RealGM

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:49 pm**

PG: Mo Cheeks, Tim Hardaway, Mark Price, and maybe Mookie Blaylock are the players I'm looking at . . . maybe Penny Hardaway though he never impressed me as much as he did the TV guys of 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. Billy Cunningham, Bob Dandridge, Chet Walker, and Mitch Richmond also come to mind.

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); Bill Walton has the highest peak (though that's it for true career value -- 1 year then failed to stay healthy to the playoffs the next and 1 year as a reserve role player). Rasheed Wallace got support earlier though I've never been a fan of his.

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

Chris Mullin v. Marques Johnson; Mel Daniels v. Neil Johnston; Tony Parker v. Tim Hardaway v. Mark Price, Mo Cheeks v. Mookie Blaylock; Jerry Lucas v. Chris Webber; those are the other comps I am looking at and would love feedback on.

By the boxscore numbers I go for Jerry Lucas or Chris Mullin. By the eye test I go for Mel Daniels or Marques Johnson.

VOTE Mel Daniels. Not as impressive statistically as Marques Johnson (or Jerry Lucas/Chris Webber) but has a strong defensive impact (more of a Moses Malone/Wes Unseld type as he wasn't a great shotblocker), excellent rebounding, good if not great offense, and came across similarly to Alonzo Mourning when you watched him as just a pure warrior type.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:36 am**

VOTE: CHRIS WEBBER

Although he's often criticized for maturity issues during his pre-Sacto years, poor durability, falling in love with his elbow jumper and avoiding contact, Webber was still a legit MVP candidate, one of the most talented and physically gifted PFs in NBA history, a versatile offensive big with a diverse skill-set and a solid/severely underrated defender.

IMO, Webber's great extended peak, prime, overall skill-set and decent longevity are enough to make him one of the top 70-75 candidates, and his issues don't look so damning since we're at point in the project where all the remaining candidates have significant weaknesses.

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

Webber started off with a great rookie campaign in 94 with the Warriors, and was already the best player on a playoff team (50-32) that included Sprewell, Billy Owens, Chris Gatling, Avery Johnson and a limited post prime Mullin.

94 ROY:
26.5 PTS, 13.8 REB, 5.4 AST, 5.1 BLK+STL Per 100; 21.7 PER, 55.9 TS%, 7.8 WS, .154 WS/48, 110 ORtg, 104 DRtg

I'm starting to think peak Webber is generally underrated. Extended peak (00-02) C-Webb did a bit of everything and was the centerpiece of some great/very good Kings teams.

Extended Peak (00-02):
32.3 PTS, 13.5 REB, 5.7 AST, 4.0 BLK+STL, 3.6 TOV Per 100

24.1 PER, 52.7 TS%, 14.1 REB%, 21.1 AST%, 10.6 TOV%, 30.4 WS, ,187 WS48, 107 ORtg, 98 DRtg

10 Year Prime (94-03):
29.2 PTS, 13.5 REB, 5.8 AST, 4.4 BLK+STL, 3.9 TOV Per 100

22.1 PER, .526 TS%, 14.7 TRB%, 20.4 AST%, 12.4 TOV%, 72.3 WS, .152 WS/48, 106 ORtg, 100 DRtg

Exceptional Passer for PF/C

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.

Some examples of Webber's all-time great passing ability in SAC and DET:

Spoiler:

These types of passes were fairly routine for Webber throughout his career.

One of only 10 players with 17,000 PTS, 8,000 REB, 3500 AST and a career PER above 20

The other 9 players with at least 17000 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.

I'll conclude this post with a video showing what peak Webber was capable of.

51 PTS, 26 REB, 5 AST, 3 ST, 2 BLK against IND and Jermaine O'Neal in 01:

Spoiler:

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:03 am**

Vote: Chris Webber

1. Despite being on loaded SAC teams, Webber was inefficient. Still, he scored a lot of points per game.

2. Webber also averaged a lot of rebounds, though he wasn't renowned for dominating the glass. He shied away from contact and was often beaten for position.

