RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #61 (Nate Thurmond)

[LA Bird]

Calling on some previous Thurmond voters who have yet to vote this round

.

.

.

.

I would like to move on to my next player (Billups) so a quick vote for Thurmond would be greatly appreciated

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Calling on some previous Thurmond voters who have yet to vote this round

.

.

.

.

I would like to move on to my next player (Billups) so a quick vote for Thurmond would be greatly appreciated

Is this allowed? I think it’s at least frowned upon because you’re alerting one subset of voters but not another.

[OhayoKD]

Calling on some previous Thurmond voters who have yet to vote this round

.

.

.

.

I would like to move on to my next player (Billups) so a quick vote for Thurmond would be greatly appreciated

Vote

1. Thurmond


-> Superstar impact based on what we have
-> Impressive postseason performances with and without Rick Barry
-> Best-in-league calibre defender

Don't think anyone operating with an era-relative frame-work should be putting Mutembo ahead. Thurmond has a pretty clear statistical advantage, was better regarded for his time and got about as close to actually winning.

Alternate

2. Pau Gasol


Nomination: Gobert

A more mobile more offensively gifted variant of Deke who has arguably been the most essential component on various playoff teams. Facing better talent with a spaced out floor has hurt him in a relative sense but if with stay-at-home defensive specialists as front-runners, the modern era's premium "stay at home" defensive specialist probably warrants some consideration.

[HeartBreakKid]

Don't think anyone operating with an era-relative frame-work should be putting Mutembo ahead. Thurmond has a pretty clear statistical advantage

How so?

[AEnigma]

Just going to play devil's advocate with Mutombo - whom I've always thought highly of - for a minute here, as there's some data points I've come across while deciding who to vote for that are giving me pause.

First, let's look at the 1996-97 Hawks. They were, in terms of both W/L record and SRS, the best team he ever played on. His box numbers look solid in the RS and great in the playoffs.

13.3ppg/11.6rpg/3.3bpg, .134 WS/48, 2.1BPM, 58.4% TS(+4.8 rts) over 80 games
15.4ppg/12.3rpg/2.6bpg, .204 WS/48, 6.3BPM, 67.4% TS over 10 games

But he comes in third in RS on/off, at +6.2, behind Christian Laettner(+20.2) and Mookie Blaylock(+16.5), and he comes in fourth in PO on/off, at +4.9, behind Mookie Blaylock(+56.0), Christian Laettner(+24.7), and Steve Smith(+6.1). Further, his RAPM that year, from JE's RS+PO set, was 1.96, well below Laettner(6.09) and Blaylock(5.29), and his fourth lowest from 96-97 to 08-09(the two lower ones coming in 02-03, 07-08, and 03-04). It just struck me that his impact metrics weren't more dominant within the team that year.

I do not find those measures to be of much insight, both for their sample and for their dependency on rotations. The Hawks had no adequate replacement for Mookie, and Laettner was as cushioned as possible — while also kind-of functioning as Dikembe’s backup with that cushioning in place.

Second, and sort of piggybacking off the first point, in the lockout-shortened 1999 season, the Hawks went 31-19(.620 winning percentage) and had a 2.82 SRS. That summer, Blaylock and Smith were traded away(Laettner was already gone). In 1999-00 - with Mutombo playing all 82 games - the Hawks went 28-54(.341 winning percentage) and had a -5.41 SRS. Ok, so that's not really fair because the Hawks had blown it up by that point and were a bad team, and Mutombo posted a +13.1 on/off and a 6.69 RAPM(the highest of his career). But it does speak again to the notion that he may not have been as important to the 97 Hawks as one might think.

While there is an element to this I can appreciate — not enough of a star to be able to drag an abysmal roster to a semblance of respectability — I think it immediately undercuts your previous point. Did Dikembe suddenly have a peak year as the team fell apart, or did the team’s rotations change sufficiently for Dikembe to be by far the most valuable presence there?

