RealGM Top 100 List #49

[penbeast0]

Looking at:

Players with long, consistent careers . . . mainly wings: English, Dantley, Sam Jones, Vince Carter, etc. Robert Parish would fall into this group, so would Nique. Numbers say Dantley, my head says English, my heart says Jones, and eye test says Carter. Would like to see some comps between these guys.

Players with reasonable but not long careers and some peak seasons: Dave Cowens, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, oh, and Mel Daniels with his 2 MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively.

Players with unreasonably short peaks but who were really extraordinary and special. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, Sidney Moncrief. Walton only had 1 year where he made it to the playoffs as a starter; Hawkins similarly only 1 great year though 1 pretty good year after reinventing his game following his first big knee injury; Moncrief 4-5 good years but not as good as the other two.

Vote: Alex English.

***********************************************************************************************************************************
Alex English was on some great offense/bad defense teams but that was with Dan Issel and Kiki Vandeweghe inside -- possibly the worst pair of defensive bigs to ever play; Kiki was worse than Amare and Issel was nowhere near Marion's ability to compare with Phoenix. And . . . like those Suns, English was the offensive focal point who led them to 5 top 5 offenses in 5 years (2 times best in league). When Issel retired and the Nuggets rebuilt around English and Fat Lever (Wayne Cooper and Danny Schayes were the main centers), they instantly went from bottom 5 in the league to top 10 DEFENSIVELY for 4 of the next 5 years. It was just disguised by the fact that they were still top 3 in the league in pace. During that period English played the role of go to scorer for a full decade but within that, with Kiki and Unseld, English was the primary post option, with Lever and normal bigs, he was the stretch the floor outside shooter, he even was the point forward when they used Mike Evans at 1.

Defensively he was a willing defender for a scorer; better than the likes of Nique, Dantley, King, or Aguirre, though not as good as Marques Johnson or James Worthy among his contemporaries. He guarded 3s and 4s most of the time, rarely 2s, though that was probably more personnel than talent since his best defensive asset was lateral quickness and he was slim and not that strong.

So, to sum up. English was not only the leading scorer of the 80s (over Bird, Nique, Kareem, etc.) on very good efficiency, he showed himself capable of leading a #1 offense for 5 years (as long as some players' peaks), a consistent above average defense for another 5 years and showed the ability to adapt his game to whatever the team's needs were without sacrificing efficiency or scoring volume.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Robert Parish

Parish was an entirely fine two-way player. Very good (often elite/excellent) rebounder, good offensive big, and also a good (at times excellent) defender, especially early in his career.
During his first SEVEN seasons in the league he never averaged less than 2.8 blocks per 100 possessions (and as high as 4.4). In both ‘79 and ‘81 he was 4th in the league in bpg despite playing just 31.7 and 28.0 mpg, respectively. Was 5th in ‘82 while playing just 31.7 mpg. He had a cumulative DRtg of ~97-98 in that seven-year span. He led the league in DRtg in ‘79; had a DRtg in the top 8 four times during that 7-year span, three times in the top 3.

Offensively, he was a 7-footer who could run the floor reasonably well, a very competent finisher at the rim (making him function well in transition), was an excellent low-post scorer, and also had a tiny bit of range (out to 12-14 feet, at least). Was an entirely decent FT-shooter for a big-man (72.1% for his career).
The only reason he was averaging just 16-20 ppg during his prime was because he was playing on an extremely stacked team thru most of it. I have no doubt Parish could have avg 22-24 ppg on decent efficiency for a less talent-laden club.

While I don’t think Parish could have been “the man” on a contender, I think we’re well past the point on the list where that is necessarily a consideration. Especially when one has the kind of longevity that Parish had: he had a prime that lasted 13 years (>1,000 rs games), 5 additional seasons as a role player of varying (but certainly relevant) value, and only 3 seasons (years 19-21) that were of minimal value.

