RealGM

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 wrote:A little more on Iverson's context in Philadelphia....

When Iverson missed games in his prime:
’00
11/24/99: 93 pts, .510 TS%, 96.9 ORtg (L)
11/26/99: 106 pts (OT), .530 TS%, 114.5 ORtg (W)
11/27/99: 82 pts, .420 TS%, 92.3 ORtg (W)
11/30/99: 74 pts, .424 TS%, 82.8 ORtg (W)
12/1/99: 83 pts, .469 TS%, 97.5 ORtg (L)
12/3/99: 102 pts, .504 TS%, 98.6 ORtg (W)
12/4/99: 77 pts, .503 TS%, 95.3 ORtg (W)
12/6/99: 77 pts, .410 TS%, 81.2 ORtg (L)
12/8/99: 83 pts, .458 TS%, 91.2 ORtg (W)
12/10/99: 78 pts, .406 TS%, 90.3 ORtg (L)
3/16/00: 77 pts, .470 TS%, 91.0 ORtg (L)
4/18/00: 93 pts, .521 TS%, 105.1 ORtg (W)
Avg: 85.4 ppg, ~.469 TS%, 94.7 ORtg (7-5 (.583) w/o, 42-28 (.600) with)
Where that would rank in league: 28th of 29 in ppg, 29th of 29 in TS%, 28th of 29 in ORtg.

’01
12/26/00: 97 pts, .615 TS%, 113.7 ORtg (W)
01/19/01: 97 pts, .610 TS%, 110.8 ORtg (W)
03/14/01: 85 pts, .546 TS%, 107.7 ORtg (W)
03/17/01: 78 pts, .529 TS%, 95.7 ORtg (L)
03/19/01: 89 pts, .551 TS%, 106.8 ORtg (L)
03/20/01: 77 pts, .447 TS%, 98.8 ORtg (L)
03/23/01: 71 pts, .435 TS%, 83.6 ORtg (L)
04/04/01: 90 pts, .424 TS%, 97.1 ORtg (W)
04/06/01: 96 pts, .495 TS%, 114.2 ORtg (W)
04/17/01: 111 pts (OT), .522 TS%, 106.3 ORtg (W)
04/18/01: 86 pts, .498 TS%, 100.7 ORtg (L---to worst team in league)
Avg: 88.8 pts, ~.516 TS%, 103.2 ORtg (6-5 (.545) w/o, 50-21 (.704) with)
Where that would rank in league: 27th of 29 in ppg, 14th of 29 in TS%, tied for 13th of 29 in ORtg (couple flukey >.600 TS% game in this sample, though)

’02
10/30/01: 74 pts, .451 TS%, 92.0 ORtg (L)
11/01/01: 92 pts, .535 TS%, 101.6 ORtg (L)
11/03/01: 76 pts, .479 TS%, 89.1 ORtg (L)
11/06/01: 77 pts, .479 TS%, 96.6 ORtg (L)
11/08/01: 72 pts, .463 TS%, 89.2 ORtg (L)
12/07/01: 76 pts, .426 TS%, 91.0 ORtg (L)
12/08/01: 83 pts, .501 TS%, 95.1 ORtg (L)
02/17/02: 76 pts, .395 TS%, 86.6 ORtg (L)
03/24/02: 90 pts, .532 TS%, 112.9 ORtg (W)
03/27/02: 80 pts, .448 TS%, 88.1 ORtg (L)
03/28/02: 99 pts, .548 TS%, 110.0 ORtg (W)
03/30/02: 92 pts, .491 TS%, 108.9 ORtg (L)
03/31/02: 70 pts, .451 TS%, 85.8 ORtg (L)
04/03/02: 89 pts, .486 TS%, 96.1 ORtg (W)
04/05/02: 88 pts, .504 TS%, 111.8 ORtg (L)
04/07/02: 89 pts, .535 TS%, 110.7 ORtg (W)
04/09/02: 92 pts, .516 TS%, 114.5 ORtg (W)
04/10/02: 77 pts, .452 TS%, 91.8 ORtg (L)
04/12/02: 100 pts, .563 TS%, 115.5 ORtg (W)
04/14/02: 95 pts, .556 TS%, 114.2 ORtg (W)
04/15/02: 96 pts, .501 TS%, 108.1 ORtg (L)
04/17/02: 80 pts, .481 TS%, 94.3 ORtg (L)
Avg: 84.7 pts, .491 TS%, 100.2 ORtg (7-15 (.318) w/o, 36-24 (.600) with)
Where that would rank in league: 29th of 29 in ppg, 29th of 29 in TS%, 26th of 29 in ORtg

