RealGM

Compare --
Tim Hardaway, Terry Porter, Gus Williams, and Penny Hardaway at PG,
Bailey Howell, Marques Johnson, Bob Dandridge, and Jeff Hornacek as the top wings,
Jerry Lucas, Walt Bellamy, Amare, and Yao Ming are the three top bigs left.

Point Guards

Timbug is the best playmaker, Terry the most efficient, Gus and Penny the playoff stars (and the most star power generally). All had some defensive rep, Porter the best, Timmy's size limits him the most (and Penny's makes him the most variable). Porter had the longest run, Gus and Penny the shortest with Penny's injuries limiting him the most. Depends on what you are looking for. I'm temped to go with Penny or Gus for the stronger peak and playoffs.

Wings

For the wings, Marques is the highest peak but much the shortest career, Dandridge the best defender, Howell was more of a postup scorer especially in Boston, Hornacek adds outstanding 3 point shooting which neither of the others provided though both Marques and Bobby D were superior volume scorers. Marques is generally just a bit superior to Dandridge at everything other than defense but when the playoffs came, the difference mainly disappeared. Howell falls short of either in the playoffs, Hornacek keeps his efficiency but also his more secondary status. He isn't quite up to the others in pure stats but given his defense and clutch performance in Washington and Milwaukee's (only) title runs, I give the edge to Bob Dandridge.

Bigs

First thing that leaps out is Bellamy's much longer and Yao's much shorter career. Era differences give Amare and Yao an efficiency advantage and Lucas and Bellamy a rebounding edge but those numbers all regress to a more similar norm when compared to era averages. Amare (and Yao) come off as clearly higher volume options however, Lucas in particular tends to slip a bit as he has an extraordinarily low foul draw. These differences become even stronger come playoff time. Given Yao's limited career (and turnovers), and despite his weak defense (none of these players except maybe Yao had a good defensive rep), I would have to go for Amare as the best big left.

Vote: Gus Williams, he was the man on the Sonics championship team (1A of he, DJ, and Sikma) and while he didn't have a long career, he was more consistently healthy and reliable during it than Penny. Open to persuasion though.

Congrats to Dumars. I'm content/happy with him getting in. I have him in my own top 100, and with just three spots remaining he was perhaps one of the three I'd have wanted to get in (or at worst, he'd have been my first runner-up). Anyway, I'm going to discuss and lobby for Walt Bellamy again.

I'd cited a comparison of Walt's best 4-year stretch as a scorer to the best 4-year stretch of Reggie Miller (a guy who got voted in at #40 largely on the basis of his ability as a scorer). It went as follows....

Reggie Miller ('90-'93) (Pts/100 poss, relative ts%, Ast/100 poss, mpg)
29.3 pts @ +10.1% rts, 4.9 ast, 37.3 mpg

Walt Bellamy ('62-'65) (Pts/100, rts, Ast/100, mpg)
*27.3 pts @ +7.5% rts, 2.3 ast, 41.8 mpg

*And again, due to lower shooting efficiency of the time, 27.3 in that era is roughly analogous to 30 pts/100 in a modern context; 2.3 ast more analogous to 2.5 today.

I thought I might go further by comparing this 4-year stretch of Bellamy to Wilt Chamberlain's statistical peak 4-year period, which occurred in the same era ('61-'64). This includes Wilt's infamous 50+ ppg season, as well as another avg 44.8 ppg. This is a stretch that forced another change in the width of the lane.
Wilt's Pts and Ast/100, rts, mpg in that span....

~34.3 pts @ +5.46% rts, 2.6 ast, 47.5 mpg

Obv a somewhat significant gap in the mpg, but otherwise note how relatively close that looks overall. Yes, 7 fewer pts/100, but while shooting >2% better rts.

Or we can compare to peak Dwight Howard ('09-'11):
29.8 pts @ +7.2% rts, 2.2 ast (and 4.8 tov), 36.0 mpg. (again, noting era differences in typical per 100 numbers)


So again, point I'm trying to make (as I was in my reply to Doc in the last thread), is that Walt Bellamy was a fairly elite scoring/offensive center.

