Re: RealGM Top 100 List #55

[penbeast0]

It is, the reason I posted the end so late is because I had just gotten back from flying home for family holiday.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote KJ

Better at using his tools effectively, more easily integrated into a team, higher-value offensive player. KJ reminds me of what I think Iverson could have been if he had a different mentality.

Put Iverson in Phoenix and KJ in Philadelphia. Don't you think KJ would try to score more in volume and drop his efficiency? Or do you think he'll average the same kind of stats? If he does, where do you think those Philadelphia teams go? Do they even get into the playoffs?

I think Iverson would profit a lot from playing with Barkley. Yes, Iverson might put a big number of shots, but Barkley is one of the GOAT offensive rebounders in NBA history. Plus, if Iverson can average 7+ APG with those awful rosters of Philadelphia, I'm sure he could average similar or better in Phoenix.

There's something to what you say in the sense that context pulls guys in a certain direction, but none of this changes the fact that guys have a general approach to the game, and a sense for what a "good" shot is, that's hard to change. From what I see in general, much of what makes a distributor is to just not be the guy who's prone to say "Nah, I'll just do it myself". Iverson was a "do it myself" guy down to the ground. Guys who see the world as distributor just don't scoff at the notion of practice.

Re: Iverson & Barkley. I think that would actually be a cool offensive combination. I mean Barkley is a GOAT candidate on offense, so yeah, he could make it work with Iverson if the two explosive personalities managed not to implode.

Re: "if Iverson can average 7+ APG with those awful rosters". This is the wrong way to look at Iverson's numbers. Iverson had such heavy on-ball primacy he was going to get some assists...but his presence on the court LOWERED assists. This is actually a common issue with combo guards. So yeah, in Phoenix, Iverson would get credited with some assists for Barkley scores, but Barkley would get less "assisting" help than he had before whenever Iverson was on the court.

With Iverson off the court, Philadelphia was the worse offense in the NBA, trex already showed the numbers. So while guys are getting the ball to each other, the offense really sucks. So they profited more from Iverson being really agressive than by moving the ball a lot.

The reason the % of shots assisted rises is because no guy can really create their own shot... So in this case, I wouldn't question Iverson's judgement on being more agressive.

If he had Barkley, maybe he would have given the ball a lot more. It's a diferent game.

In 07-08 Iverson's usage dropped a lot with Denver, to 26.7 (that's more or less a 10% drop from his days in Philadelphia) and he still averaged more than 7 APG. If he was getting assists only from high usage, how do you explain this?

[Doctor MJ]

Put Iverson in Phoenix and KJ in Philadelphia. Don't you think KJ would try to score more in volume and drop his efficiency? Or do you think he'll average the same kind of stats? If he does, where do you think those Philadelphia teams go? Do they even get into the playoffs?

I think Iverson would profit a lot from playing with Barkley. Yes, Iverson might put a big number of shots, but Barkley is one of the GOAT offensive rebounders in NBA history. Plus, if Iverson can average 7+ APG with those awful rosters of Philadelphia, I'm sure he could average similar or better in Phoenix.

There's something to what you say in the sense that context pulls guys in a certain direction, but none of this changes the fact that guys have a general approach to the game, and a sense for what a "good" shot is, that's hard to change. From what I see in general, much of what makes a distributor is to just not be the guy who's prone to say "Nah, I'll just do it myself". Iverson was a "do it myself" guy down to the ground. Guys who see the world as distributor just don't scoff at the notion of practice.

Re: Iverson & Barkley. I think that would actually be a cool offensive combination. I mean Barkley is a GOAT candidate on offense, so yeah, he could make it work with Iverson if the two explosive personalities managed not to implode.

Re: "if Iverson can average 7+ APG with those awful rosters". This is the wrong way to look at Iverson's numbers. Iverson had such heavy on-ball primacy he was going to get some assists...but his presence on the court LOWERED assists. This is actually a common issue with combo guards. So yeah, in Phoenix, Iverson would get credited with some assists for Barkley scores, but Barkley would get less "assisting" help than he had before whenever Iverson was on the court.

With Iverson off the court, Philadelphia was the worse offense in the NBA, trex already showed the numbers. So while guys are getting the ball to each other, the offense really sucks. So they profited more from Iverson being really agressive than by moving the ball a lot.

The reason the % of shots assisted rises is because no guy can really create their own shot... So in this case, I wouldn't question Iverson's judgement on being more agressive.

If he had Barkley, maybe he would have given the ball a lot more. It's a diferent game.

In 07-08 Iverson's usage dropped a lot with Denver, to 26.7 (that's more or less a 10% drop from his days in Philadelphia) and he still averaged more than 7 APG. If he was getting assists only from high usage, how do you explain this?

