RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35

Moderators: penbeast0, trex_8063, PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier

penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 28,311
And1: 8,584
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#1 » by penbeast0 » Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:44 pm

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. Clyde Drexler
34. Rick Barry
35. ????

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.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 28,311
And1: 8,584
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#2 » by penbeast0 » Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:49 pm

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!). George Gervin is probably the next greatest. High volume, high efficiency scorer who led good teams often with lesser talent to the playoffs for a long time. Admittedly his defense is a problem. Reggie Miller and Sam Jones are also worth considering, 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. Players who bring great defense instead of great offense would include Bobby Jones or Shawn Marion. Leaning Alex English among this group as he is the most versatile and well rounded but I could be convinced of one of the others as well. I expect the first selected will probably be Pierce.

PF -- Power forward candidates include Hayes, McHale, Webber, Amare, and Dennis Rodman as well as possibly Dolph Schayes. Of this group, currently leaning toward Kevin McHale, none of the others match up well with the remaining centers in terms of impact.

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; nor Nate Thurmond or Dwight Howard for that matter.


PICK: THE GLOVE

Alternate: The A-Train mainly for his ABA years.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
scrabbarista
RealGM
Posts: 15,544
And1: 13,420
Joined: May 31, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#3 » by scrabbarista » Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:13 pm

35. Isiah Thomas

36. [Yes, 22 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.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#4 » by pandrade83 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:03 am

Pick: Gary Payton
Alternate: Artis Gilmore


My Top Point Guards left (in order): Payton/Kidd/Frazier
My Top Wing left: Gervin
My Top Center left: Artis


Addressing all the point guards getting traction:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Isiah section

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.

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

The Cousy Section

Looking at the pre-Russell era, adjusting for nutritional benefits & population growth would basically yield an NBA that had 16 teams composed of all white American born players. Presently there's a little over 40 such players in the real NBA so we don't even have enough players to fill out the starting lineups. This means you have a bunch of guys who aren't making a living playing basketball today playing in this league - we're talking guys like former Louisville stars Kyle Kuric and Luke Hancock. Your best players in that league would be Kevin Love & Gordon Hayward. Cousy couldn't lead a team to the finals in that era and was consistently eliminated by Dolph Schayes - who was the best player on a title team in that era. None of Cousy's contemporaries are getting any support - and some achieved more (see: Schayes).

Then when Russell comes along, Boston starts winning all kinds of championships but the offensive rating drops even as the pace remains relatively constant (an outlier to the fast side) relative to rest of league, so it's fairly obvious that they're winning with defense (i.e. - Russell). For me, it's hard to take Cousy as a candidate at this stage.

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

The Kidd section

Jason Kidd is the best regular season point guard left. I'm taking Payton for being the stronger playoff performer in their prime & for being better on intangibles.

Playoffs:

Kidd ('98-'07): 16-9-8, 2 steals, 3.4 TOV, 49% TS
Payton ('94-'03): 24-8-5, 2 steals, 3.0 TOV, 53% TS

Playoffs in clutch/elimination games:

Kidd (same years as above): 17-9-7, 2 steals, 3.7 TOV, 50% TS
Payton (same years as above): 23-8-6, 2 steals, 2.7 TOV, 55% TS

Intangibles:

I view guys competing for the Top 100 spots in 4 categories:

1) Excellent. Their leadership qualities & characteristics had a materially positive impact on those around them; they are effectively a 2nd coach for the team, guys will kill for this player and they embody what it means to be a teammate - these players will be nominated before their playing impact says they should. Remaining example: Isiah Thomas

2) Good. These are strong competitors, they show up in big games, they can be a psychological/emotional leader and they're well respected by their teammates. The difference between this group and the above group is that no one is voting them in early because of it - it's not something where there's reams of quotes available on it. Remaining example: Gary Payton

3) Indifferent/Mixed: They're not hurting the team in the locker room/on the sidelines/off the court but the lack of fire/drive/interaction with others means that they need another emotional leader to reach their potential and/or they're hyper-competitive in a way that hurts the team. Gilmore is an example because of his lack of fire, CP3/Oscar probably hurt their teams based on what we know.

4) Cancerous: They're doing something off the court which causes a major distraction and actively impairs the team's ability to win. The team is not reaching their full potential explicitly because of something this guy does.

This article outlines Kidd's escapades well and while they are slightly overstate the effects, the incidents themselves all happened.
http://thebiglead.com/2014/06/30/jason-kidd-brooklyn-milwaukee-toni-braxton-wife-power-play-failed/

There's just too much of Kidd's career where he's in that bottom tier. Gary Payton isn't the best leader of an NBA Team ever, but the difference between Payton & Kidd in this area plus the superior playoff performance gives GP the edge - not to mention that for far too much of Kidd's career, you could basically ignore him on the offensive end.