And one other point I want to make along with that is noting the value of such a commodity at the time. Nowadays, I think without a doubt defense is the most important attribute you need/want in a center. And probably rebounding is #2. Scoring is likely only #3 (or "2B", at most) in importance for a center these days.
But in the 1960's, prior to the existence of the 3pt-line, prior to other changes which have stream-lined things for perimeter stars, a center who could score was a very premium commodity. Based on the impact Bill Russell was able to inflict on defense, and how Wilt realized better team success when he focused a bit more on defense, we can perhaps still say that defense was the most important attribute needed in centers of that time......but scoring was at least a very close 2nd, perhaps even "1B" (or tied????), in importance.
As such, I think Bellamy's ability as a scorer should be getting some serious consideration before this project finishes out.


And he doesn't appear to have been "nothing else" except a scorer. As I noted previously, he appears roughly comparable (perhaps slightly superior) to Pau Gasol as a rebounder.

And then there's his longevity/durability, which really appear to border on elite, especially for the era.

Vote for #99: Walt Bellamy.

Compare him to peak Amare, adjust to league pace and efficiency norms and his peak doesn't look appreciably better. Then realize that Amare did it on a competitive team sharing the load with Marion, Nash, etc. while Bellamy's peak years were (especially his first two) on really awful teams where he was the only option. That makes his efficiency more impressive but his counting stats less so.

Then take into account that Bells was traded multiple times without his teams crashing -- indeed, New York improved greatly. And that Bellamy's former coaches and teammates don't have a lot of good things to say about him despite his undoubted talent. And that he was a purely low post volume scorer without a good rep for passing or basketball IQ. Amare, punk defense, injuries, and all, starts to look more competitive, even superior.

penbeast0 wrote:Compare him to peak Amare, adjust to league pace and efficiency norms and his peak doesn't look appreciably better. Then realize that Amare did it on a competitive team sharing the load with Marion, Nash, etc. while Bellamy's peak years were (especially his first two) on really awful teams where he was the only option. That makes his efficiency more impressive but his counting stats less so.

Then take into account that Bells was traded multiple times without his teams crashing -- indeed, New York improved greatly. And that Bellamy's former coaches and teammates don't have a lot of good things to say about him despite his undoubted talent. And that he was a purely low post volume scorer without a good rep for passing or basketball IQ. Amare, punk defense, injuries, and all, starts to look more competitive, even superior.

a) Amar'e in PHX.....with Nash looks amazing indeed. Take him away from Nash (NYK, '11), his still demands/makes big volume despite playing alongside another offensive star, but his efficiency takes a massive drop (to something well below what Bellamy was attaining consistently throughout his prime). I think Amar'e in '11 looks a tiny step down from '62 or '63 Bellamy (even considering teammates); and '64 or '65 Bellamy are debatable, too.

b) Yeah, Bellamy has some synergy issues, no doubt. You got me there, I don't have a great answer for that. I think DeBusschere was clearly a better fit in NY, and we've already given DB his due on this project, too. The Hawks appeared to immediately get better on Bellamy's arrival in '70 (32-26, .552 before the trade, 16-8, .667 after the trade). The following year they would lose Joe Caldwell, which appears to hurt.
Anyway, fwiw, PHX in '06 just barely skips a beat without Amar'e.

c) While Bellamy doesn't have a good reputation defensively, Amar'e is nearly a defensive zero down there (routinely comes up in the convo with guys like Carlos Boozer and David Lee as some of the worst defensive bigs in recent memory).

d) Bellamy was a little better rebounder than Amar'e.

e) At any rate, I don't necessarily think Bellamy peaked higher. But I don't see that that makes this cut and dry, game/set/match to Amar'e, when the disparity in longevity/durability is SOOOO big.

Leaning Marques Johnson or Terry Porter, but could also support Tim Hardaway or Detlef Schrempf. Depends on which player starts gaining traction since I don't want to waste a vote with only 2 spots left.

trex_8063 wrote:...


a) Amar'e in PHX.....with Nash looks amazing indeed. Take him away from Nash (NYK, '11), his still demands/makes big volume despite playing alongside another offensive star, but his efficiency takes a massive drop (to something well below what Bellamy was attaining consistently throughout his prime). I think Amar'e in '11 looks a tiny step down from '62 or '63 Bellamy (even considering teammates); and '64 or '65 Bellamy are debatable, too.

b) Yeah, Bellamy has some synergy issues, no doubt. You got me there, I don't have a great answer for that. I think DeBusschere was clearly a better fit in NY, and we've already given DB his due on this project, too. The Hawks appeared to immediately get better on Bellamy's arrival in '70 (32-26, .552 before the trade, 16-8, .667 after the trade). The following year they would lose Joe Caldwell, which appears to hurt.
Anyway, fwiw, PHX in '06 just barely skips a beat without Amar'e.