He didn't miss any games in '03; am still working on '04 thru '06; will try to post it later.

OK, here's the rest:

’04
11/19/03: 81 pts, .506 TS%, 103.5 ORtg (W)
12/09/03: 78 pts, .457 TS%, 94.2 ORtg (W)
12/14/03: 86 pts, .511 TS%, 106.0 ORtg (L)
12/17/03: 87 pts, .638 TS%, 112.6 ORtg (W)
12/19/03: 81 pts, .577 TS%, 95.1 ORtg (L)
12/21/03: 84 pts, .489 TS%, 97.9 ORtg (L)
12/22/03: 95 pts, .528 TS%, 107.0 ORtg (W)
12/26/03: 98 pts, .547 TS%, 106.0 ORtg (L)
12/28/03: 92 pts, .513 TS%, 103.5 ORtg (L)
12/29/03: 97 pts, .574 TS%, 124.1 ORtg (L)
12/31/03: 72 pts, .423 TS%, 83.9 ORtg (L)
01/03/04: 83 pts, .508 TS%, 95.1 ORtg (W)
01/27/04: 76 pts, .482 TS%, 87.6 ORtg (L)
01/28/04: 84 pts, .520 TS%, 109.0 ORtg (L)
02/23/04: 66 pts, .354 TS%, 75.5 ORtg (L)
02/24/04: 75 pts, .452 TS%, 87.8 ORtg (L)
02/28/04: 74 pts, .490 TS%, 89.0 ORtg (L)
02/29/04: 81 pts, .475 TS%, 99.2 ORtg (W)
03/08/04: 97 pts, .540 TS%, 110.6 ORtg (W)
03/09/04: 89 pts, .539 TS%, 101.1 ORtg (W)
03/12/04: 99 pts, .550 TS%, 99.2 ORtg (W)
03/14/04: 69 pts, .465 TS%, 83.2 ORtg (L)
03/22/04: 107 pts, .683 TS%, 127.5 ORtg (W)
03/24/04: 99 pts, .605 TS%, 122.2 ORtg (W)
03/26/04: 86 pts, .531 TS%, 117.8 ORtg (W)
03/28/04: 65 pts, .338 TS%, 74.5 ORtg (L)
03/30/04: 95 pts, .504 TS%, 108.8 ORtg (W)
04/01/04: 82 pts, .457 TS%, 102.3 ORtg (L)
04/03/04: 75 pts, .449 TS%, 92.0 ORtg (L)
04/06/04: 103 pts (OT), .581 TS%, 106.2 ORtg (W)
04/09/04: 80 pts, .436 TS%, 100.9 ORtg (L)
04/11/04: 75 pts, .495 TS%, 84.1 ORtg (L)
04/12/04: 93 pts, .557 TS%, 100.6 ORtg (L)
04/14/04: 89 pts, .504 TS%, 102.1 ORtg (L)
Avg: 85.1 ppg, .508 TS%, 100.3 ORtg (14-20 (.412) w/o, 19-29 (.396) with)
Where that would rank in league: 29th of 29 in ppg, 22nd of 29 in TS%, 25th of 29 in ORtg