Third, he is given a lot of credit around here for the Sixers' 2001 Finals run, and rightly so. But Theo Ratliff was having similar defensive impact before he got hurt, and it remains a question if the Sixers could've gotten to the Finals with him too

I think if people are assessing 2001 Dikembe as some serious all-NBA figure then that would be a mistake… but it is not much of a slight at the end of your prime to be playing roughly as well as the guy who would have won DPoY and was probably providing top thirty value

This all makes it seem like I'm down on Deke when I'm absolutely not. I've always held him in high esteem. But these are just some things I thought about tonight. But I'll end the post on a more positive note for Deke by responding to something AEnigma said:

- I value Dikembe’s peak and prime higher than Pau’s and Parish’s, but not much higher, and he had a steep prime drop-off in a way those two did not.

He did have a dropoff, but I wouldn't completely write off those Houston years. He was backing up Yao and playing fewer minutes, so all his counting stats took a hit(though in Per 100 terms, only his scoring - his rebounds and blocks per 100 kept pace with where he'd always been). His first four years in Houston, these are his WS/48:

.186
.156
.192
.178

These are his RS+PO RAPMs for his five seasons in Houston:

2.63
2.24
3.71
1.07
2.30

He had a strong on/off for three of the four playoff runs(though he had negative on/off in all but one regular season in Houston):

+19.8 (2005, 7 games)
-5.2 (2007, 7 games)
+10.9 (2008, 6 games)
+32.2 (2009, 2 games)

I make a special note of the 2008 playoffs, where Yao was out and 41, almost 42 year old Mutombo was starting in his place. His raw counting numbers were small, but he posted .190 WS/48, 4.5 BPM, and +10.9 on/off in 20.5mpg over 6 games.

Yes, he fell off, but he was still providing positive production in Houston and he was pretty old then(he was 38 when he got there).

After his major 2002 wrist surgery, here are Dikembe’s minute averages:

2003 — 14.2 in eight games at the end of the season, then 11.5 in the postseason (still recovering from injury)

2004 — 23, then 12.7 in the postseason. The Knicks had a clear losing record with him and a winning record without him.

2005 — 15.2, then 14.4 in the postseason

2006 — 14.9

2007 — 17.2, then 5.7 in the postseason

2008 — 15.9, then 20.5 in the postseason

2009 — 10.7 (nine games…), then 10 in the postseason

Was he a bad player? No, but this is a pitiful bar if we are trying to celebrate his impact playing a third of the game.

You try to celebrate that 2008 run, but I see a player who is only getting 20 minutes per game with the team’s starting centre out. You cite his on/off, and I see one seven-minute stretch where he was part of a lineup that essentially went +8 or whatever while the rest of his minutes were on balance lost. I also see that the two most “impactful” players after McGrady happen to be the team’s two centres, completely staggered but for that aforementioned possession breaking seven-minute lineup.

We can definitely give a near-42-year-old Dikembe some respect for being a positive bench-level roleplayer, but that still leaves him as a bench-level roleplayer. Even by a crude and limited measure like win shares, we are talking 2-5 wins per season. In the playoffs, 1 collective win’s worth of value across 22 games. Is that really moving the needle here?

[AEnigma]

Calling on some previous Thurmond voters who have yet to vote this round

.

.

.

.

I would like to move on to my next player (Billups) so a quick vote for Thurmond would be greatly appreciated

Is this allowed? I think it’s at least frowned upon because you’re alerting one subset of voters but not another.

… And?

What if the post had been, “Lot of good past arguments for Thurmond here,” quoting those exact names except with actual content in those quotation blocks. Is the notification effect any different? What if it had been the same message, but now as a DM no one can see. Any different positive effect? (Could easily argue that one is sneakier because you are not even bumping the thread’s base level visibility.)

Campaigning is a part of the project; most people tend not to do so openly, but hey, if they care about a specific result, then maybe they should.

Incidentally, you quoting that post — and me quoting you quoting it — just sent additional notifications to the attention of those other voters.

[homecourtloss]

Vote: Nate Thurmond
Alt: Pau Gasol
Nomination: Chauncey Billups

Nate Thurmond

When you watch Thurmond play, you can see his seemingly innate ability to read the game and anticipate opponents' moves/movement. The offensive schemes at the time that he played called for a certain type of defense, but I think that he would’ve also been great defensively in an open space and pace game because of his high basketball, IQ and understanding of opponents’ strategies that allow him to disrupt offensive actions opponent offensive actions. His strength and agility allowed him to guard players across multiple positions, making him a versatile defensive force. Then there was his relentless motor and as has been discussed before, any player with the motor like that combined with talent is a massive plus player, which the data that we have seems to bear out:

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Pau Gasol
Best career WS and VORP of any of the candidates. Strong playoff riser throughout his career. Integral piece of 2 championship teams, one as a #2 and one as a #1b.