You misunderstand: There's nothing strong about the assist data when Iverson's off the court, the noteworthy thing was that the team was a low-assist team when Iverson played. That's what a player like Iverson tends to do, and so crediting him with creating for others as if nothing would happen without him is misguided.

Re: How do I explain assists in Denver with lower usage? Well I'm not saying there's literally no ability for Iverson to adjust, just that there are limits. And I'll note that when Iverson came to Denver, we still see the trend of there being more assists when he wasn't playing.

To be clear, this isn't the same as saying Iverson was hurting his team, it's just a clear cut problem if you're talking about Iverson as someone who is add major benefit by creating for others. Guys who truly create for others - as in give something that wasn't there before - by getting assists don't cause the assist rate to go down when they step on the floor.

This is a part of the larger issue of why people tend to overrate on-ball scorers. Whoever is on-ball is going to get assists not because they are a superior passer but simply because they are the one with the ball, so they make the pass.

[Joao Saraiva]

There's something to what you say in the sense that context pulls guys in a certain direction, but none of this changes the fact that guys have a general approach to the game, and a sense for what a "good" shot is, that's hard to change. From what I see in general, much of what makes a distributor is to just not be the guy who's prone to say "Nah, I'll just do it myself". Iverson was a "do it myself" guy down to the ground. Guys who see the world as distributor just don't scoff at the notion of practice.

Re: Iverson & Barkley. I think that would actually be a cool offensive combination. I mean Barkley is a GOAT candidate on offense, so yeah, he could make it work with Iverson if the two explosive personalities managed not to implode.

Re: "if Iverson can average 7+ APG with those awful rosters". This is the wrong way to look at Iverson's numbers. Iverson had such heavy on-ball primacy he was going to get some assists...but his presence on the court LOWERED assists. This is actually a common issue with combo guards. So yeah, in Phoenix, Iverson would get credited with some assists for Barkley scores, but Barkley would get less "assisting" help than he had before whenever Iverson was on the court.

With Iverson off the court, Philadelphia was the worse offense in the NBA, trex already showed the numbers. So while guys are getting the ball to each other, the offense really sucks. So they profited more from Iverson being really agressive than by moving the ball a lot.

The reason the % of shots assisted rises is because no guy can really create their own shot... So in this case, I wouldn't question Iverson's judgement on being more agressive.

If he had Barkley, maybe he would have given the ball a lot more. It's a diferent game.

In 07-08 Iverson's usage dropped a lot with Denver, to 26.7 (that's more or less a 10% drop from his days in Philadelphia) and he still averaged more than 7 APG. If he was getting assists only from high usage, how do you explain this?

You misunderstand: There's nothing strong about the assist data when Iverson's off the court, the noteworthy thing was that the team was a low-assist team when Iverson played. That's what a player like Iverson tends to do, and so crediting him with creating for others as if nothing would happen without him is misguided.

Re: How do I explain assists in Denver with lower usage? Well I'm not saying there's literally no ability for Iverson to adjust, just that there are limits. And I'll note that when Iverson came to Denver, we still see the trend of there being more assists when he wasn't playing.

To be clear, this isn't the same as saying Iverson was hurting his team, it's just a clear cut problem if you're talking about Iverson as someone who is add major benefit by creating for others. Guys who truly create for others - as in give something that wasn't there before - by getting assists don't cause the assist rate to go down when they step on the floor.

This is a part of the larger issue of why people tend to overrate on-ball scorers. Whoever is on-ball is going to get assists not because they are a superior passer but simply because they are the one with the ball, so they make the pass.

Drawing attention and passing the ball is a way to create for others. It's giving them something that wasn't there. Iverson's teammates in Philadelphia wouldn't have that with him off the court.

I understand he's not the kind of playmaker that Chris Paul or LeBron are, but he's still a good one. (Sometimes he wasn't that willing to give the ball, but he could do it).

[Doctor MJ]

Drawing attention and passing the ball is a way to create for others. It's giving them something that wasn't there. Iverson's teammates in Philadelphia wouldn't have that with him off the court.

I understand he's not the kind of playmaker that Chris Paul or LeBron are, but he's still a good one. (Sometimes he wasn't that willing to give the ball, but he could do it).

Again, there's a difference between being a positive presence on the court and actually being a playmaker. A playmaker is one who is particularly skilled at seeking ways to make use of his teammates' scoring ability not a guy who is such a big scoring threat that he might have some trickle down effect on them. To conflate those things makes no more sense that calling a guy a good rebounder because his presence allows teammates to focus more on rebounding.