3. Was part of excellent defensive teams in SAC, though they barely seemed to miss him when he got injured.

4. Put up empty stats in Philly, but still, 20-10 is great.

5. Injured a lot, but when he played, he was pretty good.

6. One of the most talented PFs ever. Great eye-test player. Didn't materialize in the same on-court impact, but it looked great.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:56 am**

Chris Webber is.......

*1 of only 5 players to ever average more than 20 pts, 10 reb, and 5 ast in the same season for a team that won 55+ games. The others are Wilt, Legend, Barkley, Baylor (3 of the other 4 are top 20 all-time players, the other is a top 35 guy--->and he's obviously only qualifying due to pace-inflated numbers).

**1 of only 8 players to ever average more than 24 pts, 10 reb, 4.5 ast on >/= 54.0% ts in the same season, for a team that won 55+ games. The others are Wilt, Kareem, Larry, Garnett, Barkley, Baylor, DRob (6 of the other 7 are top 20 guys, the other top 35).

***1 of 5 players to ever average more than 25 pts, 11 reb, and 4 ast in the same season for a team that won 55+ games. The others are Wilt, Kareem, Larry, Barkley (all top 20 players).

****1 of only 4 players to---within the same season---A) average >10 reb, B) >4.5 ast, C) >1.4 blk, while D) also qualifying for the steals leaderboard and E) also shooting >/= 53.0% ts.....all for a team that won 55+ games. The others are Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Kevin Garnett, and David Robinson (all consensus top 20 guys).

Webber is not an ideal #1, and I don't know how willingly he'd take on a #2 role. But he's a very versatile offensive skill-set, and based on the above I would say one could certainly do worse for a #1 option.

And where Webber's defense is concerned, I feel his short-comings (such as they were) get overstated on this forum. To hear many talk about it, it seems like he's getting pigeon-holed defensively with guys like David Lee, Amar'e Stoudemire, and Carlos Boozer......which I don't think is at all fair. Here are his dRAPM's by year (PI, except where indicated by *):

'97*: +1.62
'98: +2.04
'99: +2.00
'00: +0.23
'01*: +2.2
'02: +1.1
'03: +0.5
'04*: +0.9
'05*: -0.4

Really, that's pretty overwhelmingly positive.

His combined RAPM data looks better than that of Pau Gasol (voted in at #53), and is pretty similar in quality to the likes of Tony Parker (#81), and Kevin Durant (#36).

Additionally, I wanted to look into a statement saying that the Kings didn't miss a beat when Webber was injured. So here's what I found....

Spoiler:

Vote: Chris Webber.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:18 am**

ronnymac2 wrote:Vote: Chris Webber

1. Despite being on loaded SAC teams, Webber was inefficient. Still, he scored a lot of points per game.

2. Webber also averaged a lot of rebounds, though he wasn't renowned for dominating the glass. He shied away from contact and was often beaten for position.

3. Was part of excellent defensive teams in SAC, though they barely seemed to miss him when he got injured.

4. Put up empty stats in Philly, but still, 20-10 is great.

5. Injured a lot, but when he played, he was pretty good.

6. One of the most talented PFs ever. Great eye-test player. Didn't materialize in the same on-court impact, but it looked great.

I get the whole thing except for the part about why these are reasons to vote for Chris Webber.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:28 am**

Bill Walton

Hard to believe that he hasn't gotten voted in yet, but that's what I get for not being around.

Walton is the best player left on the table, and has a peak season that compares with guys like Hakeem. Provided incredible value in every aspect of the game- DPOY-caliber defense, amazing defensive rebounding, and perhaps the best passing center ever. Solid, versatile scoring game. MVP over prime Kareem, FMVP while taking down Doctor J.

I know he was hut a lot, but c'mon fellas, this guy simply is in another stratosphere as a player.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:34 pm**

Hurt a lot is a gross understatement.

The reason I vote Daniels over Walton is simple. Walton has one season where he made it to the playoffs as a starter (and one as a good reserve). Daniels has 5 seasons where he was an All-NBA caliber player including 2 ABA MVPs and 3 titles -- mainly due to his rebounding and intimidation although he was a 20 ppg scorer as we. I think it's easier to build a title team around 5 seasons of Daniels than Walton's one season . . . and Daniels gives you more value in his non-prime years as well. Everything has to go well in that one season with Walton -- the core has to be healthy, the role players have to step up, the breaks have to fall your way; with Daniels, you have 5 shots at it all coming together though his peak isn't as high.