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

Frazier

My logo shows I'm a Knicks fan. :nonono:

I respect what's came before my era and have gone back & watched some of those meaningful games from that era. I think Frazier is great - he's a ton of fun to watch. Ultimately, GP gets the edge for longevity. Frazier doesn't really have a useful pre OR post prime.

If we look at his 7 All-D Years as his prime, Payton basically delivers everything Frazier does, plus 2 more of those years. On top of that, we get an extra 5 years of Payton as a functional/useful starter PLUS a 6th man role in Miami where he was pivotal in two of the Finals games - he mattered to the point where it's possible Miami doesn't win the title without an old-ass Gary Payton out there.

That's too much of a trade off for me.

I don't think Billups will get enough support to challenge Payton this round - I'm still short on time.
User avatar
THKNKG
Pro Prospect
Posts: 994
And1: 368
Joined: Sep 11, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#5 » by THKNKG » Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:42 am

Currently considering:

PG: Gary Payton/Jason Kidd/Walt Frazier (I have Isiah more in the Westbrook/Billups range)

SG: Reggie Miller

SF: none right now

PF: Dennis Rodman/Kevin McHale

C: Artis Gilmore/Nate Thurmond/Dikembe Mutombo

So:
Payton
Kidd
Frazier
Miller
McHale
Rodman
Thurmond
Mutombo
Gilmore
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)

PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis
SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan
SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen
PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams
C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,444
And1: 1,869
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#6 » by euroleague » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:06 am

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Isiah Thomas
HM: Kevin McHale

Pick: Cousy - Cousey's passing influenced the way the game was played hugely, and he did so in an unconventional way that didn't gain any unfair advantage a la goaltending. He won an MVP as his prime was ending, and his offensive style lives on far past his retirement and beyond his success leading the Celtics pre-Russell (questionable how Russell's passing would've developed without Cousey).

When Cousy joined the league, the Celtics were a 20 win team, and he immediately brought them to 40 his rookie year. He changed a bottom dwelling team to an immediate contender, and went on to contend with an elite offense in the eastern conference before Russell ever joined. He won MVP, and led the league in assists many times on his way to 10 all-nba first teams.

Alt: isiah Thomas: In 1988 he led the league in VORP for the post-season. In this post-season, MJ was playing on a team with no back-up, Magic was in his prime, Bird was beasting still. And Isiah Thomas led the league in VORP on a "deep" team that had other guards who were legit. The Pistons wouldn't be close to the team they were without Isiah, and even with him on the bench they immediately suffered more than the Lakers without Magic.

In 1988 he also led the league in DWS for the PS.

From 1987-1990, Isiah Thomas was never lower than 3rd in Post-Season VORP. His team is often called "the deepest of the 80s", in terms of talent across the board, but Isiah's impact was consistently on the tier of MJ/Bird/Magic (these 4 dominated the VORP rankings).

Isiah Thomas was also 3rd in playoff box-score plus-minus in 87 and 88, and 2nd in 90.

As a floor general, his impact went far beyond volume statistics. When IT wasn't in the game, the Pistons were suffering. He was capable of scoring if needed, evidenced by the 55 point outing that should've sealed a Pistons championship in 88 (except for a bad call from a ref in the last seconds) WHILE he was injured.

IT had his teammates back, and would throw himself under the fire to keep them alright. Isiah embraced the "bad boy" role even though he himself was obviously far from a bad boy image, with his clean smile and baby face, and his impact was equal to GOAT level players in the late 80s.


HM2: McHale is possibly the greatest m2m PF defender in NBA history, and one of the greatest individual scorers in the post in NBA history. His playstyle is similar to Hakeem for most of Hakeem's career in terms of scoring and man2man defense, except McHale may be the superior post scorer and the superior man 2 man defender. He was, however, even worse at passing (basically a black hole on offense) and not a rim protector so these two aspects give Hakeem the edge on both ends in the end. But, McHale's scoring is getting very underrated.

McHale averaged 26ppg on 65% TS in 1987. He had a 24 PER, 10rpg and 2.2 bpg. His ws/48 was .232 and he played more minutes than Larry Bird, resulting in 14.8 WS.

To compare with MJ that year, MJ had a league leading 16.9 WS and a 29.8 PER.

Larry Bird led the league in PER in 85 and 86 with 26.5 and 25.8.

McHale was 5th in the league in PER, behind only MJ/Bird/Barkley/maybe Magic didn't look. He was 4th in WS and WS/48. He was top 10 in VORP/BPM, but didn't have the same impact coming off the court as he would have if he was the team captain (obviously) because Bird was the leader of the team, so these numbers are lessened.