’05
11/21/04: 83 pts, .489 TS%, 96.5 ORtg (L)
01/07/05: 84 pts, .465 TS%, 91.2 ORtg (L)
01/26/05: 107 pts, .617 TS%, 109.6 ORtg (L)
01/28/05: 95 pts, .483 TS%, 95.9 ORtg (L)
01/29/05: 93 pts, .495 TS%, 97.6 ORtg (W)
02/07/05: 97 pts, .544 TS%, 97.8 ORtg (L)
04/09/05: 112 pts, .589 TS%, 122.5 ORtg (W)
Avg: 95.9 pts, .526 TS%, 101.6 ORtg (2-5 (.286) w/o, 41-34 (.547) with)
Where that would rank in league: 19th of 30 in ppg, 20th of 30 in TS%, 26th of 30 in ORtg

’06
01/28/06: 91 pts, .495 TS%, 106.2 ORtg (W)
01/29/06: 89 pts, .525 TS%, 108.9 ORtg (W)
01/31/06: 99 pts, .497 TS%, 109.2 ORtg (L)
02/03/06: 80 pts, .531 TS%, 99.6 ORtg (L)
03/14/06: 97 pts, .572 TS%, 104.4 ORtg (L)
03/16/06: 98 pts, .565 TS%, 105.6 ORtg (L)
03/17/06: 89 pts, .485 TS%, 100.7 ORtg (L)
03/19/06: 89 pts, .483 TS%, 95.6 ORtg (L)
04/18/06: 91 pts, .547 TS%, 113.0 ORtg (W)
04/19/06: 86 pts, .608 TS%, 95.5 ORtg (L)
Avg: 90.9 ppg, .531 TS%, 103.9 ORtg (3-7 (.300) w/o, 35-37 (.486) with)
Where that would rank in league: 28th of 30 in ppg, 22nd of 30 in TS%, tied for 25th of 30 in ORtg

Summation of these years…..
’00
Sixers avg 85.4 ppg without him, 96.4 ppg with him (+11.0 ppg).
46.9 TS% without him, 50.6 TS% with him (+3.7%).
94.7 ORtg w/o him, 102.7 ORtg with him (+8.0).
-1.69 SRS w/o, +1.48 SRS with him (+3.17).

’01
88.8 ppg w/o him, 95.6 with (+6.8 ppg).
51.6 TS% w/o, 51.8 TS% with (+0.2%).
103.2 ORtg w/o, 103.7 ORtg with (+0.5).
+0.48 SRS w/o, +4.12 SRS with him (+3.63).

’02
84.7 ppg w/o, 93.3 ppg with (+8.6 ppg).
49.1 TS% w/o, 50.7 TS% with (+1.6%).
100.2 ORtg w/o, 102.8 ORtg with (+2.6).
-4.18 SRS w/o, +3.27 SRS with him (+7.45).

’04---banged up much of year, missed 34 games
85.1 ppg w/o, 90.0 ppg with (+4.9 ppg).
50.8 TS% w/o, 50.3 TS% with (-0.5%)
100.3 ORtg w/o, 98.3 ORtg with (-2.0).
-2.54 SRS w/o, -3.24 with him (-0.70).

’05
95.9 ppg w/o, 99.4 ppg with (+3.5 ppg).
52.6 TS% w/o, 52.8 TS% with (+0.2%).
101.6 ORtg w/o, 103.7 ORtg with (+2.1).
-0.60 SRS w/o, -1.11 with him (-0.51).

’06
90.9 ppg w/o, 100.5 ppg with (+9.6 ppg).
53.1 TS% w/o, 53.9 TS% with (+0.8%).
103.9 ORtg w/o, 106.3 ORtg with (+2.4).
-5.59 SRS w/o, -1.62 with him (+3.97).

AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him over these years:
+7.4 ppg
+1.0% TS%
+2.5 ORtg
+2.84 SRS
39-57 record (.406) without, 223-173 record (.563) with.

Nice job, Trex!

I do think there are other candidates (English for one) with as strong a team case (and a better individual one) but since English didn't miss many games over his 10 year prime, it's a tougher case and I don't have your work ethic to do the research to prove it.

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 Grizz, 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 and has shown he can be the focal guy to build around with Memphis (playoff though not super talented squads) and then slot in nicely as an elite #2.

Vote: Alex English

My true contenders for this spot are Robert Parish, Nate Thurmond, Alex English, Allen Iverson, 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.