Oh, and I don't think you ever win a ring relying on Webber as one of your stars (even as a #2 or #3 if he'd accept that); he's just too flawed. I could be wrong, he certainly was more successful in Sacramento than when I saw him most in Washington (where his teams underperformed their talent every year), but I just don't see it happening.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:22 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:Vote: Chris Webber

1. Despite being on loaded SAC teams, Webber was inefficient. Still, he scored a lot of points per game.

2. Webber also averaged a lot of rebounds, though he wasn't renowned for dominating the glass. He shied away from contact and was often beaten for position.

3. Was part of excellent defensive teams in SAC, though they barely seemed to miss him when he got injured.

4. Put up empty stats in Philly, but still, 20-10 is great.

5. Injured a lot, but when he played, he was pretty good.

6. One of the most talented PFs ever. Great eye-test player. Didn't materialize in the same on-court impact, but it looked great.

I get the whole thing except for the part about why these are reasons to vote for Chris Webber.

Gets boring copying and pasting the same reasoning for the player.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:25 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:Hurt a lot is a gross understatement.

The reason I vote Daniels over Walton is simple. Walton has one season where he made it to the playoffs as a starter (and one as a good reserve). Daniels has 5 seasons where he was an All-NBA caliber player including 2 ABA MVPs and 3 titles -- mainly due to his rebounding and intimidation although he was a 20 ppg scorer as we. I think it's easier to build a title team around 5 seasons of Daniels than Walton's one season . . . and Daniels gives you more value in his non-prime years as well. Everything has to go well in that one season with Walton -- the core has to be healthy, the role players have to step up, the breaks have to fall your way; with Daniels, you have 5 shots at it all coming together though his peak isn't as high.

Not sure if you saw it last thread, but here were my reservations about Daniels (updated for this spot):

Spoiler:

trex_8063 wrote:@ penbeast0: A quick reply regarding Mel Daniels, and why I'm not willing to lend him support at this point without some additional evidence......

82 are voted in, 18 spots remain. For those 19 spots, there are literally probably close 50 players for whom you could make at least a somewhat reasonable top 100 argument for (though perhaps not top 85 for all).

Now, you've mentioned that you think the ABA of '68-'73 (Daniels' prime, though obv he did play in '74-'75, too; his 11 NBA games are negligible, imo) is stronger than the NBA of the 1950's, and I agree. However, I would say the NBA 1950's (or earlier) is the ONLY league/era which is weaker than the early ABA. The early 60's (~1960-65) NBA I would rate at approximately the same as the above-mentioned ABA years. By ~1965 and after, though.....the NBA is each and every year at least marginally better/more competitive than the average of those early ABA years (imo).

As such, really the only legitimate candidates left on the table who we can say played in a weaker league than Daniels are Neil Johnston, Bill Sharman, and perhaps Ed Macauley (he would have an outside chance of slipping in the top 100 in some circles, imo). And that's basically it. EVERYONE else (of the perhaps 50 candidates) played in a tougher league.

Now let's consider longevity.....
He's basically got just 8 seasons of professional play (about 6 seasons of prime-level). There aren't too many candidates with similar or worse: he's obv got Bill Walton beat; Neil Johnston is at least no better in this regard. Maybe 2-3 other guys whose longevity looks similarly "meh" (Amar'e, Hawkins, David Thompson.....others???).

So among the nearly 50 candidates would could consider to fill up the rest of this list, Daniels is among the BOTTOM ~5 for both longevity and strength of league played in.

So how does his statistical dominance look? Pretty good, though probably only slightly better than "middle of the pack" among who's left. His statistical profile (advanced metrics and such) might be in the top 18 of the 50-ish guys we have to choose from (maybe even as high as top 12-15).

But the bottom line for me: with a somewhat above avg (among the candidates) statistical resume, but occurring in a league/era that's in the bottom 5, and with bottom 5 longevity, too.......I cannot justify awarding one of the only 18 spots we have left to Daniels (much less lend him support here in the low 80's) unless you are able to demonstrate that his defensive impact was really quite monstrous, and/or he's on the all-time short-list for intangibles and non-boxscore stuff.

