RealGM

Some great posts on Artis have left me a bit less skeptical of his NBA years, he was far less active and played closer to the basket on both ends which accounts for (a) his lesser defensive impact, (b) the rep of not having good hands which was not a problem in the ABA, and (c) the great increase in efficiency AFTER the move to the NBA. Haven't seen any analysis on other top centers like Zo or Deke yet. How do they compare to Artis (and Dwight)?


For now, I favor:

a. Artis Gilmore over other bigs left. Maybe McHale but I have questions about his rebounding.

b. George Gervin seems the most impactful wing left, but I like my stars to put in effort on defense. I love Alex English too, but Gervin seemed to draw more attention and have a greater impact. He seemed to have a greater impact than McHale too (leading teams with little support, etc, length of career, etc.) though normally I go for the two-way star first.

c. Gary Payton over other PGs left. More efficient scorer, competent though less assist prone playmaker, better defender than Isiah. Better defense AND better individual offense than Kidd plus better team results (with better talent around him though). Kidd's playmaking in the half court just never seemed enough to make up this gap when he couldn't shoot; when he could shoot from 3, his defensive impact had dropped. Kidd's end of career is a lot better than Payton's, but Payton's peak is higher.

So, Gilmore, Gervin, or Payton. Peak impact, it's Gilmore, longevity it's Gervin, I could go for any of the 3 right now and am open to argument but for now, I will go with:

Vote Gary Payton

No clue who i'm leaning towards yet, but there hasn't been much talk about bigs, so i'm going to take a closer look at the following:

Gilmore, Reed, Lanier, Cowens, McHale, Hayes, Haywood, Thurmond, Dwight, Mutombo, Mourning

Not saying they belong at 34 (although I know gilmore has gotten traction), just want to get a better idea of where i'll be going from here.

Vote for Kevin Durant



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

With Baylor finally voted in, I'm definitely lending my support wholesale to Jason Kidd. He's the last hold-out from my personal top 30 not yet voted in.

I've already argued (somewhat extensively, actually) on Kidd's behalf in prior threads. I'll come up with more complete comments later, but have already had a lot of time to research and consider viewpoints (Kidd's had at least a little traction for 4 or 5 threads now), so may as well make it official now: MY VOTE FOR #34 IS JASON KIDD.

Case is basically going to run along the lines of excellent and versatile defender at the PG spot, excellent rebounding, excellent play-making, and outstanding longevity. Fair to decent offense by most measures, but with much stronger offensive impact than would be expected according to impact data. Kidd's an unconventional player, who apparently impacts the game in unconventional ways. But there's little denying it: his positive (and STRONG) impact was pretty dang consistent throughout his prime. And the guy has more "effective" seasons (basically about 19 of 'em) than most players will ever have years in the league.

Clyde Frazier wrote:No clue who i'm leaning towards yet, but there hasn't been much talk about bigs, so i'm going to take a closer look at the following:

Gilmore, Reed, Lanier, Cowens, Hayes, Haywood, Thurmond, Dwight, Mutombo, Mourning

Not saying they belong at 34 (although I know gilmore has gotten traction), just want to get a better idea of where i'll be going from here.

I would suggest adding McAdoo, McHale, and Rodman to your list of bigs as well. I disliked them all when they were playing, but ... McAdoo is better offensively and shows as well defensively as Lanier though lacking in longevity, McHale has Hayes's strengths (other than rebounding which is a big gap) but with efficient scoring, Rodman is as impressive a man defender and a better rebounder than Thurmond with less of a negative offensive impact though not the help defender.

penbeast0 wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote:No clue who i'm leaning towards yet, but there hasn't been much talk about bigs, so i'm going to take a closer look at the following:

Gilmore, Reed, Lanier, Cowens, Hayes, Haywood, Thurmond, Dwight, Mutombo, Mourning

Not saying they belong at 34 (although I know gilmore has gotten traction), just want to get a better idea of where i'll be going from here.

I would suggest adding McAdoo, McHale, and Rodman to your list of bigs as well. I disliked them all when they were playing, but ... McAdoo is better offensively and shows as well defensively as Lanier though lacking in longevity, McHale has Hayes's strengths (other than rebounding which is a big gap) but with efficient scoring, Rodman is as impressive a man defender and a better rebounder than Thurmond with less of a negative offensive impact though not the help defender.

Yeah, actually thought I had McHale in there, but just forgot to add him. Thanks on McAdoo and Rodman. I personally have to think long and hard about Rodman. I certainly appreciate him more these days than I used to, but I have issues with his type of player that essentially didn't score when he was at his best. Just at first glance, for example, I'd likely rank mutombo ahead of rodman. That could always change with further investigation, though.

