Real GM Top 100 List #27

[Laimbeer]

Am I turning into a Celtic whore? I HATE that team.

I think you're stuck.

Probably, as a Piston fan, you value ensemble, team-success-oriented play.

And that kind of orientation leads one to think well of Celtics players.

(grimaces and painfully nods)

[Laimbeer]

I really dislike Howard or Pierce at this point. Howard doesn't quite have the longevity and Pierce is a far worse selection. He never played at a level that justifies consideration at this level, and any serious playoff success was after the addition of a better player. If he hadn't been on the most recent Celtics title team, I don't think he'd be getting a breath of mention here.

At this point, Cousy is still a ways off, so I'm going to flip my nomination to Dave Cowens. There was some momentum for him in earlier threads. He has two titles, a MVP and was a force well beyond anything Pierce brought to the floor. You could argue he doesn't have a lot more good seasons than Dwight already has, and he will almost certainly surpass Cowens in time. But I'm a title slappy and he was the guy on two of those.

Vote: John Havlicek
Nominate: Dave Cowens

But dammit I still have two Celtics.

[Laimbeer]

Anyway, in the end, I haven't found the justification yet to vote Zeke. I want to. I would love it if someone can make a convincing enough case to sway me.

I think a number of people feel that way - their gut and most anyone involved in that era acknowledge his role as the Piston's driving emotional force, leader, etc. If you replace him with Steve Nash or Allen Iverson, does the team still have the attitude to play defense in a way that the total is greater than the sum of the parts? Do they do battle in the same way, or are they relegated to the fate of all those similarly-talented Seattle, Sacramento and Portland teams that never made it over the hump?

And the guy was a great player, intangibles aside. Better than Magic defensively, shooting, and one-on-one moves, getting to the hole, etc.

Of course, it may be impossible to quantify that in individual statistics. And some insist on seeing that, which is their decision. I am one that believes some players value goes beyond that.

[drza]

Of course, it may be impossible to quantify that in individual statistics. And some insist on seeing that, which is their decision. I am one that believes some players value goes beyond that.

I am a very firm believer that some players values go beyond the individual BOX SCORE statistics (as my posting history definitely attests to). The problem is, these days and in this crowd we have a whole host of ways to quantitatively identify what previously used to be considered "intangibles" or "value beyond the numbers". It's easier to do from the current generation because of all of the info that's out there, but as I learned in the RPoY project last year we can still make very reasonable estimates for these player's impacts.

Someone says Russell is the best defensive player of all-time and by-FAR the biggest reason for the Celtics' team success...yup, I can find good quantitative support for it.

Someone says Oscar is one of the best offensive players of all time even outside of the triple-double hype...yup, I can find it and demonstrate it.

Bill Walton's impact (when healthy) dwarfs his traditional stats...yup, that can be shown.

Jerry West. Magic Johnson. Larry Bird. Michael Jordan. Scottie Pippen. Patrick Ewing. Over and over again, we can actually FIND "value beyond their stats",

That's my problem with Zeke so far. I can't find it. And in fact, in many ways Zeke is a poster-child for what has generally been shown to NOT be a value-beyond-the-stats guy...a lower efficiency scorer that produced high counting stats volume and thus became the face of the team...that's the textbook for a player whose stats may be more valuable than their actual impact. I don't necessarily believe that to be true for Zeke, but I need some way to justify that to myself. At this point I'm not even looking for something that rigorous, just give me a plausible theory and support it in some quantitative way. Give me something to think about, something to sink my teeth into. As I pointed out in my previous post on the subject, the Iverson post of that type in the 2001 RPoY thread was an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Something that goes beyond just "he was great because I'm sure he was" and actually makes a case that the team's success was directly tied into what Isiah brought to the table. Because here's the thing...we've now seen plenty of times in history where a dominant defense led by a strong defensive front line has made a team contenders...so it's not like Zeke doesn't have some competition on his own team for plausible reasons why the Pistons were able to win those titles.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: McAdoo and Rodman. Maybe it's from coaching or maybe because I was never all that talented but I may penalize guys more who are team destroyers/clubhouse cancers. McAdoo was clearly that despite great stats at first once he was dealt away from Buffalo -- and how do you deal away a 5th year big man with an MVP who is averaging about 30/12 with good efficiency and range for a guy with the same age/experience who has been producing 8pts/6reb unless there is something seriously wrong?