While he couldn’t have been #1 on a contender, he certainly could have been the #1 on a 40-45 win playoff participant. And he could have been the #2 on a contender. Indeed, he WAS either the 2nd or 3rd best player on MULTIPLE contenders.
He’s got one ring as the clear #2, another as---at worst---the #2B, a third ring as the clear #3, and then a 4th ring as a limited-value bench player.

During his peak in the early 1980’s, he was 7th in MVP voting in ‘81, 4th in MVP voting in ‘82.

A look at his prime production…….
Robert Parish (‘79-’91) (13 years: 1022 rs games!)
Per 100 (rs): 25.8 pts, 15.6 reb, 2.5 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.5 blk with 3.6 tov @ 58.4%
PER 20.2, .168 WS/48, 113 ORtg/102 DRtg (+11) in 32.4 mpg
Playoffs: (didn’t have this data previously harvested, and per 100 data windows currently not working on bbref).....but he avg 16.2 ppg/9.8 rpg/1.3 apg/1.8 bpg/2.3 tov @ .551 TS%
PER 16.5, .121 WS/48 in 34.9 mpg

Robert Parish (full career)
Per 100 (rs): 24.6 pts, 15.5 reb, 2.3 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.5 tov @ .571 TS%
PER 19.2, .154 WS/48, 111 ORtg/102 DRtg (+9) in 28.4 mpg
**And note this is over 21 years, 1611 rs games (more than any other player in history)
Per 100 (playoffs): 22.6 pts, 14.2 reb, 1.9 ast, 1.2 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.1 tov @ .547 TS%
PER 16.6, .121 WS/48, 109 ORtg/105 DRtg (+4) in 33.6 mpg

A more in-depth look at him defensively:
He was 4th in league in bpg in '79, 4th in '81, 5th in '82.
Was 3rd in league in DWS in '79, 5th in '81, 6th in '82, 3rd in '84, 5th in '86, 10th in '87.
Was 7th in DRtg in '78, 1st in '79, 2nd in '81, 3rd in '82, 10th in '83, 9th in '84, 6th in '86.

And while I don't exactly understand how it's calculated, I'll nonetheless cite shutupandjam's Defensive Estimated Impact for Parish during his Boston years:

'78--->18th in league
'79--->1st in league
'81--->2nd
'82--->5th
'83--->tied for 16th
'84--->tied for 15th
'85--->tied for 37th
'86--->tied for 15th
'87--->tied for 21st

I wish we had more in the way of a before/after or with/without look at team defense, but to Parish's credit: he was almost never absent. His arrival in Boston corresponds with the departure of Dave Cowens (so there could be some give and take there), and he didn't depart Boston until he was past his prime. So those kinds of evaluations are significantly muddied.
But anyway, the above sure implies a lot of positive things about his defense.

Add to that the fact that he was obv not at all an offensive slouch, and his incredible durability and longevity.....

Career rs WS: 147.0 (#21 all-time)
Career playoff WS: 15.6 (#32 all-time)
9-Time NBA All-Star
2-Time All-NBA (1 - 2nd, 1 - 3rd)

That’s an awful lot of career value, imo.

Was also noted that when Bird got injured in '89, it was Parish who really stepped up: Per 100 possessions he avg 25.6 pts, 17.2 reb (league-leading 20.1% TRB%!), 2.0 blk on .607 TS% in 35.5 mpg; PER 21.6, .177 WS/48, 118 ORtg/106 DRtg (+12).......and this at age 35!

While he wasn't the defender that Deke was, he was clearly a better offensive player while being a pretty good defender in his own right. I personally feel he peaked higher than Dikembe (I don't think Deke ever had as good all-around season as '81 or '82 Parish). And Parish's longevity blows Dikembe (and nearly everyone else) out of the water, too.
For full career value, I think he's clearly the best center (and likely best player) left on the board.

[JordansBulls]

VOTE: Domnique Wilkins

Finished 2nd in MVP voting in a year with peak Bird, Magic, Hakeem and Prime Kareem around, was one of the greatest finishers the league has seen, was a clutch player and brought it every night on the floor.

[Texas Chuck]

Enjoyed some of the T-Mac talk but glad he's in and we can move on.

