 1505stl 299blk 2409TO
26397pts 7527reb 4708ast 1752stl 745blk 3532TO
26668pts 7169reb 2667ast 1378stl 642blk 2669TO

Names below with career averages and accolades:

Spoiler:

Gervin 25.1pts 5.3reb 2.6ast 12x All Star, 7x All NBA, .904 MVP Shares
Iverson 26.7pts 3.7reb 6.2ast 11x All Star, 7x All NBA, 1.567 MVP Shares
Miller 18.2pts 3.0reb 3.0ast 5x All Star, 3x All NBA, .003 MVP Shares
Pierce 19.7pts 5.6reb 3.5ast 10x All Star, 4x All NBA, .040 MVP Shares
Wilkins 24.8pts 6.7reb 2.5ast 9x All Star, 7x All NBA, .844 MVP Shares

If you hang around in the league longer, and your career numbers still only end up being roughly equal to guys who retired earlier, it logically means you weren't doing as much back in your prime as they were. IN particular when you are talking about guys who were contemporaries. That one always kills me.

Miller has great longevity himself. Pierce's totals have way more assists than Gervin and Wilkins which is an important part of why people are voting for him instead, whereas Iverson's stats don't include his defense, intangibles or TS

[mikejames23]

Not surprised at all. We're fairly wide open. Part of the reason why I listed some 20 names in my considerations. Bill Walton will make the 11th name here, Lol.

I feel like McHale is the next guy in, he's on a lot of people's second choices. I'm not liking this, not because I don't like McHale but if someone gets in without a first place vote?

I'll take this as my issues with mchale and see if anyone can explain why I'm wrong.

The celtics were to a degree a 3 tower team. They basically had 3 guys who were low post scorers all be it perhaps wrong to say that about Bird, but lets just say bird was more of a center than a "wing" as we thought of them really even in the 90's. I think of him as a Tim Duncan or Hakeem type where yes he had small forward skills (they had power forward skills), but he also had the build and skills of the 4 or a poor choice for a 5 of that era. The best team comp I can think of would be an old school version of the second likers run with Kobe. Gasol, Odem, bynum.

A lot of fluff to get to the point which is that McHale was a darn darn good ball defender, but he wasn't that great as a help defender. This is important to note because as we know today, that's a more important skill than ball defense and it was back then too. I believe his 6 all defense selections were a big factor in his perceived greatness so I want to put that into perspective. I think he got a bit more credit there than deserved.

Moving on, the guy only started 400 nba games. He will I believe by not just a bit but by seasons be the fewest game starter to get in and again we're ranking him over about 6 MVP's here! We have even more defensive player of the years still not even getting considered. Speaking of awards, I believe he'll be the first player selected with only 1 all nba selection (other than Gilmore who got in based on ABA play). Are we really at this point ready for guys who only made a single all nba in their career?

Advanced stats

Career VORP 83rd. Career winshare 58.

1 top 10 VORP year and 5 top 10 WS years. 3 top 10 PER years ( don't use the raw numbers much anymore).

So I have to ask, if a guy who the majority of his career came off the bench (I know I'll get flack in 10 spots when i start pushing for Manu), was a 1 time all nba guy, and had an average to below average career length...and he's in before....

Cowens 1 MVP, 3x All NBA, 2x NBA champ, 3x all defense, 8x allstar, 766 games
Reed 1 MVP, 5x all nba, 2x NBA champ, 2x finals MPV, 1x all defense, 7x allstar, 650 games
Wes Unseld 1 MVP, 1 all nba, 1 nba champ, 1 finals MVP,5x allstar, 984 games
George Gervin 7x all nba (2x all aba), 12x allstar, 791 NBA games (1060 combined)
D Howard 8x all nba, 5x all defense, 3x DPOY, 8x allstar, 954 games

I could honestly do another 20 players. Cousy, Iverson, Westbrook, Walton, Arizin, Schayes, Sam Jones (who at this point I'd have thought would have had some mentions), Pierce....well you get the point.

There are a lot of impressive resumes that are without question better than McHale's, now the resume and cover letter are just for the interview, and that's what I feel like I'm missing. I have McHale above a lot of the above players, but if I'm reading their resumes, the majority of those above would be higher on my list if you will. Even his teammate Parish who he was imo better than, he's got as good or better of a resume. 4x champ, 2x all nba, 9x allstar. 1611 games! 82 is MVP share matched McHale's best both at 4th in the voting.

I like McHale and he's my next power forward unless someone changes my mind (and I'm I think pretty open in general), but I feel like we've got a lot of other positions to fill in.

