RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #44 (Dwight Howard)

[trex_8063]

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. Gary Payton
36. Artis Gilmore
37. Jason Kidd
38. Walt Frazier
39. Isiah Thomas
40. Kevin McHale
41. George Gervin
42. Reggie Miller
43. Paul Pierce
44. ????

Go....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

1st vote: Dwight Howard

So Howard has his negative intangible concerns, but he's otherwise got a resume that packed full of all the necessary requisites to be a serious candidate here (or even a few places ago).
His prime isn't as long as most of the others I've been considering----perhaps as few as 5-6 seasons (like '07 or '08 thru '12), if we are stingy with our definition of "prime"; no longer than 9 seasons ('06-'14) if we're extra liberal with our definition----but he has been a "good" (above average) player every single year of his career (13 seasons). And at his peak he was a true MVP-caliber player.

Some summary stuff......
From '06-'14 he averaged out as a 22.6 PER, .185 WS/48, +3.2 BPM player in 36.3 mpg......that's over NINE seasons.
And he generally came up big in the playoffs, averaging out as a 23.7 PER, .188 WS/48, +4.3 BPM in 38.9 mpg in the ps during that same stretch of years, once leading his team into the NBA finals.

Awards/honors, yeah he's got 'em:
8-Time All-Star
8-Time All-NBA (5-times 1st, 1-time 2nd, 2-times 3rd), though admittedly some weak top-end competition at his position.
5-Time All-Defensive (4-times 1st, 1-time 2nd)
3-Time DPOY

FOUR Top-5 finishes in the MVP vote (plus one other year at 7th).

His impact metrics do lag a little behind his box metrics, but he is very consistently a positive-impact player (a couple times top 10 in RAPM, once top 5).

It's hard for me to take guys like Dikembe or Thurmond or Mourning over him. Dikembe at least was a bit better overall defensive anchor, has a bit better longevity, and doesn't have the intangible negatives that Dwight has..........but Dwight's got a massive edge offensively, imo. His roll ability, devastating finishing, low-post presence that forces a lot of defensive collapsing, and general foul-pressure he put on opposing teams.......just makes him SO much more effective on that end. Offensively it's almost like comparing George Lynch to Scottie Pippen. I just don't think the pluses in Deke's column are enough to outweigh that.

I feel similarly about Thurmond; although Thurmond looks super-impressive from an impact standpoint, based on WOWY. However, some era considerations apply, too.

With Mourning, it's a fairly straight-forward longevity disparity.


2nd vote: tentatively Pau Gasol *though I reserve the right to switch to Robert Parish or Dolph Schayes (all very close on my ATL)

[penbeast0]

Bob Cousy's early to mid 50s years were certainly elite (in a weak league) but I actually have Paul Arizin's 50s run as stronger than Cousy's and Cousy's post-Russell years were characterized by a lot of truly awful playoff inefficiency. Westbrook is interesting too. Short and spectacular, but I can't support someone whose primary argument is his ridiculous point/assist totals when his efficiency and turnovers are so poor; at least not yet. Harden is an efficient scorer but his defense is worse than George Gervin's and his turnovers are equally high. If I am going for a short prime player, it's going to be Russell Westbrook or Sidney Moncrief who was an extremely efficient 20 point/game scorer for the 4-5 years his body held up while also being probably the greatest perimeter man defender in the history of the NBA.

However, there are still wings with long, high scoring careers. The aforementioned Arizin, Alex English, Ray Allen, and Adrian Dantley are the ones I look at first, before the inefficiency and poor leadership of an Allen Iverson or Pete Maravich. Defensive forwards Bobby Jones, Shawn Marion, and even Dennis Rodman (maybe James Worthy and Larry Nance as well) could also be in the mix. Sam Jones and Manu Ginobili have to be up there as well.

All my top rated bigs are in. There are still the great defenders like Dikembe Mutombo and Nate Thurmond and the great offensive threats like Bob McAdoo, Amare Stoudamire, and Neil Johnston. Plus you have Elvin Hayes and Dave Cowens to fit in somewhere. I actually have some of these ahead of Willis Reed who got some play last time.

But, since Pierce was the guy who got in last time, let's compare him to Alex English. Pierce has the longevity advantage, having played 19 seasons to English's 15 but Pierce's last 4 years and English's final year were basically unimpressive role player years which don't add much to either resume so this is close. So, let's just take the first 15 for Pierce (before the ill fated Brooklyn trade) and the first 14 for English (he did go to Dallas in his last season), to give us a feel for what their games looked like in their prime.

In one less season, English plays more games but Pierce more minutes. Taking their per 36 numbers:

English (32.6min) 24.6/6.2/4.2 (2.7to) .552ts%
Pierce (36.6mpg) 21.4/5.9/3.8 (2.9to) .568ts%

English scores the most by about 10% (no surprise since he outscored Larry Bird, Nique, and everyone else for most points in the 1980s), he's also clearly the best playmaker with more assists and less turnovers than Pierce . . . and a slightly better rebounder too. Pierce has an efficiency edge from his 3 point shooting (English was not a 3 point threat) and has a better defensive reputation too though English was a willing defender. English played in a faster pace but as part (the primary scorer part usually) of a modern share the ball offense, Pierce was the featured player in a two or three star offense (with Toine or Garnett/Allen). It's still too close to call.