Parish has 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.

Awesome research by trex about Iverson's boost to Philly's offenses. I think the efficiency angle definitely needs the type of context you provide. That said, I think the case of him carrying teams offensively underpins part of why Dantley is my choice here.

I've mentioned before how I've looked at calculating expected Offensive Win Shares based on aging curves. I came up with 25 types of aging curves (5 peak ages x 5 peak shapes), which allows me to produce graphs like this:



Based on this, I've looked at player careers to track whether a player's presence tends to coincide with his teammates over- or underperforming these expectations.

Here are the respective graphs of observed and expected OWS for Allen Iverson and Adrian Dantley, as well as their teammates:





On a team level, offensive win shares are highly, highly, highly correlated with offensive rating. An average offense will be given around 20.6-20.7 OWS (over 20.5 due to overtimes).

What we can see from these graphs is that for Iverson from 1997-2006 in Philly, his teammates were expected to produce a weighted average of 13.43 OWS, which is pretty poor. They achieved a weighted average of 13.19 OWS, 98.19% of the expected value. Iverson himself had a weighted average of 4.87 OWS over this span, comprising 26.78% of his team's total.

From Dantley's Utah years 1980-1986, his teammates were expected to produce a weighted average of 6.87 OWS, which is disastrously poor. It looks like he had much worse offensive teammates around him. They achieved a weighted average of 6.65 OWS, 96.80% of the expected value. Dantley himself had a weighted average of 10.478 OWS, comprising 58.58% (!!!) of his team's total.

What did this mean for these teams?

Well, Philadelphia was pretty poor overall on offense over this stretch, with an average Z-score in ORating of -0.48 (a percentile of about 31.5). Utah was also generally poor on offense, with an average Z-score in ORating of -0.56 (a percentile of about 28.7). So Dantley almost managed to elevate his offenses to the same "heights" as Iverson despite starting from a much lower baseline of teammate help.

Vote: Iverson

He led the Sixers to 5 consecutive playoff appearances and 6 appearances overall. He carried that franchise for many years without a lot of offensive help, he's constantly criticized for his low efficiency, high volume shots which is fair, but somewhat unwarranted, he didn't have anyone to take defensive attention away from him.

He won MVP, Scoring title, and led his team to the finals all in one season. Overall his resume is pretty impressive:

11 time all star
MVP
4 scoring titles
3 time All NBA first team
3 time All NBA second team
Rookie of the year
etc

He is 46th in career PER for NBA and 48th for ABA/NBA combined.
22nd all time in career points in NBA and 27th for ABA/NBA combined.

Several years as a top 10 player and arguably even top 5 in 2001.

7th all time in career ppg average.
2nd all time in career playoff ppg average.

His peak is impressive as well : 33 3 7 54 ts% 26 PER..his scoring efficiency is nothing special here but there's nothing wrong with high volume on average efficiency.

So aside from maybe his later years, Iverson had a positive impact on his teams, even though some will deem him as a cancer.

I also disagree that he isn't capable of leading his team to a title, he was 3 games away from doing so and he happened to be up against a dynasty that had 2 top 10 players ever.

Honorable mentions go to Dantley, English, and Elvin Hayes.

I also disagree that he isn't capable of leading his team to a title, he was 3 games away from doing so and he happened to be up against a dynasty that had 2 top 10 players ever.

If you think that Iverson was just stopped from winning the title by running into the 2001 Lakers, then name a single team that won from 2000 on that you think the 2001 Sixers could beat, since all those teams are worse than the 01 Lakers as well.

Sasaki wrote:

I also disagree that he isn't capable of leading his team to a title, he was 3 games away from doing so and he happened to be up against a dynasty that had 2 top 10 players ever.

If you think that Iverson was just stopped from winning the title by running into the 2001 Lakers, then name a single team that won from 2000 on that you think the 2001 Sixers could beat, since all those teams are worse than the 01 Lakers as well.

The 2011 Mavs. I'd take that Sixers team to win. At the very least they're on the same level.