[Joao Saraiva]

Drawing attention and passing the ball is a way to create for others. It's giving them something that wasn't there. Iverson's teammates in Philadelphia wouldn't have that with him off the court.

I understand he's not the kind of playmaker that Chris Paul or LeBron are, but he's still a good one. (Sometimes he wasn't that willing to give the ball, but he could do it).

Again, there's a difference between being a positive presence on the court and actually being a playmaker. A playmaker is one who is particularly skilled at seeking ways to make use of his teammates' scoring ability not a guy who is such a big scoring threat that he might have some trickle down effect on them. To conflate those things makes no more sense that calling a guy a good rebounder because his presence allows teammates to focus more on rebounding.

Call it positive impact or playmaking or whatever you want, those 7 APG are not empty numbers.

If a guy doesn't pass he's a chucker, if he passes it still doesn't count as playmaking. It's okay if you want to say positive impact. I just think people are not giving him credit for it.

[Doctor MJ]

Drawing attention and passing the ball is a way to create for others. It's giving them something that wasn't there. Iverson's teammates in Philadelphia wouldn't have that with him off the court.

I understand he's not the kind of playmaker that Chris Paul or LeBron are, but he's still a good one. (Sometimes he wasn't that willing to give the ball, but he could do it).

Again, there's a difference between being a positive presence on the court and actually being a playmaker. A playmaker is one who is particularly skilled at seeking ways to make use of his teammates' scoring ability not a guy who is such a big scoring threat that he might have some trickle down effect on them. To conflate those things makes no more sense that calling a guy a good rebounder because his presence allows teammates to focus more on rebounding.

Call it positive impact or playmaking or whatever you want, those 7 APG are not empty numbers.

If a guy doesn't pass he's a chucker, if he passes it still doesn't count as playmaking. It's okay if you want to say positive impact. I just think people are not giving him credit for it.

I would indeed call them empty numbers, or possibly inflated numbers. There are guys who are much better passers who get less assists than that because they handle the ball less. When that's the case, it makes no sense to use assists as some literal added value to the team.

Re: "If a guy doesn't pass he's a chucker, if he passes it still doesn't count as playmaking." I'm not saying the actual pass doesn't contribute toward his playmaking, I'm saying that you can't effectively assess how much of said playmaking value above replacement an on-ball chucker has simply by counting the assists.

[Owly]

Sorry, wanted to quote from this thread, meant to copy and paste into new post in new thread, started editing, forgot to move. Disregard here. I'll leave what I posted below (would spoiler it but can't seem to do so easily with other formatting).


I'm voting Bob Lanier once again, another composite post of my previous stuff why below

I'm voting Bob Lanier
Reasoning: looks like the best career added value by crude faux-EWA/WS combination. He's also high on a similar peak based ranking which I ended up posting a few threads back (43rd, and all those above him still available didn't maintain their peak anything close to how he did, and/or have era concerns).

Spoiler:

PPR Score PPR Rank name
29.69848481 17 Amare Stoudemire
32.80243893 18 Neil Johnston
43.56604182 25 Paul Arizin
47.38143096 26 Bob McAdoo
54.3783045 30 Walt Bellamy
55.90169944 31 Terrell Brandon
63.07138812 33 Elton Brand
65.30696747 35 Ed Macauley
67.53517602 36 Emanuel Ginobili
68.01470429 37 Arvydas Sabonis
76.53103945 42 Larry Foust
77.46612163 43 Bob Lanier

All with era concerns; longevity/peak maintainance issues and/or problems defense/intangiables (Manu probably the least but minutes is an issue; for a comp see http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2015).

Team level D might be held against him but his Drtg (hardly perfect, but I think sufficient for the point/claim being made) in '74 when he played 81 games led the league.

A concern might be that he missed quite a few games, including playing (just) less than 65 games and 2500 minutes for three of his five short prime/extended peak years ('76, '77 and '78 of '74-'78). Still for that 5 year span he looks like the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league (even after minutes are factored in) and he lasted much better than McAdoo.
cf:
The five year span in question http://bkref.com/tiny/64BQL
The 70s: http://bkref.com/tiny/0DbJe

Reviews on D

Lanier is the big difference. He played only when in the mood before last season. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.

[individual bio]
Called "Moses" by his teammates ... For leading them out of the wilderness ...... trimmer last season ...... Defense was his biggest improvement

Depending on who's in there, the Pistons can make you work. When one of the "whos" is either Trapp or Howard Porter, the opponents can relax a bit. But Rowe, Ford, Mengelt, Kevin Porter, Money and Lanier will get down and play some defense. Lanier, in fact often surprises people by jumping out to pick up guards or forwards. He also clogs the middle nicely.
[individual bio]
Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards.