He's the next PF in mind, mostly because Pau and McHale are the PF's left on board. After this, you slip to Dave Deb, Dennis Rodman types. Or Elvin Hayes if you're high on him ( I personally dislike his approach to the game).

I bolded the defensive part. I think this is especially important as a good amount of the +/- data I've seen has rated on ball defenders as not necessarily being all that impactful. Kobe is a good example - great on ball defense, lost on team defensive mechanics, neutral impact defender overall. It wouldn't surprise me to see something similar of McHale.

His other issues are rather average rebounding at ~12-13 TRB% and bad passing.

On the plus side, I feel it's important to note that Kevin McHale has an excellent peak. 26/10 @ 65 TS% kind of guy. That's out of the world efficiency and volume. It admittedly dropped off the in the playoffs, but he's still listed as one of the finest PF peaks we've ever seen.

I know MVP feels like a big deal, but every MVP left on board is a rather weak one. Iverson, Reed, Cowens, etc. I personally wasn't super into Willis Reed's resume and felt in different circumstances there are a number of a players who could've taken the MVP. He did beat out an aging Jerry West, so I suppose that'd give him some credit.

I suppose the question is would you rather have a weaker #1 or an excellent #2. Iverson #1 or Pierce #2. Reed #1 or McHale #2? Etc. Reed is flexible enough where he can play #2. Probably did to Frazier on the Knicks, anyway. Iverson on the other hand isn't all that flexible. You maximize his skill the most when he's in a 76ers type role.

As far as All NBA selections, don't think there was an All NBA third team during that era. So he missed out on a whole bunch I'd assume. McHale figures to be a fringe Top 10 type player in a given season. He generally loses out to volume scoring forwards (NIque, English types) and Charles Barkley. Volume scoring has generally been an attribute that casual NBA analysts directly equate to best player in the league, so you can see why McHale lost out on those accolades. I would certainly take him over Alex English. There was a season or two where he lost to Terry Cummings so that's likely a black mark.

Parish should be in the discussion for the 50s list as well. He likely wasn't as good as McHale, though. The value of McHale's post play exceeded Parish's defense for Boston. The combination of post play and great FT shooting makes for strong playoff performances as well, so it's not a surprise to see McHale having 60 TS%+ ~120 O Rating type runs in the playoffs. McHale has the advantage in playoff comparisons because he genuinely had multiple runs to the finals and yet kept up his strong efficiency and good but not great defense.

I don't have any PF's over him. I have Gasol trailing him by a little.

[dhsilv2]

Not surprised at all. We're fairly wide open. Part of the reason why I listed some 20 names in my considerations. Bill Walton will make the 11th name here, Lol.

I feel like McHale is the next guy in, he's on a lot of people's second choices. I'm not liking this, not because I don't like McHale but if someone gets in without a first place vote?

I'll take this as my issues with mchale and see if anyone can explain why I'm wrong.

The celtics were to a degree a 3 tower team. They basically had 3 guys who were low post scorers all be it perhaps wrong to say that about Bird, but lets just say bird was more of a center than a "wing" as we thought of them really even in the 90's. I think of him as a Tim Duncan or Hakeem type where yes he had small forward skills (they had power forward skills), but he also had the build and skills of the 4 or a poor choice for a 5 of that era. The best team comp I can think of would be an old school version of the second likers run with Kobe. Gasol, Odem, bynum.

A lot of fluff to get to the point which is that McHale was a darn darn good ball defender, but he wasn't that great as a help defender. This is important to note because as we know today, that's a more important skill than ball defense and it was back then too. I believe his 6 all defense selections were a big factor in his perceived greatness so I want to put that into perspective. I think he got a bit more credit there than deserved.

Moving on, the guy only started 400 nba games. He will I believe by not just a bit but by seasons be the fewest game starter to get in and again we're ranking him over about 6 MVP's here! We have even more defensive player of the years still not even getting considered. Speaking of awards, I believe he'll be the first player selected with only 1 all nba selection (other than Gilmore who got in based on ABA play). Are we really at this point ready for guys who only made a single all nba in their career?

Advanced stats

Career VORP 83rd. Career winshare 58.

1 top 10 VORP year and 5 top 10 WS years. 3 top 10 PER years ( don't use the raw numbers much anymore).

So I have to ask, if a guy who the majority of his career came off the bench (I know I'll get flack in 10 spots when i start pushing for Manu), was a 1 time all nba guy, and had an average to below average career length...and he's in before....