I'm voting Iverson. For all the crap he takes the man was well known for a reason. Philly had some terrible teams where he had to completely take over the offense for them to remain competitive and he did. Sure he could've been better and he was stubborn but at this point he's led his teams further than anyone left.

VOTE : Pau Gasol

-One of the greatest offensive PF's in league history.
-Solid defensive PF for the majority of his Prime with real rim protection ability.
-Solid rebounder (even this year he is around 18% TRB).
-Has excellent longevity for this stage of the project.
11 years of around 18 / 9 / 3+apg / 1.5+bpg on elite efficiency.

Beyond those 11 years he posted 17 / 10 / 3+apg / 1.5+bpg last year on 52%TS
So far this year he is posting 18 / 11 / 2+apg / 2.4bpg on 55%TS

I really don't think there should be a large gap between McHale and Gasol on our list.
The truth is McHale wasn't that much better of a player.

Kevin was a slightly better scorer & defender.
Gasol was a slightly better rebounder and a far better passer.

Gasol also has a sizable edge in longevity.
He clocks in with 11 elite years compared to only 8 for McHale.

So yeah I think 50 is a good spot for Gasol and I would vote for him over Iverson though I am a fan of both players.

Vote for #50 - Adrian Dantley

As I took a closer look at english vs. dantley, english had a slightly longer prime and better durability. However, dantley still had a substantial prime in his own right, and his 29.6 PPG on 63.2% TS and .205 WS/48 from 80-86 is pretty staggering. He was also a better playoff performer in similar sample size. I admittedly came away more impressed with english’s skill set as a scorer (just more fluid and gervin-esque in my opinion), but you can’t argue with results, either.

One other point of reference: as a rookie in 77, dantley scored 20.3 PPG on 60.1% TS. The league average TS% that season was 51.1%.

I then look at the controversy with dantley leaving DET and them winning the championship following his departure, and it seems overblown. Dantley’s averages in the 88 finals (loss) are as follows:

21.3 PPG, 5 RPG, 2.3 APG, .6 SPG, 57.3% FG, 85.6% FT, 67.6% TS, 127/112 OFF/DEF RTG

Games 6 and 7 of the 88 finals were decided by a total of 4 points, and this was with a substandard game 7 by the injured isiah thomas. If he’s healthy, they very well could’ve won the title that year. I don’t hold the turn of events against dantley all that much relative to general perception.

Leaning towards a couple of Celtics big men in Cowens and Chief. Still trying to figure out exactly where Rodman belongs in all of this, but I think he deserves some serious consideration. Never the best(or even 2nd best) player on a champion, but he was a very important cog for 5 champions plus a number of other really good teams. Elite defensively and could guard every position on the court and actually did so. It wasn't theoretical like we talk about with KG or Lebron. He actually was doing it. And we of course know all about the rebounding.

But I'm not voting for him yet. I'm debating between the superior prime of Cowens vs the super long consistency of the Chief. I didn't really have him on my radar until guys started talking about him here which I really appreciate.

And I realize I may be overlooking some of the scoring wings--AI, English, Dantley here. I've never been very high on that style of player--especially not the 80's SFs. Seemed like every team in the league had a SF who could score. How much better are English and Dantley than say Worthy or Aguirre or Nique or whomever?

So I'm going to really be listening to the arguments closely and won't cast my vote this early since while I'm leaning big, I am open to considering other guys.

Vote: Robert Parish

Excellent two-way player: Very good (often elite) 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.

Will also copy this:

trex_8063 wrote:

Chuck Texas wrote:Enjoying some of the stuff on Chief in the last few threads. His longevity is outstanding and maybe he's a better player than I remember. Would love some more insight from some of his supporters here on what they feel like were the main things he brought to a team.

Just good at basically everything you want your center to be good at: good low-post scorer (with a little bit of range, too), good (at times great) rebounder, very good defender and at times very good rim-protector, could run in transition, good teammate. The only thing he wasn't "good" at was passing (which is generally the least necessary skill in a center anyway; and it's not like he was "bad" at it either).