c) While Bellamy doesn't have a good reputation defensively, Amar'e is nearly a defensive zero down there (routinely comes up in the convo with guys like Carlos Boozer and David Lee as some of the worst defensive bigs in recent memory).

d) Bellamy was a little better rebounder than Amar'e.

e) At any rate, I don't necessarily think Bellamy peaked higher. But I don't see that that makes this cut and dry, game/set/match to Amar'e, when the disparity in longevity/durability is SOOOO big.

I don't think at this point ANYTHING is cut and dried, but Bells, outside his first few years, is pretty much a solid replacement level player. His career VORP is only 1.4 (and Lucas's is only 0.8) and while that's not a stat I put much value in, in this case it corresponds with my memory of Bellamy's impact from 69 on (when I began watching basketball avidly). That has some value but not much in a GOAT comparison; so, for me, Bells has to make his case on peak and his peak doesn't seem to measure up to Amare's once you look at pace and situation.

SKF_85 wrote:Leaning Marques Johnson or Terry Porter, but could also support Tim Hardaway or Detlef Schrempf. Depends on which player starts gaining traction since I don't want to waste a vote with only 2 spots left.

For Marques (comparing to Bobby Dandridge who was very similar in style if not quite as spectacular), how do you deal with Dandridge's edge in playoff performance and defense?

Porter and Timmy I can see, especially if you put a lot of value in longevity. I tend to favor a strong prime and not give a lot of value to solid but unspectacular years outside of that but I can see good arguments for trending the other direction.

2 spots left and these guys remain on my list...

Jerry Lucas, Detlef Schrempf, Earl Monroe, Gus Williams, Tim Hardaway, Mark Price, Walt Bellamy

[Also throwing in David Thompson -- was just looking at the 2011 list and he really slipped my mind as someone to push for]

Vote for #99 - Gus Williams - VOTE CHANGED

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... bile=false

I'd like it if he had a longer prime, but pretty impressed with his play from 78-86, which included a great championship run in 79.

Playoffs - http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1979.html

Finals - http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SEA-WSB

His production in the playoffs also increased relative to the reg season. Disappointed that the support for lucas basically dropped off, but I think williams is also a deserving candidate here.

I'd say Jeff Hornacek can be described as the ideal offensive role player. I think career wise he deserves at least a mention here.

Career wise:
- 16.6 PPG on 58.2ts% in RS and 14.9 PPG on 57.5ts% in playoff time;
- 17.7 PER and 15.4 WS/48 in RS;
- 16.5 PER and 14.5 WS/48 in PS;
- Almost every playoff campaign with positive ORTG/DRTG relation (1 negative, 1 tied, 9 positive)
- Almost every season with positive ORTG/DRTG relation (only 2 negatives in a 15 year career)


Peaked in 96:
RS: 15.2 PPG 2.5 RPG 4.1 APG 1.3 SPG 0.2 BPG 1.5 TOPG 19.1 PER 61.9 ts% 19 WS/48 ORTG/DRTG 125/109
PS: 17.5 PPG 3.6 RPG 3.3 APG 1.1 SPG 0.2 BPG 1.5 TOPG 20.1 PER 64.8 ts% 23.3 WS/48 ORTG/DRTG 128/104

If Stoumdemire is on the hunt for the spot I'd like to say:
Seasons equal or above 120 ORTG (RS/PS)
Hornacek 7/3
Stoudemire 2/1

We often see STAT with negative relations in ORTG/DRTG in playoff time: 3 of his 8 runs have had that.