His PER/WS/WS/48 were all ahead of Hakeem, Moses, Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, and many other stars in their heyday.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 42,315
And1: 22,209
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#7 » by dhsilv2 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:45 am

I didn't expect to go here this soon, but I'm moving Payton up to my alt for the time being. Frazier will remain my guy. The two titles and the debatable view that Frazier was the best player on both title teams. And again I give value for being the only guy to ever make the knicks not well...we won't go there.

I'm moving towards Payton for the alt and the reason is difficult. I've always had Kidd just as by default ahead of him. The reason is really while watching the NBA after 98, Payton fell off the map until he was in a cameo role in LA. Then he was a decent role player on the 06 heat. But going back to post George Karl seattle teams were a LOT worse than I remembered them. You're in trouble if Vin Baker was your second best player. He also interesting doesn't do well in BPM or WS/48 but it seems he was healthy enough to manage to stay on the floor more than others.

28th in WS that means I'm only jumping Miller (he wasn't imo a complete player), Issel (ABA...), Pierce (he needs to get into the conversation pretty soon, but I think payton's peaks were better), and Parish (he just played forever imo). VORP doesn't paint much of a different view either. Only Miller is ahead of him.

Reed and Cowens are still pretty high on my list, but they both are lacking in longevity even next to frazier. With these two in we'll still have Kidd and Cousy in the elite point guards, and then I guess thomas has to get ranked based on his intangibles despite a rather weak resume otherwise (but the 50's are a good place for thomas 50-65).

Vote Frazier
Alt Payton
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,444
And1: 1,869
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#8 » by euroleague » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:53 am

pandrade83 wrote:
The Cousy Section

Looking at the pre-Russell era, adjusting for nutritional benefits & population growth would basically yield an NBA that had 16 teams composed of all white American born players. Presently there's a little over 40 such players in the real NBA so we don't even have enough players to fill out the starting lineups. This means you have a bunch of guys who aren't making a living playing basketball today playing in this league - we're talking guys like former Louisville stars Kyle Kuric and Luke Hancock. Your best players in that league would be Kevin Love & Gordon Hayward. Cousy couldn't lead a team to the finals in that era and was consistently eliminated by Dolph Schayes - who was the best player on a title team in that era. None of Cousy's contemporaries are getting any support - and some achieved more (see: Schayes).

Then when Russell comes along, Boston starts winning all kinds of championships but the offensive rating drops even as the pace remains relatively constant (an outlier to the fast side) relative to rest of league, so it's fairly obvious that they're winning with defense (i.e. - Russell). For me, it's hard to take Cousy as a candidate at this stage.



Part 1: Your best player in the today's league may be Jokic, Porzingis, Hayward, Marc Gasol... Don't have KLove on their level in his current situation with LBJ running his offense - who, just like you, thinks white guys are overrated.
KLove is more on par with Nowitzki now-a-days.

During the best era in NBA history, the 80s, an 80% white team was winning championships. Acting like white players suck is just ignorant.

Since 2000, 3 MVPs have been white and at least 5 have been half-white, who most people wouldn't even guess are black. Jason Kidd is half black and has blue eyes. Steph Curry is half black and doesn't have black hair. Klay Thompson is like 1/4 black. Tim Duncan is mostly white.

Part 2: Russell joined at the same year as Tom Heinsohn and Frank Ramsay to a team that already was an eastern conference contender. They are winning because their team-wide talent is huge, and they have an elite floor general helping run the offense. They are winning with offense and defense, and if you took away either one they wouldn't win. Without Cousy, there may never have been a Celtics dynasty, as those 7 game series needed every bit of offense/defense to win (or sometimes lose).
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#9 » by pandrade83 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:38 am

euroleague wrote:
pandrade83 wrote:
The Cousy Section

Looking at the pre-Russell era, adjusting for nutritional benefits & population growth would basically yield an NBA that had 16 teams composed of all white American born players. Presently there's a little over 40 such players in the real NBA so we don't even have enough players to fill out the starting lineups. This means you have a bunch of guys who aren't making a living playing basketball today playing in this league - we're talking guys like former Louisville stars Kyle Kuric and Luke Hancock. Your best players in that league would be Kevin Love & Gordon Hayward. Cousy couldn't lead a team to the finals in that era and was consistently eliminated by Dolph Schayes - who was the best player on a title team in that era. None of Cousy's contemporaries are getting any support - and some achieved more (see: Schayes).

Then when Russell comes along, Boston starts winning all kinds of championships but the offensive rating drops even as the pace remains relatively constant (an outlier to the fast side) relative to rest of league, so it's fairly obvious that they're winning with defense (i.e. - Russell). For me, it's hard to take Cousy as a candidate at this stage.



Part 1: Your best player in the today's league may be Jokic, Porzingis, Hayward, Marc Gasol... Don't have KLove on their level in his current situation with LBJ running his offense - who, just like you, thinks white guys are overrated.
KLove is more on par with Nowitzki now-a-days.

During the best era in NBA history, the 80s, an 80% white team was winning championships. Acting like white players suck is just ignorant.



