RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #76 (Tony Parker)

[Outside]

Runoff vote: Hal Greer

I need to look more thoroughly into Parker. He's obviously a crucial part of multiple championship teams, but he's something of a high-wire act -- great at his best, but the drop-off is huge. Parker's main assets are scoring and breaking down the defense with penetration, which was absolutely key to the offensive success of the Spurs, but the rest of his stats don't jump out at me. For as many seasons as he's been around, his RS longevity in games/minutes isn't super -- he has 36k minutes compared to 47k for Duncan -- but he has outstanding PS games/minutes. His TS% isn't that great -- 54.9 RS, 51.7 PS. How does he have only 3.9 total PS VORP when Duncan has 18.6 and Manu has 10.9? He's never been a very good individual defender, though he's been part of great defensive teams. I just don't know what to make of him. He's a tough guy for me to peg.

Greer, on the other hand, is more consistent. He doesn't have the number of titles that Parker has, but he was a big part of the one he was on. He was a good all-around player. He has more RS minutes than Parker and the same PS WS/48 as Parker. I don't have the numbers handy, but I believe Greer's TS% compares more favorably to league average compared to Parker. Parker is known as a penetrator, yet Greer has the higher FTA (5.1 RS and 6.2 PS vs 3.8 RS and 4.3 PS for Parker), and Greer's FT% is significantly better (80.1 RS and 81.2 PS vs 75.2 RS and 73.1 PS for Parker).

Altogether, it's easier for me to vote Greer in this runoff.

[dhsilv2]

Would these numbers support a case for Bill Sharman? Lesser minutes if you were going by that method (though as before I'm uncertain on just multiplying the two together), in part due to fewer total games at that time (and perhaps playing in the ABL at the end, though I'm not sure if that was somthing tempting him out of retirement, closer to LA, or a route into coaching or whatever), still obviously a long way off Greer. But anyhow, if there's a lower baseline for guards and 2s from 50s into early 60s (and it continues to extend back into the 50s) wouldn't Sharman be an even greater beneficiary of positional adjustments?

To be honest, I've not seen enough of Sharman to really judge his game and how his game looked. Remember my view of the numbers is based on his style and how I think that would add more value than the numbers alone. The case is based on longevity, not peak. Sherman[sic] does not have the longevity so that alone makes the discussion a bit moot.

I'd also argue that the league as a whole was much worse in the 50's than 60's, perhaps the largest decade over decade change we've seen (which is kinda a given due to when the league started). We've been willing to let a decent number of people into this list from the 60's I believe based on that assumption, and have been rather harsh on 50's players relative to 60's players. Perhaps I'm joining the hive mind, but I don't think that assessment is unfair.

So to directly answer, yes you could make a similar case with the data I provided here for Sherman[sic]. It might show that he peaked higher, but again he did not have the longevity unless there are other leagues than the NBA that I don't have numbers on (and I wont be championing the ABA guys, so prior era stuff is out of the question for me). And again era was materially worse.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that Greer and Sharman have a three year overlap and Sharman is clearly, in terms of his rate based advanced metrics, better (PER better each year, better WS/48 each year. Average PER for 32-34 Sharman 17.4, for 22-24 Greer 14.8; BS average WS/48 .172, HG .137). Indeed based on your "average SG" PER numbers, Sharman is nearly 3x the distance above the average starter that Greer is (Greer averaging 1.41, Sharman 4.01).

If one genuinely believes that Greer failed to stand out in a weak era at the start of his career, then his meaningful longevity is chopped down, especially given the low calibre of his final 3 years.I think it would take some mental gymnastics to devalue Sharman on the idea of low competition, see him do better than Greer in the same league and then argue that Greer (a) adds anything to his meaningful longevity in those years, (b) argue a low replacement level at the position helps Greer (whilst the position trends stronger later than it did in his earlier days) and (c) argue for Greer on the idea of defense and spacing, versus a considerably purer shooter and (based on the very limited available information) probably/plausibly better defender.

I can see the arguments at the margins e.g. 50s as generally weaker and Greer has a big minutes edge. But Greer's case hinges on separating himself from the pack (otherwise he's just ... idk, a lower-peaking, perhaps slightly better on average, Jason Terry). And Sharman does that more (better metrics anyway, but also the SG pack and their metrics looks to be trending weaker across the Sharman era). And it hinges on spacing, and Sharman does that better.

As such whilst I haven't looked at it systematically, I can't see that the case for a clear separation based on a notion of a big gap based on era where also making a case that Greer will benefit from a three point line and should be credited spacing (since any change in the quality of rim-protectors is immaterial in a comparison of jump shooters, Sharman is the better shooter - on arguably worse rims, and Sharman played better during their overlap).