Just food for thought. With this kind of impact on his role you don't see many guys in NBA history.

penbeast0 wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:...


a) Amar'e in PHX.....with Nash looks amazing indeed. Take him away from Nash (NYK, '11), his still demands/makes big volume despite playing alongside another offensive star, but his efficiency takes a massive drop (to something well below what Bellamy was attaining consistently throughout his prime). I think Amar'e in '11 looks a tiny step down from '62 or '63 Bellamy (even considering teammates); and '64 or '65 Bellamy are debatable, too.

b) Yeah, Bellamy has some synergy issues, no doubt. You got me there, I don't have a great answer for that. I think DeBusschere was clearly a better fit in NY, and we've already given DB his due on this project, too. The Hawks appeared to immediately get better on Bellamy's arrival in '70 (32-26, .552 before the trade, 16-8, .667 after the trade). The following year they would lose Joe Caldwell, which appears to hurt.
Anyway, fwiw, PHX in '06 just barely skips a beat without Amar'e.

c) While Bellamy doesn't have a good reputation defensively, Amar'e is nearly a defensive zero down there (routinely comes up in the convo with guys like Carlos Boozer and David Lee as some of the worst defensive bigs in recent memory).

d) Bellamy was a little better rebounder than Amar'e.

e) At any rate, I don't necessarily think Bellamy peaked higher. But I don't see that that makes this cut and dry, game/set/match to Amar'e, when the disparity in longevity/durability is SOOOO big.

I don't think at this point ANYTHING is cut and dried, but Bells, outside his first few years, is pretty much a solid replacement level player.

I'll agree nothing is cut and dry at this point, and I do think Amar'e/Bells is a close comparison.
As to the bolded part, if that's the stance you're going to take, we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree. EXCLUDING his first four seasons (his four best seasons), his next SEVEN seasons collectively look as follows:

20.0 pts/100 poss @ +5.82% rts, 14.6 reb/100 poss, 2.8 ast/100 poss.
PER 18.2, .144 WS/48 in 35.6 mpg
*and this was not for basement level teams; was on average ~.500 teams in this span.

How one can call that "replacement level" is beyond me.

penbeast0 wrote: His career VORP is only 1.4 (and Lucas's is only 0.8) and while that's not a stat I put much value in, in this case it corresponds with my memory of Bellamy's impact from 69 on (when I began watching basketball avidly).

Um......VORP is not available until '74: Bellamy's (and Lucas') FINAL post-prime season only. How you can use that stat in his final post-prime season to speculatively represent what he was for the FIVE seasons prior to it as well is once again beyond me.
I'm guessing if it had been available from '69 on, his cumulative VORP for that span would be more in the 12-15 range. If it had been available his entire career, I'd estimate his full career VORP would be roughly in 35-40 range (although possibly higher).

How? I'm going with stupidity . . . just plain forgot that though I was cognizant when actually making my comps.

Odd thing was, if I remember right, last time we did this I was advocating Bellamy (though it might have been the rewriting the HOF project).

ill go with Bill Walton here when he was healthy was always a top 5 rebounder in the league , 2x nba champion lead the league 2x in defensive ratings. Also has a FMVP. If he had stayed healthy the Blazers don't pick Sam Bowie . He's the reason the Blazers have their only ring.

To me hes a top 50 player. i know he has had short career but i think was pretty effective in his goat like peak.

He also has MVP. 1978-1979 his team W to L % was 70.7. He even made 1st team defensive over Kareem that year.

penbeast0 wrote:

SKF_85 wrote:Leaning Marques Johnson or Terry Porter, but could also support Tim Hardaway or Detlef Schrempf. Depends on which player starts gaining traction since I don't want to waste a vote with only 2 spots left.

For Marques (comparing to Bobby Dandridge who was very similar in style if not quite as spectacular), how do you deal with Dandridge's edge in playoff performance and defense?

Porter and Timmy I can see, especially if you put a lot of value in longevity. I tend to favor a strong prime and not give a lot of value to solid but unspectacular years outside of that but I can see good arguments for trending the other direction.

I think Marques had a higher peak and more impressive ~8 year prime than Dandridge, who was a very good player but IMO not quite as good as Marques. Don't really see Dandridge as a significantly better playoff performer. He played in more PS games and was more consistent, but Marques had some great PS performances which improved his career PS stats.

Dandridge PS Career (98 GP): 17.0 PER, 51.7 TS, .137 WS/48

Marques PS Career (54 GP): 19.1 PER, 52.8 TS, .152 WS/48

I give Porter the overall career edge over Tim Hardaway due to longevity/durability and Porter's more impressive PS resume. From 90-92 Porter was performing at a very high level during the Blazers run as title contenders.

90-92 Porter PS (58 GP):

19.0 PER, .628 TS, .507 FTr, .185 WS/48

That's more impressive than prime PS Tim Hardaway, who actually had some pretty bad playoff performances.