Since 2000, 3 MVPs have been white and at least 5 have been half-white, who most people wouldn't even guess are black. Jason Kidd is half black and has blue eyes. Steph Curry is half black and doesn't have black hair. Klay Thompson is like 1/4 black. Tim Duncan is mostly white.

Part 2: Russell joined at the same year as Tom Heinsohn and Frank Ramsay to a team that already was an eastern conference contender. They are winning because their team-wide talent is huge, and they have an elite floor general helping run the offense. They are winning with offense and defense, and if you took away either one they wouldn't win. Without Cousy, there may never have been a Celtics dynasty, as those 7 game series needed every bit of offense/defense to win (or sometimes lose).


1) I said American born pretty clearly - I edited my above statement to bold American players to reinforce that because there weren't European players in the NBA then.

But to fixate on the '86 Celtics is to also miss the point. Today there's 43 white American born players in the NBA. Now we're up to 113 international players in the league. White American born players comprise < 10% of today's NBA. The point isn't that white American born players "suck" per se. The point of the analogy is to show that if you modernized the 1950's NBA for today in an all white league, that the league as a whole would not be of high quality - and Cousy had roughly the same team success as the modern day Raptors and was routinely beat by someone who is getting zero traction right now and led a team to a title in Dolph Schayes.

2) In the Russell years, here's Boston's offensive/defensive ratings relative to the league:

'57: -0.4/-4.8
'58: -0.8/-5.2
'59: -0.7/-5.7
'60: -0.1/-6.2
'61: -3.4/-7.6
'62: -1.5/-8.5
'63: -2.9/-8.5

I know they were better offensively before, but the drop-off in performance makes you question Cousy's impact on the title teams. Cousy was clearly a vital cog to those title teams but if you're a vital cog to title teams as opposed to being the best player on those teams, that's as much of a function of luck of the draw as anything else. If Cousy didn't happen to have the good fortune of playing for a (by the standard of the day) progressive GM/Coach who didn't let skin color influence his decisions, we wouldn't even be discussing him at all right now.

My proof? No one is discussing Dolph Schayes - someone who has a decisive winning record over Cousy in the playoffs & led a team to a title.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,463
And1: 3,140
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#10 » by LA Bird » Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:43 am

1. Artis Gilmore
Previously had him behind Kidd and Miller but after going through the numbers again, I think I may have penalized Gilmore too heavily for his turnovers. A low post somewhat turnover-prone center without great passing is usually a major problem but Gilmore's insane scoring efficiency makes up for it to a certain degree. The dropoff from his ABA years is a concern but the same thing happened to Dr J as well as other ABA stars and FWIW, Gilmore accumulated more win shares than Erving in both leagues. Gilmore was the player of the year for me in 1975 and he had a very long career (top 25 in points, top 5 in rebounds and blocks) in addition to his solid ABA prime.

2. Jason Kidd
A poor man's Stockton with better longevity. GOAT defensive point guard IMO.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 28,311
And1: 8,584
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#11 » by penbeast0 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:23 pm

pandrade83 wrote:...
My proof? No one is discussing Dolph Schayes - someone who has a decisive winning record over Cousy in the playoffs & led a team to a title.


Paul Arizin led the Warriors to a title in the 50s too; though he had the statistically outstanding Neil Johnston on his team as well. I think he has as good an argument as Schayes (or Cousy).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 28,311
And1: 8,584
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#12 » by penbeast0 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:25 pm

micahclay wrote:Currently considering:

PG: Gary Payton/Jason Kidd/Walt Frazier (I have Isiah more in the Westbrook/Billups range)

SG: Reggie Miller

SF: none right now

PF: Dennis Rodman/Kevin McHale

C: Artis Gilmore/Nate Thurmond/Dikembe Mutombo

So:
Payton
Kidd
Frazier
Miller
McHale
Rodman
Thurmond
Mutombo
Gilmore


What is the argument for Reggie Miller over Paul Pierce, Alex English, or George Gervin?
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,444
And1: 1,869
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#13 » by euroleague » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:29 pm

pandrade83 wrote:
1) I said American born pretty clearly - I edited my above statement to bold American players to reinforce that because there weren't European players in the NBA then.

But to fixate on the '86 Celtics is to also miss the point. Today there's 43 white American born players in the NBA. Now we're up to 113 international players in the league. White American born players comprise < 10% of today's NBA. The point isn't that white American born players "suck" per se. The point of the analogy is to show that if you modernized the 1950's NBA for today in an all white league, that the league as a whole would not be of high quality - and Cousy had roughly the same team success as the modern day Raptors and was routinely beat by someone who is getting zero traction right now and led a team to a title in Dolph Schayes.

