RealGM

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Kevin Garnett
13. Oscar Robertson
14. Karl Malone
15. Jerry West
16. Julius Erving
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. John Stockton
22. Dwyane Wade
23. Chris Paul
24. Bob Pettit
25. George Mikan
26. Steve Nash
27. Patrick Ewing
28. Kevin Durant
29. Stephen Curry
30. Scottie Pippen
31. John Havlicek
32. Elgin Baylor
33. ????

Go!

eminence wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

Colbinii wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

pandrade83 wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

SactoKingsFan wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

RSCS3_ wrote:.

BasketballFan7 wrote:.

micahclay wrote:.

ardee wrote:.

RCM88x wrote:.

Tesla wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

kayess wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

MisterHibachi wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

mischievous wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Bad Gatorade wrote:.

andrewww wrote:.

colts18 wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Cyrusman122000 wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

wojoaderge wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Outside wrote:.

scabbarista wrote:.

janmagn wrote:.

Arman_tanzarian wrote:.

oldschooled wrote:.

Pablo Novi wrote:.

john248 wrote:.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:.

Senior wrote:.

twolves97 wrote:.

CodeBreaker wrote:.

JoeMalburg wrote:.

dhsilv2 wrote:.

Just a reminder to BOLD your votes. This was a requirement stated at the beginning of the project, and your vote may not get counted otherwise.

PG -- Frazier has traditionally been my top choice among the remaining PGs. He's the guy I want shooting it, he ran an offense well known for doing all the right things ("It's Clyde's ball, he just lets us play with it," Willis Reed), he was great in the only two titles in Knicks history, and of course I grew up hating him. But, looking at the impact of Jason Kidd who consistently ran below average offenses until the very end of his career as a 3 and D player around Dirk Nowitzki, I was really surprised to see how much better the Gary Payton led offenses in Seattle were than Frazier's in NY (and of course than Kidd's in Phoenix and NJ which were weak). Frazier's offenses were in the top half of the league, Payton's were better with good shooting wings, Shawn Kemp (for better and for worse), and mediocre center play. During the 6 years he played for George Karl, a reasonable facsimile of Payton's prime, the offenses he led (and their is no doubt that Payton was always Seattle's leader) averaged 5 points better offensively than the league . . . finishing 2nd in the league twice, 3rd twice, 5th once, and 8th once.

Add to that Payton's defensive rep, his longer prime), and Frazier's playing much of his career in the relatively weak era of the 70s and I think I have to switch to the Glove or be inconsistent in my analysis and criteria. His scoring blows away the likes of Jason Kidd too (though not Frazier). Especially for PGs, team offense matters and the personnel isn't grossly in Payton's favor but the results are. I am looking at the Detroit pair of Thomas and Billups over Kidd too.

SG -- Like the PGs, the guy with the best 5 year prime has a very short career (as short as Curry and unlike Curry, his knees left him a shadow of himself for his last few years). That would be Sidney Moncrief, the GOAT defensive 2 and a superefficient, 20ppg scorer on a spread the wealth offense (sensing a theme!). Longevity would favor Clyde Drexler though and they are probably close enough that Drexler should get the edge. Gervin's defense is a problem, Reggie Miller and Sam Jones are also worth considering, maybe Ray Allen too. Lots of scorers here.

SF -- Best SF left could be Alex English, Paul Pierce, Adrian Dantley (who I feel gets an unfair rap at times), or 50s star Paul Arizin. Could be Rick Barry but his crappy attitude is a problem and his defense is Gervinesque; however his 1975 run is legendary so he does get some consideration here. Players who bring great defense instead of great offense would include Bobby Jones or Shawn Marion.

PF -- What to do with Hayes, McHale, Webber, Amare, and Dennis Rodman. I think some of these guys compare to the current candidates, particularly McHale. No sure I'd have him higher but I think it's a comparison worth looking into.

C -- The next C that I have is Artis Gilmore, outstanding defensive peaks though Gilmore's was in the ABA (not nearly as impressed by his post merger defense), superefficient but not aggressive scorer, mediocre passer. Similar to a significantly taller but shy Dwight Howard. Gilmore's 75 run would have been at least as legendary as Barry's, especially since it was arguably the worst year of Dan Issel's long career, but the big name writers generally didn't watch the outlaw league. I don't have Mel Daniels, Willis Reed, or Dave Cowens quite as high.


PICK: THE GLOVE

Alternate: The A-Train mainly for his ABA years.

penbeast0 wrote:

FYI, topic should be #33, not #32. I think Doc's head might explode if we have to go through the whole Baylor discussion again.

