RealGM

penbeast0 wrote:Worthy wins, gotta run, anyone who wants to can post the next thread and I'll sticky it and stuff when I get home.

Main choice for me is between Marion and Brand. But I'll keep looking at it.

PG: Tony Parker and Mookie Blaylock are the two I'm looking at. Parker for how much he contributed to the greatest run of this century so far; Blaylock for his defense and 3 point shooting (a skill much underestimated in his day)

Forwards: Marques Johnson and Chris Mullin would be the main scorers; maybe Carmelo Anthony though between his season of discontent in Denver and his playoff numbers, I'd have to be persuaded.

Defensive stars: Bobby Jones, Shawn Marion, possibly Rasheed Wallace. None of them stepped up bigtime in the playoffs; Jones is the best defender, most efficient, and coaches' favorite, Marion the rebounder, Rasheed the more unique 3 and D big.


Bigs: Mel Daniels has 2 MVPs and 3 rings, albeit in a weaker league; similarly Neil Johnston has the best raw numbers in an even weaker league than Daniels. Amare Stoudamire and Jerry Lucas bring great numbers but defensive questions (Johnston is defensively questionable too); Ben Wallace is the best defender; Bill Walton has the highest peak (though that's it for true career value -- 1 year and 1 year as a reserve role player).

There are a lot of other good players but as we are into the last quarter, that's my short list.

Vote Bobby Jones for his versatility, willingness to sacrifice glory for team, and just being the epitome of what basketball should be about. If it's about winning rather than stats, Jones is your poster boy.

Vote: Ben Wallace

He lead a top-tier defense every year between 2001 and 2007. Unique combination of pick-n-roll coverage, shot-blocking, defensive rebounding, steals, and low fouls. The dude was truly a dominant defensive force.

He has a few decent offensive seasons as well if you value his activity on the offensive glass, actual offensive rebounds, solid passing, and solid field goal percentage (albeit on low volume). I mean, Detroit had a top-5 offense in 2006 with Big Ben starting 82 games. He had a respectable 112 individual ORTG + elite motor on the offensive glass which means you basically had to faceguard him to keep him from creating extra possessions. 1.9 assists per game, too. He was pretty good passing after, say, Rip Hamilton came off Wallace's screen, received the ball, quickly dumped it to Wallace, and then Wallace could read whether to pass back to Rip or to a cutter coming down the lane after the defense has committed to stop Wallace's roll.

My vote goes to Ben Wallace.

I said last thread I'd vote for him now if Worthy won, and he did. I'm also glad I'm not the 1st guy voting for Wallace here.

Accodales:
- 4 time all-star;
- 4 times defensive player of the year;
- 5 times 1st defensive team;
- 1 time in the 2nd defensive team;
- 3 times All-NBA 2nd team;
- 2 times All-NBA 3rd team;
- Top 10 in MVP votes 3 times in his career.

Stats:
- Lead the league in RPG twice (lead twice on total offensive boards and once on total defensive boards);
- 5 times top 3 in RPG;
- Top 10 in steals twice;
- Lead the league once in BPG;
- Top ten in BPG in 7 seasons;
- Lead the league in DRTG 3 times;
- Lead the league in defensive win shares 4 times.

4 times DPOY is the most in the NBA, so that alone should be a key factor for Ben Wallace.
His impact was tremendous and he was part of a great Pistons team that achieved two NBA finals and beat the Lakers in 04 (4-1). While he was the last option in the starting 5 on offense, Ben Wallace did have a case for NBA finals MVP too in 04. How incredible is that?

He's also one of those player you could count on in playoff time. His stats look even more impressive. If that was a boost for Worthy, it should be a boost too for Ben Wallace.

Why for example would someone chose Big Ben over Rasheed Wallace, if the latter is much superior on offense and has better longevity?!

RebelWithACause wrote:Why for example would someone chose Big Ben over Rasheed Wallace, if the latter is much superior on offense and has better longevity?!