2) In the Russell years, here's Boston's offensive/defensive ratings relative to the league:

'57: -0.4/-4.8
'58: -0.8/-5.2
'59: -0.7/-5.7
'60: -0.1/-6.2
'61: -3.4/-7.6
'62: -1.5/-8.5
'63: -2.9/-8.5

I know they were better offensively before, but the drop-off in performance makes you question Cousy's impact on the title teams. Cousy was clearly a vital cog to those title teams but if you're a vital cog to title teams as opposed to being the best player on those teams, that's as much of a function of luck of the draw as anything else. If Cousy didn't happen to have the good fortune of playing for a (by the standard of the day) progressive GM/Coach who didn't let skin color influence his decisions, we wouldn't even be discussing him at all right now.

My proof? No one is discussing Dolph Schayes - someone who has a decisive winning record over Cousy in the playoffs & led a team to a title.


1. i included european to make a point. these people are ethnically similar and the americans grow up in a far better atmosphere for basketball. the reason they don't make it is
Spoiler:
because white players at a competitive level are coached and played as sidekicks (even klove). how many top prospects coming out of high school are white? not many. coaches in NCAA prefer to give scholarships to black prospects because of "potential" (i know this personally). so, white prospects don't expect to make the NBA and are studying engineering, not gambling their life on basketball. the europeans, though, can be coached to be stars - and sometimes they become them.


I'm not fixating on the 86 celtics. I mentioned them in one sentence, because it's an obvious disproof of your theory. can also go with Jerry West, Bill Walton pre-injury, Cowens/Havlicek, Stockton, Craigh Ehlo/Mark Price, Steve Nash as american players (NBA is also in canada).

2, Cousy was all-nba in 1961 with oscar/wilt/pettit/baylor. Russell was 2nd team. Cousy has more first teams than Russell does.

In 1957, when Russell joined, the Western Conference had no teams with a positive record. The hawks were #1 with 34-38, and the nationals and the warriors had a bitter battle that left the nationals exhausted. easy ecf and easy finals with Hagan on the celtics.

In 1959, Dolph Schayes and the nationals took the Celtics to 7 games and lost by 5 points in game 7. With Russell and Heinsohn and Frank Ramsay and Sam Jones all new to the team. That was with Dolph Schayes past his prime, in his 11th year without modern conditioning. The only reason Dolph Schayes lost was Frank Ramsay heroics.

I don't see why Dolph Schayes is the reason Cousy is overrated.
Pablo Novi
Senior
Posts: 683
And1: 233
Joined: Dec 11, 2015
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Contact:
   

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#14 » by Pablo Novi » Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:44 pm

euroleague wrote:Pick: Cousy
...

Pick: Cousy - Cousey's passing influenced the way the game was played hugely, and he did so in an unconventional way that didn't gain any unfair advantage a la goaltending. He won an MVP as his prime was ending, and his offensive style lives on far past his retirement and beyond his success leading the Celtics pre-Russell (questionable how Russell's passing would've developed without Cousey).

When Cousy joined the league, the Celtics were a 20 win team, and he immediately brought them to 40 his rookie year. He changed a bottom dwelling team to an immediate contender, and went on to contend with an elite offense in the eastern conference before Russell ever joined. He won MVP, and led the league in assists many times on his way to 10 all-nba first teams.


VOTE: Cousy.
ALT: Gervin.

Bob Cousy: Of the remaining players no one comes close to Cousy for dominance of their own position in their own era. Cousy was 1st-Team ALL-NBA TEN times and 2nd-Team two additional times. He revolutionized his position too.

I have Cousy as my GOAT #15, and GOAT PG #3 (behind: Magic and then "O"; ahead of: Stockton, CP3 & then J.Kidd)

George Gervin: ALL-League 1st-Team FIVE times; 2nd-Team FOUR times. Way more dominant of his position than any other remaining SG.

In what follows: in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots, there's one player per position. GOAT POSITIONAL rankings are determined primarily by "Points" which are determined by the number of ALL-League selections (pro-rated upwards for each succeeding decade):

my GOAT #15, PG #03:1st-Teams:10, 2nd-Teams: 2: (40.5 "Points") Bob Cousy
my GOAT #20, SG #04: 1st-Teams: 5, 2nd-Teams: 4: (31.5 "Points") George Gervin

Honorable Mention:
my GOAT #29, PG #06: 1st-Teams: 5, 2nd-Teams: 1: (28.0 "Points") Jason Kidd
my GOAT #30, SG #06: 1st-Teams: 1, 2nd-Teams: 4: (18.0 "Points") Sidney Moncrief
my GOAT #32, PG #07: 1st-Teams: 2, 2nd-Teams: 5: (27.9 "Points") Gary Payton
my GOAT #33, PF #07: 1st-Teams: 6, 2nd-Teams: 6: (28.2 "Points") Dolph Schayes
my GOAT #35, SG #07: 1st-Teams: 0, 2nd-Teams: 7: (17.5 "Points") Hal Greer