If you want to say for the crossover era in question bar West and Robertson (and Sam Jones) there aren't many good guards to compete (and yes, they are much more Greer's era, but are more 1s, and only so much of the league) and more with until the late-mid 60s when the likes Frazier, Bing, Monroe etc arrive, that's fine, but then you both have to chuck out Greer's first three years as having any value and also have to say that Greer's one spell where he clearly separates himself from the pack, '62-'64 was versus bad guards.

Rookie Greer? Sorry but longevity and consistency are the case for Greer. If you want to call that minutes then minutes. You're going down a different path that I'm not arguing in favor of. Making a case that the 50's were worse than the 60's but greer didn't stand out in his early years in the weaker part of his era doesn't really mean much to me here. Players get better as they age until their athletic ability goes south.

But I'm really in no place to argue about Shaman as the only thing I know about his defense is Jerry West said he swung at him after he'd made 7 shots in a row on him. With Greer there's more tape and well while I haven't seen enough to feel confident, I feel he was not a poor defender. I'm not sure I can say that here.

[dhsilv2]

Runoff vote: Hal Greer

I need to look more thoroughly into Parker. He's obviously a crucial part of multiple championship teams, but he's something of a high-wire act -- great at his best, but the drop-off is huge. Parker's main assets are scoring and breaking down the defense with penetration, which was absolutely key to the offensive success of the Spurs, but the rest of his stats don't jump out at me. For as many seasons as he's been around, his RS longevity in games/minutes isn't super -- he has 36k minutes compared to 47k for Duncan -- but he has outstanding PS games/minutes. His TS% isn't that great -- 54.9 RS, 51.7 PS. How does he have only 3.9 total PS VORP when Duncan has 18.6 and Manu has 10.9? He's never been a very good individual defender, though he's been part of great defensive teams. I just don't know what to make of him. He's a tough guy for me to peg.

Greer, on the other hand, is more consistent. He doesn't have the number of titles that Parker has, but he was a big part of the one he was on. He was a good all-around player. He has more RS minutes than Parker and the same PS WS/48 as Parker. I don't have the numbers handy, but I believe Greer's TS% compares more favorably to league average compared to Parker. Parker is known as a penetrator, yet Greer has the higher FTA (5.1 RS and 6.2 PS vs 3.8 RS and 4.3 PS for Parker), and Greer's FT% is significantly better (80.1 RS and 81.2 PS vs 75.2 RS and 73.1 PS for Parker).

Altogether, it's easier for me to vote Greer in this runoff.

IN parker's defense on minutes, he complained about the low minutes his whole younger career, but I think after Manu's issues Pop wasn't going to risk Parker. Also his style of play certainly lead to injury risk so I doubt it was a bad idea.

[Owly]

To be honest, I've not seen enough of Sharman to really judge his game and how his game looked. Remember my view of the numbers is based on his style and how I think that would add more value than the numbers alone. The case is based on longevity, not peak. Sherman[sic] does not have the longevity so that alone makes the discussion a bit moot.

I'd also argue that the league as a whole was much worse in the 50's than 60's, perhaps the largest decade over decade change we've seen (which is kinda a given due to when the league started). We've been willing to let a decent number of people into this list from the 60's I believe based on that assumption, and have been rather harsh on 50's players relative to 60's players. Perhaps I'm joining the hive mind, but I don't think that assessment is unfair.

So to directly answer, yes you could make a similar case with the data I provided here for Sherman[sic]. It might show that he peaked higher, but again he did not have the longevity unless there are other leagues than the NBA that I don't have numbers on (and I wont be championing the ABA guys, so prior era stuff is out of the question for me). And again era was materially worse.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that Greer and Sharman have a three year overlap and Sharman is clearly, in terms of his rate based advanced metrics, better (PER better each year, better WS/48 each year. Average PER for 32-34 Sharman 17.4, for 22-24 Greer 14.8; BS average WS/48 .172, HG .137). Indeed based on your "average SG" PER numbers, Sharman is nearly 3x the distance above the average starter that Greer is (Greer averaging 1.41, Sharman 4.01).

If one genuinely believes that Greer failed to stand out in a weak era at the start of his career, then his meaningful longevity is chopped down, especially given the low calibre of his final 3 years.I think it would take some mental gymnastics to devalue Sharman on the idea of low competition, see him do better than Greer in the same league and then argue that Greer (a) adds anything to his meaningful longevity in those years, (b) argue a low replacement level at the position helps Greer (whilst the position trends stronger later than it did in his earlier days) and (c) argue for Greer on the idea of defense and spacing, versus a considerably purer shooter and (based on the very limited available information) probably/plausibly better defender.

I can see the arguments at the margins e.g. 50s as generally weaker and Greer has a big minutes edge. But Greer's case hinges on separating himself from the pack (otherwise he's just ... idk, a lower-peaking, perhaps slightly better on average, Jason Terry). And Sharman does that more (better metrics anyway, but also the SG pack and their metrics looks to be trending weaker across the Sharman era). And it hinges on spacing, and Sharman does that better.