I'll also throw DeBusschere, Unseld, Jerry Lucas, and Mel Daniels out there. Yeah... a lot of names. Just thinking out loud.

Clyde Frazier wrote:I personally have to think long and hard about Rodman. I certainly appreciate him more these days than I used to, but I have issues with his type of player that essentially didn't score when he was at his best. Just at first glance, for example, I'd likely rank mutombo ahead of rodman. That could always change with further investigation, though.

I appreciated what he did in Detroit, but didn't care for a lot of his act afterwards. In determining a rank for Rodman I would have to balance his contribution to five championship teams with the fact that he later became obsessed with rebounding sometimes to the detriment of his team, and also was a disruption on any team that didn't have strong personalities to reign him in.

10 year prime numbers for various wing players in contention.


Per 100 Possessions:
Carter (00-09): 34-7-6,.538 TS%, 22 PER, .151 WS/48
Pierce (01-10): 32-9-6, .568 TS%, 21 PER, .166 WS/48
McGrady (00-09): 34-9-7, .522 TS%, 24 PER,.168 WS/48

Playoffs:
Carter (00-09): 34-9-7, .516 TS%, 21 PER, .143 WS/48
Pierce (01-10): 29-9-6, .557 TS%, 19 PER, .144 WS/48
McGrady (00-09): 37-9-8, .517 TS%, 25 PER, .139 WS/48

If Pierce is in the discussion, Vince Carter has to be in it too. Carter had amazing longevity. His Peak was just as good as Pierce's too.

Payton v. Kidd

I don't have RAPM data for prime Payton except toward the end and it's skewed a bit by the fact that Seattle, in those years, had Nate McMillan (one of the best defenders of his day and a decent, though non-scoring, big PG). They tried to make sure to rotate Nate in whenever Gary came out and Nate seems to have extremely high (not Jason Collins level but impressive) RAPM numbers. But that seems to be the main argument for Kidd over Payton; if that's your go to value, you are going to vote Kidd.

Payton gives you 17 years, about 11 of them at All-Star or close to it. He never seemed to mesh in LA and his first two years, he looked like a defensive role player though his playmaking was pretty good straight out of college (the highest scouting rating for a PG by Marty Blake ever recorded to that point). Not as impressive as Kidd's 19 years of good value, but then Kidd's shooting stunk by top 100 standards clear up until he became a 3 point shooting role player in Dallas and his defense in Dallas had clearly slowed up from his prime years. Payton's 11 year stretch was at a level that I don't think Kidd ever matched in his prime though Kidd's 8 lesser years are better than Payton's 6.

Typical Prime season:
Payton (Seattle) -- 20 ppg, 4.5 reb, 8 ast, 2.5 to @ .535ts%
Kidd (New Jersey) -- 15ppg, 7.0reb, 9ast, 3 to @ .505 ts%

And Kidd, with no midrange shot, can't bail you out of a tight clock situation or force defenses to pay attention so he doesn't create as much space for his teammates though he has a slight edge from 3 point range.

So,

SCORING -- clearly Payton, much better shooter from just about anywhere, able to create his own shot and pressure defenses.

DEFENSE -- Payton was clearly superior as an on-ball defender, quicker and more aggressive -- you could put him on a small quick guard or switch him onto a 2. Virtually identical steal rates between Kidd and Payton; Kidd did a bit more gambling in the lanes; Payton went for the dribbler more. Especially with the 3 point shot's value, I value the perimeter defender that can shut down a shooter more than one who hangs off into the passing lanes. Contemporary judges seemed to agree (though awards can be very narrative driven, that would normally favor the player in the NY market rather than the one in the Seattle market) as Payton won 9 straight 1st team All-Defense awards in his prime v. Kidd's 4 1st team and 5 2nd team awards. Payton also had some famous defensive runs in the playoffs v. Kevin Johnson, where he got the nickname "The Glove" and even against Michael Jordan in the finals (as much as anyone ever slowed down Jordan). Both were outstanding defenders, I prefer the Glove.

PLAYMAKING -- Both excellent. The numbers are pretty even, 8ast/2turnover v. 9 ast/2.5 turnovers. Kidd was the more creative, particularly in the open court. I'd give him the edge here.

REBOUNDING -- Payton was a good rebounder for a PG, Kidd is a GOAT candidate. Kidd was the better rebounder.

PLAYOFFS/INTANGIBLES -- In their primes, both were terrific leaders and well respected (though Payton's constantly running mouth made him less popular among his opponents). Payton had a poor ending in LA with a bad showing by the feuding Shaq/Kobe Lakers (though that poor chemistry was there when he arrived and was probably unfixable); Kidd had problems with teammates in Dallas (though it was certainly his teammate's behavior that triggered it). Payton led his team to the finals against Michael Jordan in a very strong Western Conference (plus a ring and a finals appearance post-prime); Kidd led his to the finals twice though from a very weak Eastern Conference (plus a ring and a finals appearance post-prime) and Kidd's role in the post-prime Dallas runs was more key than Payton's in LA or Miami. I'd call the intangibles for Kidd.