Thanks

33. Isiah Thomas

34. [Yes, 24 spots higher than he finished in 2014] Elvin Hayes


I. Isiah Thomas is the only player left who was the best player on two championship teams. It could be argued he was also a rolled ankle away from holding that distinction for three championship teams.

[Same as in the last thread, here] are some excerpts of mine from an old thread on Isiah Thomas:

Isiah is not overrated, unless someone is rating him in the top 20. The simple version - which obviously the media and public at large prefer - is that he was the best player on two championship teams, as well as the best or second best on a team that probably lost a third Finals because he twisted his ankle. He was also the best player on an NCAA champ. Only Jordan, Bird, and Magic made more All-NBA teams in the 80's. All of this is hard to dispute.

The more complex version hinges first and foremost on his elevating his play in the postseason. The post containing his all-time rankings in postseason improvement over the regular season should not be casually glossed over. The vast majority of players decrease their productivity in the playoffs, while the elite of the elite consistently increase it. Thomas' increases are historically high.

Secondly, the complex version states that he led and orchestrated top offenses for nearly his entire career, rather than relied on great defenses. There were four or five seasons when his team's OR even exceeded its DR.

A third point in the complex version is that Thomas was the galvanizing/uniting/driving leader behind the Pistons for all of the 80's. To illustrate, a player from the '88 team team has stated on record that when he and his teammates saw Isiah's heroic fourth quarter performance in game 6 of the 1988 Finals, they finally understood the depth of his determination, and they knew that even if he couldn't contribute in game 7 (he couldn't), they would come back the following year and win it all. Anyone who was paying close attention in 2014 should understand that the Spurs didn't win that year simply because of their system or their talent. The system was perfected and the talent was maximized over the course of nearly one hundred games because of the collective determination and focus that sprang from the agony of Ray Allen's miraculous shot in game 6 of the '13 Finals. Isiah's ankle injury in '88 played the same role as Allen's corner three in '13. If Isiah hadn't had the character, will, and desire that enabled him to excel on virtually one leg, his teammates might have lost a measure of confidence in their leader, and we might be looking at extra championships for Magic, Michael, or Clyde Drexler.

The people who say, "Show me where it says "character," "will," or "desire" on the stat sheet!" and accuse others of being simple-minded or narrative-dominated in their thinking are in fact the ones who fail to see the subtleties in the difference between winning and losing. No one person sees all the subtleties, but we must acknowledge their existence. As an example, when Dwight Howard, in a particularly tense moment in the playoffs, calls out his teammates even when they're doing their best, simply because he thinks he's looked bad on a particular possession, team cohesiveness is damaged as those players realize Dwight cares more about his own image than building up his teammates for the sake of collective success. Then Dwight leaves the court in the next timeout, and those players, still on the court, are trying to regain the focus and flow that Dwight's outburst cost them. Their play diminishes slightly, and Dwight's on/off numbers go up - or the quality of his "supporting cast" appears weaker. The stat sheet is lying - every part of it except the win/loss column. A hundred related scenarios occur in every game, and more occur on the practice court and in the locker room. More can occur in comments made to the media. Heck, this type of stuff has probably even happened in strip clubs.

A person who tries to sell you on a player based solely on stats without a narrative context is like someone who'll tell you he has a great marriage because he lasts a long time in bed with his wife - and then tells you exactly how long, down to the second.

I'm not one to echo Vince Lombardi's "winning is the only thing" quote. (That, too, would ignore context.) Karl Malone, in my opinion, had twice as good of a career as Isiah Thomas. But Thomas is a top 25 player [Top 28 now] because winning is the one "stat" that tells us what all the other stats never could. Winning is a coordinate on an imaginary graph: where a player's talent meets his daily determination to maximize it.

--------------


"I don't know man, I can't really get behind motivation and leadership being this huge of a factor into deciding who is greater. But we'll get to that."

I just can't help but what wonder what kind of life experiences a person has had so say something like "motivation and leadership are not huge factors in deciding who is greater." Like, have you ever had a job? Ever worked with other people? Maybe on a project with a bad leader? Or a great one? Ever notice the difference between the two - the difference in the results produced? Ever tried hard? Ever slacked off? Ever noticed the difference in the results between the two?

I can't force you to see things how I see them, but I watched last night's Game 2 and I saw a Cavs team that was more motivated than the Warriors team. It was obvious that Lebron and Dellavadova were working harder than anyone on the court - and this lead to multiple key offensive rebounds, not to mention loose balls that were saved or tipped - even one of which could have been the difference in the game. I'm not implying that actually making shots is irrelevant or that some of the things I've mentioned don't show up in the box score - that's a straw man - I'm just saying some things exist outside of the box score. The game is much more subtle and complex than the numbers alone can account for.