Doc, I know you were one of the leaders in penalizing Wilt for mediocre effect on team performance but having selfish addicts on your team has to be incredibly damaging for a team -- as you can see by McAdoo's bouncing around the league from NY to Det to Bos etc. This isn't a guy whose admittedly GREAT stats created team success, this was a guy who was a team wrecker. If he had become injured that 5th year and therefore become a role player like Grant Hill or Sidney Moncrief, it would be a very different story.

Same goes for Rodman to a MUCH lesser extent. I love defensive players and rebounders and think guys who don't score a ton consistently get underrated but Rodman is something of an exception. He was great defensively but not the GOAT rebounder in Detroit for most of his stay there, then was a GOAT rebounder but didn't play nearly the same intensity of defense in San Antonio or Chicago but gets credit for both as if they existed simultaneously. Also, he was a terrible teammate and cancer in San Antonio where he fought with Coach Hill, with David Robinson, and with Sean Elliot -- that I was aware of at the time. He refused to go into games, didn't tie his shoes at practice , etc. That's a big black mark in my book and one reason I have him below Bobby Jones who couldn't hold his jock as a rebounder, something I normally value highly. On the other hand, the Zen Master and the Bulls were able to deal with his idiocy and use his great skills for 3 rings which is a huge plus in my book. Without the San Antonio years, he'd be on my radar now -- as it is, he still will be a guy I consider nominating before we hit the 50 mark.

If anyone has articles talking about McAdoo being traded from Buffalo because he's a cancer, I'd love to see it. My understanding is that Buffalo trade McAdoo for much the same reason Milwaukee traded Kareem. This was a small time club without great financial means, and McAdoo was a big time talent.

Let's also note that McAdoo played 3 prime seasons in Buffalo, and those 3 seasons rank among the top 6 seasons the Buffalo/Clipper franchise has ever had. A team cancer is someone holding the team back and keeping them from playing up to their potential. If Buffalo was under the impression that that was what McAdoo was doing, they were simply wrong, and frankly crazy. This was a team with average SRS of around -8.7 in the 3 years before McAdoo's prime, that rose to about +0.9 in McAdoo's 3 years. That's huge improvement corresponding to precisely when McAdoo started putting up big numbers.

Of course, then after McAdoo got traded from Buffalo, he really did have injury problems which totally changed the dynamic.

Rodman on the other hand clearly was a head case, and I've always held that against him, but the analysis I linked to has me questioning how much of an issue that was in his prime.

[drza]

Rodman on the other hand clearly was a head case, and I've always held that against him, but the analysis I linked to has me questioning how much of an issue that was in his prime.

I've been spending more time on that site too, and it's pretty interesting. Both for Rodman in particular, and also in his rough +/- estimates back to 1986 for players missing decent numbers of games. He has 2 different ones (one based on effect on team scoring differential, the other based winning percentages and somewhat normalized) and he charts both the top-25 and all 470 qualifying players for both measures. In a way, very similar to the analysis that ElGee and others have been providing but for a much larger dataset. In wading through them, a few things jump out in a "that's interesting" kind of way:

1) Adrian Dantley, Ricky Davis and Mark Blount were among the most negative impacts in both measures.

2) Rodman, Shaq, and Kidd were among the very best in both measures

3) A lot of interesting names both higher (Artest, Baron Davis, Vince Carter) and lower (Olajuwon, Pippen, Webber) than I would have expected in one or both of the measures.

Anyway, as we all know and have mentioned throughout, these are primitive versions of the +/- family of stats so they have all of the negatives (sample size, situational issues) of the raw +/- stats but even more-so (incomplete data, only from a few seasons, etc.). They are noisy, and shouldn't be taken as gospel. But still, it's good to have some more non-boxscore data points for some of the 1986 - 2003 players that we don't have any APM data for. As for this thread, I could wish that the author would have had some data for Isiah and Ewing...

[ElGee]

I'm still open to arguments for Ewing over Hondo, but people will have to sway me. I find it tough to compare the two of them, but I have a lot of faith in Hondo being a guy who finds a way to be valuable for my team and I don't see a clear peak difference.