Nominate: Vince Carter
Best career WS and VORP numbers by far of anyone yet to be nominated. Playoff BPM of 7.2 through his age 29 season.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Willis Reed
Vote 2 - Robert Parish
Nomination 1 - Chauncey BIllups
Nomination 2 - Sam Jones

On their way to the championship in 1970, Wllis helped the Knicks knock off two of the most dominant centers of all time in Wilt and Kareem. Undersized for a center at 6’9”, his brute strength and good defensive instincts were still able to deter them. He also had a great outside shot for a big man, which was very effective against Wilt in his later years. He would again get the best of Wilt in '73 when the Knicks took down the Lakers in the finals.

I don’t have a problem with questioning his 2 finals MVPs relative to Clyde’s level of play in those series. However, I don’t doubt that Reed was a player whose impact went beyond the box score, and I’d say that’s what voters were recognizing when selecting him as finals MVP in both seasons. This was best exemplified in the famous moment when reed came through the tunnel in game 7 of the '70 finals:

Watch on YouTube

As the Lakers were warming up, they froze as they saw Willis coming onto the court (he had previously missed game 6 with a torn muscle in his thigh, and no one expected him to play). He hit his first 2 jumpers, and the rest was history. Dramatic narrative? Of course, but Clyde himself said they wouldn’t have had the confidence to go out there and perform like they did without their captain leading the way. When you have the talent to back it up as willis did, that makes a difference.

He was certainly deserving of winning regular season MVP in 1970, leading the Knicks to a 60-22 record and the #1 ranked SRS in the league. He put together season averages of 21.7 PPG, 13.9 RPG, 2 APG, 50.7 FG, 75.6% FT, 55.2% TS, +4.1 rTS.

From '69-'73, reed would anchor a Knicks defense that ranked in the top 3rd of the league for 4 seasons:

'69 - 4th
'70 - 1st
'71 - 2nd
'73 - 4th

The season after reed retired, the Knicks dropped to 11th (of 18) in DRtg. Yes, I'm aware there are other factors in the high DRtgs given the overall strength of the rosters, and this drop off the season he retired included other roster subtractions. Even still, his impact on that end of the floor was clear, as was the ability to lead a group of players to what’s often considered one of the best stretches of “team play” in NBA history.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Willis Reed
Induction Vote 2: Pau Gasol

People continue to make arguments against Reed that leave me re-considering...but none of the other candidates stand out the same way to me. I feel like Reed was the best player of the Nominees, and while you can knock his identity, you can't deny that he was a part of something really significant.

Of the other candidates, Gasol is the guy who next stands out the most for on this front, and I definitely see a case for him over Reed...but I don't think he was good prime v prime.



Nomination Vote 1: Cliff Hagan
Nomination Vote 2: Bobby Jones

Well I said I'd be careful about championing more super-oldtimers, but with Hagan getting support I can leave them hanging. The truth is that I do think Hagan stands out significantly compared to the other old timers left. The way he was dominant in the playoffs really impresses.

For the second vote, siding with Bobby among the major candidates. I do find the Parish arguments to be pretty compelling too, but Bobby really stands out to me.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Thurmond - 5 (beast, LA Bird, AEnigma, Ohayo, hcl)
Gasol - 3 (trex, Joao, iggy)
Mutombo - 2 (HBK, trelos)
Reed - 4 (Samurai, OSNB, Clyde, Doc)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Thurmond & Reed:

Thurmond - 0 (none)
Reed - 1 (HBK)
neither - 4 (trex, trelos, Joao, iggy)

Thurmond 5, Reed 5. Looks like we have a run-off!

Nomination Vote 1:

Bobby - 2 (beast, Samurai)
Billups - 5 (LA Bird, trex, Joao, hcl, Clyde)
Hagan - 3 (HBK, OSNB, Doc)
Ben - 1 (trelos)
Hayes - 1 (AEnigma)
Gobert - 1 (Ohayo)
Carter - 1 (iggy)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Billups & Hagan:

Billups - 1 (AEnigma)
Hagan - 0 (none)
neither - 5 (beast, Samurai, trelos, Ohayo, iggy)

Billups 6, Hagan 3.