Upcoming (in my GOAT Top 50)
my GOAT #36,, C #08: 1st-Teams: 5, 2nd-Teams: 1: (31.4 "Points") Dwight Howard
my GOAT #37, PG #08: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 3: (25.6 "Points") Allen Iverson
my GOAT #38, SF #08: 1st-Teams: 2, 2nd-Teams: 3: (22.1 "Points") Tracy McGrady
my GOAT #39, PF #08: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 2: (17.5 "Points") Jerry Lucas
my GOAT #40, SG #08: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 1: (17.5 "Points") Paul Westphal
my GOAT #43, SF #09: 1st-Teams: 1, 2nd-Teams: 4: (19.3 "Points") Dominique Wilkins
my GOAT #44, PF #09: 1st-Teams: 1, 2nd-Teams: 4: (17.0 "Points") Amar'e Stoudemire
my GOAT #45, SG #09: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 0: (16.8 "Points") James Harden
my GOAT #47, PG #10: 1st-Teams: 4, 2nd-Teams: 2: (22.5 "Points") Walt Frazier
my GOAT #48, SF #10: 1st-Teams: 1, 2nd-Teams: 4: (17.0 "Points") Grant Hill
my GOAT #50, PF #10: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 2: (15.8 "Points") George McGinnis
Lou Fan
Pro Prospect
Posts: 751
And1: 673
Joined: Jul 21, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#15 » by Lou Fan » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:16 pm

These next 2 spots for me are a toss up between Gary Payton and Jason Kidd
Kidd: He's an elite defender and rebounder at his position and obviously an ATG player/passer on the fastbreak. He took the Nets to back to back Finals while leading the team in points, assists, and steals. The big drawback for Kidd is his lack of a pull up jumper. He just never learned how to score off the dribble, except layups/dunks, and that really hurt his teams in the halfcourt. 87% of his 3s were assisted on which clearly shows he wasn't creating his own jumpers. I do value his championship as a starter on the Mavs. His very solid post prime seasons bump his case. His relatively high turnover numbers don't really bug me as they were a necessary byproduct of his risky mindset that made him so brilliant as a passer. drza had a great post talking about Kidd's impact a few posts back read that for more.
Payton: I want to vote for him here but his playoff fails, specifically those in 94 and 95, really give me pause. The Denver series was flat out embarrassing and he got schooled by Van Exel (who was only in his second year) the next year. The Sonics might have been the best team in the league those years and they blew their best shot at a title. GP got his ring as the 4th/5th best player on the Heat which helps a little bit but he also lost on the Lakers in 04. Overall I think GP was a pretty good playoff performer but his defeats were ugly and memorable. "The Glove" is easily the GOAT point guard defender and he even one DPOY in 96. He has really good longevity into his 30s and took a team to the finals as the man. 9 All-NBAs and All-Defensive teams show you just how great he was. Peak Payton was an offensive and defensive ace as in 98-00 he led the league twice in OBPM while being selected for the All-Defensive first team all 3 years. He had solid efficiency for his time peaking at 55 ts%.
They both were elite defenders at their positions. I give the edge in defense to the Glove he won DPOY and his combination of trash talking and elite defensive skills make him clearly the best defensive pg ever. They both took their team to the finals as the man and won a championship as an important role player. However, outside of 03 Kidd never really had a chance to win as the man and GP had great chance from 94-96. In 94-95 I think they were the best team in the league honestly. Kenny Smith even said the Sonics had their number and they were lucky they didn't have to play them. Kidd was the better rebounder but I'm not sure how much I care about that. Kidd also has a slight longevity edge but Payton has peak edge. Payton's intangibles are better than Kidd's the whole Dallas situation was a mess and from every account Payton never had problems like that and he was a great leader. Payton led his teams to being some of the top offenses in the league finishing top 3 a few times in the 90s while Kidd's offenses were pretty mediocre. That's what gives GP the slight edge.
1st Vote: Payton
2nd Vote: Kidd
smartyz456 wrote:Duncan would be a better defending jahlil okafor in todays nba
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 19,848
And1: 25,243
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#16 » by Clyde Frazier » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:30 pm

Vote 1 - Walt Frazier

Vote 2 - Artis Gilmore

Reasoning: viewtopic.php?p=58257557#p58257557
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#17 » by pandrade83 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:37 pm

euroleague wrote:
1. i included european to make a point. these people are ethnically similar and the americans grow up in a far better atmosphere for basketball. the reason they don't make it is
Spoiler:
because white players at a competitive level are coached and played as sidekicks (even klove). how many top prospects coming out of high school are white? not many. coaches in NCAA prefer to give scholarships to black prospects because of "potential" (i know this personally). so, white prospects don't expect to make the NBA and are studying engineering, not gambling their life on basketball. the europeans, though, can be coached to be stars - and sometimes they become them.