I think I cited some stuff in a prior thread wrt defensive credentials which are readily available: the first year we have DRtg (which admittedly is a really flawed stat, imo, though it does usually rate defensive bigs---particularly if they're shot-blockers---reasonably accurate) is in what was his early post-prime ('74)......but at any rate, it's decent to good, but certainly far from elite. In '75, it's not particularly impressive.

The first year the ABA awarded an All-D team was '73, which is still in Daniels' prime; but he wasn't the center given the honors.

As far as his team's DRtg rank during his seven all-star seasons: iirc they were #1 in '68. Otherwise there were I think two seasons at #2, two seasons at #4 (out of 10), and then two seasons his team had a below avg DRtg rank (6th once and 7th once, iirc).

In all, it looks decent, but not suggestive of the super-high defensive impact I would need to be convinced of before I'd lend Mel Daniels any first-ballot support in this project.

fwiw, I suspect many others share these same concerns, which is likely why you're essentially the only one really tooting his horn at this point.
Not trying to shake you off your vote, but rather trying to give you motive (for the sake of discussion) to provide something more substantive regarding his supposedly big defensive or intangible impact.

penbeast0 wrote:Oh, and I don't think you ever win a ring relying on Webber as one of your stars (even as a #2 or #3 if he'd accept that); he's just too flawed. I could be wrong, he certainly was more successful in Sacramento than when I saw him most in Washington (where his teams underperformed their talent every year), but I just don't see it happening.

I don't know that this is an accurate statement. I mean, we very nearly saw the Kings win a ring in '02 with Webber as the front-man: they win 61 games with a league-best SRS. Make it to the WCF where they lost 3-4 to the eventual champion Lakers. And if not for a buzzer-beater by Robert Horry in game 4 (which he was kinda just luckily in the right place at the right time to catch the batted ball in the first place), Sacramento would have had a nearly insurmountable 3-1 lead in the series......after which they'd have a faced a substantially weaker New Jersey Nets team in the finals.
I'll be honest, I think that Kings team was simply one missed shot attempt by Robert Horry away from a title.

The team in '03 was nearly as good, too (59 wins, 2nd-best SRS, lose 7-game series in WCSF to the #1 SRS team).

These are teams that make it to finals (and perhaps win it) in other years, or with just a touch more luck.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:58 pm**

I didn't argue with you because I agree with your points. The thing is that when you compare him to any specific player, say Webber, it looks a bit different.

(1) Obviously Webber played longer and in a stronger league
(2)Statistically, Daniels is a MUCH stronger rebounder, shows far more defensive impact on his teams (as best as we can tell), is similar relative to league in terms of scoring, and is clearly inferior as passer. Of course, rebounding and defense are far more important for a big.
(3) Then we get to the intangibles and impact issues. Webber was a whiny player with average at best locker room and off court issues plus a long history of choking in key moments (probably the most famous choker in NBA history). Daniels was so respected by those who saw him that he won MULTIPLE MVPs and this resulted in 3 ABA titles.

So, when you look head to head, it's easy to see why Daniels should be in over Webber -- there may be other stronger candidates but that's who we are looking at now.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:03 pm**

trex_8063 wrote:Chris Webber is.......

*1 of only 5 players to ever average more than 20 pts, 10 reb, and 5 ast in the same season for a team that won 55+ games. The others are Wilt, Legend, Barkley, Baylor (3 of the other 4 are top 20 all-time players, the other is a top 35 guy--->and he's obviously only qualifying due to pace-inflated numbers).

**1 of only 8 players to ever average more than 24 pts, 10 reb, 4.5 ast on >/= 54.0% ts in the same season, for a team that won 55+ games. The others are Wilt, Kareem, Larry, Garnett, Barkley, Baylor, DRob (6 of the other 7 are top 20 guys, the other top 35).

***1 of 5 players to ever average more than 25 pts, 11 reb, and 4 ast in the same season for a team that won 55+ games. The others are Wilt, Kareem, Larry, Barkley (all top 20 players).