I'm probably sticking with Deke, but I also feel like Cowens is very worthy at this point. I know stylistically he's not very impressive, and he has the efficiency struggles that bother much of this panel, but its hard for me to ignore a guy who despite his limited longevity has 4 top 5 MVP seasons including an MVP, was the best player on at least one champion, and probably 2(all due respect to Hondo). Very good defensive player, plenty capable on the offensive end

[SactoKingsFan]

Leaning Mutombo, but also considering English, Carter, Wilkins and Dantley.

[E-Balla]

I'm putting in an early vote for Deke. We are at the point where we are looking at number 2 guys. There's Vince, English, Dantley, Parish, McHale, Gino, Billups and that's really all I can think of.

Vince vs Deke is close but I think Vince's injuries and underwhelming late career make him fall short. English is one where my lack of knowledge makes me hesitant to vote on him. I know about his offense but its hard to imagine his defense being anything but terrible on those Moe Nuggets. Dantley would've been picked already but I'm not sure if he really helped teams especially if he didn't help teams more than the GOAT modern defender. Parish has the highest chance of taking my vote but I'm not exactly sure about how important he was. Should he even be over McHale? McHale has too short of a prime and he wasn't very durable as a guy who was used disparingly. Same goes for Ginobili. Billups is a strange one where his career looks way better than I thought it was at the time looking back.

This is a thread where I wish I wasn't so busy because a lot of good discussion can come up in these next few spots.

Vote Changed to Iverson

[SactoKingsFan]

I'm putting in an early vote for Deke. We are at the point where we are looking at number 2 guys. There's Vince, English, Dantley, Parish, McHale, Gino, Billups and that's really all I can think of.

Vince vs Deke is close but I think Vince's injuries and underwhelming late career make him fall short. English is one where my lack of knowledge makes me hesitant to vote on him. I know about his offense but its hard to imagine his defense being anything but terrible on those Moe Nuggets. Dantley would've been picked already but I'm not sure if he really helped teams especially if he didn't help teams more than the GOAT modern defender. Parish has the highest chance of taking my vote but I'm not exactly sure about how important he was. Should he even be over McHale? McHale has too short of a prime and he wasn't very durable as a guy who was used disparingly. Same goes for Ginobili. Billups is a strange one where his career looks way better than I thought it was at the time looking back.

This is a thread where I wish I wasn't so busy because a lot of good discussion can come up in these next few spots.

McHale was voted in at 44.

[E-Balla]

I'm putting in an early vote for Deke. We are at the point where we are looking at number 2 guys. There's Vince, English, Dantley, Parish, McHale, Gino, Billups and that's really all I can think of.

Vince vs Deke is close but I think Vince's injuries and underwhelming late career make him fall short. English is one where my lack of knowledge makes me hesitant to vote on him. I know about his offense but its hard to imagine his defense being anything but terrible on those Moe Nuggets. Dantley would've been picked already but I'm not sure if he really helped teams especially if he didn't help teams more than the GOAT modern defender. Parish has the highest chance of taking my vote but I'm not exactly sure about how important he was. Should he even be over McHale? McHale has too short of a prime and he wasn't very durable as a guy who was used disparingly. Same goes for Ginobili. Billups is a strange one where his career looks way better than I thought it was at the time looking back.

This is a thread where I wish I wasn't so busy because a lot of good discussion can come up in these next few spots.

McHale was voted in at 44.

Yeah you're right I actually thought he was in. Starting to lose track of who's in lately.

[RSCD3_]

Sorry for the absence, classes and such

Thinking of deke or parish

Is parish's offense a big enough advantage over mutombo to seperate a very good rim defender from a near goat level one

I think parish has a longevity advantage so I am leaning toward parish.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[john248]

Looks like I'm the only one who favors Pau Gasol, but I'll continue to vote for him. He's got a strong decade's worth of play as an 18/9/3.5/1.5, 110+ ORTG guy. Lakers 3 Finals years were especially impressive with 22+ PER, .220+ WS/48, and his rebounding picked up. The championship years, he posted a 124 and 126 ORTG in the playoffs. Good post player, solid mid-range shooter, great passer for his position...much to like about his offensive game where he can pair with any #1 wing option. Spent the majority of his time at center with the Lakers and did very well there going against Dwight and KG. 09 Finals: 19/9/2/2, 65%TS, 132 ORTG, defending Dwight pretty well; 10 FInals: 19/12/4/3, 56%TS, 122 ORTG. 2011 playoffs was rough since Dirk did a number on him...defended Pau's face-ups and torched him on the other end.