"Elevating play in the postseason is a great thing, but it's relevant only so far as to what level that increase actually leads to. If you're starting from a much smaller base than someone who doesn't improve as much, does it really matter if your increase is bigger if you still end up below them? The fact that the vast majority of players don't improve is irrelevant, because we aren't comparing Isiah to the vast majority of players here."

I agree with you. Only the end results matter in evaluating someone's greatness. I've just seen others on these boards highlight improvements and drops in playoff performance so many times that I guess it thought it might be relevant to this discussion.

Lest you be confused by my saying only the end results matter, then going on about process and narrative, my point in writing about process and narrative has never been that either is grounds for my rankings. They emphatically are not - my list is at least 99% results-driven. It depends almost exclusively on results that any objective observer could agree actually happened. The point I've been trying to make is that team success is one such result. Process and narrative only come into the discussion when they become useful in explaining why team success can be attributed to great players' actions that don't appear in the box score.

"Well, I wouldn't exactly call them great. Outside of the 1st place finish in 84, the Pistons while Isiah was an all-star level player were never a top 5 offense. And the defense being below average might have something to do with Isiah himself no? And the Pistons didn't make the conference finals until 87, the year their defense first replaced the offense as the better unit. So until the Pistons began "relying" on great defenses, they had basically no postseason success."

Perhaps they weren't great offenses. At least not plural. At least not when he was an "All-Star level player." As to below average defenses having something to do with Isiah, would you say the same about the Clippers defense and Chris Paul? It's generally acknowledged that point guard is the position that can have the least impact on a team's defense. Still, I happen to think all five players are important on both sides of the ball, so yes, he had something to do with it, and he also had something to do with the "great defenses" that came after. My original intent was just to dispel the myth that he never led a great offense.


"I can't get behind this. There's really no way to tell how much, if any at all, the drive of a player impacts the players around him. It's impossible, and always will be."

There's only one way: did the team do enough to get the job done? This is the same way leaders are evaluated in every walk of life.

"Saying Ray Allen's shot was the basis of the Spur's title run the next year is just so out there. It'd be like me saying the reason Duncan became a hall of fame player was because of the hurricane that destroyed the olympic swimming pool in his hometown that forced him to focus on basketball."

No, it's more like Duncan himself saying, "Me and my community were so devastated by that hurricane that I decided to do everything in my power to rise above it and make millions of dollars playing basketball to show that neither me nor my community could be bowed by the whims of fate." What you say has nothing to do with it. That's why I pointed out that a Pistons player actually said Isiah's determination drove them the entire following year. The Spurs players have said they were hoping to face the Heat. You can bet that desire was there from the moment game 7 of the '13 Finals ended, and you can bet the Spurs would not have been quite as focused against another team in the Finals. (They still would have won, obviously. They were too good by that time.) I never meant to imply that without Allen's shot, the Spurs don't win the championship. I did mean to imply, though, that it was a factor. Probably a very big factor.

"Every event is connected in the journey, as you say. But the way you tell it, it was Isiah's game 6 performance that was the most important moment of their 89 title run. That's ridiculous. It'd be way down on the list, waaaaaaaaaaay behind the level of play of the individual Pistons players during the actual season, which is what everyone else is using as the primary evaluator to make their all time list. Changes in confidence play a part, but not anywhere near THAT much. Having confidence in your leader isn't suddenly going to change you from a run of the mill playoff team into a champion. If I were to evaluate the 89 Pistons, I'd say their title was due to the emergence of Rodman and Dumars and the trade of Dantley making their team better and more cohesive, the way the rest of the Pistons played, the Celtics getting worse, the Lakers being injured, any amount of refereeing and injury randomness, how their other playoff opponents played, general randomness that's associated with all competitive sports (shots not falling etc.) and a whole bunch of other stuff. I can't see how looking at Isiah's leadership is going to come even close to having the impact those things do."

Again, it wasn't the way I told it. If it was just me making up a story, it would lose a lot of credence. It's there in the Bad Boys documentary. The players felt that way. Everything you mention was undoubtedly a factor. Just as in life, when a team has to work together on any common goal or project, everything that happens is a factor, and dozens of individual occurrences might each be the difference between success and failure. Many of these might be random. But what is the unifying concept throughout? The way the group responds to these occurrences. And what drives these responses? Leadership.

Again, I'm not saying that that previous paragraph explains why I rate Isiah where I do. What explains why I rate him where I do is the simple fact that he lead his teams to ultimate victory and near-ultimate victory four times in his career, three in the NBA and one in college. That previous paragraph was just to say that leadership is a real thing and it exists and it makes a difference in outcomes.