As such whilst I haven't looked at it systematically, I can't see that the case for a clear separation based on a notion of a big gap based on era where also making a case that Greer will benefit from a three point line and should be credited spacing (since any change in the quality of rim-protectors is immaterial in a comparison of jump shooters, Sharman is the better shooter - on arguably worse rims, and Sharman played better during their overlap).

If you want to say for the crossover era in question bar West and Robertson (and Sam Jones) there aren't many good guards to compete (and yes, they are much more Greer's era, but are more 1s, and only so much of the league) and more with until the late-mid 60s when the likes Frazier, Bing, Monroe etc arrive, that's fine, but then you both have to chuck out Greer's first three years as having any value and also have to say that Greer's one spell where he clearly separates himself from the pack, '62-'64 was versus bad guards.

Rookie Greer? Sorry but longevity and consistency are the case for Greer. If you want to call that minutes then minutes. You're going down a different path that I'm not arguing in favor of. Making a case that the 50's were worse than the 60's but greer didn't stand out in his early years in the weaker part of his era doesn't really mean much to me here. Players get better as they age until their athletic ability goes south.

But I'm really in no place to argue about Shaman [sic] as the only thing I know about his defense is Jerry West said he swung at him after he'd made 7 shots in a row on him. With Greer there's more tape and well while I haven't seen enough to feel confident, I feel he was not a poor defender. I'm not sure I can say that here.

It's not "rookie Greer" it's the first three years of Greer's career. If you knock that off for being not noteworthily productive in what you consider a weak league (unless your contention is that the league is weak in '59 but magically gets massively better in '60), and assuming you don't consider the final 3 years to hold much value, the longevity case is gone and guys who already put up (sometimes considerably) more Win Shares like Grant, Marion, Bellamy, Issel, Howell, Nance, Brand who also separated themselves from the pack in terms of metric peaks (and value above average) just further separate themselves.

I'll save posting on Sharman's D, unless I find some time, but whilst the hard data is very thin (i.e. little available) anecdotally Sharman was typically praised for his D in profiles of him, and the one book sort of from the time numerically rating players has Sharman slightly better (though both non-standouts in that area).

[pandrade83]

Runoff Vote: Tony Parker

The more we delve into Greer's case, the less impressed I am - he seems like a fringe Top 100 candidate. Before the big expansion wave he didn't jump out to me & I feel convinced that much of Greer's longevity stems from the tripling of professional basketball teams. I was going to delve into Tony Parker vs. Tim Hardaway as my next PG to pick. Parker offers a similar resume in a MUCH better era and strength of era matters to me.

[dhsilv2]

It's not "rookie Greer" it's the first three years of Greer's career. If you knock that off for being not noteworthily productive in what you consider a weak league (unless your contention is that the league is weak in '59 but magically gets massively better in '60), and assuming you don't consider the final 3 years to hold much value, the longevity case is gone and guys who already put up (sometimes considerably) more Win Shares like Grant, Marion, Bellamy, Issel, Howell, Nance, Brand who also separated themselves from the pack in terms of metric peaks (and value above average) just further separate themselves.

I'll save posting on Sharman's D, unless I find some time, but whilst the hard data is very thin (i.e. little available) anecdotally Sharman was typically praised for his D in profiles of him, and the one book sort of from the time numerically rating players has Sharman slightly better (though both non-standouts in that area).

If you want to make a case for Sharman here, I'm fine with that. I don't see the consistency or longevity and I'm suspect on his defense. That's before we adjust for era despite there being possibly 1 good year what we could compare them with each other in 61.

[penbeast0]

Runoff Vote: Tony Parker

The more we delve into Greer's case, the less impressed I am - he seems like a fringe Top 100 candidate. Before the big expansion wave he didn't jump out to me & I feel convinced that much of Greer's longevity stems from the tripling of professional basketball teams. I was going to delve into Tony Parker vs. Tim Hardaway as my next PG to pick. Parker offers a similar resume in a MUCH better era and strength of era matters to me.

You have Timbug ahead of Mark Price? I always had it the other way when they were playing.

[trex_8063]

In post #4 itt (among my arguments for Parker) I'd listed best 10-year and 12-year samples of added RAPM for Parker, Hill, Webber, Anthony, B.Wallace, Marion, Mutombo, and Bosh.

Since conversation about Dennis Rodman has come about (and from that a mention of Horace Grant, whom I think is historically underrated), I thought I'd provide some best 5-year RAPM's added for that same group (plus Rodman and Grant), as longevity is not as important to many as it is to me (which is why I focused on the 10 and 12-year samples previously).
Rodman and Grant will be at a bit of a disadvantage because impact data is missing for some of their best years, so don't take this at face value; however, with colts18's APM data for '94-'96 we have about half of each of their primes and some decent post-prime years (esp for Grant).......