Fair points, but I think that many people just like Ben's super elite (top 10 all-time) defense and rebounding, more than Sheed's "just" very good (sometimes even elite, but not elite in the all-time sense, like Ben) defense, good scoring/spacing, but below average rebounding and unimpressive passing.

As far as longevity, Sheed is better, but not by much (105.1 to 93.5 career regular season WS, and Ben's career VORP is higher - 45.3 to 35.7)

Honestly, I wouldn't take Rasheed over Elton Brand, as far as 2000s power forwards.

I'm not a fan of Chris Webber (I mean, I really enjoyed watching him, but I'm not really high on his impact), but I would seriously consider taking him over Sheed, too.
Bobby Jones and Horace Grant vs Sheed is a very interesting comparison, too (Sheed was definitely a more capable scorer than these two guys, in terms of volume and versatility, but I'm not sure if he really has any other advantage).


I'll likely vote for Big Ben here, too. Not as high on Bosh as I used to be, and he was previously my top candidate after Worthy, but right now, I see Ben as a better candidate.

Owly wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:
I do think Bobby Jones could have had a bigger role (that is: play more minutes) for lesser teams, though probably the degree to which he can take on a larger role is not equal to the increase potential we see from Worthy.

Look at the Nuggets 1978 playoffs, who is Bo Ellis and why is he getting any minutes at power forward? LaGarde and Ellis back up Issel but one of Ellis or Issel is getting minutes at power forward. I understand that Hillman had some talent. Anthony Roberts is playing 31 minutes per game at SF. Bobby Jones is playing 30 minutes a game at pF and SF.

Why did Bobby Jones only play 30 minutes per game in the 1978 playoffs?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DEN/1978.html

At what might have been Jone's peak in 1976-77 it is more understandable that Jones is only playing minutes per game in the playoffs because Marvin Webster and Paul Silas are on that team. With the 76ers the team had a deep front court.

Jones appears to be a guy a coach would want to play more minutes but there might be some reason to not play Jones more minutes. Maybe Jones played an exhausting style of basketball.

I've tended to operate on the assumption that it was his medical conditions (asthma, heart condition, epilepsy) that led to the minutes limitation, though I don't know that that's been explicitly stated anywhere.

Wow, I must admit I wasn't even aware of these health problems. This is a bit of a concern, if the minutes things isn't situational (i.e. he can't take on bigger minutes/bigger role in different circumstances, and can't be a bigger presence in the playoffs).

Guys I'm am highest on for this spot are Tony Parker and Chris Webber (for reasons touched on previously--->see spoilers below), followed closely by Dan Issel. Since he (Issel) was recently brought up, have been meaning to do a post something about him, and will try to do so before end of the day. Will officially place vote later when I can see which way the wind is blowing.

Tony Parker:


Chris Webber:

Although Chris Webber is often criticized for maturity issues during his pre-Sacto years, poor durability, falling in love with his elbow jumper and avoiding contact, he was still a legit MVP candidate, a very talented player with a versatile offensive skill-set and a solid/underrated defender. I think Webber's peak, prime and overall skill-set are enough to make him one of the top 70-75 candidates, and his issues at this point in the project don't look so bad since all the remaining candidates have significant weaknesses.

94 ROY
5x All-NBA (1x 1st, 3x 2nd, 1x 3rd)
5x All-Star
5x Top 10 in MVP voting

10 Year Prime (94-03):
22.1 PER, .526 TS%, 14.7 TRB%, 20.4 AST%, 72.3 WS, .152 WS/48, 106 ORtg, 100 DRtg

10 Year Prime (94-03) Per 100:
29.2 PTS, 13.5 TRB, 5.8 AST, 2 STL, 2.2 BLK, 3.9 TOV

GOAT level passing big:

Webber was capable of making all the passes and you could run the offense through him without missing a beat. His 20.2 career AST% is exceptional for a big. The only other PF/C with a career AST% >= 20 is Alvan Adams.