I love smart, strong, defensive minded guards. But, the defense, playmaking, and intangibles issues are all reasonably close. Kidd's shooting woes v. Payton's scoring throughout his prime is not; Payton had a better career than Jason Kidd.

Clyde Frazier wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote:No clue who i'm leaning towards yet, but there hasn't been much talk about bigs, so i'm going to take a closer look at the following:

Gilmore, Reed, Lanier, Cowens, Hayes, Haywood, Thurmond, Dwight, Mutombo, Mourning

Not saying they belong at 34 (although I know gilmore has gotten traction), just want to get a better idea of where i'll be going from here.

I would suggest adding McAdoo, McHale, and Rodman to your list of bigs as well. I disliked them all when they were playing, but ... McAdoo is better offensively and shows as well defensively as Lanier though lacking in longevity, McHale has Hayes's strengths (other than rebounding which is a big gap) but with efficient scoring, Rodman is as impressive a man defender and a better rebounder than Thurmond with less of a negative offensive impact though not the help defender.

Yeah, actually thought I had McHale in there, but just forgot to add him. Thanks on McAdoo and Rodman. I personally have to think long and hard about Rodman. I certainly appreciate him more these days than I used to, but I have issues with his type of player that essentially didn't score when he was at his best. Just at first glance, for example, I'd likely rank mutombo ahead of rodman. That could always change with further investigation, though.

I'll also throw DeBusschere, Unseld, Jerry Lucas, and Mel Daniels out there. Yeah... a lot of names. Just thinking out loud.

Well, the other solution is to just look at Gilmore (all Lanier has going for him is numbers and Gilmore's are as good plus Gilmore played defense -- at least in the ABA. Lanier had a long prime of poor defense with one good outlier year), Cowens (unless you are a longevity hardcore, he was slightly better during the years of Hayes's prime though Hayes's prime lasted longer and Reed shows little that Cowens doesn't do as well plus Cowens does have longevity on Reed), Mutombo (better defensive anchor, though not the man defender, and not the negative value of Thurmond offensively) and maybe Dwight/Zo (Zo and Mel Daniels were very similar players -- Zo blocked more shots; Daniels was more physical underneath particularly on the boards but Zo played in a tougher league and should probably be rated first much as I hate to admit it). So, Gilmore, Cowens, Mutombo, Dwight, and Zo . . . oh, and McHale. That cuts your research down a bit at the risk of having some factor leap out at you that you might have missed (passing?).

colts18 wrote:10 year prime numbers for various wing players in contention.


Per 100 Possessions:
Carter (00-09): 34-7-6,.538 TS%, 22 PER, .151 WS/48
Pierce (01-10): 32-9-6, .568 TS%, 21 PER, .166 WS/48
McGrady (00-09): 34-9-7, .522 TS%, 24 PER,.168 WS/48

Playoffs:
Carter (00-09): 34-9-7, .516 TS%, 21 PER, .143 WS/48
Pierce (01-10): 29-9-6, .557 TS%, 19 PER, .144 WS/48
McGrady (00-09): 37-9-8, .517 TS%, 25 PER, .139 WS/48

If Pierce is in the discussion, Vince Carter has to be in it too. Carter had amazing longevity. His Peak was just as good as Pierce's too.

You have McGrady in contention and not Durant? Carter and Pierce and not Gervin and English? Why?

penbeast0 wrote:

You have McGrady in contention and not Durant? Carter and Pierce and not Gervin and English? Why?

I didn't include Durant because he doesn't have a 10 year prime. As far as Gervin and English, its hard to compare them to Pierce/Carter/McGrady because the latter played in the same era while Gervin and English were 80's players.

I have no clue who to vote for at this point. All the guys that were included in my top 30ish have now been voted in. I suppose KD is a fair candidate at this point, his longevity is short but his peak is definitely one of the top 20 ever imo.

How does KD's career stack up against that of Gervin, Iverson, Pierce, Mchale etc???

Maybe this this a mental lapse on my part but has Thomas been voted in yet? If not i will probably be voting for him.

Basketballefan wrote: Maybe this this a mental lapse on my part but has Thomas been voted in yet? If not i will probably be voting for him.

Nope:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328924

colts18 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:

You have McGrady in contention and not Durant? Carter and Pierce and not Gervin and English? Why?