Pau is a capable #1 option and someone that a franchise could build around. He's obviously not a transcendent talent, but that's not much of a concern at this part of the project. He never had stability at the head coaching position though however in 2004, his team was top 10 in ORTG (well 11th) and DRTG. And in 05 and 06, he was a part of top 5 DRTG teams. Now, I'm not implying that he's a defensive anchor since those Memphis teams had a good team approach, but he was a player who was solid as a man defender and used his length well. Gained some weight prior to 09 and played rather well on that end. Even with those mediocre Memphis teams, he was still able to be the main guy to lead them to the playoffs...1st round exits but nothing to be embarrassed of when losing to the Spurs, Suns, and Mavs during those years.

As the focal guy on offense during his time with the Grzz, he was between a 108-115 ORTG player which is pretty damn good. He's always been able to operate from the high post, face up, and was good at reading defenses while being a good passer. We were just able to see his skill set in an ideal environment in LA where he proved to be an elite #2 option where from the time he joined the Lakers to 2011, he was a 120+ ORTG player and absolutely key in those championship runs. Not any player can just go to LA and be an immediate fit in the Triangle offense, but Pau played almost flawlessly from the start. But this was who Pau was, the man who is best in the triple post.

[penbeast0]

I'm putting in an early vote for Deke. We are at the point where we are looking at number 2 guys. There's Vince, English, Dantley, Parish, McHale, Gino, Billups and that's really all I can think of.

Vince vs Deke is close but I think Vince's injuries and underwhelming late career make him fall short. English is one where my lack of knowledge makes me hesitant to vote on him. I know about his offense but its hard to imagine his defense being anything but terrible on those Moe Nuggets. Dantley would've been picked already but I'm not sure if he really helped teams especially if he didn't help teams more than the GOAT modern defender. Parish has the highest chance of taking my vote but I'm not exactly sure about how important he was. Should he even be over McHale? McHale has too short of a prime and he wasn't very durable as a guy who was used disparingly. Same goes for Ginobili. Billups is a strange one where his career looks way better than I thought it was at the time looking back.

This is a thread where I wish I wasn't so busy because a lot of good discussion can come up in these next few spots.

Alex English was on some great offense/bad defense teams but that was with Dan Issel and Kiki Vandeweghe inside -- possibly the worst pair of defensive bigs to ever play; Kiki was worse than Amare and Issel was nowhere near Marion's ability to compare with Phoenix. And . . . like those Suns, English was the offensive focal point who led them to 5 top 5 offenses in 5 years (2 times best in league). When Issel retired and the Nuggets rebuilt around English and Fat Lever (Wayne Cooper and Danny Schayes were the main centers), they instantly went from bottom 5 in the league to top 10 DEFENSIVELY for 4 of the next 5 years. It was just disguised by the fact that they were still top 3 in the league in pace. During that period English played the role of go to scorer for a full decade but within that, with Kiki and Unseld, English was the primary post option, with Lever and normal bigs, he was the stretch the floor outside shooter, he even was the point forward when they used Mike Evans at 1.

Defensively he was a willing defender for a scorer; better than the likes of Nique, Dantley, King, or Aguirre, though not as good as Marques Johnson or James Worthy among his contemporaries. He guarded 3s and 4s most of the time, rarely 2s, though that was probably more personnel than talent since his best defensive asset was lateral quickness and he was slim and not that strong.

So, to sum up. English was not only the leading scorer of the 80s (over Bird, Nique, Kareem, etc.) on very good efficiency, he showed himself capable of leading a #1 offense for 5 years (as long as some players' peaks), a consistent above average defense for another 5 years and showed the ability to adapt his game to whatever the team's needs were without sacrificing efficiency or scoring volume.