One of only 10 players with 17,000 PTS, 8000 REB, 3500 AST and a career PER above 20:


The other 9 players with at least 17,000 PTS, 8000 REB, 3500 AST and a career PER >=20 are Kareem, Wilt, Karl Malone, Duncan, KG, Dr J, Barkley, Bird and Baylor. Webber obviously doesn't belong in the same class as any of these legends, but I think it at least shows how talented and skilled he was.

Vote: Chris Webber

Vote: Bobby Jones
I have decided to ignore me not remembering Bobby Jones as great and to ignore Bobby Jones playing less minutes per game than great players usually play and vote for Bobby Jones.

Jones has plus minus stats that make him look like the best player on a per minute basis on many of his team's including some extremely good 76ers teams. Jones was coming off the bench and that might have helped his stats at a time when the 76ers bench players were much better than the other teams bench players.

Jones has the coaches voting him on to all defensive teams year after year. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the coaches selecting the all defensive teams during all of Jones's years.

I don't remember Jones being great. I remember him being very good. I am deferring to the stats and coaches on this vote.

Getting on so many all defensive teams is hard to do.

Vote: Bobby Jones

Y'all know my thinking here. I think he's one of those guys who with every ounce of his play he's able to push his team forward. He doesn't have as many "ounces" as quite a few others, but at this stage in the game there are no "whole" candidates. Everyone has weaknesses, and I'll take Jones' weaknesses over the other options.

Quotatious wrote:Fair points, but I think that many people just like Ben's super elite (top 10 all-time) defense and rebounding, more than Sheed's "just" very good (sometimes even elite, but not elite in the all-time sense, like Ben) defense, good scoring/spacing, but below average rebounding and unimpressive passing.

How can you justify this as someone who looks at overall impact?! Sheed has 5 seasons clearly better than Wallace when you look at RAPM scores, which I know you do. Sheed cracks the +3.5 value in 11 seasons, Ben in 6 seasons.
Defensively Big Ben was better, yet was Wallace elite here as well or very good as you said.
Sheeds offense+defense are superior to Bens defense and has greater longevity by a decent amount, easy as that.

I also do not get why you reference BPM and VORP that much, if those are really basic stats and not look closer into more granular +/- stuff-

Usually you are a poster with great insight, however I feel like pointing out those inconsistencies in your approach when it comes to analyzing players.

A word on Dan Issel.....
Seems more than appropriate that we be discussing him by this point, given for instance his place on the all-time leaderboard in WS (which RSCD3_ had presented previously):

RSCD3_ wrote:I'm going to post the best remaining candidates by win shares

22. Dan Issel 157.82
35. Walt Bellamy 130.05
40. Shawn Marion 124.40
42. Chauncey Billups 120.78
44. Buck Williams 120.09
46. Horace Grant 118.23
47. Dominque Wilkins 117.47
48. Chet Walker 117.35
49. Bob Lanier 117.11
53. Bailey Howell 114.82
56. Jack Sikma

Can anyone give me a short run down of the bolded guys and what made then great and what would limit them now

Although not terribly similar in how they got things done, I see Issel somewhat like a “poor man’s Amar’e Stoudemire”, but with MUCH better longevity and durability (and not too “poor” either, fwiw). I used the Stoudemire comparison because they were both PF/C’s known for efficient volume scoring with not so special defense. Stat’s without a doubt better as a pure scorer (he’s just a FAR superior finisher), but has worse passing and ball control, which brings their overall offensive value a little closer. I still def give the edge to Amar’e offensively, I just don’t think it’s terribly wide gap.
Pretty similar as defenders, small edge to Amar’e as a rebounder. So…..poor man’s Stoudemire, but with far and away better longevity/durability: he played literally twice as many prime-level games as Stoudemire. He played 15 total seasons missing a grand total of only 24 games in that span (by comparison, Stoudemire has missed >24 games in a single season FOUR different years).

For that reason, wherever one ranks Stoudemire on his ATL, imo Issel belongs anywhere from 5-20 places higher, depending on just how much you value longevity (me? I value it a fair bit).


