RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #55

[iggymcfrack]

Trex's argument seems pretty comprehensive. Better peak seasons and better longevity in a better era. I'm convinced.

Vote: Chauncey Billups

[Clyde Frazier]

Even as someone who values longevity highly, it seems like reed is sorta getting cast aside in these runoffs with a “i’m not in love with his era and his longevity isn’t great” without much further consideration.

This isn’t a walton situation career wise. Walton only had 1 star season where he even approached 70 games played, and didn’t play in 70+ until he was a role player at 19 MPG with the celtics. His peak was excellent, but basically doesn’t have a substantial career to go along with it.

Reed gives you 7 seasons of star level play (with excellent durability during that time) and an 8th where he played an integral role in the knicks’ second championship run.

Firstly, I think the mention of Walton is neither here nor there. Walton is perhaps unlikely to gain traction within the project AT ALL due to his unfortunately putrid longevity; Reed's had traction since the mid-point of the project, and even if he misses out in this thread, is almost sure to get voted in somewhere in the next 5-6 threads (at worst). So the difference between his "poor" longevity and Walton's "poor" longevity is well-recognized.

But secondly (and admittedly, this is semantics), I disagree with the claim that he had 7 "star-level" seasons. His rookie season, for example: yes he averaged 19.5/14.7 (note: consider the pace and circumstances of the time when viewing per game numbers), but with mediocre shooting efficiency, for a poor/losing team, and a team that was near the bottom of the league defensively (and he was the anchor). To me, that's certainly a "good" and useful season that adds career value......but that's not "star-level" to me (even if he did get an All-Star selection).

His 2nd season: gets shifted to PF (and perhaps struggles with the adjustment and/or doesn't mesh well with Bellamy???). At any rate, his numbers come down to 15.5/11.6 (and a career low in apg), on just slightly above league avg TS%, again for a poor team which is dead-last defensively (though that perhaps rests more on Bellamy's shoulders than Reed's). Again, this is perhaps a "useful" season, but not "star-level" to me. To me, this doesn't rate any better (or perhaps even AS good) as any of the last few seasons of Jonas Valanciunas.

imo, he's got 5 roughly "star-level" years: '67-'71.

Fair enough regarding those first 2 seasons. They are a tier below in comparison to his next 5 seasons. I brought up Walton to demonstrate what terrible longevity really looks like vs. Reed’s which merely isn’t great. I felt the need to make this distinction seeing many runoff votes come down to a blanket “bad longevity” comment when it’s better than some realize, especially given what he accomplished during that span.

Which seven seasons have you got Reed at "star level"?

I personally make it five ('67-'71).

Also where you say he "definitely had an impact beyond the boxscore ..." is this something you ascribe to him across his entire career (and/or across all hypothetical scenarios). Or is this specific to '70 (Game 7?), and then following on from that?

See my above response to trex regarding the star level seasons. As for impact beyond the box score, I would apply that to the majority of his career. The knicks exemplified team play during that time, and I think he was driving that mentality from the coach on down to the players. I see his demeanor and effect on his teammates similarly to bill russell’s.

[iggymcfrack]

See my above response to trex regarding the star level seasons. As for impact beyond the box score, I would apply that to the majority of his career. The knicks exemplified team play during that time, and I think he was driving that mentality from the coach on down to the players. I see his demeanor and effect on his teammates similarly to bill russell’s.

I feel like this paragraph could apply to Billups and the Pistons just as easily as Reed and the Knicks. Don't see how something so difficult to define and differentiate could make up for all of Billups' measurable tangible edges.

[Clyde Frazier]

See my above response to trex regarding the star level seasons. As for impact beyond the box score, I would apply that to the majority of his career. The knicks exemplified team play during that time, and I think he was driving that mentality from the coach on down to the players. I see his demeanor and effect on his teammates similarly to bill russell’s.

I feel like this paragraph could apply to Billups and the Pistons just as easily as Reed and the Knicks. Don't see how something so difficult to define and differentiate could make up for all of Billups' measurable tangible edges.

It is fitting that the 2 players ended up in a runoff against each other as those 70s knicks teams closely resemble those billups pistons teams. My comments were more about the runoffs in general that reed has lost to this point. As for billups, I think reed was a more dominant player in his prime.

[Owly]

Which seven seasons have you got Reed at "star level"?

I personally make it five ('67-'71).

Also where you say he "definitely had an impact beyond the boxscore ..." is this something you ascribe to him across his entire career (and/or across all hypothetical scenarios). Or is this specific to '70 (Game 7?), and then following on from that?

See my above response to trex regarding the star level seasons. As for impact beyond the box score, I would apply that to the majority of his career. The knicks exemplified team play during that time, and I think he was driving that mentality from the coach on down to the players. I see his demeanor and effect on his teammates similarly to bill russell’s.