****1 of only 4 players to---within the same season---A) average >10 reb, B) >4.5 ast, C) >1.4 blk, while D) also qualifying for the steals leaderboard and E) also shooting >/= 53.0% ts.....all for a team that won 55+ games. The others are Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Kevin Garnett, and David Robinson (all consensus top 20 guys).

Webber is not an ideal #1, and I don't know how willingly he'd take on a #2 role. But he's a very versatile offensive skill-set, and based on the above I would say one could certainly do worse for a #1 option.

And where Webber's defense is concerned, I feel his short-comings (such as they were) get overstated on this forum. To hear many talk about it, it seems like he's getting pigeon-holed defensively with guys like David Lee, Amar'e Stoudemire, and Carlos Boozer......which I don't think is at all fair. Here are his dRAPM's by year (PI, except where indicated by *):

'97*: +1.62
'98: +2.04
'99: +2.00
'00: +0.23
'01*: +2.2
'02: +1.1
'03: +0.5
'04*: +0.9
'05*: -0.4

Really, that's pretty overwhelmingly positive.

His combined RAPM data looks better than that of Pau Gasol (voted in at #53), and is pretty similar in quality to the likes of Tony Parker (#81), and Kevin Durant (#36).

Additionally, I wanted to look into a statement saying that the Kings didn't miss a beat when Webber was injured. So here's what I found....
Spoiler:
I'll start with the general observations:
‘98 Kings-->27-55 (-5.83 SRS)
‘99 Kings--->27-23 (-0.89 SRS): Peja, Webber, Divac, Jason Williams, and Vernon Maxwell added. Mitch Richmond, Billy Owens, Anthony Johnson, Olden Polynice, and Otis Thorpe lost. New coach (Adelman), too.
‘00--->44-38 (+3.04 SRS). Nick Anderson added. Scott Pollard has become principle role player. Vernon Maxwell gone.
‘01--->55-27 (+6.07 SRS). Doug Christie and role players Bobby Jackson and Hedo Turkoglu added. Corliss Williamson gone (and aging Nick Anderson marginalized).
‘02--->61-21 (+7.61 SRS). Jason Williams gone, Mike Bibby added. Webber misses 28 games.
‘03--->59-23 (+6.68 SRS). Role players Jim Jackson and Keon Clark added.
‘04--->55-27 (+5.41 SRS). Webber misses 59 games; Hedo Turkoglu and Scott Pollard gone. Brad Miller added, along with role player Anthony Peeler. Peja’s peak year, fwiw.
‘05--->50-32 (+2.56 SRS). Vlade retires. Webber and Doug Christie leave near All-Star break. Brad Miller misses 26 games. Role player Maurice Evans added. Cuttino Mobley obtained mid-season, along with role players Kenny Thomas and Brian Skinner.
‘06--->44-38 (+1.61 SRS). Bobby Jackson gone. Peja leaves mid-season. Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Bonzi Wells, Kevin Martin, and Jason Hart added. Metta added mid-season.

A look at with/without Webber records, as well as some other data:
‘94-->47-29 (.618) with, 3-3 (.500) w/o
‘95-->11-43 (.204) with, 10-18 (.357) w/o
‘96--> 9-6 (.600) with, 30-37 (.448) w/o
‘97--> 40-32 (.556) with, 4-6 (.400) w/o
‘98-->39-32 (.549) with, 3-8 (.273) w/o
‘99-->22-20 (.524) with, 5-3 (.625) w/o
‘00-->41-34 (.547) with, 3-4 (.429) w/o
‘01-->48-22 (.686) with, 7-5 (.583) w/o
‘02-->42-12 (.778) with, 19-9 (.679) w/o
‘03-->49-18 (.731) with, 10-5 (.667) w/o
‘04-->11-12 (.478) with, 44-15 (.746) w/o
‘05--> 34-20 (.630) prior to trade (Webber in 46 of 54 games), 16-12 (.571) after trade

I investigated the more elaborate details regarding his best years (‘00 thru ‘02).
In ‘00 (I’m envisioning that old Conan O’Brien skit ...”in the year 2000….”:)), 7 missed rs games:
SRS
With Webber: +3.16
Without Webber: +1.79