Vote: Walt Bellamy

I'll go back to Bellamy as my vote. His stats and longevity are very good, and I think there's a chance that his numbers weren't as empty as his teams' records would suggest. I can see him being similar to Kevin Love - great player stuck on a bad team, at least when it comes to Bells' time with the Packers/Zephyrs/Bullets. Expansion team, very little talent in the beginning (maybe I'm just an ignorant, but looking at the '61-'62 Packers, other than Slick Leonard, I don't even have a clue who the other guys were...still, it should tell you something about just how bad Bellamy's team was). Stylistically, Jerry Lucas is far more similar to Love (he's sort of a progenitor for Love, they're very similar), but Bellamy and Love seemed to be in similar situations, surrounded by little talent, having to carry their teams.

Bellamy had one of the greatest rookie seasons of all-time, at least in terms of boxscore production. 32/19 while also leading the league in FG% and TS%, 26.3 PER (incomplete, obviously, but still, that's impressive) is insane. Not only his rookie season, but his first 3 or 4 seasons were very impressive, statistically, and fwiw, his teams were slowly improving each year, between '62 and '65 - they won 18 games in Walt's rookie season, 25 the next year, then 31 and finally 37 in '65 - still slightly negative record, but they made the playoffs. I'm inclined to believe that it was lack of talent that hurt them, just as much as Bellamy's supposedly low impact.

I'm not someone who readily dismisses good/great boxscore production, so to me, a guy who was an ironman for 13 seasons (especially in the 60s, with relatively poor medical care), and averaged 20 points and almost 14 rebounds, almost 20 PER, 16 WS/48 and over 55% TS (very high for his era) is definitely one of the top 100 players in NBA history.

Quotatious wrote:[b]...(maybe I'm just an ignorant, but looking at the '61-'62 Packers, other than Slick Leonard, I don't even have a clue who the other guys were...

Not ignorant.

Beyond Bellamy and Leonard (who I know played, but only because I know of him as a coach), I recognise (the names of) Sihugo Green (as the guy the Royals picked first in the '56 draft ahead of Russell), Joe Grabowski (as a guy who didn't go to college but played pro ball) and Woody Sauldsberry (who in my head I know for a weird combination of things, I think he was a good youth player in Philly before Wilt, played Wilt on the Warriors and had a/some awful metric years, don't know if they're all true). I had a very faint feeling about having read the name of Andy Johnson, which having clicked on him is probably just from looking up ineffective Wilt teammates.

There's certainly nobody there I'd know for being notably good at pro basketball. Dischinger came in year two and had a somewhat similar career arc (peaking early), but even him I know more from basketball-reference than reading about him in the history of the game though I think he was ROY (so a team had consecutive ones like Houston with Sampson and Olajuwon, maybe Portland with co-ROY Petrie and then maybe Wicks?).

Anyway enough with the nonsense digressions, I'm leaning Bellamy again. Will try to firm up in my head that he's worth the vote (basically how bad can he have been on D to neutralise the good, and how much was his rebounding just because no one else could do it?).

Vote: Gus Williams

Best playoff peak of anybody left with longevity worth a damn. Bellamy is cool, and he's got great numbers, but quite frankly, in an era where a big man could have crazy defensive impact, he didn't. He wasn't a great passer either, which limits his offensive impact imo. Lucas is great for offense with his offensive rebound tracking, smart passing, and jump shot, but he's poor defensively at an important position. Quite frankly, I'd probably rather have Amar'e Stoudemire in that role.

Williams is practically unguardable 1 vs. 1 and could have major impact on offense. I don't know much about his defense from year-to-year, but I'll trust Penbeast saying he had some sort of defensive rep. Those Seattle teams were great defensively, though Sikma, DJ, and that center whose name I can't think of right now were leading the way on that front.

I trust Williams' offense over any trait of the other leading candidates.

I am not a voter for the project, but has anyone taken a good look at Chet Walker?

Moonbeam wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Joe Dumars

Yeah I just have to go with Joe here. You have to be something huge for me to be impressed with a big man volume scoring and nothing else, and Dumars is a hell of a 2-way player.

Responding to some of the choice of words above.....

1) "....something huge..."
Bellamy was somewhat "huge" imo as a scorer for a certain period of time there. By way of comparison, I'm gonna go on a somewhat wild tangent and look at Reggie Miller. Miller was not bad, but nor was he special defensively. Miller was not bad, but nor was he special as a play-maker for the SG position. Miller was actually somewhat poor as a rebounder for a SG. He got voted in at #40 on basis of his strength as a scorer and his longevity.