"First off, I don't really see anyone having an attitude like that. And I don't get the comparison to Dwight, because I don't think anyone here is calling Dwight a top 25 player either. And if Dwight's teammates are really that affected by a random "you guys suck" comment (and making an assumption that this has any impact on their play at all is a BIG assumption), they probably shouldn't be in the NBA in the first place. NBA players are getting heckled by fans, the media, and their teams ALL the time."

Correct, Dwight is not a top 25 player, but he may have more talent than Isiah. Most would probably say he does. Which is exactly my point. Talented players are often separated by "intangibles." Stating that human beings are affected by random "you suck" comments is not an assumption. It's common knowledge. And these random "you suck" comments tend to be more affecting when they come from people close to us or people on a higher level than us, and when they happen in public - all of which would describe Dwight in relation to someone like Ariza or Brewer, calling guys out on TV in the playoffs

I don't know how to save this and I need to go to work soon, but when you're talking about players getting heckled: a straw man. Dwight didn't heckle anybody in my example. Also, the fans and media are not in positions of leadership or in intimate relationships with the players. Also, there is a difference between making fun of someone and calling them out - and as I said, there is a difference in whether it is done to save Dwight's own face or to build up the cohesion of the team. Human relationships.

"The people you'd be comparing Isiah to if you think he's top 25 are guys like the usual suspects (MJ, Magic, Bird, Russell, Duncan, Kareem etc.) or more guys like Dirk, KG, Havlicek, Baylor, Barkley, Wade etc. Are we somehow going to argue that Isiah is a better leader than them? Or had more determination than them? How would we even go about that? We already have too much to look at with their respective basketball abilities and the circumstances in which they displayed those abilities."

We'd go about it by looking at wins. Determination, etc., do not appear on my ATG list. Winning does. If we're talking about how I evaluate players, then we're talking about stats, wins, and consensus - nothing else.

"Determination, like I said with the playoff thing earlier, is only relevant in how it affects your ability to play basketball. It's the starting from the lower base thing again. When compared with a guy who never meets his potential (like, say, Shaq) does it matter that Isiah had more determination if even with that determination Shaq was still in another stratosphere as a player?"

No, it doesn't matter. Shaq is higher than Isiah because he produced better results.

"Winning is a coordinate on a graph where a player's talent meets his daily determination to maximize it... AND where said player's teammates' talent meets their daily drive, AND where said player's opponents' talent meets their daily drive, AND where said player's coaches abilities to manage said talent, AND how lucky your team gets with injuries, AND how lucky your opponents get with injuries, AND how lucky your team gets with refereeing, AND a whole bunch of other things."

True, all of that factors in, but all of that also factors in to every other stat besides winning. So why would we decide other stats are more relevant than winning in evaluating players? Winning is the goal of the game. To ignore it or even minimize it is something I have a hard time understanding.

"The common thing here is talent. The talent and ability is the most important thing. And Isiah just didn't have enough talent and ability to be ranked where the consensus has him. The winning was just as much or more due to those other factors as it was to Isiah himself."

Talent Is Overrated. It's a good book. Check it out. As for Isiah's responsibility or lack thereof in his team's successes, I take the position that people often create their own opportunities and luck: when we consistently find a person in successful positions, in spite of all the other factors that might have been at play, the common thread is the person himself. I therefore give credit to that person.

Scabbarista - Isn't the intangibles argument in favor of Isiah one of the biggest reasons to not vote for Hayes, a player Alex Hannum once called the most despicable person he's met in sports, and a Bullets trainer said being around is like Chinese water torture

This is a real cluster between the lead guard spots and great wing scorer types, along with Artis Gilmore who figures to be the sole bigman who can be listed in the 30's.

PG - Isiah Thomas vs Walt Frazier vs Gary Payton is an excellent debate. I can see all 3 making it in the next 6 spots. Jason Kidd I see as top 50 all time but perhaps a step down from these three?
SG - Surprised Clyde Drexler isn't in yet. It certainly feels like he's the best player left and this was true a couple spots ago as well. Sidney Moncrief is also an interesting post. Might post more on him later. Reggie Miller also figures to be another intriguing player. Don't know if he's more of a 30's or a 40's guy.
SF - Rick Barry has the resume to be in right away. George Gervin should probably be discussed more. He feels like the 70's Durant in many aspects. Paul Pierce and Tracy McGrady should be the next SF's to slip in. The latter two might be 40's type of players but are interesting and T-Mac has clearly peaked higher than anyone else that's being discussed.
PF - Kevin McHale - is he better than say Pau Gasol? It might be some time before another PF is voted in.
C - Artis Gilmore, Willis Reed and Dave Cowens. all excellent players. The last two may be 40's types.