[Joao Saraiva]

My vote goes to Allen Iverson.

Accodales:
- 2001 MVP;
- 3 times top 5 in MVP voting;
- 11 all-star games;
- 2 times all-star MVP;
- 3 times 1st NBA team, 2 times 2nd NBA and 2 times 3rd NBA;
- 4 times scoring champion;
- 3 times steal leader;
- 97 rookie of the year.


His list of accodales can compete and will probably overcome anyone left on the list. That's an amazing career by Allen Iverson.

Scoring ability

Iverson's raw scoring is surely not a problem. 4 seasons above 30 PPG, and 11 above 25 PPG. That is tremendous production. But people usually talk about his efficiency, and there is sure a case to say he wasn't one of the best there: Iverson's average ts% in his career is only 51.8, so it doesn't look good for him. But stats need context...


When Iverson was with Philadelhpia his casts were really bad on offense. In 2001 Iverson had one of the most iconic post season runs ever, and took a cast with Dikembe Mutombo, Lynch, Mckie, Tyrone Hill, Ratliff and Snow to the NBA finals. That cast wasn't efficient, two of them actually had a ts% under 50%, and only one player is above 55% (Ratliff). Iverson took a lot of difficult shots with those rosters, but he HAD to. Iverson's ts% wasn't high for most times, but he had to do a lot and play a lot of minutes for them. Eventually with so many minutes (he lead the league in minutes played twice) he's gonna get tired during games, and it's natural that his efficiency drops.

Did Iverson rise his ts% in better situations? Yes. Iverson was past his prime when he went do Denver, but he was still a great player. He had 25.6 PPG on 55.9ts%. That is great production in volume, and great efficiency. If you look at the best SGs in NBA history stats, they won't get much better than this (some are better for sure, but after 3 or 4 SGs Iverson comes right next).

Overall I think Allen Iverson was a great scorer, and while his volume numbers increased due to his situation, his ts% also went down for it. They should meet somewhere in the middle, but bottom line Allen Iverson was a very good scorer.

Playmaking ability
Iverson is known by some guys as a ballhog. He did take too many shots, that's true. But he also was a great playmaker: he had 5 seasons above 7 APG, and while he had a better cast in Denver, he averaged 7.1 APG. Great numbers right?

I know his ast/to ratio isn't that great, but Iverson took a lot of volume in minutes and scoring in his career. Taking that into consideration I also think his TO numbers aren't elite, but aren't also that high.

Defense
I've seen some people saying Iverson's D was nothing special, and that he was just a gambler. Yes he gambled, but he had to. When you're much smaller than many guys you defend you have to gamble a bit more. And nobody can question Allen Iverson's heart: he was probably one of the guys that fought more while on the court.

Peak play
Iverson had some great seasons. His peak is probably 01:
RS
31.1 PPG 4.6 APG 3.8 RPG 2.5 SPG 24 PER 51.8 ts% 19WS/48
PS
32.9 PPG 6.1 APG 4.7 RPG 2.4 SPG 22.5 PER 48ts% 13 WS/48

Iverson's advanced numbers don't look good in the playoffs, but that's because he alternated great games with very inefficient ones. Overall he more positives than negatives that off season, including two 50 point games against Toronto, a ton of assists in game 7 against them, a spectacular series ending vs Bucks and the epic game 1 vs Lakers. His 1st round was pretty solid too.



Iverson had also solid post season numbers in 2003, the only other season where Iverson got out of the 1st round.

He had some really impressive seasons in his career, and 06 Iverson was his best regular season. Shame they didn't go to the playoffs, but I'm still amazed by that level of play.
Iverson 06
33 PPG 7.4 APG 3.2 RPG 1.9 SPG 25.9 PER 54.3ts% 16.5 WS/48

That's a truly amazing statline for anyone in the NBA.