Now, if we look at what was probably Miller's best 4-year stretch as a scorer ('90-'93), his Per 100, relative ts% and mpg were as follows:
29.3 pts @ +10.1% rts in 37.3 mpg.

Bellamy played in a time when, due to generally lower shooting efficiency, Pts per 100 possessions ran ~10% or so lower. Nonetheless, his best 4-year stretch as a scorer ('62-'65):
27.3 pts @ +7.5% rts in 41.8 mpg.

Again, adjusted for raw difference in shooting efficiency of the era, 27.3 pts/100 poss then would be roughly similar to 30 pts/100 possessions in the modern era. In short, he doesn't look too terrible far off what Miller was doing in that span. And I don't think it was entirely without effect; by his second season, really with Terry Dischinger being his only relevant help on offense, he spear-headed the 3rd-best (of 9) offense in the league.
One can argue Miller's floor spacing/warping effect, yada yada, and I cannot answer to that. Anyway, just putting that out there. And yes, Miller was a fantastic playoff performer.

Over an ELEVEN-year span (in which Bellamy played essentially a "full schedule" of 891 rs games), he averaged >23 pts per 100 poss @ +6.5% rts in 37.8 mpg.

So anyway......"Something huge" is a vague descriptor; but Bellamy certainly doesn't appear "small" as a scorer.

2) "......and nothing else....."
I don't think that's entirely fair. Over that same 11-year span he averaged 15.5 reb/100 poss in 37.8 mpg. Now I mentioned how the lower shooting efficiency of the time made for generally lower Pts (and Ast) per 100 numbers; it had the converse effect on Reb/100 poss.
But even adjusted for that, his rebound rate is clearly superior to Chris Bosh, Brook or Robin Lopez, and Marc Gasol (to name a few familiar recent current players), and roughly on par with (probably just slightly superior to, actually) Pau Gasol. Although they played a difference position, he was out-rebounding his contemporary Dave DeBusschere by a solid 2.5 Reb/100.
So while that doesn't put him in a tier of "great" rebounding centers, he was very clearly what could be described as an entirely solid rebounder.

3) ".....hell of a 2-way player....."
I suppose so.....maybe. idk......."Hell of a" is another vague descriptor, though it does imply something awfully impressive. But was he (on offensive, I mean)?
I liked Dumars a lot at the time, and he always seemed to have a "well-rounded" offensive game to me. Not necessarily great or elite at anything, but decent at most things (could shoot, pass, dribble/drive reasonably well). But looking at him statistically, he doesn't quite look like a "hell of an" offensive player:

*His peak PER was 18.0. Overall average of his prime was around 16 or so.
*His peak WS/48 was .162. Overall for his prime was around .125.
*His peak offensive year was probably '91???: 27.9 pts, 7.6 ast, 3.2 tov per 100 poss @ +1.8% rts; ORtg +7.1 to league avg in 38.1 mpg. Or maybe '93??: 30.1 pts, 5.1 ast, 2.3 tov per 100 poss @ +1.9% rts; ORtg +10.0 to league avg in 40.2 mpg (meh team though: 40-42 record, 18th of 27 offensively).

Pretty good, just not sure I'd go with "helluva" to describe him offensively.

And one strike on Dumars: he was poor as a rebounder, even for his position. And while his longevity is decent, it clearly takes somewhat of a back-seat to Bellamy imo (particularly considering era standards).

Some great points for Bellamy. He was a big-time scorer, with a career Score+ of 2.505 (44th all-time), a PosScore+ of 2.184 (64th), and a TeamScore+ of 2.228 (33rd). His longevity is enough to give him a Total Score+ of 2349.62, good for 12th all-time.

One thing that's a total mystery with Dumars is how poorly he looks by defensive metrics. For his career, he's at a DWS/48 of 0.0319, which is well below the average of 0.05. Nearly 75% of his career win shares come on offense. He's got a DRating of 110, and a Defensive BPM of -1.7. Things look a little better in the playoffs, but he still appears as sub-average there. For whatever reason, I don't think these metrics are accurately capturing his impact. I'm looking at a way to decompose defensive win shares as I have with offensive ones, but it is proving tougher. Still, there's no way I believe that Dumars was a poor defender, and as such I feel these metrics are likely to underrate him (probably by quite some bit). Dumars was a very, very good defender - clearly the best perimeter defender Detroit had during their years as contenders (1987-1991).