I think criteria really begins to matter here. A lot of these players could be debated on each other depending on your preferences.

Dr Positivity wrote:Scabbarista - Isn't the intangibles argument in favor of Isiah one of the biggest reasons to not vote for Hayes, a player Alex Hannum once called the most despicable person he's met in sports, and a Bullets trainer said being around is like Chinese water torture

Ditto - I can accept the logic that would have Isiah in the lower 30's. I can accept the logic that would have Hayes in the high 30's/low 40's (even if I disagree with both).

I struggle to reconcile the logic that would have the same person be an early supporter of both.

Vote 1 - Walt “Clyde” Frazier

Vote 2 - Clyde Drexler

[Heh, look at that — 2 Clydes]

Frazier in the Finals

70 (7 games): ~17.6 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 10 APG, 54% FG, 76% FT, 5.9 FTAs per game

(yes, i'm aware of the potentially faulty assist count in game 7…)

72 (5 games): ~23 PPG, 8 RPG, 8 APG, 59% FG, 70% FT, 5.4 FTAs per game

73 (5 games): ~16.6 PPG, 7 RPG, 5 APG, 48% FG, 65% FT, 4 FTAs per game

While the knicks would lose in 5 games to the lakers in 72, this was without reed, so they didn't have much of a chance. That said, Clyde stepped up in his absence as evidenced by his impressive all around play. Overall, he was a great performer in the finals. He really had a solid case for finals MVP in 73, but the "big bias" of the time essentially put reed over the top. In addition, his historic game 7 in the 70 finals put the knicks over the top, some of which can be watched here:



It's also worth noting the knicks nearly went to 4 finals in a row if not for a 2 pt game 7 loss to the bullets in the 71 ECF. Frazier led some truly great teams during that stretch.

Frazier embodied just about all you could ask from a star player. He was a versatile playmaker with great decision making, rarely deterred by defensive pressure. On the other side of the ball, he's widely considered one of the best defensive guards of all time. He had the unique ability to lull a player into an "easy" drive to the basket, and then tapping the ball from behind for a steal and fast break bucket. He was also great in passing lanes, and had the size and speed to guard both the 1 and 2.

From a more intangible standpoint, clyde fit in seamlessly with one of the most balanced scoring teams in NBA history. Team chemistry was huge, and he valued the importance of his teammates highly. Per Page 2 interview via ESPN:

The story of that night is that Reed's presence really inspired your team and really rattled the Lakers …

Frazier: Oh, unequivocally. If Willis didn't come out, I would not have had that game.

Is that right?

Frazier: Absolutely. He gave us the confidence we needed. The crowd ... the crowd propelled us to that win, man. They never shut up. They had us doing things we never thought we could do.

The knicks routinely ran an "option-less" offense, where "hit the open man" was the basic game plan. Clyde would further his ability to adapt to playing with other star players when his conference rival Earl Monroe was traded to NY. 2 of the best guards in the game with only 1 ball to go around were expected to clash, but instead their styles of play complemented each other quite well.

Albert pointed out that Frazier, too, had to make accommodations. ''They both subjugated their game,'' he said. But, after playing so intensely against one another, Albert said: ''They both were so in tune with one another and what needed to be done. So it worked.''

- - - - -

But for basketball fans, Monroe's career was a tutorial in winning. ''By enthusiastically adopting the Knicks' philosophy,'' Bradley said, ''Earl helped to show that no one can accomplish alone as much as all of us can accomplish together.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/sports/backtalk-when-stars-collide-in-new-york.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A9%22%7D

Meta analysis time, especially since we've gotten past the greatest of the greats, and now weakness tend to be more dramatic the further down we go. I want to think about what truly defines a good offensive and defensive player.

The goal of basketball, in its simplest form, is to score more points than the other team. This is done through scoring on offense, and reducing the other team's scoring on defense. Now, this part should be obvious, but it can be clouded by a variety of factors. This then leads to the next question - what is the most effective way to score/defend?

I'll start with offense first.
Offensively, there are basically 3 categories of shots - shots at the rim, midrange, and 3 point line.
First, I want to look at the shots themselves, then see what playstyles lend themselves to most effective offense (with playmaking/passing a part of the discussion).

Okay, the shots. Here are some quick numbers, per 100 possession. I'm just going to use 1.0 as the first baseline number.

3 pointers - 33.3% - 1.0 ppp
Midrange - 50% - 1.0 ppp
Rim - 50% - 1.0 ppp

Now, I'll use approximations of Lebron's rim shooting numbers, MJ's midrange, and Steph's 3 numbers as the "upper limit." All numbers are taken from bbref (except MJ's mid - taken from Dipper13's post).