Let's look at their playoffs.
English (68 games) 35.7min 24.6/5.5/4.3 (2.1to) .556ts% right at his RS numbers
Pierce (136 games) 39.8min 18.9/5.8/3.6 (3.2to) .549ts% more turnovers, lower scoring than RS

Pierce has a strong edge in number of playoff games but English played better in his and was probably the better player overall.

Vote: Alex English
Alternate: No one at this point, listening . . .

[trex_8063]

Alternate: No one at this point, listening . . .

Might I suggest something from our fine line of available big men:
Dwight Howard (case made above in post #2)
Pau Gasol (a bit weak defensively, but fantastically skilled and versatile offensive big man who is also a solid rebounding anchor, and with excellent longevity and a fair number of "legacy accomplishments" to his credit)
Dolph Schayes (same basic arguments as for Pau, except significantly greater number of legacy accomplishments, albeit in a weaker era)
or Robert Parish (solid two-way big who's on the shortlist of longevity giants, and a nice array of accomplishments), perhaps?

[Winsome Gerbil]

Bob Cousy's early to mid 50s years were certainly elite (in a weak league) but I actually have Paul Arizin's 50s run as stronger than Cousy's and Cousy's post-Russell years were characterized by a lot of truly awful playoff inefficiency. Westbrook is interesting too. Short and spectacular, but I can't support someone whose primary argument is his ridiculous point/assist totals when his efficiency and turnovers are so poor; at least not yet. Harden is an efficient scorer but his defense is worse than George Gervin's and his turnovers are equally high. If I am going for a short prime player, it's going to be Russell Westbrook or Sidney Moncrief who was an extremely efficient 20 point/game scorer for the 4-5 years his body held up while also being probably the greatest perimeter man defender in the history of the NBA.

However, there are still wings with long, high scoring careers. The aforementioned Arizin, Alex English, Ray Allen, and Adrian Dantley are the ones I look at first, before the inefficiency and poor leadership of an Allen Iverson or Pete Maravich. Defensive forwards Bobby Jones, Shawn Marion, and even Dennis Rodman (maybe James Worthy and Larry Nance as well) could also be in the mix.

All my top rated bigs are in. There are still the great defenders like Dikembe Mutombo and Nate Thurmond and the great offensive threats like Bob McAdoo, Amare Stoudamire, and Neil Johnston. Plus you have Elvin Hayes and Dave Cowens to fit in somewhere. I actually have some of these ahead of Willis Reed who got some play last time.

But, since Pierce was the guy who got in last time, let's compare him to Alex English. Pierce has the longevity advantage, having played 19 seasons to English's 15 but Pierce's last 4 years and English's final year were basically unimpressive role player years which don't add much to either resume so this is close. So, let's just take the first 15 for Pierce (before the ill fated Brooklyn trade) and the first 14 for English (he did go to Dallas in his last season), to give us a feel for what their games looked like in their prime.

In one less season, English plays more games but Pierce more minutes. Taking their per 36 numbers:

English (32.6min) 24.6/6.2/4.2 (2.7to) .552ts%
Pierce (36.6mpg) 21.4/5.9/3.8 (2.9to) .568ts%

English scores the most by about 10% (no surprise since he outscored Larry Bird, Nique, and everyone else for most points in the 1980s), he's also clearly the best playmaker with more assists and less turnovers than Pierce . . . and a slightly better rebounder too. Pierce has an efficiency edge from his 3 point shooting (English was not a 3 point threat) and has a better defensive reputation too though English was a willing defender. English played in a faster pace but as part (the primary scorer part usually) of a modern share the ball offense, Pierce was the featured player in a two or three star offense (with Toine or Garnett/Allen). It's still too close to call.

Let's look at their playoffs.
English (68 games) 35.7min 24.6/5.5/4.3 (2.1to) .556ts% right at his RS numbers
Pierce (136 games) 39.8min 18.9/5.8/3.6 (3.2to) .549ts% more turnovers, lower scoring than RS

Pierce has a strong edge in number of playoff games but English played better in his and was probably the better player overall.

Vote: Alex English
Alternate: No one at this point, listening . . .

I'm going to copy paste my post last thread on why I think tagging english is tagging the wrong 80s SF:

The case for Alex English, who was really looking like just a good forward in his early career until he ended up in Denver in the runningest gunningest system in NBA history, over Dominque is a bit dubious.