I know it's just a highlight reel, but it brings attention to a lot of the things he was good at:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J-K5YxUgOs[/youtube]

Gonna cherry-pick a little bit with this stuff, because '04 was clearly an outlier year (the only one in which he has a slight negative effect on the offense, *although he still had a +1.2 PI ORAPM, +0.9 combined RAPM): he was playing hurt much of the season, and was really under-performing (this is reflected in very noticeable slump in both PER and WS/48). If we remove '04 from the picture, and look at only '00-'02, '05 and '06, the average effect of having Iverson play on the Sixer offense vs. when he was absent was:

+8.3 ppg
+1.5% TS%
+3.2 ORtg
25-37 record (.403) without him, 204-144 record (.586) with him--->that's the difference between a 33-win team and a 48-win team (+15 wins) on average.

E-Balla wrote:The 2011 Mavs. I'd take that Sixers team to win. At the very least they're on the same level.

Same level? Did you watch the 2011 Mavs? They were a great basketball team. They beat an underrated Blazers squad. Then swept a really good Lakers squad that was the favorite that season. They beat OKC in 5, another good team. Then they a great Heat squad in 6. All 4 teams that the Mavs beat were better than any team that the 76ers beat in the playoffs.

The '11 Mavs were the 8th-best offense in the league and likewise on D; they were considerably better than the '01 Sixers, who would have been picked apart BADLY by that team.

colts18 wrote:

E-Balla wrote:The 2011 Mavs. I'd take that Sixers team to win. At the very least they're on the same level.

Same level? Did you watch the 2011 Mavs? They were a great basketball team. They beat an underrated Blazers squad. Then swept a really good Lakers squad that was the favorite that season. They beat OKC in 5, another good team. Then they a great Heat squad in 6. All 4 teams that the Mavs beat were better than any team that the 76ers beat in the playoffs.

Portland was not better than the 01 Bucks and Miami lost because of their best player playing bad. I'm tired of this after the fact crowning of the Mavs. They were a great team but they wouldn't kill the Sixers. It'll be a close series either way. Iverson was the type of player that would give the Mavs a fit (super fast slasher) and the Sixers defense was very strong.

I'll just repost the same thing I had in the last thread for #49.

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!

I hope he can get in the top 50. I truly believe he deserves it.

E-Balla wrote:Portland was not better than the 01 Bucks and Miami lost because of their best player playing bad. I'm tired of this after the fact crowning of the Mavs. They were a great team but they wouldn't kill the Sixers. It'll be a close series either way. Iverson was the type of player that would give the Mavs a fit (super fast slasher) and the Sixers defense was very strong.

Portland was an elite squad after they made the Gerald Wallace trade and were healthy. They played like a 5 SRS team in that span.

The Mavs were a big reason why LeBron played bad. It's not like LeBron was the only star who played bad vs the Mavs. Every single star player with the exception of Wade had struggles vs the Mavs (Aldridge, Kobe, Gasol, Durant, Westbrook, LeBron, Bosh).

I don't see how Iverson would be the type of player to give them fits when they were able to contain LeBron, Kobe, and Westbrook.

colts18 wrote:

E-Balla wrote:Portland was not better than the 01 Bucks and Miami lost because of their best player playing bad. I'm tired of this after the fact crowning of the Mavs. They were a great team but they wouldn't kill the Sixers. It'll be a close series either way. Iverson was the type of player that would give the Mavs a fit (super fast slasher) and the Sixers defense was very strong.

Portland was an elite squad after they made the Gerald Wallace trade and were healthy. They played like a 5 SRS team in that span.

The Mavs were a big reason why LeBron played bad. It's not like LeBron was the only star who played bad vs the Mavs. Every single star player with the exception of Wade had struggles vs the Mavs (Aldridge, Kobe, Gasol, Durant, Westbrook, LeBron, Bosh).

I don't see how Iverson would be the type of player to give them fits when they were able to contain LeBron, Kobe, and Westbrook.

Durant didn't play bad and I guess Wade isn't a star. Coincidentally Wade happens to play the most like Iverson (Westbrook back then wasn't good enough for me to say he plays like Iverson).