I'm not fixating on the 86 celtics. I mentioned them in one sentence, because it's an obvious disproof of your theory. can also go with Jerry West, Bill Walton pre-injury, Cowens/Havlicek, Stockton, Craigh Ehlo/Mark Price, Steve Nash as american players (NBA is also in canada).

2, Cousy was all-nba in 1961 with oscar/wilt/pettit/baylor. Russell was 2nd team. Cousy has more first teams than Russell does.

In 1957, when Russell joined, the Western Conference had no teams with a positive record. The hawks were #1 with 34-38, and the nationals and the warriors had a bitter battle that left the nationals exhausted. easy ecf and easy finals with Hagan on the celtics.

In 1959, Dolph Schayes and the nationals took the Celtics to 7 games and lost by 5 points in game 7. With Russell and Heinsohn and Frank Ramsay and Sam Jones all new to the team. That was with Dolph Schayes past his prime, in his 11th year without modern conditioning. The only reason Dolph Schayes lost was Frank Ramsay heroics.

I don't see why Dolph Schayes is the reason Cousy is overrated.



1. I get what you're saying - but throwing Europeans in there doesn't help the case. I understand that white Americans are better incentivized to do something besides playing hoops today - but that was still the cause in the 50's. Remember that basketball was very far back in the pecking order at that time and the salaries were much lower even adjusting for inflation. The reality is that a segregated league without foreigners is just going to be very weak. The analogy I've used is to give a fairly decent approximation of what that league would look like today with nutritional benefits. You're explaining why it's that way, but you're not doing anything to adjust why I should think higher of Cousy.

2. Listing that he had more All NBA Teams than Russell doesn't really convince me he should be higher. One of the two faced more difficult competition for the spot - it doesn't make him close to Russell's level and the team offense/defense ratings I posted earlier show what really won them the title. I don't care that much about his positional ranking within the time he played so much as I care about his overall impact in the era he played in which brings us to

3. Dolph Schayes has nothing to do with Cousy being overrated or underrated. It's just the logic of:
-Schayes was a contemporary of Cousy
-Schayes had a greater impact on winning basketball games than Bob Cousy in the same era
-Schayes is getting zero traction

Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why Cousy is getting votes & no one is mentioning Schayes.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 28,311
And1: 8,584
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#18 » by penbeast0 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:52 pm

One day in and the votes look like this:

Payton/Gilmore
Payton/Gilmore
Payton/Kidd

Cousy/Thomas
Cousy/Gervin

Frazier/Payton
Frazier/Gilmore

Gilmore/Kidd

Thomas/Hayes
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,444
And1: 1,869
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#19 » by euroleague » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:11 am

pandrade83 wrote:1. I get what you're saying - but throwing Europeans in there doesn't help the case. I understand that white Americans are better incentivized to do something besides playing hoops today - but that was still the cause in the 50's. Remember that basketball was very far back in the pecking order at that time and the salaries were much lower even adjusting for inflation. The reality is that a segregated league without foreigners is just going to be very weak. The analogy I've used is to give a fairly decent approximation of what that league would look like today with nutritional benefits. You're explaining why it's that way, but you're not doing anything to adjust why I should think higher of Cousy.

2. Listing that he had more All NBA Teams than Russell doesn't really convince me he should be higher. One of the two faced more difficult competition for the spot - it doesn't make him close to Russell's level and the team offense/defense ratings I posted earlier show what really won them the title. I don't care that much about his positional ranking within the time he played so much as I care about his overall impact in the era he played in which brings us to

3. Dolph Schayes has nothing to do with Cousy being overrated or underrated. It's just the logic of:
-Schayes was a contemporary of Cousy
-Schayes had a greater impact on winning basketball games than Bob Cousy in the same era
-Schayes is getting zero traction

Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why Cousy is getting votes & no one is mentioning Schayes.


3. You claim that Schayes was only effective pre-Russell era. However, Schayes continued to be effective at age 31, dominating Russell and almost defeating the stacked Celtics team with a second option of Larry Costello. His role was very different from Cousy.

2. The RTGs you posted show only that Russell destroyed the offense. This offense was elite prior to him coming, and the offense was good enough to challenge much deeper teams. Cousy was a floor general, not a hero-ball player, and his game wasn't suited to carrying poor offensive players. You are judging players based only off playoff success, but in fact post-season success is influenced largely by team talent. With 5 very talented Celtics, the Celtics won in 57 then lost in 58. They almost lost in 59. That's after Russell joined an elite team.

Cousy joined a 20 win team. He had a bigger impact on that team than Russell joining did. Taking the last place team into first place with 20 game improvements your rookie year is more impact than taking a 39 win team to 44 wins, and that 5 game improvement making you the best team by a hair.