As to HOW Issel got things done (as mentioned: he wasn’t the explosive ultra-elite finisher that Amar’e was), I’ll give my impressions from what I’ve seen of him….

Physically, he doesn’t look particularly impressive (by NBA standards): kinda like a slightly stockier version of Larry Bird. Perhaps some other physical similarities to Bird (other than the white skin): he can run the floor OK, but certainly not “fast” by NBA standards even for a big (a bit slower than Bird, even); he doesn’t have a quick first step, he’s not exceptionally strong, and he’s not much of a leaper.

And in spite of all this, he was able to score at a rate and efficiency somewhat beyond what one might reasonably expect, given those physical attributes.

From what I’ve seen, a lot of that scoring came in the low-post. And actually, while I’m on the Bird-comparison, Issel’s low-post game reminds me a bit of Larry Bird’s: both guys were fantastic at using their lower bodies to clear space, and both tend to act very quickly and decisively once the ball is in their hands. With Issel, after catching the entry pass, he’d often immediately go up to put one off the glass, generally leaning INTO the defender (who has barely had a chance to get his feet set)---not shy at all about contact, and had a pretty nice foul-draw rate; 79.3% career FT-shooter, too. He’d sometimes, while making these quick moves, subtly position his torso in such a way as to shield his defender from being able to effectively bat at the ball.
This is all pretty basic, non-flashy low post stuff, like that which might be coached to a high-school big; but it’s still very effective even at the professional level, if done well (and Issel did it well). Had nice hands and nice touch around the rim, too, fwiw.

Issel was, in general so far as I can tell, pretty consistently decisive with the ball. Aside from the low-post tendencies mentioned above, if he caught the ball 16 ft from the hoop and was open, the shot’s going up (pretty good mid-range shooter, btw). When he did decide to put it on the floor, it was usually something quick, non-flashy, and to-the-point. For instance, he’d maybe catch a pass 17 ft from the hoop, immediately make like he’s going to shoot, getting his defender to bite just a little, then put it on the floor----just one, maybe two dribbles---on the quickest path to the hoop.
With Issel, there just wasn’t a lot of standing around making multiple shot/pass/jab-step fakes, slow back-down dribbles in the post, or bringing the ball low and doing lots of pump-fakes, etc. He really just didn’t do those things that---while they might be effective for some other players---allow the defense time to get their feet set and start anticipating.

I recall that from Bird’s game, too. I think that tendency toward quick and decisive action was part of what made both of these guys so effectively offensively, despite some physical short-comings. Bird also had a whole myriad of offensive talents that Issel didn’t, but I digress….

But that’s largely what I saw from Issel on offense. A quick (3-4 minute) but decent look at his offensive game can be seen here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMmJNJLWcg[/youtube]
Couple glimpses of Bobby Jones in there, too, fwiw.

At any rate, I think Issel has a pretty hefty chunk of career value to brag about (as evidenced by his standing in WS, perhaps), and I could happily get behind him for this spot if others had the will. I likely will be casting first ballots for him before long.

With Worthy in, it's wide open again for me. My top candidates from my "pre"-list appear to be Neil Johnson, Bill Walton, Joe Dumars, Ben Wallace, and Maurice Cheeks. Only one of these guys is getting any buzz at the moment. Will think about this a bit.

trex_8063 wrote:A word on Dan Issel.....
Seems more than appropriate that we be discussing him by this point, given for instance his place on the all-time leaderboard in WS (which RSCD3_ had presented previously):

Spoiler:

RSCD3_ wrote:I'm going to post the best remaining candidates by win shares

22. Dan Issel 157.82
35. Walt Bellamy 130.05
40. Shawn Marion 124.40
42. Chauncey Billups 120.78
44. Buck Williams 120.09
46. Horace Grant 118.23
47. Dominque Wilkins 117.47
48. Chet Walker 117.35
49. Bob Lanier 117.11
53. Bailey Howell 114.82
56. Jack Sikma