It's not just the honors/awards that favor Nique on this one, it's also the numbers once you look through the system. English was a great great scorer, but that system he played in was ridiculous. How ridiculous? English's first full season in Denver was 1980-81. His last season with Denver was 1989-90. So he played the entire 80s decade for them. Here were the pace ranks for Denver in the 80s:

1980-81: 1st
1981-82: 1st
1982-83: 1st
1983-84: 1st
1984-85: 1st
1985-86: 1st
1986-87: 1st
1987-88: 1st
1988-89: 1st
1989-90: 2nd

And so yes, English was a great scorer. But those numbers were absolutely inflated. This was the same system that made Kiki Vandeweghe a 2x All Star, including averaging 29.4ppg on .558FG% in his final year there. Add in Dan Issel and those teams routinely had 3 20ppg scorers, of which English was not always the most effective. The year they lost Vandeweghe, they brought in Calvin Natt instead, and he immediately scorer 23.3ppg himself.

In any case, the end result is that if you look at the Per100s and see through the pace:

Per100
Wilkins 34.7pts 9.3reb 3.5ast 1.8stl 0.8blk 3.5TO = 21.6PER .148WS/48, 3.4/-1.1 = 2.3BPM 41.8VORP
English 30.2pts 7.7reb 5.1ast 1.3stl 1.0blk 3.3TO = 19.9PER .127WS/48, 3.0/-1.3 = 1.7BPM 35.6VORP

Wilkins 7x All NBA (1/4/2), .845 MVP Shares (highest 2nd)
English 3x All NBA (0/3/0), .167 MVP Shares (highest 6th)


English was a great scorer and perennial All Star, but he was NOT a greater scorer or player than Nique. And it was hard to separate the player from the system in Denver with everybody in that system putting up wacky numbers. English was great, but he thrived in a system that made lesser players look great offensively too. It was rarely clear that he was truly carrying that team rather than playing a super-scoring role for a system that was doing the real work.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Having tried everything else at this point, I'll also add this note about "efficiency": it can be a boondoggle depending on how it's achieved. It was indeed a boondoggle for English's Nuggets for instance.

Simply put, the easiest way to achieve "efficiency" in scoring, is just to turn every game into a track meet, and run up and down the open court getting layups (who knows, maybe open threes today). That's exactly what those 80s Nuggets did. But the problem with achieving scoring "efficiency" that way is that it also means your OPPONENTS are simultaneously becoming more efficient scorers as they run up and down the court with you.

Basically you pretty up your own "efficiency" numbers by not caring that you are doing the same for your opponents.

For an example, my choices here remain Iverson and Westbrook, and I'm going to include Nique here, who I think should be coming up soon ahead of English. So this is how Iverson's '99-'06 Sixers, Westbrook's '09-'17 Thunder, Nique's '85 to '93 Hawks, and English's '81 to '89 Nuggets match up on pace, ORTG, DRTG, and Opponent eFG%:


'99-'06 PHL: 91.1 pace 102.7 ORTG 101.9 DRTG .474 OppeFG%
'09-'17 OKC: 94.6 pace 109.4 ORTG 105.6 DRTG .489 OppeFG%
'85-'93 ATL: 98.0 pace 110.0 ORTG 108.2 DRTG .491 OppeFG%
'81-'89 DEN: 108.1 pace 109.9 ORTG 109.0 DRTG .509 OppeFG%

As you can see each advance in pace results in advance in DRTG and OppeFG%. You can also see that the incredible wackyball pace of the Nuggets resulted in huge inflated statistical totals for the Nuggets, without actually having higher ORTGs than the Thunder or Hawks. In fact the ORTG/DRTG differentials:

PHL = +0.8
OKC = +3.8
ATL = +1.8
DEN = +0.9

Suggest the Nuggets weren't really doing themselves any particular favors over the slug it out style preferred by those Sixers teams. But the one thing all that running and gunning DID do was make Alex English look a lot more efficient than Allen Iverson or Russel Westbrook...except it came at the cost of making the opponents look more efficient too. If you score efficiently by letting your opponents score efficiently, why should that be a positive over guys who take the opposite approach, and score less efficiently in half court sets in exchange for causing their opponents to have to slog it out in less efficient halfcourt sets too?

And once you establish that the running and gunning is effectively just for prettiness, and not actually a mark of virtue as far winning more games, then you can use per 100s to look through that enormous artificial pace bump those Nuggets gave their players and see:

Per 100:
Iverson 33.7pts 4.7reb 7.8ast on .518TS%
Westbr 33.8pts 9.2reb 11.8ast on .533TS%
Wilkins 34.7pts 9.3reb 3.5ast on .538TS%
English 30.2pts 7.7reb 5.1ast on .550TS%

and question just how many opponent points/opponent efficiency did the extra pace give up in order to get English his own easier looks?

#44) Iverson
#45) Westbrook

[Pablo Novi]

Vote: Cousy (My GOAT #15 - I've been voting him 1st or 2nd for about 30 threads! Oh well, lol!)
Alternate: Schayes (My GOAT #33 - I'm putting him above Moncrief cause Sidney's gotten ZERO traction so far).