1. You missed the point entirely. If you made a segregated league, without foreigners, the quality wouldn't fall so far - it would simply redefine how colleges recruit and what players are focused as "high potential".
Spoiler:
This has happened in other sports that are more heavily athleticism based (track and field) where white athletes are slowly displacing black athletes. This is more easily achieved in a sport with objectivity and no team-based achievement, where you can see an athletes skill. In basketball, skill is in the eye of the beholder and when the beholder looks for potential, they see race.

The NBA in the 50s had foreign players. So I don't know why you are arguing they would cease to play in the league. Tom Meschery, Wilt's teammate and an all-star, was born Tomislav Nikolayevich Meshcheryakov.

Regarding foreign vs american players: American teams always dominated foreign basketball teams in the olympics. Regardless of segregation. The best players were always american. If the league was resegregated, it's very likely the new best players would continue to be American. The white population of America that plays basketball is far higher than that of Europe, where top athletes go into football.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #35 

Post#20 » by pandrade83 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:11 am

euroleague wrote:
3. You claim that Schayes was only effective pre-Russell era. However, Schayes continued to be effective at age 31, dominating Russell and almost defeating the stacked Celtics team with a second option of Larry Costello. His role was very different from Cousy.

2. The RTGs you posted show only that Russell destroyed the offense. This offense was elite prior to him coming, and the offense was good enough to challenge much deeper teams. Cousy was a floor general, not a hero-ball player, and his game wasn't suited to carrying poor offensive players. You are judging players based only off playoff success, but in fact post-season success is influenced largely by team talent. With 5 very talented Celtics, the Celtics won in 57 then lost in 58. They almost lost in 59. That's after Russell joined an elite team.

Cousy joined a 20 win team. He had a bigger impact on that team than Russell joining did. Taking the last place team into first place with 20 game improvements your rookie year is more impact than taking a 39 win team to 44 wins, and that 5 game improvement making you the best team by a hair.

1. You missed the point entirely. If you made a segregated league, without foreigners, the quality wouldn't fall so far - it would simply redefine how colleges recruit and what players are focused as "high potential".
Spoiler:
This has happened in other sports that are more heavily athleticism based (track and field) where white athletes are slowly displacing black athletes. This is more easily achieved in a sport with objectivity and no team-based achievement, where you can see an athletes skill. In basketball, skill is in the eye of the beholder and when the beholder looks for potential, they see race.

The NBA in the 50s had foreign players. So I don't know why you are arguing they would cease to play in the league. Tom Meschery, Wilt's teammate and an all-star, was born Tomislav Nikolayevich Meshcheryakov.

Regarding foreign vs american players: American teams always dominated foreign basketball teams in the olympics. Regardless of segregation. The best players were always american. If the league was resegregated, it's very likely the new best players would continue to be American. The white population of America that plays basketball is far higher than that of Europe, where top athletes go into football.


3. I never made any claims that Schayes got worse to my knowledge. I agree he continued to be effective and had a long (by the measures of the day) career. Since you're supportive of him, maybe you should be supporting him here instead of Cousy :wink:

2. While the overall team offense got worse when Russell joined, it's a little harsh to say he destroyed the offense. From his 2nd year on, he was typically Top 3/4 on the team in TS%, we know he was an outstanding rebounder so he was likely helping at that end and he was a pretty good passer. Even for his era, Cousy was an awful shooter and he shot a lot without getting to the line very often. You say that Russell destroyed the offense, but the offense had already declined in relative ratings for 2 consecutive years: +5 to +3.2, to +1.9 - it was already on the downward slope. You talked about how Cousy made such an improvement in the team while ignoring they also got Ed McCauley who appears to have had a better year in their rookie years (all we have is the #'s - there's no video to go on here).

1. Your Meschery example was of someone who started in '62. Of foreign born players I found:
Chris Harris (41 career games, lasted 1 year), Bob Houbregs (best year averaged 11/7 as a backup), Ernie Vandeweghe - who in his best year was 6th on the Knicks in minutes.

They weren't impactful to the league and 2 of them were Canadian/British. This is not having a material impact on my analogy.

But I digress. While it's possible (not guaranteed) that white players might get identified more easily in this analogy, it's more probable that holding the relative sports' popularity constant to the 1950's would have an off-setting effect.

If you want to continue to support Cousy, that's your choice - but if you're not going to support my guy, please at least address this statement which you really haven't even tried to dispute:

-Schayes was a contemporary of Cousy
-Schayes had a greater impact on winning basketball games than Bob Cousy in the same era
-Schayes is getting zero traction

Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why Cousy is getting votes & no one is mentioning Schayes.

Help me understand why you're supporting Cousy over Schayes. Schayes will be the next player from the 50's that I support - I keep saying over & over that Schayes had a better impact than Cousy during this debate. Why won't you even try to refute this while addressing the rest of my post.

Return to Player Comparisons