RealGM

Top PG left is probably Chauncey Billups; never been sold on Cousy but you have to consider him here. Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys. Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are a small step down.

Wings: Sam Jones and Vince Carter had long outstanding careers though Sharman and Greer were considered better than Sam Jones in their peaks but the numbers for Jones look better, Arizin is the other main 50s guy. . Nique and Iverson are a step down with their efficiency and defensive issues plus Iverson's attitude problems. Sidney Moncrief may be the 3rd greatest 2 guard ever . . . for 4 years, but his injuries limit his career value.

Best bigs left: Elvin Hayes is the Iverson/Nique type with weak efficiency (and poor passing) but with excellent defense and rebounding, and he was an ironman. My favorite is Mel Daniels with his 2 ABA MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, and Bob McAdoo for short peak guys . . . in that order for me I would guess. McAdoo, Neil Johnston, Amare, Issel, Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play defense are problematic for me. Ben Wallace, Nate Thurmond, or the Worm also could come up here as well as guys like DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, etc., even Zelmo Beaty and Yao Ming. Lots of names to consider.

With English voted in, I am open to persuasion. I'd love to vote Moncrief or Daniels, would love to hear a good head to head discussion of Sam Jones v. Vince Carter; and, I'm wide open to strong arguments for any of these or for that matter, about 10 others.

Vote: Sam Jones

Vote: Allen Iverson

I think he's been the candidate for a several threads now. Thumbnail, his scoring inefficiency is stupendously overrated. By every non box score metric we have in addition to my eye, Iverson was a hugely positive offensive impact player. His size was an issue on defense, but I think that could be worked around. Bottom line: Iversons just a better player than several of the guys that have been going ahead of him.

I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

I'm not sure how this list is punishing guys with short peaks when Kevin Johnson was just voted in.

I know that we've been discussing Iverson for a long time at this point, but I believe that Elvin Hayes should be picked over Iverson. Hayes has better longevity ( he realistically has the best longevity out of anyone left on the board by a fairly significant margin at this point), he was an excellent rebounder and defender, his accolades are about as good as AI's ( if you care about that), the Bullets made a significant jump in wins when he joined them compared to AI with the Nuggets.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

Honestly i'm not even sure why billups is being me mentioned already. To me you can't be a top 55-60 player without having at least one season as a top 10 player. Billups never had that and probably only 4-5 years where he was all star caliber. That isn't top 60 to me, also he got to play on some of the best defenses this league has seen (03-06) pistons so i think his impact may be overstated a bit. He was a very good player so i'm not trying to take away from him but i don't think top 60 is an appropriate range.

Basketballefan wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

Honestly i'm not even sure why billups is being me mentioned already. To me you can't be a top 55-60 player without having at least one season as a top 10 player. Billups never had that and probably only 4-5 years where he was all star caliber. That isn't top 60 to me, also he got to play on some of the best defenses this league has seen (03-06) pistons so i think his impact may be overstated a bit. He was a very good player so i'm not trying to take away from him but i don't think top 60 is an appropriate range.

Billups has one top 10 PER season and 6 top ten WS/48 seasons. And you think as few as four (and at most 5) were all-star calibre.

Linguistically too there are issues. Top 60 is 1-60. Billups isn't going in the top 50, never mind the top 10. At very best he will be 56th and that is unlikely. He's not battling Russell and Chamberlain, Magic and Bird. So I would say "top 60" (1-60) isn't an appropriate range. But say 50-75 might be (just an example, given the smaller gaps at this point the downside might go further, it also depends on what criteria etc). At this point he's battling flawed players. The (other) vote getters in the last couple of threads (that weren't voted in)

Iverson, Lanier, Carter, Hayes, Wilkins, B. Wallace, Rodman.

Iverson's issues are well documented at this point; Lanier missed significant time during his peak, and the perception seems to be he wasn't a good defender based on team performance (that he doesn't have the accolades of other 70s centers might hurt too, though Gilmore did okay with "just" ABA accolades); Carter peaked early then slid including a rotten final partial season in Toronto; Hayes's metrics suggest he was never an elite player and there are intangiable concerns, Wilkins has issues with regard to defense and playoff performance and Rodman and Wallace were mostly impotent as scorers.

Hayes rarely measures out as a top 10 yearly player by any metric, and that's without factoring in ABA competition. Rodman was only twice so much as an all-star.