Can anyone give me a short run down of the bolded guys and what made then great and what would limit them now

Although not terribly similar in how they got things done, I see Issel somewhat like a “poor man’s Amar’e Stoudemire”, but with MUCH better longevity and durability (and not too “poor” either, fwiw). I used the Stoudemire comparison because they were both PF/C’s known for efficient volume scoring with not so special defense. Stat’s without a doubt better as a pure scorer (he’s just a FAR superior finisher), but has worse passing and ball control, which brings their overall offensive value a little closer. I still def give the edge to Amar’e offensively, I just don’t think it’s terribly wide gap.
Pretty similar as defenders, small edge to Amar’e as a rebounder. So…..poor man’s Stoudemire, but with far and away better longevity/durability: he played literally twice as many prime-level games as Stoudemire. He played 15 total seasons missing a grand total of only 24 games in that span (by comparison, Stoudemire has missed >24 games in a single season FOUR different years).

For that reason, wherever one ranks Stoudemire on his ATL, imo Issel belongs anywhere from 5-20 places higher, depending on just how much you value longevity (me? I value it a fair bit).


As to HOW Issel got things done (as mentioned: he wasn’t the explosive ultra-elite finisher that Amar’e was), I’ll give my impressions from what I’ve seen of him….

Physically, he doesn’t look particularly impressive (by NBA standards): kinda like a slightly stockier version of Larry Bird. Perhaps some other physical similarities to Bird (other than the white skin): he can run the floor OK, but certainly not “fast” by NBA standards even for a big (a bit slower than Bird, even); he doesn’t have a quick first step, he’s not exceptionally strong, and he’s not much of a leaper.

And in spite of all this, he was able to score at a rate and efficiency somewhat beyond what one might reasonably expect, given those physical attributes.

From what I’ve seen, a lot of that scoring came in the low-post. And actually, while I’m on the Bird-comparison, Issel’s low-post game reminds me a bit of Larry Bird’s: both guys were fantastic at using their lower bodies to clear space, and both tend to act very quickly and decisively once the ball is in their hands. With Issel, after catching the entry pass, he’d often immediately go up to put one off the glass, generally leaning INTO the defender (who has barely had a chance to get his feet set)---not shy at all about contact, and had a pretty nice foul-draw rate; 79.3% career FT-shooter, too. He’d sometimes, while making these quick moves, subtly position his torso in such a way as to shield his defender from being able to effectively bat at the ball.
This is all pretty basic, non-flashy low post stuff, like that which might be coached to a high-school big; but it’s still very effective even at the professional level, if done well (and Issel did it well). Had nice hands and nice touch around the rim, too, fwiw.

Issel was, in general so far as I can tell, pretty consistently decisive with the ball. Aside from the low-post tendencies mentioned above, if he caught the ball 16 ft from the hoop and was open, the shot’s going up (pretty good mid-range shooter, btw). When he did decide to put it on the floor, it was usually something quick, non-flashy, and to-the-point. For instance, he’d maybe catch a pass 17 ft from the hoop, immediately make like he’s going to shoot, getting his defender to bite just a little, then put it on the floor----just one, maybe two dribbles---on the quickest path to the hoop.
With Issel, there just wasn’t a lot of standing around making multiple shot/pass/jab-step fakes, slow back-down dribbles in the post, or bringing the ball low and doing lots of pump-fakes, etc. He really just didn’t do those things that---while they might be effective for some other players---allow the defense time to get their feet set and start anticipating.

I recall that from Bird’s game, too. I think that tendency toward quick and decisive action was part of what made both of these guys so effectively offensively, despite some physical short-comings. Bird also had a whole myriad of offensive talents that Issel didn’t, but I digress….

But that’s largely what I saw from Issel on offense. A quick (3-4 minute) but decent look at his offensive game can be seen here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMmJNJLWcg[/youtube]
Couple glimpses of Bobby Jones in there, too, fwiw.