Best 5-years RAPM/(APM)
Grant Hill (#73): +23.02
Dikembe Mutombo (#53): +21.79
Chris Bosh (#75): +21.50
Tony Parker: +18.20
Shawn Marion: +17.50
Ben Wallace: +16.50
Horace Grant: +15.46
Chris Webber: +15.17
Dennis Rodman: +12.52
Carmelo Anthony: +11.00

[trex_8063]

Runoff Vote: Tony Parker

The more we delve into Greer's case, the less impressed I am - he seems like a fringe Top 100 candidate. Before the big expansion wave he didn't jump out to me & I feel convinced that much of Greer's longevity stems from the tripling of professional basketball teams. I was going to delve into Tony Parker vs. Tim Hardaway as my next PG to pick. Parker offers a similar resume in a MUCH better era and strength of era matters to me.

You have Timbug ahead of Mark Price? I always had it the other way when they were playing.

For peak and/or avg quality during respective primes, you might be right, though it's certainly close enough to make a debate of it.

But even if we award edge in those things to Price, his career resume still wouldn't be a slam dunk over Timmy's. Hardaway is definitively better under the longevity/durability spectrums: Price only played 722 rs games, about 60% of them in his prime. Hardaway played 867 rs games, closer to two-thirds of them in his prime. I rank Hardaway a little higher as a result.

[Outside]

Runoff vote: Hal Greer

I need to look more thoroughly into Parker. He's obviously a crucial part of multiple championship teams, but he's something of a high-wire act -- great at his best, but the drop-off is huge. Parker's main assets are scoring and breaking down the defense with penetration, which was absolutely key to the offensive success of the Spurs, but the rest of his stats don't jump out at me. For as many seasons as he's been around, his RS longevity in games/minutes isn't super -- he has 36k minutes compared to 47k for Duncan -- but he has outstanding PS games/minutes. His TS% isn't that great -- 54.9 RS, 51.7 PS. How does he have only 3.9 total PS VORP when Duncan has 18.6 and Manu has 10.9? He's never been a very good individual defender, though he's been part of great defensive teams. I just don't know what to make of him. He's a tough guy for me to peg.

Greer, on the other hand, is more consistent. He doesn't have the number of titles that Parker has, but he was a big part of the one he was on. He was a good all-around player. He has more RS minutes than Parker and the same PS WS/48 as Parker. I don't have the numbers handy, but I believe Greer's TS% compares more favorably to league average compared to Parker. Parker is known as a penetrator, yet Greer has the higher FTA (5.1 RS and 6.2 PS vs 3.8 RS and 4.3 PS for Parker), and Greer's FT% is significantly better (80.1 RS and 81.2 PS vs 75.2 RS and 73.1 PS for Parker).

Altogether, it's easier for me to vote Greer in this runoff.

IN parker's defense on minutes, he complained about the low minutes his whole younger career, but I think after Manu's issues Pop wasn't going to risk Parker. Also his style of play certainly lead to injury risk so I doubt it was a bad idea.

I meant to mention Parker's injury issues as part of my discussion re: his longevity. Thanks for bringing that up. His style of play lends itself to a higher injury rate, and I think that he's had his fair share over the years.

[dhsilv2]

In post #4 itt (among my arguments for Parker) I'd listed best 10-year and 12-year samples of added RAPM for Parker, Hill, Webber, Anthony, B.Wallace, Marion, Mutombo, and Bosh.

Since conversation about Dennis Rodman has come about (and from that a mention of Horace Grant, whom I think is historically underrated), I thought I'd provide some best 5-year RAPM's added for that same group (plus Rodman and Grant), as longevity is not as important to many as it is to me (which is why I focused on the 10 and 12-year samples previously).
Rodman and Grant will be at a bit of a disadvantage because impact data is missing for some of their best years, so don't take this at face value; however, with colts18's APM data for '94-'96 we have about half of each of their primes and some decent post-prime years (esp for Grant).......

Best 5-years RAPM/(APM)
Grant Hill (#73): +23.02
Dikembe Mutombo (#53): +21.79
Chris Bosh (#75): +21.50
Tony Parker: +18.20
Shawn Marion: +17.50
Ben Wallace: +16.50
Horace Grant: +15.46
Chris Webber: +15.17
Dennis Rodman: +12.52
Carmelo Anthony: +11.00

Do you have the years for these? I'm wondering about minutes played and how that looks when summing these.

[Owly]

Spoiler:

The problem with that line of reasoning is that Greer and Sharman have a three year overlap and Sharman is clearly, in terms of his rate based advanced metrics, better (PER better each year, better WS/48 each year. Average PER for 32-34 Sharman 17.4, for 22-24 Greer 14.8; BS average WS/48 .172, HG .137). Indeed based on your "average SG" PER numbers, Sharman is nearly 3x the distance above the average starter that Greer is (Greer averaging 1.41, Sharman 4.01).