Point is, it's easy to say "x doesn't seem top 60", tell us why the field (and in particular your chosen candidate) is better.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

Wilkins. Or it looks like you're talking about Lenny. We can probably infer from context but still.

On the stats point would you care to expound. Because otherwise I suspect few will find that persuasive.

On short peaks, this naturally varies according to participants own preferences. With regard to King, I guess that would depend how you define “best scorer”. In his truncated ’85 he’s close to the top for non-Jordan points per 100 possessions, though ’82 Gervin ranks higher (http://bkref.com/tiny/XYKu3). If this is meant as an advocacy for King though I’d note three concerns that might "drop" him relative to his peak (and peak stats)

1) Longevity of peak/prime: By the metrics ’84 and ’85 look like clear outliers, which mean the value he adds over his career low for a player with such a peak.

2) Defense: Hard to get a good read on it, but not generally considered great (if you go by team level stuff and DWS definitely concerning).

3) Utah: Both in and of itself as a risk to a franchise and as a microcosm or example of personal/personality issues that meant he got traded cheaply over his career. Both on court, off court and in court. For the damage it does to the franchise and potentially, for some, because of personal distaste (cf: http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2013/04/ ... of-a-king/ ).

Owly wrote:

Basketballefan wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

Honestly i'm not even sure why billups is being me mentioned already. To me you can't be a top 55-60 player without having at least one season as a top 10 player. Billups never had that and probably only 4-5 years where he was all star caliber. That isn't top 60 to me, also he got to play on some of the best defenses this league has seen (03-06) pistons so i think his impact may be overstated a bit. He was a very good player so i'm not trying to take away from him but i don't think top 60 is an appropriate range.

Billups has one top 10 PER season and 6 top ten WS/48 seasons. And you think as few as four (and at most 5) were all-star calibre.

Linguistically too there are issues. Top 60 is 1-60. Billups isn't going in the top 50, never mind the top 10. At very best he will be 56th and that is unlikely. He's not battling Russell and Chamberlain, Magic and Bird. So I would say "top 60" (1-60) isn't an appropriate range. But say 50-75 might be (just an example, given the smaller gaps at this point the downside might go further, it also depends on what criteria etc). At this point he's battling flawed players. The (other) vote getters in the last couple of threads (that weren't voted in)

Iverson, Lanier, Carter, Hayes, Wilkins, B. Wallace, Rodman.

Iverson's issues are well documented at this point; Lanier missed significant time during his peak, and the perception seems to be he wasn't a good defender based on team performance (that he doesn't have the accolades of other 70s centers might hurt too, though Gilmore did okay with "just" ABA accolades); Carter peaked early then slid including a rotten final partial season in Toronto; Hayes's metrics suggest he was never an elite player and there are intangiable concerns, Wilkins has issues with regard to defense and playoff performance and Rodman and Wallace were mostly impotent as scorers.

Hayes rarely measures out as a top 10 yearly player by any metric, and that's without factoring in ABA competition. Rodman was only twice so much as an all-star.

Point is, it's easy to say "x doesn't seem top 60", tell us why the field (and in particular your chosen candidate) is better.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

Wilkins. Or it looks like you're talking about Lenny. We can probably infer from context but still.

On the stats point would you care to expound. Because otherwise I suspect few will find that persuasive.

On short peaks, this naturally varies according to participants own preferences. With regard to King, I guess that would depend how you define “best scorer”. In his truncated ’85 he’s close to the top for non-Jordan points per 100 possessions, though ’82 Gervin ranks higher (http://bkref.com/tiny/XYKu3). If this is meant as an advocacy for King though I’d note three concerns that might "drop" him relative to his peak (and peak stats)

1) Longevity of peak/prime: By the metrics ’84 and ’85 look like clear outliers, which mean the value he adds over his career low for a player with such a peak.

2) Defense: Hard to get a good read on it, but not generally considered great (if you go by team level stuff and DWS definitely concerning).

3) Utah: Both in and of itself as a risk to a franchise and as a microcosm or example of personal/personality issues that meant he got traded cheaply over his career. Both on court, off court and in court. For the damage it does to the franchise and potentially, for some, because of personal distaste (cf: http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2013/04/ ... of-a-king/ ).

Who said anything about Billups "battling Wilt chamberlain and Bird"?

Lol you say some pretty off the wall stuff my dude. As for Billups not belonging here, i already presented my case for Ai in the previous threads.