Chauncey Billups is added to Nominee list.

[Doctor MJ]

Folks I don't have time to do our runoff Batman signal right now, but if anyone else wants to, feel free.

[iggymcfrack]

Runoff vote: Willis Reed
Best player on a champion. Played at an MVP level prior to the injury. Reached a much higher level than Thurmond ever got to.

[trex_8063]

Calling on some previous Thurmond voters who have yet to vote this round

.

.

.

.

I would like to move on to my next player (Billups) so a quick vote for Thurmond would be greatly appreciated

Is this allowed? I think it’s at least frowned upon because you’re alerting one subset of voters but not another.

I don't believe Doc made any hard-fast rule against it, but yes, it is indeed frowned upon.

I had a notion to "tap" iggymcfrack last night to get his vote in (because I knew it would be for Gasol, who I really think is overdue). I did not do so for the reason that it's, in a subtle way, kinda like putting your thumb on the scale.

[trex_8063]

As implied in my vote post: my runoff vote is for Nate Thurmond.

[Doctor MJ]

Calling on some previous Thurmond voters who have yet to vote this round

.

.

.

.

I would like to move on to my next player (Billups) so a quick vote for Thurmond would be greatly appreciated

Is this allowed? I think it’s at least frowned upon because you’re alerting one subset of voters but not another.

I never made a rule on it and my inclination is not to force one. We can have a bigger discussion about this in the Project thread if people want.

[trelos6]

Runoff vote: Willis Reed. I have him higher than Thurmond.

[ty 4191]

Calling on some previous Thurmond voters who have yet to vote this round

.

.

.

.

I would like to move on to my next player (Billups) so a quick vote for Thurmond would be greatly appreciated

I have no intention of continuing to vote and participate actively in this project, due to life/time constraints....however, Thurmond is drastically underestimated and overlooked here, on this Board.

Vote: Nate Thurmond

Quotes about Thurmond:

"Wilt Chamberlain sat in the airport terminal in San Francisco awaiting a flight to Boston. “He’s the toughest center I have to play,” he said. “He can rebound, play defense, and you’ve got to worry about him scoring, too. He’s a helluva center, and I don’t think he gets the recognition he deserves.”

"Nate was one of the great centers to ever play the game, and I was privileged to call him a teammate and dear friend" -Rick Barry

"Both Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain have gone on record saying they felt Thurmond was their toughest adversary. “He plays me better than anybody ever has,” Abdul-Jabbar told Basketball Digest when he was in his prime. “He’s tall, has real long arms, and most of all he’s agile and strong.” In an article in Sport, Abdul-Jabbar also said, “When I score on Nate, I know I’ve done something. He sweats and he wants you to sweat, too.”

--He was 45th in the NBA's 50 at 50 (October, 1996)

--He was 49th in the NBA's 75 at 75 (December, 2022)

Moreover, since most people are-clearly-& almost completely- stats and "impact" obsessed here; here's a bit of my empirical research:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jE5K2XrILol56zGe0e7LA-bKyRECGNgG/edit#gid=367062482

1. Thurmond held opposing HOF Centers to a .422 FG% across 524 games in the regular season plus playoffs. That's a ~15% reduction in FG%.

2. Russell: .416 vs. .464 FG% (757 games vs. HOF Centers). That's a 10% reduction in FG%.

3. Chamberlain: .434 vs .469 FG% (828 games). That's a 7.5% reduction in FG%.

4. Kareem: .493 vs .501 FG% (659 games). That's a 1.5% reduction in FG%.

5. Hakeem: .504 vs .484 FG% (359 games). 6% reduction in FG%.

6. Shaq: .445 vs .513 FG% (224 games). 13% reduction in FG%.

Thurmond's defensive rating (93) from 1973-1974 through 1976-1977 was third best in the NBA among players with 250+ games played. He was also well past his prime, ANCIENT for that era (ages 32-35) and, also, injury riddled.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

I know he was a terrible shooter, but his man to man post defense HAS to be among the top few greatest in NBA history.

All thoughts and input from the historians here is very, very much welcomed and appreciated.