To be clear here, I'm not trying to "win" an argument ... and your wording above, and the point below aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. With that said ...

Even if you are giving Reed "only" 5 star years, instead of 7, I don't think that the first year, '67, shows any sign of great, beyond the boxscore impact (not that one could prove it elsewhere, but you could credit him for D and maybe argue for his spacing helping the passing game and leadership and sacrifice etc and point to team achievement). The '67 the Knicks look like a team underachieving their "talent" level (Reed, Bellamy, Barnett, Cazzie Russell, Dick Van Arsdale); they performed poorly (-2.74 SRS) and were the team with the worst defense.

Now being on a bad team shouldn't prevent you from being seen as great player (nor being on a great team necessarily to cause you to be seen as a superb player). It's just a matter of parsing out credit fairly. And those great Knick teams are tricky (some, especially older, mainstream rankings both ranked all the '73 starting 5 very highly yet similar sources deified intangiables not creditable to individuals - team play etc as the cause of that era Knicks excellence).

Perhaps you are lower on Frazier than participants in general (or perhaps more likely, lower than some conventional wisdom on other members of the Knicks championships' core); perhaps you don't see the DeBusschere trade as a turning point; perhaps you don't think the fit was particularly notable for a good team; depending on your methodology one can cite Willis as misused as a power forward and credit him somewhat closer to his performance levels of '69 and '70 for earlier years based on his performance when utilised "correctly".

And I don't know that any of this disqualifies Reed now or soon. My take on the above though would be that his production didn't seem to be stifled at PF but that wasn't a huge impact, one man culture setter or defensive anchor (or close to either) and only a bit of that can be put down to misuse. Numerically his passing doesn't stand out (though his spacing helps, probably pick setting too). He is perhaps a player who is better on a good team (perhaps like many of those set to fill the back half of the top 100) and that's not a bad thing. I am probably more cautious (in general and in this instance) of giving one individual "intangiables" credit, though I understand that he was lauded in this area.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #45:

Willis Reed - 5 (Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, fundamentals21, dhsilv2)
Chauncey Billups - 5 (iggymcfrack, trex_8063, Joao Saraiva, LABird, pandrade83)


We are still at an impasse. Calling on Mr. penbeast0 to settle it, and as per his last post we must ask: "Where are all the good men dead? In the heart, or in the head?"

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[SactoKingsFan]

Runoff vote Chauncey Billups

Reed is somewhat on my radar but Im more comfortable with Billups at this spot. Bounced around for half a decade but still had a considerably longer prime than Reed with more high quality non-prime/ borderline prime level seasons. Excellent all around player during prime/ extended prime and was​ a very good playoff performer with impressive BBIQ and a highly portable skill-set.

Prime Billups RS (03-10): 613 G, 20.6 PER, .593 TS%, .481 FTr, 30.6 AST%, 121 ORtg, 93.3 WS, .211 WS/48

Billups Extended Prime RS (02-11): 767 G, 20.2 PER, .592 TS%, .467 FTr, 30.0 AST%, 120 ORtg, 108.9 WS, .202 WS/48


Since the introduction of the 3 PT line, Billups is tied with LeBron for most seasons (7) with a TS% >= .590,  USG% >= 20.0, PTS per 100 >= 25.0 and AST per 100 >= 8.0

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

[euroleague]

Vote Willis Reed

He has a higher peak, and was the face of a franchise. Billups was always second to Ben Wallace.

Reed's leadership and legendary intangibles, seen in the NBA finals, on top of his better peak, give this one to him.

[oldschooled]

Reed's peak and value on those NY team is just much more valuable than Billup's to Pistons imho. That Pistons team was a well balanced team that was anchored by Ben Wallace. Close call. I'll take Reed.

Vote: Reed

[THKNKG]

Vote: Chauncey Billups

I still am not convinced of Willis Reed's peak being *that* much better than the field. Plus, his prime really was only 5 years, and at that level, I'd probably rather have Harden's 5 prime years over Reed's.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #50:

Willis Reed - 7 (euroleague, oldschooled, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, fundamentals21, dhsilv2)
Chauncey Billups - 7 (SactoKingsFan, micahclay, iggymcfrack, trex_8063, Joao Saraiva, LABird, pandrade83)


Still paging penbeast0 to break this tie as he said he would if necessary.....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[penbeast0]

Just got home, and although both are players I respect, I have to go with Billups here if forced to vote. Head over heart.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #52:

Chauncey Billups - 8 (penbeast0, SactoKingsFan, micahclay, iggymcfrack, trex_8063, Joao Saraiva, LABird, pandrade83)
Willis Reed - 7 (euroleague, oldschooled, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, fundamentals21, dhsilv2)


Beginning to feel bad for Reed and his supporters. But gotta call it for Billups. Will have the next up in a minute if my internet will quite being weird.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.