As for the PER thing yeah i use that somewhat in my analysis but it is certainly not a be all end all criteria to rank a player. Win shares or win shares per 48 are 2 stats that i do not use at all so i won't be convinced by such a metric.

Basketballefan wrote:Who said anything about Billups "battling Wilt chamberlain and Bird"?

Lol you say some pretty off the wall stuff my dude.

These are non-starter comments which waste time in this thread. His intent was very clear based on what he said and how he said it within the post you've quoted and misrepresented. The entire section on the linguistic difference between Top 60 and 50-75 rather handily and obviously explains what he meant. You've responded in contentious fashion for no good reason, perhaps because you don't want to address his actual point. You shouldn't do this.

As for Billups not belonging here, i already presented my case for Ai in the previous threads.

This statement doesn't make any sense without clarification.

As for the PER thing yeah i use that somewhat in my analysis but it is certainly not a be all end all criteria to rank a player. Win shares or win shares per 48 are 2 stats that i do not use at all so i won't be convinced by such a metric.

That's fine, but keep in mind that you said effectively that he had no top 10 seasons and that there is indeed at least some proof that this was not a true statement, whether or not you agree with the evidence being presented.

tsherkin wrote:

Basketballefan wrote:Who said anything about Billups "battling Wilt chamberlain and Bird"?

Lol you say some pretty off the wall stuff my dude.

These are non-starter comments which waste time in this thread. His intent was very clear based on what he said and how he said it within the post you've quoted and misrepresented. The entire section on the linguistic difference between Top 60 and 50-75 rather handily and obviously explains what he meant. You've responded in contentious fashion for no good reason, perhaps because you don't want to address his actual point. You shouldn't do this.

As for Billups not belonging here, i already presented my case for Ai in the previous threads.

This statement doesn't make any sense without clarification.

As for the PER thing yeah i use that somewhat in my analysis but it is certainly not a be all end all criteria to rank a player. Win shares or win shares per 48 are 2 stats that i do not use at all so i won't be convinced by such a metric.

That's fine, but keep in mind that you said effectively that he had no top 10 seasons and that there is indeed at least some proof that this was not a true statement, whether or not you agree with the evidence being presented.

I never thought Billups played at a top 10 level in the league. Its really that simple. And it's all subjective anyways so as far as evidence i'm not sure what you are asking for. But besides that i'm not going to waste time doing research on billups when i'm not even considering him for this spot.

Basketballefan wrote:I never thought Billups played at a top 10 level in the league. Its really that simple.

That's fine, we knew that already from your previous post. That isn't relevant to what Owly said or to my comments.

But besides that i'm not going to waste time doing research on billups when i'm not even considering him for this spot.

Then don't comment when his name is raised, because lack of research leaves you unable to properly contribute. It's that simple.

Basketballefan wrote:

Owly wrote:

Basketballefan wrote:Honestly i'm not even sure why billups is being me mentioned already. To me you can't be a top 55-60 player without having at least one season as a top 10 player. Billups never had that and probably only 4-5 years where he was all star caliber. That isn't top 60 to me, also he got to play on some of the best defenses this league has seen (03-06) pistons so i think his impact may be overstated a bit. He was a very good player so i'm not trying to take away from him but i don't think top 60 is an appropriate range.

Billups has one top 10 PER season and 6 top ten WS/48 seasons. And you think as few as four (and at most 5) were all-star calibre.

Linguistically too there are issues. Top 60 is 1-60. Billups isn't going in the top 50, never mind the top 10. At very best he will be 56th and that is unlikely. He's not battling Russell and Chamberlain, Magic and Bird. So I would say "top 60" (1-60) isn't an appropriate range. But say 50-75 might be (just an example, given the smaller gaps at this point the downside might go further, it also depends on what criteria etc). At this point he's battling flawed players. The (other) vote getters in the last couple of threads (that weren't voted in)

Iverson, Lanier, Carter, Hayes, Wilkins, B. Wallace, Rodman.

Iverson's issues are well documented at this point; Lanier missed significant time during his peak, and the perception seems to be he wasn't a good defender based on team performance (that he doesn't have the accolades of other 70s centers might hurt too, though Gilmore did okay with "just" ABA accolades); Carter peaked early then slid including a rotten final partial season in Toronto; Hayes's metrics suggest he was never an elite player and there are intangiable concerns, Wilkins has issues with regard to defense and playoff performance and Rodman and Wallace were mostly impotent as scorers.