Remaining un-selected players from my GOAT Top 50:
My GOAT #15, #3 PG: Cousy, Bob ... (40.5 "Points", TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Teams)
My GOAT #33, #7 PF: Schayes, D. .. (28.2 "Points", . SIX 1st-Team ALL-League selections, ... SIX 2nd-Teams)

H.M.:
My GOAT #30, #6 SG: Moncrief, S. . (18.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #35, #7 SG: Greer, Hal ... (17.5 "Points", . ZERO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, SEVEN 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #36, #8 C: . Howard, D. . (31.4 "Points", . FIVE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #37, #8 PG: Iverson, A.... (25.6 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #38, #8 SF: TMac ........ (22.1 "Points", . TWO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #39, #8 PF: JLucas, Jerry (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #40, #8 SG: Westphal, P. . (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #43, #9 SF: Wilkins, D. ... (19.3 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #44, #9 PF: Stoudeire, A. (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #45, #9 SG: Harden, J. .. (16.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . ZERO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #49, #10 SF: Hill, Grant . (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #50, #10 PF: McGinnis ... (15.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)

Getting Traction Here (but not with me):
My GOAT #103,#11 C: Reed, Willis . (07.5 "Points", . ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)

[pandrade83]

Alternate: No one at this point, listening . . .

Might I suggest something from our fine line of available big men:
Dwight Howard (case made above in post #2)
Pau Gasol (a bit weak defensively, but fantastically skilled and versatile offensive big man who is also a solid rebounding anchor, and with excellent longevity and a fair number of "legacy accomplishments" to his credit)
Dolph Schayes (same basic arguments as for Pau, except significantly greater number of legacy accomplishments, albeit in a weaker era)
or Robert Parish (solid two-way big who's on the shortlist of longevity giants, and a nice array of accomplishments), perhaps?

I'll throw in Wes Unseld to the list. Of our remaining MVP's, he has the best longevity of guys who didn't peak in a segregated era - more on him in a minute

[pandrade83]

1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: Dwight Howard


If you're not giving Unseld a look, you're missing a gem. You're getting a guy who is recognized as a high impact performer (VORP, BPM), was selected to be an MVP, was a strong playoff performer & enjoyed strong team success.

Advanced Metrics

Unseld hit 5+ scores for both BPM 3 times & VORP twice - that we know of - one of which didn't come in a double digit WS year. If we make the reasonably safe assumption that he hit those scores in ALL of his double digit WS year, that gives him 6 years of a BPM Score of 5+ and 5 years of a VORP Score of 5+ and It's highly likely that if we had RAPM, the metric would've loved him as well.

What's so impressive about that? If we assume that Reed got there in all four of his double digit WS years, that means that our 3 run-off candidates from last run combined to have fewer BPM 5+ years as many VORP 5+ years than Unseld.


MVP Season

In the '68-'69 season, Unseld was selected MVP over guys who are already in like Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor, Frazier & Hondo. He is clearly well respected by his peers. People have said that Unseld's MVP was a little weak - and I get that - but remember you're voting for slot #44, not slot #14 or even #43. It's noteworthy that Unseld's arrival coincided with a 21 win improvement without a change in the team's core, or a change in the coach. Washington went from 36 to 57 wins and finished with the best record in the league - that's why he won MVP - he had a major impact on winning. A team with Unseld & Monroe as it's two best players beat out Wilt/West, Russell/Hondo, Frazier/Reed, which is pretty impressive.

Strong playoff performer

In the playoffs, he maintains his strong performance - averaging 10/15/4/with 1.8 TOs (on fairly limited data) which is right on par with his career averages.

The most infamous defeat one of his teams suffer isn't really on him (the '75 Finals). He does his thing - 12-17-4 on 54% TS. That's who he was. Hayes crippled the team offensively - yes, he scored 20 PPG but he shot a miserable TS% of just 46%.

Strong Team Success

Unseld was the team playoff leader in WS and then VORP/BPM for 4 Finals Teams* as he was vital to his teams' playoff success as mentioned by his strong playoff numbers above. Unseld only misses the playoffs once in a strong 13 year career that sees him pace his team in every year but 2# in VORP & BPM - and before that in WS.

* - Hayes outpaced Unseld in Playoff VORP; Unseld outpaced Hayes in Playoff BPM as well as regular season VORP and BPM
# - ('74 - injuries & '81 - injuries + final year)

Unseld would make a fantastic addition to our List. You're getting an MVP who is recognized as a high impact performer by advanced metrics, who had decent longevity, was a strong playoff performer and was the driver of a consistent winner.

You just don't see guys who achieved that much this late; there's guys left who achieved higher peaks, but had much worse longevity - Unseld brings very high impact years over a sustained run as a winner; the really high peak players remaining (Westbrook, Tmac, McAdoo, Walton) can't say that. Of our remaining MVP's who didn't play in a segregated era, Unseld has the most quality years.