3 pointers - 45% - 1.35 ppp
Midrange - 51% - 1.02 ppp
Rim - 80% - 1.6 ppp

Now let's go with the 2016-17 season shooting averages for each.

3 pointers - 35.8% - 1.07 ppp
Midrange - 40.3% - 0.81 ppp
Rim - 63.1% - 1.26 ppp

Now I'll sort them least to greatest for each just for ease of viewing.

3 - 1.0, 1.07, 1.35
Mid - 0.81, 1.0, 1.02
Rim - 1.0, 1.26, 1.6

What does this tell me?
-The rim is the most valuable and efficient scoring area (common sense, but I thought I'd give some numbers to it).
-Unless you're Steph Curry, even a league average finisher provides more value per shot at the rim than a 3 pointer (and Steph is only marginally higher value).
-Midrange shots are horribly inefficient, so much so that per possession, even a LEAGUE AVERAGE 3 point shooter provides more value than a Michael Jordan midrange shot (not to mention shots at the rim). Looks like D'Antoni truly was ahead of his time with the Suns.

Next I want to look at the overall value of the shot selection of certain play styles (some rounding involved). I'll total up the ppp of each player from the 3 primary spots, and ratio them out according to their shot selection. Jordan's could be slightly skewed, as I'm using career values, and I only have part of his peak years as data. Shaq's could as well, due to the shooting numbers being available starting in 01. It's not for precision, just for a general purpose anyway. This also only takes into account 3 extremes - shots <3 feet, 16 < 3, and 3 pt. Shots between 3-16 are not counted, though the value of them can be assumed from this data as well.

Name - 3ppp/midppp/rimppp/ratioppp

Steph - 1.314/0.92/1.288/1.21
Lebron - 1.026/0.772/1.46/1.15
Shaq - 0/0/1.496/1.496
Dirk - 1.152/0.95/1.288/1.08
Jordan - 1.059/1.008/1.304/1.11

So, according to the ratioppp:

Shaq - 1.496 (skewed due to lack of non-rim shots)
Steph - 1.21
Lebron - 1.15
Jordan - 1.11
Dirk - 1.08

Those numbers were a ratio of each shot class divided by the total ratio of all 3. Here are the results without the dividing:

Steph - 1.01
Jordan - 0.94
Lebron - 0.89
Shaq - 0.80
Dirk - 0.72

If I were to include those 3-16 results:

Shaq - 1.18 ppp
Steph - 1.15 ppp
Lebron - 1.07 ppp
Jordan - 1.05 ppp
Dirk - 1.03 ppp

Some thoughts now:
-It ended up being precisely as I thought - the best finishers and 3 point shooters did the best, and the midrange guys did the worst.
-Steph and Shaq present a sizable gap from the rest. Steph is actually a really good finisher, and Lebron compared to 01-11 Shaq had a similar finishing percentage (wow), but the gap would certainly increase if Shaq's other prime years were included.
-Lebron and MJ are neck and neck, and Dirk is right there with them.
-As a side note, Dirk performs 0.07ppp better than Kobe, the same amount as the gap between Steph and Lebron.

I've already written a ton, so I will say I haven't even gotten to the part I was actually trying to say (lol). If there's any interest in my writing more, I'll weigh these results in context of their playmaking/gravity/ball dominance/etc., and if there's more request past that, I'll also use it to springboard into a post on defense.

Main guys who've been discussed by others who are high on my list: Barry, Gilmore, Frazier. I'll probably be deciding between them.

Pick: Clyde Drexler
Alternate: Gary Payton

Not a verbatim repeat - Isiah is getting some traction and if I have another point guard as my pick or alternate, I need to address it.


My Top Point Guards left (in order): Payton/Kidd/Frazier
My Top Wings left (in order): Drexler/Barry/Gervin/Baylor
My Top Center left: Artis

I'm going with Drexler. He's the most capable of carrying a team and is the strongest two way player Additionally, all signs point to him being a very strong defender - he doesn't have the accolades but he's pretty strong on that end.



If you're taking Isiah here, I understand the case. You're putting all the weight on leadership and playoff clutch performance. Regular season stats don't matter to you and it's hard to build a case around Isiah based on advanced metrics.

So, let's compare playoff results:

During Payton's 10 year prime ('94-'03) he put up 24-8-5, 2 steals, 3 Turnovers & 53% TS.
During Isiah's 10 year prime ('83-'92) he put up 20-9-5, 2 steals, 3.3 Turnovers & 52% TS.