The question in my mind is Dumars' defensive superiority vs. Bellamy's offensive superiority. I don't have as great of a feel for Bellamy's game as I do for Dumars', so I think I should sit this one out as I can't vote with my minimum threshold of confidence.

So first off, I appreciate the responses of you both. I'm finding it particularly difficult to essentially start and argument at this stage in the project. I just find myself seeing arguments on both sides of everything, and I end up taking a lesser role. You're giving me something to respond to here, and while that means I guess I'm saying "you're wrong!", really it's just good to have something concrete to discuss.

Right from the start with the comparison of Miller to Bellamy, my first thought is: But one is an off-ball shooter while the other is a big man that thrived with the offense built around him. As such there stats may look similar, but they aren't similar players. And while people can make of that what they may, I think I'm on record with how I see this stuff: I see the former as a great type of player to have on your team, someone who can help fill in the gaps without taking anything off the table. I see the latter as something to essentially avoid.

trex talks about his best 4 year stretch. Of course those were his first 4 years in the league and his team was always bad in that time. The only claim to fame they have there is that in the final year despite a losing record, they made the playoffs and upset the Hawks. But of course, when they did that, they did so with Bellamy only being the 4th leading scorer on their team for the series.

I don't like looking at players and doing anything that resembles "just pick the guy on the winning team", but when we talk about a big man as first option who really only thrived in that role on bad teams, you have to ask yourself: How much sense would it make to build my offense around this guy if I wanted to win championships?

And so this is where I tend to get with Bellamy: He's being discussed here for his scoring...but were I building a team I wouldn't even want to use him as he was used as a scorer. When I look at it from that angle, I find myself thinking about the fact that there are any number of bigs that I could use on a quality well designed roster that have not gotten consideration for the Top 100 here, but I'd probably take over Bellamy.

Re: rebounding. Definitely a good thing to bring up. I'll note that someone else we're talking about right now, Jerry Lucas, was at least a comparable appearing rebounder despite being considerably shorter. In both cases, I have a tough time looking at these guys as rebounding savants. I mean let's compare Bellamy to Russell for a second here:

Bellamy's rookie year, Russell out rebounds Bellamy by about 4.5 boards per game.
Next year that balloons to more than 7 boards per game.
By the 4th year of his 4 year stretch you pointed out, Russell's getting more than 9.5 more boards per game than Bellamy.

I'm a big fan of Russell and all, and I'm not trying to say Bellamy was a bad rebounder, but if we're going to champion him as a historically impressive rebounder, I guess I just expect more from him.

Last on Dumars, though he's voted in now so I'll try to be brief:

Obviously, one would not look at him as a top tier offense or defensive player. This is why I emphasize the two-way nature of his thread. He played off-ball guard, scoring decent volume on solid efficiency, and he was also the lead man defender on the perimeter on a team with a very successful defense. It's hard for me to look at any analysis and think that's not valuable. Frankly the recent shift we've seen where guys like Green or Middleton are so valuable to me is something Dumars is a part of. What was going on back then was not optimized the same way, but still, the essence is that this is a guy contributing on offense and on defense without getting in the way of other guys. I like that a lot.

Other points:

Poor rebounder? All through Dumars' prime, the Pistons were a phenomenal rebounding team. You don't want all your guys to crash the boards, and when you have Rodman out there, it's particularly vital that some guys are just focused on other things. Not saying I think in another life Dumars would have been some huge rebounder, but clearly Dumars worked in the role the Pistons wanted him to work, and developed his skills accordingly.

Mystery about poor defensive metrics? No mystery. It wasn't his job to get rebounds, and his focus on defense was stick-to-ya man defense rather than gambling like Isiah loved to do. Dumars' numbers here to me are a classic example of the box score basically being unable to track the vast majority of what a lot of players actually are asked to do out there.

SkyHookFTW wrote:I am not a voter for the project, but has anyone taken a good look at Chet Walker?

Based on everything I've read/seen, I really like Walker. He seems like a 60s version of Paul Pierce, more or less. Very good scorer, versatile enough player to be a valuable guy as both a role/complementary player, as well as one of the main stars (like he was especially in Chicago). Very efficient scorer for his era, works well within a team concept, and apparently a solid defender, too.

I'll probably vote for Walker at #100.