If one genuinely believes that Greer failed to stand out in a weak era at the start of his career, then his meaningful longevity is chopped down, especially given the low calibre of his final 3 years.I think it would take some mental gymnastics to devalue Sharman on the idea of low competition, see him do better than Greer in the same league and then argue that Greer (a) adds anything to his meaningful longevity in those years, (b) argue a low replacement level at the position helps Greer (whilst the position trends stronger later than it did in his earlier days) and (c) argue for Greer on the idea of defense and spacing, versus a considerably purer shooter and (based on the very limited available information) probably/plausibly better defender.

I can see the arguments at the margins e.g. 50s as generally weaker and Greer has a big minutes edge. But Greer's case hinges on separating himself from the pack (otherwise he's just ... idk, a lower-peaking, perhaps slightly better on average, Jason Terry). And Sharman does that more (better metrics anyway, but also the SG pack and their metrics looks to be trending weaker across the Sharman era). And it hinges on spacing, and Sharman does that better.

As such whilst I haven't looked at it systematically, I can't see that the case for a clear separation based on a notion of a big gap based on era where also making a case that Greer will benefit from a three point line and should be credited spacing (since any change in the quality of rim-protectors is immaterial in a comparison of jump shooters, Sharman is the better shooter - on arguably worse rims, and Sharman played better during their overlap).

If you want to say for the crossover era in question bar West and Robertson (and Sam Jones) there aren't many good guards to compete (and yes, they are much more Greer's era, but are more 1s, and only so much of the league) and more with until the late-mid 60s when the likes Frazier, Bing, Monroe etc arrive, that's fine, but then you both have to chuck out Greer's first three years as having any value and also have to say that Greer's one spell where he clearly separates himself from the pack, '62-'64 was versus bad guards.

Rookie Greer? Sorry but longevity and consistency are the case for Greer. If you want to call that minutes then minutes. You're going down a different path that I'm not arguing in favor of. Making a case that the 50's were worse than the 60's but greer didn't stand out in his early years in the weaker part of his era doesn't really mean much to me here. Players get better as they age until their athletic ability goes south.

But I'm really in no place to argue about Shaman [sic] as the only thing I know about his defense is Jerry West said he swung at him after he'd made 7 shots in a row on him. With Greer there's more tape and well while I haven't seen enough to feel confident, I feel he was not a poor defender. I'm not sure I can say that here.

It's not "rookie Greer" it's the first three years of Greer's career. If you knock that off for being not noteworthily productive in what you consider a weak league (unless your contention is that the league is weak in '59 but magically gets massively better in '60), and assuming you don't consider the final 3 years to hold much value, the longevity case is gone and guys who already put up (sometimes considerably) more Win Shares like Grant, Marion, Bellamy, Issel, Howell, Nance, Brand who also separated themselves from the pack in terms of metric peaks (and value above average) just further separate themselves.

I'll save posting on Sharman's D, unless I find some time, but whilst the hard data is very thin (i.e. little available) anecdotally Sharman was typically praised for his D in profiles of him, and the one book sort of from the time numerically rating players has Sharman slightly better (though both non-standouts in that area).

Ironically I can tell you the source of your anecdote

What doesn’t live on historically was Sharman’s defense. By all accounts, he was that decade’s best lockdown defender and a feisty competitor who had more fights than Jake LaMotta. Jerry West once remembered being a rookie and making seven straight shots against an aging Sharman, then Sharman preventing an eighth shot simply by taking a swing at him. As West told the L.A. Times years later, “I’ll tell you this, you did not drive by him. He got into more fights than Mike Tyson. You respected him as a player.” Sounds like my kind of guy. I’d tell you more, but Sharman retired when my mother was twelve.

The same book also appears to reveal that the nickname "Bulldog" the one thing I had anecdotally for Greer as a defender, was a reference to his facial expression. No comments on his D.

But the 6-foot-1-inch SHarman was more than just a pure shooter. His fine all-around game fit in perfectly with the Celtics' emphasis on defense and team play.

"He was a great and fierce competitor, exceptionally outstanding on defense and the greatest true shooter in the history of the geam, especially under pressure," said longtime coach Red Auerbach,

No mention of Greer's D in his section.

The 6-1 guard was a strong defender, proficient free throw shooter, and a seven-time top 10 scorer in the league.

Greer's D goes unmentioned

He quickly evolved from a two-sport star to the Celtics' two-way star - leading the high-flying Celtics in scoring four times, and on the defensive side as well. ("I stay with my man," he said. "I make him earn every basket. A little extra hustle will make up for a lot of mistakes.")
...
"So I felt I must be doing something right, especially since I considered myself a better defensive player than offensive."

Greer's section doesn't mention his D.

One of the all-time great shooters in NBA history, Bill Sharman never stopped moving. And when he did, he led the League in free-throw shooting seven times. An All-NBA First-Team choice four times and the All-Star Game MVP in '55, Sharman was also known as a great defensive player.

Greer's profile, again, makes no mention of his defense.