Very comparable - probably a slight edge to Payton but it's close; if the Isiah supporter wanted to call it a wash, I'm OK with that.

Next, let's look at closeout/elimination game performance:

Same time periods -

Isiah put up 21-9-5, 2 steals & 3.1 Turnovers on 50% TS
Payton put up 23-8-6, 2 steals & 2.7 Turnovers on 55% TS

Payton gets a fairly decisive edge here.

Next, let's look at how they performed during the later rounds. For Payton during the prime I referenced, we only have '96-'98 to look at, so we'll compare that against Isiah's '88-'90 perfomance.

Patyon put up 21-7-5, 2 steals, and 2.9 TO on 55% TS
Isiah put up 20-8-5, 2 steals, 3.5 TO on 52% TS

Again - edge goes to Payton - and keep in mind - that Payton was an elite defender and the only PG to win DPOY. He put up better offensive #'s while being his team's defensive anchor.

You won't see D like this on MJ from Isiah.

I know - Isiah won the rings. Did he light it up in the defining games of the Bad Boys' runs where they overcame/held off an obstacle?

'88 vs. Boston when they slayed the Celtic monster, he went 1-11 for 9 points, 9 assists & 5 rebounds. Not a great game - he was lucky that Vinnie & Edwards went off for 39 off the bench & Dantley got 22. He was really lucky that the defense clamped down on Bird (4/17), Parish & Ainge (4 points combined for those two).

In '89 after Magic pulled his hamstring, the series was never in doubt. But in the Final game, the Lakers clinged to a 2 point lead.

Isiah was fine. He went 5-9 for 14 points, 5 ast & 3 reb. But others like Dumars (23 & 6) were more impactful - and Dumars won the FMVP.

In '90, when Detroit held off Chicago for one last time, Isiah was very good - 21, 11 & 8.
He was very good in the closeout game in the Finals vs. Portland too, taking over with 29 points on 13/20 shooting. He did have 7 turnovers which is a bit much but OK.

My point isn't that Isiah was a poor playoff performer; that would be un-true - this isn't to trash him.

The point is that GP was a stronger playoff performer and that Isiah wasn't this killer who dominated every big win either as he is being lionized for. Payton was a better playoff performer and everything we have shows he was the better overall player in the regular season as well.

As to leadership/competitive spirit, Isiah has a case for the GOAT amongst point guards. But it's not like Payton is poor in this area, he's not Chris Paul or anything. His trash talk was a psychological weapon and he is highly respected by his contemporaries and those who followed him.

Stockton: "Consistent, Tremendous Warrior-like play"
Jason Terry: "My idol Gary Payton"
George Karl: "Gary Payton was the best player I ever coached"
SI posted a great article about how Payton had transformed into a strong leader https://www.si.com/vault/1999/12/20/271562/the-hustler-the-surprising-sonics-are-taking-their-cue-from-brash-gary-payton-who-has-blossomed-into-a-team-leader-as-well-as-the-best-all-around-guard-in-the-game

Had Karl figured out defensive strategy sooner, Seattle could've potentially pulled a monstrous upset over the '96 Chicago Bulls, but alas it wasn't meant to be. Compared to players who we're taking about here, Isiah is as good as you're going to get on the leadership/intangibles component. No one left is better - few are his equal. I'd rate the Glove as above average but not great.

If you're going to take Isiah for his leadership/intangibles, there's a healthy amount of tangibles to overcome first. But let me borrow from a Chuck Klosterman quote in Simmons' book:

"The problem, of course, is my use of the word "tangible". Anything described as tangibly good is inferred to mean intangibly flawed. . . .
His wins validate everything. . . .

The real question is this: who was better in a vacuum? If we erase the social meaning of their careers - in other words, if we ignore the unsophisticated ciche that suggests the only thing valuable about sports is who wins the last game of the season - which of these two men was better at the game?"

The answer is fairly clearly Payton - and that's after engaging Isiah on his turf. Isiah's intangibles will have me taking him over players who were probably statistically better. But I'm not quite to the point of supporting Isiah yet.

Vote: Clyde Drexler (led team to the finals twice as the man, was the leader of win shares on a team that won the title in 1995). Was on the Original Dream Team, 10x allstar

2nd Vote: Gary Payton

Almost slim to none you can say a guard anchored both defense and offense in the history of the game. This guy was the only player in history to be named 1st Team All Defense in 9 consecutive seasons. His impact and trash talking go way beyond box scores and advanced metrics. You can almost say he's one of the most complete player all time. I'm going with one of the most underrated players ever.