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

As much as I hate him, Howard is the next guy up. I wouldn't want to play with him and I think he's cancerous. Let's just get that out of the way off the bat. The problem is, he's too good to not put in at this point - he's too powerful of a defensive anchor and at his peak, was too much of an offensive weapon.

Orlando goes from +7.5 to +1.2 in his first year. They improve to 3rd or better from '09 to '11 - peaking out at a relative -6 - even though the rest of that team had no business being an elite defense and he dominated in '09 - keeping Lebron out of the Finals. Those Magic teams shouldn't have been contenders - but there they were - in the ECF & Finals and winning 59 games in back to back years. Even during his post-peak, we can see his defensive impact on the '15 Rockets and even the '17 Hawks who finished 4th in defensive efficiency.

His playoff #'s are strong - 18/14 on 2.5 blocks and his offense isn't a drag on your team - he has 4 years over 20 PPG plus 6 more with at least 15 on 60% TS.

His 4 year RAPM from '08-'11 is 4th, he hits VORP 5+ twice & has > .200 WS/48 4 times.

He's a major pain in the rear but his impact is too high to keep out for much longer and here's the best way I can illustrate this:

Let's say an AI had all the information that we know about basketball dumped into it's core. It only knew the data - all of it that we have & the team results. It doesn't know about locker room stuff, it doesn't know about off the court stuff. The AI is told that it can have any player left put into a time machine, given nutritional benefits to compensate for the era and that's it. The AI is told that it has to give the player a gigantic $400 M contract - but it can figure out how to pay the player that $400 M any way it wants over the next 20 years, and it's locked into it's production.

The AI's goal is to maximize likelihood of success and told that over a 20 year window, building around this player if it doesn't achieve 30 points based on the below scale, it will be destroyed.

Playoff Series Win = 1 Point
Division Title = 1 Point
Playoff Appearance = 1 Point
Finals Appearance = 4 points
Title = 10 Points

I feel pretty confident that the AI would be picking Howard in this spot - and that the AI would select Howard over a fair number of players we've already voted in if given the choice. That last part - that's how I know that Howard has been punished enough. It's time to start the process of getting him in there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reed & Longevity

I'm only focusing on this because Reed made the run-off last run.

Reed had 7 years I'm willing to call quality ('65, '67-'73).

The problem is, Unseld has 12 years of that level of quality (all but '74), and you can definitely call all but Howard's 15 season quality seasons - that gives Howard 12.

So, if you're taking Reed over those guys, you have to like Reed's peak a lot more than those guys.

I'm not sure that's justifable at all. From '09-'12, Howard was a Top 5 guy in the league - potentially longer - and in a stronger league than what Unseld/Reed played in. I don't think you can say that about Reed for as long of a stretch.

Reed's peak is probably a little better than Unseld's but I'm not sure the difference is that large; I know both guys' MVPs are a little dubious - but I think Unseld's is slightly more defensible; with Reed's MVP, it's questionable whether he was the MVP of his own team - the most advanced stat we have from that era - says no both to RS & Playoff WS Totals.

[penbeast0]

The case for Alex English, who was really looking like just a good forward in his early career until he ended up in Denver in the runningest gunningest system in NBA history, over Dominque is a bit dubious.

It's not just the honors/awards that favor Nique on this one, it's also the numbers once you look through the system. ... the end result is that if you look at the Per100s and see through the pace:

Per100
Wilkins 34.7pts 9.3reb 3.5ast 1.8stl 0.8blk 3.5TO = 21.6PER .148WS/48, 3.4/-1.1 = 2.3BPM 41.8VORP
English 30.2pts 7.7reb 5.1ast 1.3stl 1.0blk 3.3TO = 19.9PER .127WS/48, 3.0/-1.3 = 1.7BPM 35.6VORP

Wilkins 7x All NBA (1/4/2), .845 MVP Shares (highest 2nd)
English 3x All NBA (0/3/0), .167 MVP Shares (highest 6th)


English was a great scorer and perennial All Star, but he was NOT a greater scorer or player than Nique. And it was hard to separate the player from the system in Denver with everybody in that system putting up wacky numbers. English was great, but he thrived in a system that made lesser players look great offensively too. It was rarely clear that he was truly carrying that team rather than playing a super-scoring role for a system that was doing the real work.

The Nuggets system was extremely fast paced and ahead of it's time in it's multi-threat every player can pass and shoot from outside type system. This is true. It's also true that while English got his points within the scope of that system, in various years playing different roles such as (a) point forward, (b) defensive stopper (taking the primary opposing threat for Vandeweghe who was awful and occasionally for Issel who was mediocre at best), primary outside threat (when the guards were TR Dunn and Fat Lever who liked to work inside), etc. His versatility allowed such diverse players as Vandeweghe, Natt, Lever, Michael Adams, etc. to play to their strengths and make that offense work through changes in personnel. Nique never showed that kind of versatility, he had his offense and every else on those Hawks teams had to fit around his slash and iso game. English was also an above average to good defender, much like Paul Pierce. Nique rarely put the effort in; he was voted by the other players in a Sporting News poll during his prime as the NBA athlete least interested in defense.