Wow - really surprised you don't see a clear peak difference there. I don't know if that's more a statement about Hondo or Ewing for you...

With Havlicek, I guess it's the peak that I just can't get behind. Didn't see it in the RPOY. Haven't seen it since. He has some tremendous qualities as a player -- ridiculously clutch, unbelievable stamina -- but I feel like there such a misconception about how he played because of the high-pace statistics.

He was a precursor to the Reggie Miller style, IMO. That, with open-court scoring as well. So there's some value there, but I don't think he was the offensive player/had the impact Sam Jones had and outlined such in the RPOY threads. I don't see Havlicek's late peak in the early 70s as something indicative that he could have been a top-5 player earlier in his career in the right situation. Despite coming off the bench for many years, Hondo still was active in the offense and jacked up his open-court shots as usual, based on both stats and the limited games we can see.

I think there is a tendency to compare him to others and default to "Miller+defense," but he wasn't particularly efficient on offense. He was a decent playmaker/passer, but not enough to really boost an offense (again, based on eye test and any statistical evidence to the point). I have 71 and 72 as the only years Havlicek was a top-5 player...which isn't damning, but I give him 13 years of All-Star type play or slightly better...which itself isn't standing above someone like John Stockton.

Simple hypothetical: Add Patrick Ewing to an average team in the league (pick a year and use real rosters if need be). Add John Havlicek...How on earth is peak Havlicek helping those teams more? I just don't see it...

[drza]

Unsure what my availability will be for the evening. So, barring some wow arguments this evening, voting:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
Nominate: Dwight Howard (in a toss-up with Mourning)

[ElGee]

I'm assuming people aren't following the links, so I'll post some of the relevant players info here for the in/out numbers.

Player - Year (games missed) - NET CHANGE - team MOV while in lineup
Cowens 1975 (17g) 2.6 6.3
Cowens 1977 (30g) 0.9 -1.6
Drexler 1990 (9g) 8.3 to 7.2
Drexler 1996 (30g) 1.4 to 0.5
Drexler 1994 (18g) 0.4 to 2.6
Drexler 1993 (33g) -1.0 to 2.7
Ewing 1987 (19g) 7.1 to -4.6
Ewing 1994-96 (12g) 5.3 to 4.4
Gilmore* 1980 (33g) 2.3 to -1.8
Isiah 1991 (34g) 1.3 to 3.8
Kidd 2005 (16g) 8.7 to 0.2
Kidd 2004 (15g) 3.6 to 3.2
Kidd 2000 (15g) 2.2 to 5.6
KJ 1996 (26g) 4.0 to 1.6
KJ 1993 (33g) 3.7 to 8.2
KJ 1997 (12g) 12.3 to 2.5
KJ 1994 (15g) 7.5 to 6.2
KJ 1990 (8g) 5.5 to 7.6
KJ 1995 (35g) -1.5 to 3.3
Lanier 1978 (18g) 5.3 to -0.1
Lanier 1977 (19g) 4.2 to -0.1
McGrady 2002 (6g) 17.2 to 2.8
McGrady 2007 (11g) 9.3 6.1
McGrady 2004 (15g) 7.8 4.3 -5.6
McGrady 2006 (35g) 7.2 4.1 1.5
McGrady 2003 (7g) 1.6 to 0.3
McGrady 2008 (16g) 0.1 4.7
McHale 1988 (18g) 5.1 to 7.1
McHale 1991 (14g) 4.8 to 6.6
McHale 1986 (13g) 2.6 to 9.9
Miller 1996 (6g) 7.5 to 3.8
Miller RS+PS 1996 (10g) 6.2 3.7
Mourning 1996 (12g) 11.0 to 3.0
Mourning 1994 (22g) 9.0 to 2.2
Mourning 1997 (16g) 0.8 to 5.7
Mourning 1998 (24g) 1.7 to 5.4
Paul 2010 (37g) 1.8 to -1.6
Paul 2007 (18g) 0.0 to -1.6
Pierce 2007 (35g) 5.3 to -1.2
Pierce 2010 (11g) 5.2 to 4.4
Rodman 1993 (22g) 8.0 to 0.7
Rodman 1996 (18g) 3.0 to 12.9
Rodman 1997 (27g) 2.8 to 11.7
Rodman 1995 (33g) 1.2 to 6.5
Stockton 1998 (18g) 3.4 to 7.3
Wilkins 1993 (11g) 5.9 to -0.1
Wilkins 1992 (40g) 2.3 to -0.4