Vote: Gary "The Glove" Payton
Alt: Isiah Thomas

oldschooled wrote:Almost slim to none you can say a guard anchored both defense and offense in the history of the game....

OF the guys getting mentioned here, it can be said about both Frazier and Moncrief though neither lasted as long as Payton. Of the guys already in, probably Jordan (before Pippen really took over defensive primacy), Jerry West (because who else on that team was an above average defender before Wilt), possibly Kobe, Paul, or even Wade at some point in their career. But, other than Moncrief in Milwaukee, were any of those defenses top 10% in the league during the years where they were the main defensive presence?

The candidates that come to mind at first glance... Drexler, Frazier, Thomas, Payton, Kidd.

Right now I am leaning towards Payton

He plays an offensive impact friendly role as a PG with 8 assists+ per game. I am not the biggest fan of his style of scoring but he is still a volume scorer which gives him an advantage over a player like Kidd. Defensively he is one of the highest rated PGs. Just by nature of passing and defending alone he has a lot of value in my opinion before getting to his scoring game. Payton's longevity is an asset at this stage and this is where we start really getting into players who you wish had a few years more to solidify their case like Frazier, Cowens, Tmac, etc.

Vote: Gary Payton

2nd: Clyde Drexler

I know the 90s-ization of the list has already been commented on, but I'm going to throw in another name out there, Alonzo Mourning.

- His longevity isn't too bad, he comes in a polished 21/10/3.5 player and plays 8 years before the kidney problems, then is still good in 02, and is a very nice role player in 06 and 07, possibly the 3rd most important guy on 06 team
- He finishes 2nd in MVP in 99 and 3rd in 00, and is 6th and 5th in WS those seasons, 13th in VORP both years. He finishes 1st in RPI RAPM in ascreamingcomesacrosshtecourt numbers in 99, and 10th in 00. He is the best player on a 1/2 seed those seasons. If you ignore sexiness and go by stats and accolades this is a highly impressive peak - arguably right up there with the players in contention like Kidd, Payton, Drexler, etc.
- His offense may not be perfect but he plays a defense first position and is DPOY level. This gives him high value to begin with and then you add in at least being above average offensive player by doing 20ppg on above average TS with a little bit of floor spacing and it makes him a highly valuable player. If he's +1 or +2 on offense when added to the defense he's a really high impact player.
- Outstanding intangibles, which could be one of the main reasons to favor him over Dwight or Gilmore (Nothing against Gilmore as a person, but it would appear Mourning had that fire and motivational belief that people wanted to see more out of him)

33) Barry
34) Drexler

And on this one Barry stands out as one of the very last guys who can truly be said to have carried his team to a title primarily through his own efforts. He was a consistently huge playoff performer too, averaging 27.3pts a game in the playoffs over his career, and 28.2pts 5.5reb 6.1ast 2.9stl 0.9blk on his way to that 1975 title.


On Drexler:

Way back when we took DWade #22 I wanted to post these numbers, because they are 'things that make you go hmmm':

DWade 915gms 21317pts 4396reb 5172ast 1500stl 800blk 3020TO
Drexler 1086gms 22195pts 6677reb 6125ast 2207stl 719blk 2977TO

DWade 35.4min 23.3pts 4.8reb 5.7ast 1.6stl 0.9blk 3.3TO .559TS% 24.3PER
Drexle 34.6min 20.4pts 6.1reb 5.6ast 2.0stl 0.7blk 2.7TO .547TS% 21.1PER

DWade ORTG 110 DRTG 104, 73.6+43.6=117.2WS .174WS/48, 4.1+1.0=5.1BPM 57.7VORP
Drexle ORTG 114 DRTG 105, 85.6+49.9=135.6WS .173WS/48, 4.5+1.5=6.0BPM 75.6VORP


And out of that DWade, who I do think peaked higher, is sitting up at #22, and Drexler is yet to be taken at #33.

Don't have much time and posting from phone. Just want to get my picks in before I'm off the grid again.

1st vote: Jason Kidd
2nd vote: Artis Gilmore


Have previously given reasons for Kidd. *One of the giants of longevity, who played 19 [durable] seasons, and was a useful positive impact player every single one of them, in multiple different roles/situations, too.
**Peaked as 5th in the league in RAPM for three consecutive seasons (6th another year), while finishing 2nd in the MVP vote at least once, and being the clear leader on a Nets team that went to the finals two years in a row.

Nutshell reasons for A-Train: excellent defensive peak and prime (see '75 in particular), extraordinarily solid finisher, and great longevity. Will try to write more later

Does anyone feel that players like Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway, Tracy McGrady, or Bill Walton deserve some traction now as many of them arguably peaked higher than some of the candidates being thrown around right now?