I mean I don't know what to do with it because it's all anecdotal (and often from Sharman or plausibly non-impartial sources), largely after the fact stuff. Nevertheless the conventional wisdom has been that Sharman was a standout defender at his position and that Greer wasn't.

It's not "rookie Greer" it's the first three years of Greer's career. If you knock that off for being not noteworthily productive in what you consider a weak league (unless your contention is that the league is weak in '59 but magically gets massively better in '60), and assuming you don't consider the final 3 years to hold much value, the longevity case is gone and guys who already put up (sometimes considerably) more Win Shares like Grant, Marion, Bellamy, Issel, Howell, Nance, Brand who also separated themselves from the pack in terms of metric peaks (and value above average) just further separate themselves.

I'll save posting on Sharman's D, unless I find some time, but whilst the hard data is very thin (i.e. little available) anecdotally Sharman was typically praised for his D in profiles of him, and the one book sort of from the time numerically rating players has Sharman slightly better (though both non-standouts in that area).

If you want to make a case for Sharman here, I'm fine with that. I don't see the consistency or longevity and I'm suspect on his defense. That's before we adjust for era despite there being possibly 1 good year what we could compare them with each other in 61.

Consistency ... Well his career average advanced metrics are better than Greer's peaks (PER 18.2 to 17.7; WS/48 .178 to .165) so if it wasn't consistent then his peak would be incredible (infact he wasn't particularly inconsistent). And again the 50s looks like they're trending harsher on SG's metrics than 60s.

It's not "rookie Greer" it's the first three years of Greer's career. If you knock that off for being not noteworthily productive in what you consider a weak league (unless your contention is that the league is weak in '59 but magically gets massively better in '60), and assuming you don't consider the final 3 years to hold much value, the longevity case is gone and guys who already put up (sometimes considerably) more Win Shares like Grant, Marion, Bellamy, Issel, Howell, Nance, Brand who also separated themselves from the pack in terms of metric peaks (and value above average) just further separate themselves.

I'll save posting on Sharman's D, unless I find some time, but whilst the hard data is very thin (i.e. little available) anecdotally Sharman was typically praised for his D in profiles of him, and the one book sort of from the time numerically rating players has Sharman slightly better (though both non-standouts in that area).

Longevity ... matters if you're good. We won't see Clifford Robinson, Charles Oakley, Buck Williams etc voted in. You've effectively dismissed the Sharman era, the back three years aren't very good. Let's look at the middle years

(prime) Greer: 27103 minutes, 16.6 PER, .134 WS/48.
versus
Sharman (career): 21793 minutes (incomplete total, missing his partial first year, as are metrics), 18.2 PER, .178 WS/48. So Greer gives you 5000 extra minutes, say, a couple of seasons (though Sharman was playing lower RS game seasons limiting his opportunity, whilst likely longer pre-seasons, and did so in a tougher era for travel), Sharman's somewhere between two and three times the distance from league average that Greer is. And a better shooter. And a better defender (anecdotally). Feel free to figure out the SG average if you think this is unfair.

Even if you want to throw in '61, I don't think the extra minutes matter (and harms the notion that Sharman couldn't play in a tougher league), Sharman was that much more valuable. Longevity matters if you're good. I can see Sharman hurt at the very margins by era, but hardly so versus Greer. Would he have been better choosing basketball straight away? Yes. Could he have eeked out another year or two as Sam Jones' backup (he and Ramsey are eating into Sharman's minute totals too)? Perhaps. But he was in a different tier to Greer.

If I was going for a consistent 2 who won a title in an ensemble, who I am buying into on spacing and defense, and consistent work-ethic I'd go Joe Dumars. He played a bigger role in one one of the titles (both really, but otoh, notably so in '89). Greer more consistent year-to-year, number-wise (though consistent at an unexceptional level) but Dumars with, I believe, substantially better, more proven D.

[penbeast0]

Would Sharman be our next 50s star ahead of the centers (Johnston, Macauley, Kerr, etc.)?

[trex_8063]

Replied in red below....

In post #4 itt (among my arguments for Parker) I'd listed best 10-year and 12-year samples of added RAPM for Parker, Hill, Webber, Anthony, B.Wallace, Marion, Mutombo, and Bosh.

Since conversation about Dennis Rodman has come about (and from that a mention of Horace Grant, whom I think is historically underrated), I thought I'd provide some best 5-year RAPM's added for that same group (plus Rodman and Grant), as longevity is not as important to many as it is to me (which is why I focused on the 10 and 12-year samples previously).
Rodman and Grant will be at a bit of a disadvantage because impact data is missing for some of their best years, so don't take this at face value; however, with colts18's APM data for '94-'96 we have about half of each of their primes and some decent post-prime years (esp for Grant).......