And the SIO (a simple adjustment for strength of team) over multiple years:
Walton 77-78 41g 11.2
McGrady 06-07 46g 6.8
McHale 86, 88, 91 45g 6.1
Rodman 93, 95-97 100g 5.8
Mourning 94, 96-98 74g 4.7
McGrady 02-04 28g 4.7
KJ 90, 93-97 129g 4.2
Kidd 00, 04-05 46g 3.9
Cowens 75, 77 47g 3.0
Pierce 07, 10 46g 2.7
Ewing 87, 94-96 31g 2.6
Drexler 90, 93, 94, 96 90g 1.7
Wilkins 92-93 51g 1.4
Paul 07, 10 55g -0.2

[drza]

And the SIO (a simple adjustment for strength of team) over multiple years:
Walton 77-78 41g 11.2
McGrady 06-07 46g 6.8
McHale 86, 88, 91 45g 6.1
Rodman 93, 95-97 100g 5.8
Mourning 94, 96-98 74g 4.7
McGrady 02-04 28g 4.7
KJ 90, 93-97 129g 4.2
Kidd 00, 04-05 46g 3.9
Cowens 75, 77 47g 3.0
Pierce 07, 10 46g 2.7
Ewing 87, 94-96 31g 2.6
Drexler 90, 93, 94, 96 90g 1.7
Wilkins 92-93 51g 1.4
Paul 07, 10 55g -0.2

Darn you, you're trying to make me nominate Walton, aren't you? I get it...I'm onto your game...but see, I have what is called...willpower...I can hold out at least another thread or two...

[ElGee]

And the SIO (a simple adjustment for strength of team) over multiple years:
Walton 77-78 41g 11.2
McGrady 06-07 46g 6.8
McHale 86, 88, 91 45g 6.1
Rodman 93, 95-97 100g 5.8
Mourning 94, 96-98 74g 4.7
McGrady 02-04 28g 4.7
KJ 90, 93-97 129g 4.2
Kidd 00, 04-05 46g 3.9
Cowens 75, 77 47g 3.0
Pierce 07, 10 46g 2.7
Ewing 87, 94-96 31g 2.6
Drexler 90, 93, 94, 96 90g 1.7
Wilkins 92-93 51g 1.4
Paul 07, 10 55g -0.2

Darn you, you're trying to make me nominate Walton, aren't you? I get it...I'm onto your game...but see, I have what is called...willpower...I can hold out at least another thread or two...

Few random thoughts while I have a second:

Walton is going to get a little bump up for me based on the medicine discussion. I tentatively have him 49...so I'm not going to be nominating him soon regardless. That said, Walton may literally be the most valuable player in NBA history (maybe with Russell as well). His fit on that team, at that time, with Ramsay's philosophy, was such a make or break deal for Portland. And then consider:

-Walton's backups played so admirably in replacing him they even had 20-20 games and they STILL had that decline. Further evidence that impact isn't consistently equatable to raw box stats, and can vary greatly.

-Portland was +9.3 MOV with Walton. That would match the 87 Lakers for 11th best all-time...only the Blazers did it in a parity driven league, in the two-year stretch of there was ONE sub-4 SRS team and one other plus-4 SRS team in each season. Does that make it more impressive or less impressive? For me, I find it *incredibly* impressive when someone stands out from heavy competition...be it in tennis, football, or the NBA (eg the 09 Cavs don't strike me as 9 SRS team in a more competitive conference...)

In a similar vein, Alonzo Mourning was replaced by someone named Ike Austin, who probably barely registers on most fans radars who watched the NBA regularly in 1997. Austin created a big stir in South Beach when he averaged 15-9 on 47% in place of Zo for 17 starts in 97 (earning him a big contract later). But Zo, a player I've warmed up to recently, wasn't Bill Walton...and in those 17 games Miami was only 0.8 pts worse than with Mourning (5.7 MOV down to 4.9).