ORtg
With Webber: 105.1
Without Webber: 104.2

DRtg
With Webber: 102.0
Without Webber: 103.5

ORtg/DRtg gap
With Webber: +3.1
Without Webber: +0.7

In ‘01 (12 missed games)....
SRS
With Webber: +6.36
Without Webber: +4.39

ORtg
With Webber: 105.2
Without Webber: 108.0

DRtg
With Webber: 99.1
Without Webber: 102.8

ORtg/DRtg gap
With Webber: +6.1
Without Webber: +5.3

And finally the ‘02 season where Webber missed 28 games. Again, they were 42-12 (.778) with him and 19-9 (.678) without him (that’s the difference between being the #1 seed and the #4 seed in the West that year). Beyond that…
SRS
With Webber: +7.92
Without Webber: +7.01

ORtg
With Webber: 110.2
Without Webber: 106.6

DRtg
With Webber: 101.5
Without Webber: 100.3

ORtg/DRtg gap
With Webber: +8.7
Without Webber: +6.3

So in '00 the Kings were slightly better both offensively and defensively with Webber. In '01 they were worse offensively with Webber, but significantly better defensively. In '02 they were slightly worse defensively with Webber, but significantly better offensively. But in all instances they were better with Webber by all general measures I looked at: win%, SRS (anywhere from 0.91 to 1.97 better), and ORtg/DRtg gap (0.8 to 2.4 better).

I didn't get this elaborate with other years because frankly it's time-consuming to do so; and based on the record improvements shown above, I'd expect to find similar results in other years of his prime (except for '95 and '04, and maybe small sample year '99).

These improvements aren't as profound as we've seen with other stars I've similarly investigated, but those I'm referring to were all voted in more than 20 places ago.

Vote: Chris Webber.

Mel Daniels in the ONLY multiple MVP winner not in.

Mel Daniels is the ONLY player not in that averaged over 18 points and 16 a game rebounds for a championship team and he did it TWICE.

Etc.

You can make the same type of argument you are making for Daniels (I'm at work so not going into extreme detail) and in a stronger way than you can for Webber.

And, while I'd rather have Webber as my primary scorer than Daniels on a team because of his passing, I'd rather have Daniels as my best player and let someone else like Peja/Bibby/etc. score while improving the defense and rebounding. And, clearly rather have Daniels as my second best player for similar reasons, his game is more portable as a #2 than Webber's who needed the ball in his hands for his passing and ego.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:17 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:I didn't argue with you because I agree with your points. The thing is that when you compare him to any specific player, say Webber, it looks a bit different.

(1) Obviously Webber played longer and in a stronger league
(2)Statistically, Daniels is a MUCH stronger rebounder, shows far more defensive impact on his teams (as best as we can tell), is similar relative to league in terms of scoring, and is clearly inferior as passer. Of course, rebounding and defense are far more important for a big.

It's the bolded part I would love for you to expand on. Again, this is the part I would need to be convinced of before I can see myself lending him first-ballot support in this project (particularly somewhere within the 80's). You've made the statement multiple times but, as stated previously, what I'm waiting for is something substantive in support of this statement.

Also, I somewhat question the statement with regards to scoring. I guess it's close enough. They were similar in terms of relative shooting efficiency (Daniels perhaps even marginally better), though on significantly smaller volume (particularly if adjusted for pace). I know the counter to this is "should Webber have been shooting that much, though?"

And lastly, where assigning importance to different aspects of their games, I'd note that they largely played a different position (Webber at PF, Daniels at C). I think defense isn't quite as important for a PF as it is for a C; although as stated in my original post, I think Webber's D gets trashed more than is fair (his dRAPM is actually pretty good throughout most of his prime). Generally expect marginally more rebounding from a C as apposed to PF, too.

penbeast0 wrote:(3) Then we get to the intangibles and impact issues. Webber was a whiny player with average at best locker room and off court issues plus a long history of choking in key moments (probably the most famous choker in NBA history). Daniels was so respected by those who saw him that he won MULTIPLE MVPs and this resulted in 3 ABA titles.

Fair point about off court stuff.