Best 5-years RAPM/(APM)
Grant Hill (#73): +23.02 '96-'00
Dikembe Mutombo (#53): +21.79 '94, '98-'01
Chris Bosh (#75): +21.50 '07-'11
Tony Parker: +18.20 '02, '06, '09, '12-'13
Shawn Marion: +17.50 '01, '03, '05, '07-'08
Ben Wallace: +16.50 '01, '04-'06, '10
Horace Grant: +15.46 '94-'98
Chris Webber: +15.17 '97-'99, '01, '03
Dennis Rodman: +12.52 '94-'98
Carmelo Anthony: +11.00 '09-'11, '15-'16

Do you have the years for these? I'm wondering about minutes played and how that looks when summing these.

[Owly]

Would Sharman be our next 50s star ahead of the centers (Johnston, Macauley, Kerr, etc.)?

Otoh, I'd say Kerr wouldn't be in the conversation. Macauley seems to have been too bad a defender (as ever data is limited). We didn't get enough of Groza. Johnston, Lovellette and Foust are the best primarily 50s center candidates. Of them, as with last time we did this, I'd think only Johnston may get traction. His peak and career metrics are clearly the best. With Johnston he's got a lot of accolade-y stuff going for him, leading the league in points, rebounds, fg%, 4x 1st team All-NBA. He just suffers from a combination of some really bad team performances (hard to know if this was his bad defense, just a more variable level league in the early days ...), low opinions on the era, being somewhat overshadowed by Mikan, plus he doesn't actually have an MVP (not a factor for me at all, but just for his standing in the history books, if there had been MVPs at the time and he won one it makes him seem more important historically/narrative wise). Of these the team thing is the one that possibly relates directly to his performance and so is of greatest interest to me, but I don't know that we're going to get any answers there.

Playoff performance is also sometimes held against him - particularly not being the best player on the Warriors playoff run to the title (which would have helped for his narrative) - though it should be noted, despite a falloff, he's still quite highly productive (still for instance clearly above Foust and Lovellete).

So, briefly, I guess it's Sharman or Johnston (of those mentioned; perhaps Hagan, if you consider him 50s, and perhaps particularly if you weight playoffs with a title). The other centers arguably don't seperate themselves from the pack enough. Maybe someone who loves the playoffs performance (with a title) and doesn't mind era could support Wanzer (seriously check playoffs WS/48 and WS in the years before, when they don't have the minutes - https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/wanzebo01.html), but like Gus Williams (and versus an Isiah) it isn't a celebrated point in history.

[penbeast0]

.

Forgot Hagan, which is odd because my game as a teen was a lot like his (only much much worse of course). For playoffs, could also check out Ramsey. But yeah, Sharman, Johnston, Hagan . . .

[dhsilv2]

Longevity ... matters if you're good. We won't see Clifford Robinson, Charles Oakley, Buck Williams etc voted in. You've effectively dismissed the Sharman era, the back three years aren't very good. Let's look at the middle years

(prime) Greer: 27103 minutes, 16.6 PER, .134 WS/48.
versus
Sharman (career): 21793 minutes (incomplete total, missing his partial first year, as are metrics), 18.2 PER, .178 WS/48. So Greer gives you 5000 extra minutes, say, a couple of seasons (though Sharman was playing lower RS game seasons limiting his opportunity, whilst likely longer pre-seasons, and did so in a tougher era for travel), Sharman's somewhere between two and three times the distance from league average that Greer is. And a better shooter. And a better defender (anecdotally). Feel free to figure out the SG average if you think this is unfair.

Even if you want to throw in '61, I don't think the extra minutes matter (and harms the notion that Sharman couldn't play in a tougher league), Sharman was that much more valuable. Longevity matters if you're good. I can see Sharman hurt at the very margins by era, but hardly so versus Greer. Would he have been better choosing basketball straight away? Yes. Could he have eeked out another year or two as Sam Jones' backup (he and Ramsey are eating into Sharman's minute totals too)? Perhaps. But he was in a different tier to Greer.

If I was going for a consistent 2 who won a title in an ensemble, who I am buying into on spacing and defense, and consistent work-ethic I'd go Joe Dumars. He played a bigger role in one one of the titles (both really, but otoh, notably so in '89). Greer more consistent year-to-year, number-wise (though consistent at an unexceptional level) but Dumars with, I believe, substantially better, more proven D.

Sharman -

We don't have good data for the early early 50's, but the PG gets really hammered by the stats looking at the 50's. SG's look about the same, and honestly SG PER is as bad as ever today though that's a more recent trend as the better SGs are being used as point guards now.

POS SG
1952 12.82
1953 14.36
1954 13.85
1955 12.89
1956 13.26
1957 13.64
1958 12.64

I can't seem to get TS%'s to work, but I'd assume he'll be similarly favorable if not more so. He was the first guard to shoot over 40%.

Sharman has based on the method's I used for Greer a better peak of 6 really high quality years 53-58. The then gives two rather nice post prime years in 59-60 (ranking 6th in the minute adjusted PER). This gives him 8 quality years. He has 2 additional replacement level starter years.