Hayes rarely measures out as a top 10 yearly player by any metric, and that's without factoring in ABA competition. Rodman was only twice so much as an all-star.

Point is, it's easy to say "x doesn't seem top 60", tell us why the field (and in particular your chosen candidate) is better.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

Wilkins. Or it looks like you're talking about Lenny. We can probably infer from context but still.

On the stats point would you care to expound. Because otherwise I suspect few will find that persuasive.

On short peaks, this naturally varies according to participants own preferences. With regard to King, I guess that would depend how you define “best scorer”. In his truncated ’85 he’s close to the top for non-Jordan points per 100 possessions, though ’82 Gervin ranks higher (http://bkref.com/tiny/XYKu3). If this is meant as an advocacy for King though I’d note three concerns that might "drop" him relative to his peak (and peak stats)

1) Longevity of peak/prime: By the metrics ’84 and ’85 look like clear outliers, which mean the value he adds over his career low for a player with such a peak.

2) Defense: Hard to get a good read on it, but not generally considered great (if you go by team level stuff and DWS definitely concerning).

3) Utah: Both in and of itself as a risk to a franchise and as a microcosm or example of personal/personality issues that meant he got traded cheaply over his career. Both on court, off court and in court. For the damage it does to the franchise and potentially, for some, because of personal distaste (cf: http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2013/04/ ... of-a-king/ ).

Who said anything about Billups "battling Wilt chamberlain and Bird"?

Lol you say some pretty off the wall stuff my dude. As for Billups not belonging here, i already presented my case for Ai in the previous threads.

As for the PER thing yeah i use that somewhat in my analysis but it is certainly not a be all end all criteria to rank a player. Win shares or win shares per 48 are 2 stats that i do not use at all so i won't be convinced by such a metric.

The point, which is clear in the context of my post is that whilst it is accurate enough to believe that

i don't think top 60 is an appropriate range

nobody [else] whatsoever had suggested 1-60 as the range. It then goes on to suggest a possible range. Top 60 is one through sixty and said range unnecessarily implies/invites comparison with guys who are top tier. That's not the the competition. I'm not voting Billups yet (probably sticking with Lanier, might float a Marion or Nance balloon to see if low mistake, across the board contributors, with perhaps surprisingly good metrics get any traction), but as I said saying "not top 60" is way too easy and doesn't really add anything substantial, especially when as noted the criticism is dubious as well as arbitrary (top 10) and arguably applicable to many other candidates.

Basketballefan wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

Honestly i'm not even sure why billups is being me mentioned already. To me you can't be a top 55-60 player without having at least one season as a top 10 player. Billups never had that......

Billups was voted 9th-best player in both '04 and '09 in the RealGM RPoY project (also 13th in '05); and I'm sincerely surprised he didn't have some rank in '06, fwiw.
He was 5th in MVP voting in '06, 6th in '09, 11th in '07, 12th in '10.

In PER, he was 10th in the league in '08.
In WS/48, he was six times in the top 10 in the league:
8th in '03
9th in '04
10th in '05
2nd in '06
7th in '07
4th in '08

Was never playing fewer than 31.4 mpg in any of the above-mentioned seasons, too.
Given all of the above, claiming he was never once a top 10 player in the league is to say the least questionable.

Anyway, fades into :ironiclaugh:......Vote: Allen Iverson.
yada yada (this has been more than well-covered previously, yes?)

trex_8063 wrote:

Basketballefan wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don't really care what the stats say, Tim Hardaway was better than Billups.

How much are you you going to punish guys for short peaks? Bernard King had multiple peaks and at his best short peak he was the best scorer of the 1980s and 1990s not named Jordan.

I still think Wilkens was better than English and that is not just because Wilkens was flashier.

Honestly i'm not even sure why billups is being me mentioned already. To me you can't be a top 55-60 player without having at least one season as a top 10 player. Billups never had that......

Billups was voted 9th-best player in both '04 and '09 in the RealGM RPoY project (also 13th in '05); and I'm sincerely surprised he didn't have some rank in '06, fwiw.
He was 5th in MVP voting in '06, 6th in '09, 11th in '07, 12th in '10.

In PER, he was 10th in the league in '08.
In WS/48, he was six times in the top 10 in the league:
8th in '03
9th in '04
10th in '05
2nd in '06
7th in '07
4th in '08

Was never playing fewer than 31.4 mpg in any of the above-mentioned seasons, too.
Given all of the above, claiming he was never once a top 10 player in the league is to say the least questionable.