And fair point regarding his impact and titles. Although wrt to Daniels' three titles, I'd definitely like to point out that he had a fair bit of help. In '69 and '70 (finals appearance in '69, win it in '70) he had an all-star (or all-star caliber, by ABA standards) player at the PF position (Bob Netolicky) and another at SG/SF (Roger Brown).

For the second title in '72, in addition to those two, he would get rookie George McGinnis and another all-star caliber PG (Freddie Lewis). For the final title in '73, Netolicky is gone, but McGinnis is much improved to All-ABA caliber at the PF. Still have at least borderline all-star caliber players in SF Roger Brown and PG Freddie Lewis, and have now added to it an All-Star caliber player at SG in Donnie Freeman. Also got a defensive specialist in rookie Don Buse.
Not saying Daniels isn't obviously a major contributor in all instances, and may well have been the glue guy; but just saying he had A LOT of help. Those were VERY talented Pacer teams. This was a team that was talented enough to go back to the finals in '75, AFTER Daniels is gone.

And I'll be honest I take his MVP's with a grain of salt, similar to Unseld's MVP, or DRose in '11, etc; just because lack of top-tier competition for the spot in the years he won:
In '68 Connie Hawkins is a by far superior player and wins MVP. In '69 Hawkins is still much superior, but misses 37 games with injury, so not too valid a candidate. Rick Barry also playing phenomenal, but misses an even larger 49 games (he would miss AT LEAST 25 games in each of the next two ABA seasons, too, fwiw). If either one of those guys (much less both) had remained healthy in '69, I'm skeptical Daniels wins the MVP. His only real competition for the award that year was Jimmy Jones with his one outlier year.
In '70, rookie Spencer Haywood is clearly the best player and wins MVP. Hawkins is now gone to the NBA.
In '71 Haywood is now gone, Barry misses 25 games and has what for him was a sub-par year in the 59 games he did play. The biggest competition Daniels has for MVP is a rookie Dan Issel and an aging Zelmo Beaty, and Daniels wins MVP.
By '72, Dr. J and Gilmore are in the league, and Daniels doesn't appear a major player in the MVP candidacy. He actually doesn't even get All-ABA this year: he loses the 2nd Team spot to a 32-year-old Zelmo Beaty.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:49 pm**

I think if you are looking at just regular season impact, Unseld's MVP holds up extremely well (obviously postseason, it's Russell carries the now undermanned and outgunned Celtics to the title with John Havlicek turning into the true All-Pro he would be in the 70s). Bullets had a last in the East to best in the league campaign with no other significant additions and while losing Gus Johnson (the 2nd or 3rd of their big 3 with Earl Monroe) for half the year. Unseld was clearly the main reason for that. That's MVP type impact.

For Daniels, it's hard to prove defense except through eye test and anecdotes. The numbers show the Pacers as a better defensive team than Webber's various crews (and I liked Vlade's and even Juwan Howard's defensive effort) but it's not Russell caliber clear. As for the questionability of the MVPs; one MVP might be a fluke, but two means that he was a consistent top contender in the league at least through 71. His 3 titles were in different year from his MVPs oddly enough.

As for his teammates, McGinnis (despite the ridiculous turnover rate) and Roger Brown were legit All-Pro candidates (though I liked Willie Wise better than Brown), Neto was a classic scorer but not a smart or heady player nor known for his defense, and Lewis was more a solid pro than an All-Star award -- Buse when he came in probably was a legit All-Star player but didn't get it because he wasn't a scorer. Billy Knight in his peak years was also appreciably more dynamic than Lewis. But you could have replaced any of them except McGinnis and possibly Roger Brown and the Pacers would still have been contenders. Daniels goes down in any year up to 72 and the Pacers fall apart. In 73, Darnell Hillman was stepping up and McGinnis was peaking so a replacement level center might have kept the Pacers in contention if anyone stepped into the leadership/enforcer role but before that, Daniels was the Pacers.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:08 pm**

I'll go back to Chris Bosh as my vote.

I've become even less confident about Bellamy. There's a good chance that his scoring and rebounding numbers overstate his impact quite a bit (looking at his team's records throughout his career).