I separated Tracy McGrady for reasons hopefully obvious (clear stretch in Orlando vs. Houston), and he has really solid value in both. So again, hard to understand how people can suggest this guy didn't have big team impact. I recently rewatched some of the 03 series vs. Detroit...is everyone aware of that roster sans McGrady? (They were -10 MOV without T-Mac in 04.) It was a playoff team starting an assortment of journey men all year, and then in the PS Gooden, 34-year old Armstrong, Giricek and Andrew DeClercq/Pat Garrity. No, I didn't make that up.

KJ...just always had great offensive impact. Seems to be by both eye test, in/out, stats, etc. he was just a fantastic offensive player. His biggest black mark is the 1993 NBA Finals, and that kills your rep when you get one shot on the big stage and disappear a bit. But it's 6 games and not representative of his career.

Reggie Miller is coming up shortly for me...but so is Marques Johnson.

[Laimbeer]

Re: McAdoo and Rodman. Maybe it's from coaching or maybe because I was never all that talented but I may penalize guys more who are team destroyers/clubhouse cancers. McAdoo was clearly that despite great stats at first once he was dealt away from Buffalo -- and how do you deal away a 5th year big man with an MVP who is averaging about 30/12 with good efficiency and range for a guy with the same age/experience who has been producing 8pts/6reb unless there is something seriously wrong?

Doc, I know you were one of the leaders in penalizing Wilt for mediocre effect on team performance but having selfish addicts on your team has to be incredibly damaging for a team -- as you can see by McAdoo's bouncing around the league from NY to Det to Bos etc. This isn't a guy whose admittedly GREAT stats created team success, this was a guy who was a team wrecker. If he had become injured that 5th year and therefore become a role player like Grant Hill or Sidney Moncrief, it would be a very different story.

Same goes for Rodman to a MUCH lesser extent. I love defensive players and rebounders and think guys who don't score a ton consistently get underrated but Rodman is something of an exception. He was great defensively but not the GOAT rebounder in Detroit for most of his stay there, then was a GOAT rebounder but didn't play nearly the same intensity of defense in San Antonio or Chicago but gets credit for both as if they existed simultaneously. Also, he was a terrible teammate and cancer in San Antonio where he fought with Coach Hill, with David Robinson, and with Sean Elliot -- that I was aware of at the time. He refused to go into games, didn't tie his shoes at practice , etc. That's a big black mark in my book and one reason I have him below Bobby Jones who couldn't hold his jock as a rebounder, something I normally value highly. On the other hand, the Zen Master and the Bulls were able to deal with his idiocy and use his great skills for 3 rings which is a huge plus in my book. Without the San Antonio years, he'd be on my radar now -- as it is, he still will be a guy I consider nominating before we hit the 50 mark.

If anyone has articles talking about McAdoo being traded from Buffalo because he's a cancer, I'd love to see it. My understanding is that Buffalo trade McAdoo for much the same reason Milwaukee traded Kareem. This was a small time club without great financial means, and McAdoo was a big time talent.

Let's also note that McAdoo played 3 prime seasons in Buffalo, and those 3 seasons rank among the top 6 seasons the Buffalo/Clipper franchise has ever had. A team cancer is someone holding the team back and keeping them from playing up to their potential. If Buffalo was under the impression that that was what McAdoo was doing, they were simply wrong, and frankly crazy. This was a team with average SRS of around -8.7 in the 3 years before McAdoo's prime, that rose to about +0.9 in McAdoo's 3 years. That's huge improvement corresponding to precisely when McAdoo started putting up big numbers.

Of course, then after McAdoo got traded from Buffalo, he really did have injury problems which totally changed the dynamic.

Rodman on the other hand clearly was a head case, and I've always held that against him, but the analysis I linked to has me questioning how much of an issue that was in his prime.

FWIW, my recollection of McAdoo is much like penbeast's. The guy was a prima donna. There was a question of how hurt he was when he sat out in Detroit and his attitude probably wasn't great anywhere between Buffalo and the Lakers. He had a reputation for not being willing to do the dirty work and being a guy that would pout if he didn't have free reign on offense. The guy was a dog.