Greer has 9 quality years along with 4 replacement level starter years. 72 Greer looks to be around replacement level and 73 was only 38 games and yeah he was a negative value player that year.

So yes I see a clear additional year of value. Greer's competition I believe was much stronger. The best guard in the league for Sharman was Cousy and I'm not sure who made who better, but Cousy certainly got all the praise from that era.

Both guys have iffy and questionable moments in the playoffs. 57 finals Sharman has some really nice games and then some more or less no shows and Greer has the same tendencies.

As for defense, I'm not sure I'm trusting in that era's commentaries about defense. "Toughness" seemed to be really big on people's minds, but for years Sherman and Cousy had the worst defensive team in the league. I know it was a big man's league, but that gives me very real pause if the two best guards in the league were on a team together and they couldn't stop people.

Anyway, yes there is reason and justification for having Greer ahead of Sharman. I do agree era to era sharman was more dominate at his peak, but I firmly believe the competition was lesser in that era and showing that sharman had a nice PER (in 25 minutes per game) in the one simi prime year of Greer's career that over laps doesn't really tell me much or sway me.

That said, I don't think sharman getting traction here would be crazy either.

[trex_8063]

Happy New Year all!

Thru post #57:

Tony Parker - 3 (pandrade83, scabbarista, trex_8063)
Hal Greer - 3 (Outside, dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)


Time's up (I'm even a little late, New Year's Eve ran late), and we're still stuck. Owly, would you care to be the tie-breaker again?

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[dhsilv2]

Replied in red below....

In post #4 itt (among my arguments for Parker) I'd listed best 10-year and 12-year samples of added RAPM for Parker, Hill, Webber, Anthony, B.Wallace, Marion, Mutombo, and Bosh.

Since conversation about Dennis Rodman has come about (and from that a mention of Horace Grant, whom I think is historically underrated), I thought I'd provide some best 5-year RAPM's added for that same group (plus Rodman and Grant), as longevity is not as important to many as it is to me (which is why I focused on the 10 and 12-year samples previously).
Rodman and Grant will be at a bit of a disadvantage because impact data is missing for some of their best years, so don't take this at face value; however, with colts18's APM data for '94-'96 we have about half of each of their primes and some decent post-prime years (esp for Grant).......

Best 5-years RAPM/(APM)
Grant Hill (#73): +23.02 '96-'00
Dikembe Mutombo (#53): +21.79 '94, '98-'01
Chris Bosh (#75): +21.50 '07-'11
Tony Parker: +18.20 '02, '06, '09, '12-'13
Shawn Marion: +17.50 '01, '03, '05, '07-'08
Ben Wallace: +16.50 '01, '04-'06, '10
Horace Grant: +15.46 '94-'98
Chris Webber: +15.17 '97-'99, '01, '03
Dennis Rodman: +12.52 '94-'98
Carmelo Anthony: +11.00 '09-'11, '15-'16

Do you have the years for these? I'm wondering about minutes played and how that looks when summing these.

02 for Parker made it? Wow rookie year, I thought he was awful. And I'm checking and see him 4th and seemingly completely out of place on this list (which has rather low RAPM numbers?) https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-rapm

But interesting, 12 is an odd year with the strike and then 13 is the only year with somewhat negative games played, but not bad by any means. 11,535 minutes (12 lockout in there)

12,792 for Webber (99 lockout is in there)

Ben Wallace 13,346
Marion 14,701

I gotta get some other things done today, but that's a huge minute gap that he lockouts don't account for on some of these guys. Would be interesting to do some kinda of minute adjusted work here as well to see where this would fall. Don't have these data sets you've got, I gotta start saving the RAPM links that get posted. Either way looks like a rather strong support for Marion surprisingly enough.

[Owly]

Happy New Year all!

Thru post #57:

Tony Parker - 3 (pandrade83, scabbarista, trex_8063)
Hal Greer - 3 (Outside, dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)


Time's up (I'm even a little late, New Year's Eve ran late), and we're still stuck. Owly, would you care to be the tie-breaker again?

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Reticent to just be the guy voting Greer down each time (happy enough to argue the merits of that pick ...) then again I suppose the onus is on each player to have had a career good enough to win over a majority of those willing to vote here.

Okay...
vote: Tony Parker
As before I don't know that I'd weight things exactly as trex has, or how much you can combine RAPMs across multiple sources, but what his numbers represent, that Parker has pretty good impact stats for this point, and has amassed a strong career value are neatly summarised by those numbers. He's not really to my tastes as a pg (higher usage, worse shooter - range and TS%, worse assist/turnover than ideal) but he undeniably and significantly moved the needle for a good team over an extended period. I'm simply not convinced that Greer did so, and thus, despite admirable longevity, unless you were considerably more bullish than I on his D and shooting, it's difficult to see a case for him here.