Well as i said above i don't use Ws/48 so i won't be sold on that stat, nor do i use realgm's ROPY in my criteria. Perhaps though, with more analysis of my own i could see him fitting in for a year or 2 but until i'm convinced otherwise ill stand by the "never top 10".

Basketballefan wrote:Well as i said above i don't use Ws/48 so i won't be sold on that stat, nor do i use realgm's ROPY in my criteria. Perhaps though, with more analysis of my own i could see him fitting in for a year or 2 but until i'm convinced otherwise ill stand by the "never top 10".

Realistically, this is a bit of a cop-out. When evidence is presented suggesting that he was considered to be top 10 by certain things (even in-era stuff like MVP voting) and you turn around and go "nuh uh, nyah!," it's not really indicative of honest discourse. The onus is on you to counter that evidence to show why top 10 isn't appropriate. In your own voting, that's fine, you can believe what you like but if you expect your point to gain any sort of traction, you need to treat the discussion in a manner that is not disingenuous.

Owly wrote:

Basketballefan wrote:

Owly wrote:Billups has one top 10 PER season and 6 top ten WS/48 seasons. And you think as few as four (and at most 5) were all-star calibre.

Linguistically too there are issues. Top 60 is 1-60. Billups isn't going in the top 50, never mind the top 10. At very best he will be 56th and that is unlikely. He's not battling Russell and Chamberlain, Magic and Bird. So I would say "top 60" (1-60) isn't an appropriate range. But say 50-75 might be (just an example, given the smaller gaps at this point the downside might go further, it also depends on what criteria etc). At this point he's battling flawed players. The (other) vote getters in the last couple of threads (that weren't voted in)

Iverson, Lanier, Carter, Hayes, Wilkins, B. Wallace, Rodman.

Iverson's issues are well documented at this point; Lanier missed significant time during his peak, and the perception seems to be he wasn't a good defender based on team performance (that he doesn't have the accolades of other 70s centers might hurt too, though Gilmore did okay with "just" ABA accolades); Carter peaked early then slid including a rotten final partial season in Toronto; Hayes's metrics suggest he was never an elite player and there are intangiable concerns, Wilkins has issues with regard to defense and playoff performance and Rodman and Wallace were mostly impotent as scorers.

Hayes rarely measures out as a top 10 yearly player by any metric, and that's without factoring in ABA competition. Rodman was only twice so much as an all-star.

Point is, it's easy to say "x doesn't seem top 60", tell us why the field (and in particular your chosen candidate) is better.


Wilkins. Or it looks like you're talking about Lenny. We can probably infer from context but still.

On the stats point would you care to expound. Because otherwise I suspect few will find that persuasive.

On short peaks, this naturally varies according to participants own preferences. With regard to King, I guess that would depend how you define “best scorer”. In his truncated ’85 he’s close to the top for non-Jordan points per 100 possessions, though ’82 Gervin ranks higher (http://bkref.com/tiny/XYKu3). If this is meant as an advocacy for King though I’d note three concerns that might "drop" him relative to his peak (and peak stats)

1) Longevity of peak/prime: By the metrics ’84 and ’85 look like clear outliers, which mean the value he adds over his career low for a player with such a peak.

2) Defense: Hard to get a good read on it, but not generally considered great (if you go by team level stuff and DWS definitely concerning).

3) Utah: Both in and of itself as a risk to a franchise and as a microcosm or example of personal/personality issues that meant he got traded cheaply over his career. Both on court, off court and in court. For the damage it does to the franchise and potentially, for some, because of personal distaste (cf: http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2013/04/ ... of-a-king/ ).

Who said anything about Billups "battling Wilt chamberlain and Bird"?

Lol you say some pretty off the wall stuff my dude. As for Billups not belonging here, i already presented my case for Ai in the previous threads.

As for the PER thing yeah i use that somewhat in my analysis but it is certainly not a be all end all criteria to rank a player. Win shares or win shares per 48 are 2 stats that i do not use at all so i won't be convinced by such a metric.

The point, which is clear in the context of my post is that whilst it is accurate enough to believe that

i don't think top 60 is an appropriate range

nobody [else] whatsoever had suggested 1-60 as the range. It then goes on to suggest a possible range. Top 60 is one through sixty and said range unnecessarily implies/invites comparison with guys who are top tier. That's not the the competition. I'm not voting Billups yet (probably sticking with Lanier, might float a Marion or Nance balloon to see if low mistake, across the board contributors, with perhaps surprisingly good metrics get any traction), but as I said saying "not top 60" is way too easy and doesn't really add anything substantial, especially when as noted the criticism is dubious as well as arbitrary (top 10) and arguably applicable to many other candidates.