Sorry for the long post but I just don't think Iverson gets respected in RealGM. When his shot was falling he was one of the most entertaining guys to watch.
If you didn't follow Iverson back then, this is a good way to know him a little better:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCjK4jRDfw[/youtube]

Great documentary that will show all of Iverson's heart!

[penbeast0]

My vote goes to Allen Iverson.
...

Iverson was entertaining, as was Pete Maravich. Neither get my vote until better scorers like Alex English go in. If Iverson's size was a problem, that's part of his game . . . Shaq doesn't get in if he's only 6-6. In addition to being an extremely inefficient scorer (on that "iconic run to the finals," Iverson's true shooting percentage was .480 as he jacked up 30 SHOTS A GAME while his team was shooting over .500ts% (still not impressive but clearly superior). What that team did well was play defense keyed by Dikembe Mutombo (who should be in before Iverson), they used that defensive ability to beat 3 mediocre playoff teams out of a weak East then get destroyed by LA.

If you want guys who were great FOR THEIR SIZE, Muggsy Bogues also super entertaining and was better for his size than Iverson for his. Muggsy, at 5'3, still holds the NBA records for assist to turnover ratio (the two best seasons even) and was the guy Kenny Smith said he hated to play the most defensively because he was always pressuring his man and got a lot of on ball steals leading to fast breaks. Iverson would leave his man gambling and didn't make smart decisions about when -- just as he made bad decisions about shooting poor percentage shots and just as he made bad decisions about skipping practice. And remember that Iverson was about as much taller (within an inch) than Bogues as Magic Johnson was than Iverson.

[Quotatious]

Life's gotten hectic for me lately, and I'm really disappointed that I can't post much these days, because the 40-50 range is very interesting - so many good candidates, and it clearly shows in the voting - there are several players with one or two votes, and it also makes me think "damn, I can see a good case for that guy...".

Anyway, I'd like to mention Kevin Johnson.

Between 1989 and 1992 (310 RS games), he averaged:

21.2 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 11.1 APG, 1.6 SPG in 37.5 minutes, 21.7 PER, 19.2 WS/48, 58.7% TS (50.0% from the field - pretty awesome for a point guard who averaged over 20 points per game - needed less than 15 FGA/G). Also amazing in terms of drawing fouls (one of the best ever at the PG position).

Suns ranked 2nd, 3rd, 3rd and 5th on offense, during that stretch of time (6.84, 7.09, 6.49 and 5.69 SRS, one of the best teams in the league each year).

A bit worse, but still very good in the playoffs.

Injuries really became a problem for him after 1992 (not really surprising, knowing his style of play), but he was still an All-Star caliber player for the next five seasons (basically averaged 20 points and 10 assists on excellent efficiency over 9 consecutive seasons, 1988-89 to 1996-97, played 81% of possible RS games, 599 of 738).

For those who like accolades, KJ was a 4 time member of the All-NBA 2nd team, one time third team (pretty weird, considering that he made just 3 All-Star appearances), for example he made the 2nd team over prime Drexler in 1990 (in since #32), over PEAK Stockton (in since #26) in 1991.

I'm generally high on longevity, but I feel like Johnson's peak/prime was pretty special, and his longevity wasn't THAT bad (for example very comparable to Alonzo Mourning, and his prime doesn't seem to be that much worse, either, Zo is in since #42).

FWIW, I'd take prime KJ over someone like prime Isiah (in since #39), pretty handily. KJ's combination of scoring (I mean 20+ PPG), playmaking (10+ APG), efficiency (let's say 55+% TS for a PG, but Johnson was usually at 58-59%, really elite for a PG), and ability to anchor an excellent offensive team, puts him in a really elite company (Magic, Oscar and peak CP3 are really his only peers in terms of individual numbers - KJ scored more than Nash or Stockton, more explosive scorer - this is not to say that he was better, just laying out the facts).

I'm not voting for KJ, just posting some stuff worth looking at. Sidney Moncrief had pretty great prime, too (very comparable to Johnson), but his longevity is even worse (and CLEARLY worse, at that), so I won't talk about him just yet.

I'm afraid I won't vote anymore in the project, as I'm in the process of re-evaluating my rankings (at least when I have some free time, which isn't often...), but I'll try to contribute here and there.