Your numbers are also missing one key element that favors English, efficiency. English across his long career for several different coaches was a pretty consistent .550 ts% scorer. Nique came in at only .535 for his equally long and consistent career; that's a pretty considerable difference when you are talking over 20,000 FGA. So no, between the versatility, defense, and efficiency edge, I favor English over Nique and did even when they were both playing though, as always, the general public favored the less efficient but higher raw PPG and more spectacular dunking game on Nique which is reflected in his accolades.

You are welcome to differ.

[dhsilv2]

OK I'm just reposting my last post with just area changed. I sadly feel this is an area where I'm not sure what I can do for an argument and to be blunt some of the players getting listed right now are somewhat blowing my mind. I just say Gasol as an alt over all the MVP level guys left, a few who won titles as the best player. I get that some people are big big fans of longevity, and I'll admit I'll not be pushing for Walton despite his 1 or 1.5 years of greatness because that seems to be too little. I'd like at least 2 years so I can confirm "yep, that was great". So perhaps I'm pushing Reed too soon and too hard, but I've yet to see a strong case for anyone else. Cowens and Unseld and McAdoo are also interesting case, but I've always gotten the impression (all of this was before my time) that the order was Reed, Cowens, Unseld, and mcadoo pretty far down the list from the rest. Also given the range of votes, Sam Jones not getting any votes yet seems a bit off to me, but I'm not ready for him either. I mean with guys like Pierce getting in, I'm starting to wonder why a Dave DeBusschere isn't getting traction given his defensive reputation. Anyway, my frustration is in how we all differently see how to build a list. No issue with those who disagree, but I'm really struggling with Mutombo or Gasol this early.

Vote Reed- I want to touch a bit more on Reed's longevity as while it is clearly the issue for him, I think he had a few more quality level seasons than people are giving him credit for.

Reed was a strong defender. I would argue he's perhaps a Reggie Miller level defender post peak, which is pretty solid, IMO offense tends to be more valuable than defense. So lets get to it.

The best proxy I can think of to show quality defense is going to be rebounds. Reed has 6 years in the top 10 in the league in rebounds and he had 7 years in the top 10 in per game.

PER - I've often called this the "allstar" stat as it seems one of the better proxies for who end sup being an allstar, though the overall value imo is a bit lower than some of our newest and better metrics. The issue here is that PER seems to undervalue this whole era, so we are either to believe that the top players were far worse than they are now or that the middle of the league is somehow better, or that the PER formula isn't that great without steals and blocks. I think the era was weak, but not THIS weak, so I tend to value where a player ranks vs just the raw number.

65- 12th
67- 6th
68- 6th
69- 4th
70- 8th
71- 17th

WS - I'd guess this is our best metric from this era unless we have more. I think the look at PER and WS give us a pretty good story, and we can add in the missing elements which I think have been covered.

67- 11th
68- 10th
69- 1st
70- 3rd (1st in defensive win share)
71- 10th

Now I will openly admit on this alone I wouldn't be ranking Reed where I am ranking him, but I wanted to illustrate that he had more than the 4 years that people give him credit for. FYI 7 allstar games and 5 all nba's.

From there it's really about if you believe his intangibles were as high as has teammates seem to think. It's about if you think winning an MVP when West, Oscar, and Wilt were all still pretty darn good matters or if that was a down year. It is about where you see his defense. And ultimately if you are willing to give him credit for 6 years and not just the 4, plus his 73 finals. I've been voting Reed here a while and i admit fully that his career length is giving me a lot of pause. It's odd I hear about how the 60's were the peak of centers from some (90's generally get that award), and here is a guy who won an MVP at the end (69-70) of the decade. I also see guys like Miller last round getting credit for playing ahead of his time, I'd think a under sized center with a decent jump shot would fall into at least a lesser version of that.

If you're not sold at Reed here, then that's great. I'm open to moving up a guy like Cowens or Unseld pretty easily. I might even be open to an Iverson or maybe someone from even further back. I haven't seen his name yet, but I'd be interested if people are thinking about Dan Issel, on centers who might have a case. Seems odd Gilmore is in and we haven't even had an Issel mention (Not odd he isn't in). Anyway rant over. But for me I'd like to see an argument for someone over Reed vs why Reed shouldn't be here.

Alt D Howard - Howard is an odd choice in a way. I'm not sure he is a traditional "best player" on a title team. That said I'll boldly say I think he was better at his peak than Mutombo as a defender. His speed and close out ability was just amazing and it made him a much more difficult guy to deal with.

Interestingly he does provide me a "WTF" moment on the RAPM stats, Rashard Lewis had a higher defensive RAPM in 09 than Howard? Lets just say I love RAPM but it's missing a lot here imo. It oddly thinks Howard was a better offensive player than most people generally rank him which is interesting but I also feel misleading.