Cowens 1 MVP, 3x All NBA, 2x NBA champ, 3x all defense, 8x allstar, 766 games
Reed 1 MVP, 5x all nba, 2x NBA champ, 2x finals MPV, 1x all defense, 7x allstar, 650 games
Wes Unseld 1 MVP, 1 all nba, 1 nba champ, 1 finals MVP,5x allstar, 984 games
George Gervin 7x all nba (2x all aba), 12x allstar, 791 NBA games (1060 combined)
D Howard 8x all nba, 5x all defense, 3x DPOY, 8x allstar, 954 games

I could honestly do another 20 players. Cousy, Iverson, Westbrook, Walton, Arizin, Schayes, Sam Jones (who at this point I'd have thought would have had some mentions), Pierce....well you get the point.

There are a lot of impressive resumes that are without question better than McHale's, now the resume and cover letter are just for the interview, and that's what I feel like I'm missing. I have McHale above a lot of the above players, but if I'm reading their resumes, the majority of those above would be higher on my list if you will. Even his teammate Parish who he was imo better than, he's got as good or better of a resume. 4x champ, 2x all nba, 9x allstar. 1611 games! 82 is MVP share matched McHale's best both at 4th in the voting.

I like McHale and he's my next power forward unless someone changes my mind (and I'm I think pretty open in general), but I feel like we've got a lot of other positions to fill in.

He's the next PF in mind, mostly because Pau and McHale are the PF's left on board. After this, you slip to Dave Deb, Dennis Rodman types. Or Elvin Hayes if you're high on him ( I personally dislike his approach to the game).

I bolded the defensive part. I think this is especially important as a good amount of the +/- data I've seen has rated on ball defenders as not necessarily being all that impactful. Kobe is a good example - great on ball defense, lost on team defensive mechanics, neutral impact defender overall. It wouldn't surprise me to see something similar of McHale.

His other issues are rather average rebounding at ~12-13 TRB% and bad passing.

On the plus side, I feel it's important to note that Kevin McHale has an excellent peak. 26/10 @ 65 TS% kind of guy. That's out of the world efficiency and volume. It admittedly dropped off the in the playoffs, but he's still listed as one of the finest PF peaks we've ever seen.

I know MVP feels like a big deal, but every MVP left on board is a rather weak one. Iverson, Reed, Cowens, etc. I personally wasn't super into Willis Reed's resume and felt in different circumstances there are a number of a players who could've taken the MVP. He did beat out an aging Jerry West, so I suppose that'd give him some credit.

I suppose the question is would you rather have a weaker #1 or an excellent #2. Iverson #1 or Pierce #2. Reed #1 or McHale #2? Etc. Reed is flexible enough where he can play #2. Probably did to Frazier on the Knicks, anyway. Iverson on the other hand isn't all that flexible. You maximize his skill the most when he's in a 76ers type role.

As far as All NBA selections, don't think there was an All NBA third team during that era. So he missed out on a whole bunch I'd assume. McHale figures to be a fringe Top 10 type player in a given season. He generally loses out to volume scoring forwards (NIque, English types) and Charles Barkley. Volume scoring has generally been an attribute that casual NBA analysts directly equate to best player in the league, so you can see why McHale lost out on those accolades. I would certainly take him over Alex English. There was a season or two where he lost to Terry Cummings so that's likely a black mark.

Parish should be in the discussion for the 50s list as well. He likely wasn't as good as McHale, though. The value of McHale's post play exceeded Parish's defense for Boston. The combination of post play and great FT shooting makes for strong playoff performances as well, so it's not a surprise to see McHale having 60 TS%+ ~120 O Rating type runs in the playoffs. McHale has the advantage in playoff comparisons because he genuinely had multiple runs to the finals and yet kept up his strong efficiency and good but not great defense.

I don't have any PF's over him. I have Gasol trailing him by a little.

I tend to agree he is a next pf in type. Webber should get looked at btw.

The issue is we have a mountain of centers that we need to clear out, it seems we cleaned up point guards, and then we have some volume scoring wings we have to figure out.

As for McHale the all nba thing is fair, the league was if i recall 23 or so teams then, and we sit at 30 now. So perhaps that was a diffucult era, but i mostly compared hin with players from before the 3rd team and most werent all 3rd teams.

His peak was a 1 year peak, make that even 2 years and I have him in around here. Without that, I think we are 5 or 10 spots away fron him feeling right.

[pandrade83]

On the high scoring wings that are getting votes:

I feel like Gervin has the best combination of efficiency/volume - and he certainly has the accolades/team impact/success to complement it.

If Gervin had the best combination of efficiency & volume for that type, I am sort of unclear on what's the case for some of the other archetypes that get votes over him? When I think about those type of players, Gervin seems to be the best at the trick; and there's obviously a "market" for high scoring wings given that they're about 1/2 the players represented right now.

What's the case for some of the other wings over him (excluding Tmac - I view his case as a different argument - both for and against than the others)?