[drza]

Like Q, I have to apologize for absence as life has interfered in a major way of late. I was trying to skim the last few threads, and I saw something on McGrady that I wanted to comment on even though he got voted in last thread. The comment was by Doc MJ, and it tied into something I'd noticed the last time I looked at McGrady's +/- results:

Right well, my issue is that I'm just not that sold on McGrady.

So, you know I'm a guy who takes +/- pretty seriously. Inn my RAPM spreadsheet, he doesn't have a single year with a scaled RAPM north of 5.

Now, I really do believe that that sells McGrady's absolute peak short - and there's reason to believe that stat would - but if he's truly having elite impact seasons for half a decade, I'd expect better.

And just for comparison, Wade & Paul have peaks in the 8 plus range and are basically locks to break 6 every year of their healthy primes.

Re: Magnitude of TMac's 2003 peak: For some reason, I think that Englemann's RAPM grossly undervalues TMac's 2003 season. I mean, GROSSLY undervalues. I know that there's the issue with RAPM undervaluing a player in a breakout year, but I think it goes beyond that. Because while I'd tend to take RAPM over the other forms of +/- in general, in this case the story is WAY too consistent for the RAPM to make sense.

2003 Orlando Magic: 42 - 40, SRS -0.39

Tracy McGrady: 75 games played, on/off +/- +13.0 per 100 possessions (5th in NBA)
Pat Garrity: 81 games played, on/off +/- +4.6
Darrell Armstrong: 82 games, on/off +/- +1.1
Mike Miller: 49 games, on/off +/- +2.1
Jacque Vaughn: 80 games, on/off +/- -0.6
Shawn Kemp: 79 games, on/off +/- -4.4 (year he retired)

That was the entire list of players that played at least 1500 minutes for the Magic in 2003. Quick review: TMac in 2003 had one of the highest on/off +/- scores in the NBA (higher than Jason Kidd in 2002 or 2003, slightly behind 2005 MVP Nash (+14.5) but ahead of 2006 or 2007 Nash, slightly behind peak Wade seasons (2006, 2009 and 2010 averaged +14.3). He also was a huge outlier in terms of positive on/off +/- for his own team.

So just off the +/- data, TMac CLEARLY should have been in that +8 range that you mention for RAPM on your spreadsheet. All of the other players that I compared his season to were in that +8 - 10 range in those seasons that are like that.

And that jives perfectly with the "eye test" and the box score stats and (what I'd consider to be) the common sense tests. The only data point that absolutely doesn't make sense is the 2003 RAPM score from Englemann's study. Considering that the raw +/- data tells such a clear and compelling story (that also matches with every other form of analysis that would indicate that 2003 TMac was historic peak territory), I'm inclined to disregard his 2003 RAPM score and consider that season to be as strong as any by Wade, Nash or Kidd.

Re: length of high-peak. One of the reasons that RAPM might have whiffed so badly on his 2003 season is that there were no good priors. As Colts18 has pointed out, Englemann's 2002 RAPM is based on just the very end of the 2002 season, and we don't have any RAPM for the 2001 season.

But, as it happens, we have on/off +/- data from 2001 (per B-R). And if we look there, we see that from 2001 - 2003, TMac's on/off +/- was:

2001: +14.0
2002: +11.7
2003: +13

So TMac had a 3-year peak in the +/- stats that was as impressive as any consecutive 3-year run in +/- for guys like Nash (2006 +9.1, 2007 +11.7, 2008 +14.5) or Wade (2009 +14.2, 2010 +13.5, 2011 +7.8).

Conclusion: If I just looked at DocMJ's RAPM spreadsheet I'd probably conclude that RAPM wasn't overly impressed by TMac. But a quick look further, to me, shows that +/- numbers LOVED peak TMac as much as it's loved any of the other great wings or guards of the databall era. It just happened that TMac's +/- peak happened to correspond with the 3 years where we have either no or extremely limited RAPM data.