At any rate, I think Issel has a pretty hefty chunk of career value to brag about (as evidenced by his standing in WS, perhaps), and I could happily get behind him for this spot if others had the will. I likely will be casting first ballots for him before long.

That decisiveness is typical of a Doug Moe team. He had a rule that he drilled in to his players. You have 3 seconds to either attack the basket, get off a shot, or pass the ball; if you screwed around dribbling the ball sideways looking for an opening, you were benched (ask Mike Evans). One reason his teams were so high scoring; no Rob Strickland or Anthony Mason pounding the ball in place for half the shot clock.

As for fancy technique, Issel once described his game as "a jump shot and a 5th grade head fake" but guys still fell for it time after time.

Moonbeam wrote:With Worthy in, it's wide open again for me. My top candidates from my "pre"-list appear to be Neil Johnson, Bill Walton, Joe Dumars, Ben Wallace, and Maurice Cheeks. Only one of these guys is getting any buzz at the moment. Will think about this a bit.

No Tony Parker?

I think I need to get a vote in before the deadline, so I'm going to go ahead and vote Chris Webber. Reasons given in prior post (at some point I'm intending to do something a little more in depth.....been a week full of "real life", though).

penbeast0 wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:A word on Dan Issel.....
Seems more than appropriate that we be discussing him by this point, given for instance his place on the all-time leaderboard in WS (which RSCD3_ had presented previously):

Spoiler:

RSCD3_ wrote:I'm going to post the best remaining candidates by win shares

22. Dan Issel 157.82
35. Walt Bellamy 130.05
40. Shawn Marion 124.40
42. Chauncey Billups 120.78
44. Buck Williams 120.09
46. Horace Grant 118.23
47. Dominque Wilkins 117.47
48. Chet Walker 117.35
49. Bob Lanier 117.11
53. Bailey Howell 114.82
56. Jack Sikma

Can anyone give me a short run down of the bolded guys and what made then great and what would limit them now

Although not terribly similar in how they got things done, I see Issel somewhat like a “poor man’s Amar’e Stoudemire”, but with MUCH better longevity and durability (and not too “poor” either, fwiw). I used the Stoudemire comparison because they were both PF/C’s known for efficient volume scoring with not so special defense. Stat’s without a doubt better as a pure scorer (he’s just a FAR superior finisher), but has worse passing and ball control, which brings their overall offensive value a little closer. I still def give the edge to Amar’e offensively, I just don’t think it’s terribly wide gap.
Pretty similar as defenders, small edge to Amar’e as a rebounder. So…..poor man’s Stoudemire, but with far and away better longevity/durability: he played literally twice as many prime-level games as Stoudemire. He played 15 total seasons missing a grand total of only 24 games in that span (by comparison, Stoudemire has missed >24 games in a single season FOUR different years).

For that reason, wherever one ranks Stoudemire on his ATL, imo Issel belongs anywhere from 5-20 places higher, depending on just how much you value longevity (me? I value it a fair bit).


As to HOW Issel got things done (as mentioned: he wasn’t the explosive ultra-elite finisher that Amar’e was), I’ll give my impressions from what I’ve seen of him….

Physically, he doesn’t look particularly impressive (by NBA standards): kinda like a slightly stockier version of Larry Bird. Perhaps some other physical similarities to Bird (other than the white skin): he can run the floor OK, but certainly not “fast” by NBA standards even for a big (a bit slower than Bird, even); he doesn’t have a quick first step, he’s not exceptionally strong, and he’s not much of a leaper.

And in spite of all this, he was able to score at a rate and efficiency somewhat beyond what one might reasonably expect, given those physical attributes.