Thank you, everyone!!!

[Owly]

Calling on some previous Thurmond voters who have yet to vote this round

.

.

.

.

I would like to move on to my next player (Billups) so a quick vote for Thurmond would be greatly appreciated

I have no intention of continuing to vote and participate actively in this project, due to life/time constraints....however, Thurmond is drastically underestimated and overlooked here, on this Board.

Vote: Nate Thurmond

Quotes about Thurmond:

"Wilt Chamberlain sat in the airport terminal in San Francisco awaiting a flight to Boston. “He’s the toughest center I have to play,” he said. “He can rebound, play defense, and you’ve got to worry about him scoring, too. He’s a helluva center, and I don’t think he gets the recognition he deserves.”

"Nate was one of the great centers to ever play the game, and I was privileged to call him a teammate and dear friend" -Rick Barry

"Both Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain have gone on record saying they felt Thurmond was their toughest adversary. “He plays me better than anybody ever has,” Abdul-Jabbar told Basketball Digest when he was in his prime. “He’s tall, has real long arms, and most of all he’s agile and strong.” In an article in Sport, Abdul-Jabbar also said, “When I score on Nate, I know I’ve done something. He sweats and he wants you to sweat, too.”

--He was 45th in the NBA's 50 at 50 (October, 1996)

--He was 49th in the NBA's 75 at 75 (December, 2022)

Moreover, since most people are-clearly-& almost completely- stats and "impact" obsessed here; here's a bit of my empirical research:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jE5K2XrILol56zGe0e7LA-bKyRECGNgG/edit#gid=367062482

1. Thurmond held opposing HOF Centers to a .422 FG% across 524 games in the regular season plus playoffs. That's a ~15% reduction in FG%.

2. Russell: .416 vs. .464 FG% (757 games vs. HOF Centers). That's a 10% reduction in FG%.

3. Chamberlain: .434 vs .469 FG% (828 games). That's a 7.5% reduction in FG%.

4. Kareem: .493 vs .501 FG% (659 games). That's a 1.5% reduction in FG%.

5. Hakeem: .504 vs .484 FG% (359 games). 6% reduction in FG%.

6. Shaq: .445 vs .513 FG% (224 games). 13% reduction in FG%.

Thurmond's defensive rating (93) from 1973-1974 through 1976-1977 was third best in the NBA among players with 250+ games played. He was also well past his prime, ANCIENT for that era (ages 32-35) and, also, injury riddled.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

I know he was a terrible shooter, but his man to man post defense HAS to be among the top few greatest in NBA history.

All thoughts and input from the historians here is very, very much welcomed and appreciated.

Thank you, everyone!!!

I would imagine Thurmond is the best man-post defender ever if I had to pick one guy.

That said

Walton shot .505 from the field (RS) in the years he overlaps with Thurmond, but he's cited at .521.
Artis shoots .522 from the field (RS) in the year his NBA career overlaps with Thurmond, but he's cited at .598.
Parish ... .503, ... .533.
M. Malone ... .480, .490.

Maybe earlier guys flip the other way but I'm not sure about the methodology being as ... tight ... as it could be here.

Russell is absent from Thurmond's data.

Thurmond is credited with man covering Hayes and Unseld ... it's difficult to be sure but after Hayes goes to Washington he can't be doing both full-time.

You cite a ranking within the official league 50 and 75. To my knowledge no such ranking within these lists occurred.

[Cavsfansince84]

I would imagine Thurmond is the best man-post defender ever if I had to pick one guy.

That said

Walton shot .505 from the field (RS) in the years he overlaps with Thurmond, but he's cited at .521.
Artis shoots .522 from the field (RS) in the year his NBA career overlaps with Thurmond, but he's cited at .598.
Parish ... .503, ... .533.
M. Malone ... .480, .490.

Maybe earlier guys flip the other way but I'm not sure about the methodology being as ... tight ... as it could be here.

Russell is absent from Thurmond's data.

Thurmond is credited with man covering Hayes and Unseld ... it's difficult to be sure but after Hayes goes to Washington he can't be doing both full-time.

You cite a ranking within the official league 50 and 75. To my knowledge no such ranking within these lists occurred.

All those players you cited came into the league after 74 though if not later which is about when Nate's prime had ended.