Somewhat confusing. Lanier is a mammoth figure to try and get around [and some other decent players but the Porters are bad and the bench "woefully weak" ... comunication and fouling called a problem, perhaps coaching semi-implied as a problem based on that?]
[individual bio]
Can rebound, block shots, play defense, do everything but clean the kitchen floor ...... [unrelated but I've touched on this] Injuries have been a problem, though, but he has always played hurt

[Vitale will be looking to emphasize D] Lanier gives him a head start. That is the advantage of having a big center. Lanier seals off the middle and is tough and aggressive.

[individual bio]Devensively he can be as imposing as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore

Depending on how much you allow hypotheticals, you might also consider that Detroit rushed him back in his rookie year which may have been detrimental to his long term health.

One quick and dirty study of his impact.

'76 Pistons
team points differential over the year -86 over 82 games, -1.048780488 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -92 over 18 games, -5.111111111 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier +6 over 64 games, 0.09375 per game


'77 Pistons
team points differential over the year -85 over 82 games, -1.036585366 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -107 over 18 games, -5.944444444 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier 22 over 64 games, 0.34375 per game

Lanier('s impact) looks a little worse in '78
'78 Pistons
team points differential over the year -102 over 82 games, -1.243902439 per game
team points differential over 19 games without Lanier -100 over 19 games, -4.347826087 per game
team points differential over 63 games with Lanier -2 over 63 games, -0.031746032 per game

Players with as many or more top 2000(ish) player seasons (as before not absolutely up to date- LeBron should now be on there) by PER (17.9+)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
Karl Malone 17
Shaquille O'Neal 17
Kevin Garnett 17
John Stockton 17
Tim Duncan 16
Hakeem Olajuwon 16
Kobe Bryant 16
Moses Malone 16
Charles Barkley 15
Paul Pierce 14
Clyde Drexler 14
Michael Jordan 13
Wilt Chamberlain 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Robert Parish 13
David Robinson 12
Oscar Robertson 12
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Larry Bird 12
Jerry West 12
Patrick Ewing 12
Dominique Wilkins 12
Steve Nash 12
Allen Iverson 12
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Adrian Dantley 11
Elgin Baylor 11
Vince Carter 11
Larry Nance 11
Pau Gasol 11
Alex English 11
Chris Webber 11

Players with as many top 2000ish player seasons as Lanier by WS/48 (.144+)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
John Stockton 18
Karl Malone 17
Tim Duncan 16
Reggie Miller 16
Shaquille O'Neal 15
Hakeem Olajuwon 15
Charles Barkley 15
Kevin Garnett 14
Kobe Bryant 14
Moses Malone 13
Paul Pierce 13
Wilt Chamberlain 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Robert Parish 13
David Robinson 13
Oscar Robertson 13
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Jerry West 12
Adrian Dantley 12
Bill Russell 12
Ray Allen 12
Michael Jordan 11
Larry Bird 11
Steve Nash 11
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Larry Nance 11
Bailey Howell 11
Detlef Schrempf 11

Other discussion from earlier threads

I'm not as familiar with Lanier, but those WOWY numbers Owly is posting make him certainly worth a big look. Still, I wonder whether he is a superior candidate to someone like Elvin Hayes.

Look at any boxscore metric and it will say Lanier peaked (much) higher, I suspect they'd all say he added more career value and tbh how "valuable" at this point in the list are, for instance, Hayes' Win Shares garnered from sub .100 WS/48 seasons - he gets 19 Win Shares from such seasons - set greatness impact replacement level at something like .120 WS/48 and you'd take a huge chunk out of his apparent contribution, ditto with PER - where he never hit 20, which Eric Murdock and Matt Geiger did, okay that's OTT, and as I've said before the range/SD seems like it might be less in the 70s but in any case that affects Lanier just as much anyway.

Lanier doesn't have Hayes' baggage as a teammate (not sure he was entirely happy/positive by the end in Detroit but nothing like Hayes) and he rates as better by the metrics in the playoffs despite playing a large chunk of his playoff career past his prime in a tough conference (80s East). Lanier being a more willing passer might make him easier to build around too.

What does Hayes have an edge in? D, probably (though positional competition isn't equal on the accolade front), and minutes. To me, it's not nearly enough.

I can't think really of another angle to analyse this from. I'd guess he's portable as he can score from the post, he space the floor and shoot the J, and it seems like at his best (anecdotally) he could defend guys out on the floor as well as play a more conventional anchor, and his assist % is pretty strong for a big man (double Hayes' 14.4 to 7.0).