Meanwhile, Bosh proved that he could be a solid #1 option, carry a weak team to the playoffs (as he did twice in Toronto), put up very nice numbers (also finished twice in the top 10 in RAPM, in 2008 and 2010, and he's ranked 32nd on the 97-14 list, so his impact was definitely high, and seems to "back up" his boxscore numbers).

The thing I like about Bosh is that he accepted a limited role on a team with other stars, and played pretty good defense as the third best player on the Heat. It shows that he's a portable and versatile player.

Pretty nice longevity - quietly, he's already made 10 All-Star appearances (including this year), and he's already logged over 30000 regular season minutes (plus over 3000 in the playoffs).

Why Bosh over Webber? Much more efficient scorer, very comparable rebounder, usually a better defender, more portable, better longevity and durability (at least as a star). I mentioned Webber, because I feel like he's going to be the most popular choice in this thread.

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:22 am**

Bosh's disappointing post-LeBron season so far has made me a bit more leery of him. If his efficiency had gone back up or if, when I watch him, he was putting fear into people, I might be onboard with him but he's settling for mediocre jump shots way too much.

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:22 am**

penbeast0 wrote:Bosh's disappointing post-LeBron season so far has made me a bit more leery of him. If his efficiency had gone back up or if, when I watch him, he was putting fear into people, I might be onboard with him but he's settling for mediocre jump shots way too much.

To be fair, I don't think we should be considering the current '15 season in our estimation of current players. This is, after all, labeled the RealGM 2014 Top 100 List. And we didn't have the current season even available when ranking guys like Duncan, Lebron, KG, Dirk, CP3, Durant, Truth, Howard, etc etc......so personally I feel we should disregard the current season thus far.

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:54 am**

I'm gonna keep rolling with Mo Cheeks for the time being.

One of the best two way players left with decent longevity. His scoring is underrated, I think. Here are his Score+ metrics:

Code: Select all

Year   Score+     PosScore+  TeamScore+
1979    0.260       0.545      0.137
1980    1.556       1.865      1.213
1981    1.119       1.389      0.413
1982    0.930       1.557      0.130
1983    1.630       2.260      1.078
1984    1.489       2.221      1.243
1985    2.272       2.759      1.749
1986    1.747       1.997      1.590
1987    1.411       1.627      1.013
1988    0.439       0.650      0.279
1989   -0.332      -0.219     -0.845
1990    0.775       0.978      0.611
1991    0.356       0.363      0.104
1992   -1.163      -0.855     -0.868
1993    1.324       1.383      1.620

Add to that his heady play, high motor, outstanding D, and solid playoff resume, and I think he's well worth considering.

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:55 am**

penbeast, I don't know much about Mel Daniels. Are you a little concerned that he peaked when the ABA was at its weakest?

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:55 am**

trex_8063 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Bosh's disappointing post-LeBron season so far has made me a bit more leery of him. If his efficiency had gone back up or if, when I watch him, he was putting fear into people, I might be onboard with him but he's settling for mediocre jump shots way too much.

To be fair, I don't think we should be considering the current '15 season in our estimation of current players. This is, after all, labeled the RealGM 2014 Top 100 List. And we didn't have the current season even available when ranking guys like Duncan, Lebron, KG, Dirk, CP3, Durant, Truth, Howard, etc etc......so personally I feel we should disregard the current season thus far.

Yeah, I'm not considering the 2015 season yet, either.

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:21 pm**

Moonbeam wrote:penbeast, I don't know much about Mel Daniels. Are you a little concerned that he peaked when the ABA was at its weakest?

Of course, but to me he's a player very similar to Moses Malone or Alonzo Mourning; I can't see a powerhouse rebounder with some scoring skills and intimidating physical defense being less than outstanding in any era. And, you can only play in the league of your day. Daniels was a genuine star who carried the most successful team in ABA history as their best player for most of that history. Unlike Webber, he was a winner who stepped up in clutch moments and unlike Cheeks (who I always liked a lot), he was a star.

If a 50s star like Dolph Schayes went in a long time ago from an even lesser era, it's time to be looking at Daniels despite the flaws in his resume.

RealGM

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83

Re: Re: RealGM Top 100 List #83