I understood what you meant, i just still don't understand why ít was said. If i say Billups is not top 60 then that obviously means i think that 61 or lower is the highest he could reaosnably go, therefore i don't think he should be mentioned yet.

Basketballefan wrote:Win shares or win shares per 48 are 2 stats that i do not use at all so i won't be convinced by such a metric.

Basketballefan wrote:I never thought Billups played at a top 10 level in the league. Its really that simple. And it's all subjective anyways so as far as evidence i'm not sure what you are asking for. But besides that i'm not going to waste time doing research on billups when i'm not even considering him for this spot.

Don't hold too stubbornly to pre-established notions (in life in general, not just this project). And especially wrt things for which there actually IS a lot of objective data to formulate opinion around (like what we discuss in this forum), I'd especially caution against being too steadfast in your opinions when you cannot justify them other than by saying, "I just think so."

"Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in."
--Isaac Asimov

"The most fatal illusion is the settled point of view. Since life is growth and motion, a fixed point of view kills anybody who has one."
--Brooks Atkinson

Basketballefan wrote:I understood what you meant, i just still don't understand why ít was said. If i say Billups is not top 60 then that obviously means i think that 61 or lower is the highest he could reaosnably go, therefore i don't think he should be mentioned yet.

Right, but in specifically saying "top 60," whether or not that is your intention, you create certain implications linguistically, which is what Owly noted, and why your response to his specific comments was out of place. That's why this sub-conversation has played out this way.

We should, however, swerve back on topic. You don't think Billups was ever a top-10 player; this is a highly debatable point, both for its veracity and its relevance to voting criteria, but it is your subjective criterion. Others have made their points showing that there is plenty of evidence supporting the opposite opinion (e.g. that he WAS a top-10 player), and what you do with that is your own business. You seem to be retreating from the possibility that your point can be overturned.

That said, we are considering many candidates at this time, and several of them have pretty strong cases over Billups anyway. A guy like Lanier or McAdoo, for example, doesn't have the ring, Finals appearances or Finals MVP, but McAdoo has a league MVP and some serious early-prime production. Lanier has what Owly has been outlining for several spots now. There are others to consider, like Bernard King (who will get my vote in the near future), or other PGs like Tim Hardaway, etc.

I think a lot of the reticence towards Billups comes from a overly skewed perspective leaning towards dominant volume scoring, of which little really remains of those yet to have their number called for the list. The Pistons were not a conventionally-constructed title squad, and had no obvious superstar on the offensive end. Instead, they had Chauncey orchestrating everything with an inefficient off-ball shooter who gamed for 2pt looks before eventually developing over a brief peak (Rip), Sheed (a low-volume stretch 4), and then Tay, with Big Ben contributing passing and offensive rebounding. It was an ensemble cast, and it wouldn't have worked without Chauncey's game management, which is something he translated well enough to Denver and New York, and even super late into his career when he became a member of the Clippers. They were 14-6 when he played in 2012 (a 40-win season under VDN during the 66-game lockout). Obviously, Paul and Blake and so forth were a big part of the team's success, but 40 wins was .606 and they were .700 with him in the lineup. 2013, 16-6 with him (.727) and 56 wins on the season (.683).

You're talking about a player who was extremely talented, even if he didn't smash the box score with big volume numbers.

From his first season in Detroit through his first season with the Clippers (03-12, 705 games):

Per Game: 17.3 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 6.1 apg, 39.9% 3P on 4.9 3PA/g, 89.9% FT on 5.8 FTA/g against 12.0 FGA/g

7 straight seasons at or over 120 ORTG (a pair at 127, which led the league once), never under 112 (and that was 03-04). 59.4% TS. 33.6 VORP (90.72 WORP).

This guy isn't insignificant just because he was part of a slower squad that moved the ball around and because he didn't dominate shooting volume. He was exceptionally good, and sure enough in Denver, he scaled up his volume without any significant issue as well, playing alongside Melo far more effectively than did Iverson.

At this stage in the project, when most of the healthy-ish franchise player-types have already gone, he's very much earned consideration. Gotta keep him in mind when we talk about all sorts of players. Like Squid, for example, who still isn't in.

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!