Anyway Howard is an all time great rebounder. He ranks 23rd in total rebounds already. Keep in mind that list is loaded with early era players where rebounds were in higher numbers and some of the rebounding stats were insane, and then some of our longest careers (Duncan, Malone, Parish, KG). Howard has passed the modern rebounding king, Rodman, who's career wasn't that much shorter.

Howard was a great shot blocker, but the stats are somewhat missleading. I'm sure most here have read the Howard (or was it Dwight?) effect article that went up from the slone conference. If not the article illustrated how Howard seemed to reduce the number of field goal attempts made around him, which given he's a center and stands around the paint, is reducing the most valuable shots. Clearly he isn't the first to do this or the best, but he was the poster child of this when they did the this paper. It has however jaded me towards wondering about players who had high blocks per game to where a guy like Camby I somewhat wonder if maybe teams knew he could block anything but would also fall for a fake and would get out of position for rebounds if he missed the block.

Anyway the WS and VORP and PER stats aren't mind blowing for Howard. He does well. This actually where I think he opens himself up, but I'm just not sold that these very good scorers and ok to decent defenders that are getting considered right now are good choices. Thus I'll take imo the best defender left and if he isn't, he was better offensively than any of the other defensive stand outs.

I'm also looking at Iverson, Unseld, Cowens, Cousy, and I'm interested in some good cases for Schayes who is a guy I know pretty much in name only (much like Arzin also from that era). The next group is going to be Miller, Pierce, Westbrook (I think he'll be close to 60 for me), and then we'll get into a lot of the defensive specialists. Oh and Manu is coming very soon.

[dhsilv2]

Alternate: No one at this point, listening . . .

Might I suggest something from our fine line of available big men:
Dwight Howard (case made above in post #2)
Pau Gasol (a bit weak defensively, but fantastically skilled and versatile offensive big man who is also a solid rebounding anchor, and with excellent longevity and a fair number of "legacy accomplishments" to his credit)
Dolph Schayes (same basic arguments as for Pau, except significantly greater number of legacy accomplishments, albeit in a weaker era)
or Robert Parish (solid two-way big who's on the shortlist of longevity giants, and a nice array of accomplishments), perhaps?

I'll throw in Wes Unseld to the list. Of our remaining MVP's, he has the best longevity of guys who didn't peak in a segregated era - more on him in a minute

Iverson?

[pandrade83]

Might I suggest something from our fine line of available big men:
Dwight Howard (case made above in post #2)
Pau Gasol (a bit weak defensively, but fantastically skilled and versatile offensive big man who is also a solid rebounding anchor, and with excellent longevity and a fair number of "legacy accomplishments" to his credit)
Dolph Schayes (same basic arguments as for Pau, except significantly greater number of legacy accomplishments, albeit in a weaker era)
or Robert Parish (solid two-way big who's on the shortlist of longevity giants, and a nice array of accomplishments), perhaps?

I'll throw in Wes Unseld to the list. Of our remaining MVP's, he has the best longevity of guys who didn't peak in a segregated era - more on him in a minute

Iverson?

Ugh forgot about him. He and unseld are pretty close in that area, depending on how you define a quality year. Good call

[pandrade83]

Vote: Cousy (My GOAT #15 - I've been voting him 1st or 2nd for about 30 threads! Oh well, lol!)
Alternate: Schayes (My GOAT #33 - I'm putting him above Moncrief cause Sidney's gotten ZERO traction so far).

Remaining un-selected players from my GOAT Top 50:
My GOAT #15, #3 PG: Cousy, Bob ... (40.5 "Points", TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Teams)
My GOAT #33, #7 PF: Schayes, D. .. (28.2 "Points", . SIX 1st-Team ALL-League selections, ... SIX 2nd-Teams)

H.M.:
My GOAT #30, #6 SG: Moncrief, S. . (18.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #35, #7 SG: Greer, Hal ... (17.5 "Points", . ZERO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, SEVEN 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #36, #8 C: . Howard, D. . (31.4 "Points", . FIVE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #37, #8 PG: Iverson, A.... (25.6 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #38, #8 SF: TMac ........ (22.1 "Points", . TWO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #39, #8 PF: JLucas, Jerry (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #40, #8 SG: Westphal, P. . (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #43, #9 SF: Wilkins, D. ... (19.3 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #44, #9 PF: Stoudeire, A. (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #45, #9 SG: Harden, J. .. (16.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . ZERO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #49, #10 SF: Hill, Grant . (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #50, #10 PF: McGinnis ... (15.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)

Getting Traction Here (but not with me):
My GOAT #103,#11 C: Reed, Willis . (07.5 "Points", . ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)

fwiw, I think you really undermined yourself at the end of the last thread.

All-Star Teams - I discount them entirely; ALL-League Teams are far superior (covering whole seasons instead of "half-seasons"); and the results, imo, are close to spot on, whereas All-Star selections have had MANY mistakes.