I didn't include Durant because he doesn't have a 10 year prime. As far as Gervin and English, its hard to compare them to Pierce/Carter/McGrady because the latter played in the same era while Gervin and English were 80's players.

So maybe you want to change your post to "21st century wing players under consideration"

Basketballefan wrote:I have no clue who to vote for at this point. All the guys that were included in my top 30ish have now been voted in. I suppose KD is a fair candidate at this point, his longevity is short but his peak is definitely one of the top 20 ever imo.

How does KD's career stack up against that of Gervin, Iverson, Pierce, Mchale etc???

Maybe this this a mental lapse on my part but has Thomas been voted in yet? If not i will probably be voting for him.

Do you have a reason why he is better than a better shooting, better defense PG like Payton?

penbeast,

I want to make sure I didn't misread you. It seemed like you were saying you felt like Payton has 11 seasons better than Kidd's best season. Is that a correct reading?

More that the average level Payton played at over 11 seasons is better than Kidd's best season rather than Payton's worst season of the 11. (ducks expected incoming barrage of flack)

penbeast0 wrote:Typical Prime season:
Payton (Seattle) -- 20 ppg, 4.5 reb, 8 ast, 2.5 to @ .535ts%
Kidd (New Jersey) -- 14ppg, 6.0reb, 9ast, 3 to @ .500 ts%

I'll assume it was unintentional, but you've falsified Kidd's NJ stats.
In '02-'07 (all six full seasons in NJ), he was a 15/7/9 guy, with 3 to @ 51% ts%. (14.9/7.1/9.0/3.0 @ .507, to be precise).

I primarily considered Payton and Kidd as my top candidates for this spot. Could also support Gilmore, however, I don’t think he’ll gain much traction for at least another 2-3 spots. I’m not as impressed with peak/prime Kidd as some of his supporters due to his inefficient scoring, but I’m considering him at this spot for his GOAT level PG defense, defensive versatility, playmaking, rebounding and longevity. In my top 50 pre-list, I had Payton ranked slightly ahead of Kidd. Although Kidd is the better facilitator and rebounder, I still prefer Payton since he’s a much more capable/efficient scorer, at least comparable as a defender, has the more impressive 10 year prime, peaked higher and also has great longevity.


PEAK
Top 5 ASPM Seasons
Kidd: 5.4 (03), 4.8 (99), 3.7 (01), 3.7 (02), 3.6 (06)
Payton: 5.4 (00), 5.4 (97), 4.8 (95), 4.8 (99), 4.8 (96)
Mean: Kidd: 4.2 | Payton: 5.0

Extended Peak Estimated Impact
Kidd (99-03): 3.7, 3.3, 3.2, 3.0, 3.9
Payton (96-00): 3.6, 3.9, 3.8, 2.7, 3.6
Mean: Kidd: 3.4 | Payton: 3.5

10 Year Prime
Mean 10 Year Prime ASPM
Kidd: 3.54 | Payton: 4.55

Mean 10 Year Prime Estimated Impact
Kidd: 2.9 | Payton: 3.25

Mean Career ASPM
Kidd: 2.73 | Payton: 3.15

Mean Career Estimated Impact
Kidd: 2.4 | Payton: 2.4

10 Year Prime Regular Season
Kidd 98-07 RS per 100: 20.6 PTS, 9.6 REB, 12.9 AST, 3.2 STL+BLK, 4.4 TOV
Kidd 98-07 RS: 19.5 PER, .508 TS%, .280 FTr, 106 ORtg, 99 DRtg, .153 WS/48

Payton 94-03 RS per 100: 27.9 PTS, 6.0 REB, 10.5 AST, 3.1 STL+BLK, 3.5 TOV
Payton 94-03 RS: 21.5 PER, .534 TS%, .247 FTr, 113 ORtg, 105 DRtg, .175 WS/48

10 Year Prime Postseason
Kidd 98-07 PS per 100: 20.6 PTS, 9.9 REB, 11.8 AST, 2.9 STL+BLK, 4.3 TOV
Kidd 98-07 PS: 18.6 PER, .490 TS%, .264 FTr, 103 ORtg, 101 DRtg, .124 WS/48

Payton 94-03 PS per 100: 27.2 PTS, 6.2 REB, 9.0 AST, 2.4 STL+BLK, 3.4 TOV
Payton 94-03 PS: 19.4 PER, .528 TS%, .263 FTr, 111 ORtg, 109 DRtg, .130 WS/48

LONGEVITY/DURABILITY (GP/MP)
Kidd 10 Year Prime (98-07): 731, 27697 | High Quality Seasons: 12-13 | Career: 1391, 50111
Payton 10 Year Prime (94-03): 782, 30602 | High Quality Seasons: 11-12 | Career: 1335, 47117

Vote: Gary Payton