I'm glad that TMac got voted in, and if I'd been around and had time to look into this sooner I may have voted for him even earlier.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Alex English

My true contenders for this spot are Robert Parish, Deke (Nate), Alex English, and VC. I have questions about Vince Carter from 2002-2004 though. What exactly happened that made him appear to be a less effective player than 2000-2001 VC and 2005-2007 VC. Until those questions are answered, English gets the nod over Vince for his consistency and longevity.

I do believe Nate Thurmond's global defensive impact — and not just his man defense — is elite, but I also don't believe Thurmond has any semblance of a scoring skillset that would be able to find a high efficiency/low volume balance even with better coaching practices. That said, his passing and offensive mobility are clearly better than Mutombo's. Does it even out? I don't know.

I think I might take Parish over either player anyway. Strong 2-way impact for a very, very long time. I'm more confident building around English vs. Parish...I think.

I'd take English over Arizin again because of consistency/longevity, but I see the argument for Arizin based on his incredibly impressive title run in 1956.

English is a very good all-around player though. His 1985 REG SEA and playoffs is one of the underrated peak seasons on this board in my opinion.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Dikembe Mutombo, Nate Thurmond, Dave Cowens, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo, Robert Parish,

Worms: Dennis Rodman

Wings: Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Paul Arizin, Alex English, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[Clyde Frazier]

Throwing the question out here as I do some research later tonight...

Thoughts on cowens vs. hayes?

[Quotatious]

Thoughts on cowens vs. hayes?

I'd rank Hayes higher. Neither was an efficient scorer (but I think that Hayes was a bit better), Cowens was the better rebounder and passer, defensively both were excellent (FWIW, Hayes was a much better shotblocker). Both look mediocre in boxscore metrics (but obviously a stat like PER was incomplete before 1977-78, so I wouldn't put much emphasis on that). Hayes was better in the playoffs, but most importantly, he has a HUGE edge in terms of longevity and durability (1399 games, 54160 minutes, compared to just 855 games, 33333 minutes for Cowens, 132.5 to 95.7 career WS).

Cowens may've been slightly better at his peak (probably the 1975-76 season), but Hayes has a pretty clear edge, career-wise. I wouldn't even hesitate about putting Elvin over Dave.

[trex_8063]

Thoughts on cowens vs. hayes?

I'd rank Hayes higher. Neither was an efficient scorer (but I think that Hayes was a bit better), Cowens was the better rebounder and passer, defensively both were excellent (FWIW, Hayes was a much better shotblocker). Both look mediocre in boxscore metrics (but obviously a stat like PER was incomplete before 1977-78, so I wouldn't put much emphasis on that). Hayes was better in the playoffs, but most importantly, he has a HUGE edge in terms of longevity and durability (1399 games, 54160 minutes, compared to just 855 games, 33333 minutes for Cowens, 132.5 to 95.7 career WS).

Cowens may've been slightly better at his peak (probably the 1975-76 season), but Hayes has a pretty clear edge, career-wise. I wouldn't even hesitate about putting Elvin over Dave.

Agreed.

[Owly]

Throwing the question out here as I do some research later tonight...

Thoughts on cowens vs. hayes?

Cowens. Neither has spectacular numbers but Cowens seems more highly regarded as a defender, way more highly regarded as a teammate (fwiw had more team success), I think spaced the floor more. I value longevity but if you're primarily a scorer and your PER never gets over 20, that's an issue. Maybe he's having more of an impact in Washington by taking on less of a load and adding more on D, still if it's D and rebounding that gets Hayes in here I'd take other guys on doing that, including Cowens. But off the top of my head I'd take Cowens no question for the years both are available and then I'd question how much SD Rockets high volume, low efficiency Hayes is and I'm not sure how valuable late model, still shooting too much Hayes is.

That said my career value rankings, which I just looked at, based on PER and WS/48, have Hayes way ahead. Hmmm. Still if I was looking at 70s big with numbers I'd go for Lanier. I believe some here don't make much of his D based on team performance but the bits I've read he doesn't sound bad at that end (at least some years; I think maybe he came in raw at that end and improved).