From what I’ve seen, a lot of that scoring came in the low-post. And actually, while I’m on the Bird-comparison, Issel’s low-post game reminds me a bit of Larry Bird’s: both guys were fantastic at using their lower bodies to clear space, and both tend to act very quickly and decisively once the ball is in their hands. With Issel, after catching the entry pass, he’d often immediately go up to put one off the glass, generally leaning INTO the defender (who has barely had a chance to get his feet set)---not shy at all about contact, and had a pretty nice foul-draw rate; 79.3% career FT-shooter, too. He’d sometimes, while making these quick moves, subtly position his torso in such a way as to shield his defender from being able to effectively bat at the ball.
This is all pretty basic, non-flashy low post stuff, like that which might be coached to a high-school big; but it’s still very effective even at the professional level, if done well (and Issel did it well). Had nice hands and nice touch around the rim, too, fwiw.

Issel was, in general so far as I can tell, pretty consistently decisive with the ball. Aside from the low-post tendencies mentioned above, if he caught the ball 16 ft from the hoop and was open, the shot’s going up (pretty good mid-range shooter, btw). When he did decide to put it on the floor, it was usually something quick, non-flashy, and to-the-point. For instance, he’d maybe catch a pass 17 ft from the hoop, immediately make like he’s going to shoot, getting his defender to bite just a little, then put it on the floor----just one, maybe two dribbles---on the quickest path to the hoop.
With Issel, there just wasn’t a lot of standing around making multiple shot/pass/jab-step fakes, slow back-down dribbles in the post, or bringing the ball low and doing lots of pump-fakes, etc. He really just didn’t do those things that---while they might be effective for some other players---allow the defense time to get their feet set and start anticipating.

I recall that from Bird’s game, too. I think that tendency toward quick and decisive action was part of what made both of these guys so effectively offensively, despite some physical short-comings. Bird also had a whole myriad of offensive talents that Issel didn’t, but I digress….

But that’s largely what I saw from Issel on offense. A quick (3-4 minute) but decent look at his offensive game can be seen here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMmJNJLWcg[/youtube]
Couple glimpses of Bobby Jones in there, too, fwiw.

At any rate, I think Issel has a pretty hefty chunk of career value to brag about (as evidenced by his standing in WS, perhaps), and I could happily get behind him for this spot if others had the will. I likely will be casting first ballots for him before long.

That decisiveness is typical of a Doug Moe team. He had a rule that he drilled in to his players. You have 3 seconds to either attack the basket, get off a shot, or pass the ball; if you screwed around dribbling the ball sideways looking for an opening, you were benched (ask Mike Evans). One reason his teams were so high scoring; no Rob Strickland or Anthony Mason pounding the ball in place for half the shot clock.

That may be true, but I don't think we can give Moe credit for this playing style seen in Issel. I got basically the exact same impression of Issel's offensive style from the footage I've watched of him from his years with the Kentucky Colonels (pre-Doug Moe). And in fact (I just checked because I couldn't remember when Moe took control) the video clip I posted above is pre-Doug Moe, too (it's from '78.....Doug Moe wouldn't become coach of the Nuggets until '81).

Cool, thanks. I always liked Issel although I always thought he was overmatched at center. He had one of my favorite basketball quotes too . . . they asked him if he was one of the players that liked to take the clutch shot and he answered, "Yes, I like to take ALL the shots."

vote: Elton Brand

He has the highest EWA- Wins Above Good apart from Johnston (whose era is an issue, and it's just hard to accurately place him with limitations on information about his D and what was going on on the poor performing teams). Ranks highly amongst those left in WS - WAG too.

Compares favourably with Webber by the numbers, his rate of productivity by the numbers is roughly even (personally, I'd say Brand's is better, but BPM likes Webber so ...), and Brand takes an advantage because of (a) roughly 4000 extra minutes, and (b) Webber is over-credited on D because his boxscore is better than he was, and (by some measures) because he played on good teams in his prime (where Brand is punished for landing in post Jordan Chicago, then the Clippers). Webber is more skilled (most notably in his passing), but takes worse shots, gets to the line less and can't (and won't) bang and defend as well. Webber can support a higher usage burden, but do you want him to (and would he be willing to try to do less)? Brand is also less of a PR liability.