That 16-66 record earned the Pistons the No. 1 pick, so it had to eviscerate McCloskey to know that Dick Vitale had long ago traded that pick away to Boston. Vitale packaged two No. 1 picks and a blue-collar forward, M.L. Carr, to the Celtics for Bob McAdoo. On paper, not a bad trade for a guy who in his six NBA seasons to date had averaged 30 points a game three times and 25 or more in the other three.

But McAdoo’s fire didn’t burn very hot, perhaps cooled by the prospect of joining a team that had won 30 games in Vitale’s first season. It was a move that gnawed at Pistons owner Bill Davidson for years, even after McCloskey had engineered back-to-back NBA titles.

“The biggest (frustration) was the thing with Dick Vitale and the McAdoo thing,” Mr. D told me a few years ago. “That was the killer. Dick fantasized. He said, ‘Boy, if I had McAdoo along with Bob Lanier, I could really do something.’ And the way it ended up, McAdoo never wanted to play for us.”

Mr. D was an avid tennis player – when the Pistons built their practice facility in the ’90s, it originally included tennis courts, the space now dedicated to offices for Joe Dumars and his executive staff – and he would often run into McAdoo at the private club to which they both belonged.

“He was a great basketball player,” Davidson smiled, “when he wanted to play. And he was a pretty good tennis player, too. He just didn’t want to play for us. They ended up calling him ‘McAdon’t.’ ”

Watching McAdoo loaf through his time in Detroit – a mere 18 months after costing them two No. 1 picks and Carr, McCloskey waived him in March 1981 – wouldn’t have pained Mr. D quite so much if not for the bounty Boston realized. The Celtics fleeced Golden State even more badly than they had the Pistons, trading the No. 1 overall pick of Detroit’s to Golden State for the No. 3 pick and Robert Parish, a four-year center coming off a 17-point, 11-rebound season for the Warriors.

Golden State’s deal made zero sense. They used the No. 1 pick on 7-footer Joe Barry Carroll out of Purdue, whose listlessness rivaled McAdoo’s and inspired a derisive nickname the equal of McAdon’t: Joe Barely Cares. Boston, meanwhile, used the No. 3 pick on Kevin McHale, in one grand move surrounding Larry Bird with two more future Hall of Famers.

“We ended up with a player who didn’t want to play and (Boston) wound up with three Hall of Fame guys,” Mr. D said. “They got three great players and we got nothing. That haunted me for several years.”



http://www.nba.com/pistons/truebluepistons_110707.html

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way -- I'd like to point out the obvious, namely that some great offensive players are just so-so on defense. They're not particularly good, but they're not particularly bad either. I'm thinking in particular of Ray Allen and Reggie Miller, who have little to recommend them in eye test defense, but have played on pretty good defensive squads.

Perhaps not coincidentally, they're pretty big (especially Miller), and fit enough to keep performing on their defensive assignments all game (especially Allen), and give the impression of being pretty smart guys.

[Laimbeer]

Also, go here to page 349 - Simmons is not flattering about his attitude.

http://books.google.com/books?id=oLCSBe ... lo&f=false

[TMACFORMVP]

I've held back from voting because I'm still unsure of my nomination. I think about Mac/Pierce, but I also wonder where Nique fits into that equation. Then the big men, but I'm not completely sold on them either. I'll put my vote out for now, and would like to go more into my potential thought process, but busy, atm. I'll fill out my nomination if I come around to one from now and the deadline.

Vote: Patrick Ewing
Nominate:

[penbeast0]

OK, here is how I have it:

VOTE

John Stockton – mysticbb, FJS

John Havlicek – penbeast0, Fencer, JordansBulls, Laimbeer, Doctor MJ

(7) Patrick Ewing – Snakebites, therealbig3, Gongxi, David Stern, Jerky Way, ElGee, drza

Rick Barry – ronnymac2

NOMINATE

Reggie Miller – mysticbb

(4) Dwight Howard – penbeast0, ronnymac2, David Stern, drza

Paul Pierce – Fencer, therealbig3

Kevin McHale – JordansBulls

Elvin Hayes – Jerky Way

Tracy McGrady – ElGee

Dave Cowens -- Laimbeer