MVPs: I find the MVP-selections to be inferior to 1st-Team ALL-League selections because: a) They're much more limited; b) I've disagreed with the actual choice a number of years (2 Xs Russell over Wilt; Cowens over KAJ; Nash 2X over others; and other years.) I've seen the "MVP SHARES" list; and feel that while that is DECIDEDLY better than just MVPs; it is clearly inferior to the results my system produces. (There's been a relatively recent thread that addressed this very issue.) viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1605350&start=40#start_here Post #45 includes most of the points made back-and-forth between penbeast0 and myself.

I struggle to see how you'll discredit MVPs or even MVP Shares when the same people are voting on this as All NBA.

[euroleague]

Vote: Cousy (My GOAT #15 - I've been voting him 1st or 2nd for about 30 threads! Oh well, lol!)
Alternate: Schayes (My GOAT #33 - I'm putting him above Moncrief cause Sidney's gotten ZERO traction so far).

Remaining un-selected players from my GOAT Top 50:
My GOAT #15, #3 PG: Cousy, Bob ... (40.5 "Points", TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Teams)
My GOAT #33, #7 PF: Schayes, D. .. (28.2 "Points", . SIX 1st-Team ALL-League selections, ... SIX 2nd-Teams)

H.M.:
My GOAT #30, #6 SG: Moncrief, S. . (18.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #35, #7 SG: Greer, Hal ... (17.5 "Points", . ZERO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, SEVEN 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #36, #8 C: . Howard, D. . (31.4 "Points", . FIVE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #37, #8 PG: Iverson, A.... (25.6 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #38, #8 SF: TMac ........ (22.1 "Points", . TWO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #39, #8 PF: JLucas, Jerry (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #40, #8 SG: Westphal, P. . (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #43, #9 SF: Wilkins, D. ... (19.3 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #44, #9 PF: Stoudeire, A. (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #45, #9 SG: Harden, J. .. (16.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . ZERO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #49, #10 SF: Hill, Grant . (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #50, #10 PF: McGinnis ... (15.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)

Getting Traction Here (but not with me):
My GOAT #103,#11 C: Reed, Willis . (07.5 "Points", . ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)

fwiw, I think you really undermined yourself at the end of the last thread.

All-Star Teams - I discount them entirely; ALL-League Teams are far superior (covering whole seasons instead of "half-seasons"); and the results, imo, are close to spot on, whereas All-Star selections have had MANY mistakes.

MVPs: I find the MVP-selections to be inferior to 1st-Team ALL-League selections because: a) They're much more limited; b) I've disagreed with the actual choice a number of years (2 Xs Russell over Wilt; Cowens over KAJ; Nash 2X over others; and other years.) I've seen the "MVP SHARES" list; and feel that while that is DECIDEDLY better than just MVPs; it is clearly inferior to the results my system produces. (There's been a relatively recent thread that addressed this very issue.) viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1605350&start=40#start_here Post #45 includes most of the points made back-and-forth between penbeast0 and myself.

I struggle to see how you'll discredit MVPs or even MVP Shares when the same people are voting on this as All NBA.

MVP is the best player on the best team.

All-NBA tends to be the best player, and it has room for more diversity in voting - #2 votes are meaningful since two people get in, as opposed to in MVP voting.

Bill Russell won a ton of MVPs, but Wilt Chamberlain was first team every year.

Lastly, during the early stages of the NBA, MVPs were voted on by players and not by media. This means well-liked players would get more votes, and players like Wilt (who had personality and diva issues) wouldn't win as many.

[euroleague]

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Harden
HM1: Domnique Wilkins
HM2: Westbrook

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: Harden - Harden has redefined flopping, and will probably get a rule change. However, it can't be argued that he is a very effective scorer and passer, who led his team to the WCF and is capable of leading teams with no secondary star better than Eric Gordon to 55+ wins. Multiple MVP level seasons.

Hm1: Dominique - a player with epic head to head battles against larry bird, and a great locker room guy who could score in huge volume when he wished. 1988 ECSF - if that had gone slightly differently, it would've been the Hawks vs the Pistons in the ECF... And both those teams were better than the Lakers. 99% of that Pistons loss in 1988 was nerves.

HM2: Westbrook - Westbrook was 1b to Durant's 1a, and Durant was in a long time ago. He averaged a 3x double, which is significant simply because for the entire history of the nba only Oscar had done it (although it's a little meaningless). He had a huge impact on the game, and showed that he can elevate a team as a solo first option. This year, playing more normal minute totals with a back-up in PG, I expect he will do much better in terms of wins.

[pandrade83]

Vote: Cousy (My GOAT #15 - I've been voting him 1st or 2nd for about 30 threads! Oh well, lol!)
Alternate: Schayes (My GOAT #33 - I'm putting him above Moncrief cause Sidney's gotten ZERO traction so far).

Remaining un-selected players from my GOAT Top 50:
My GOAT #15, #3 PG: Cousy, Bob ... (40.5 "Points", TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Teams)
My GOAT #33, #7 PF: Schayes, D. .. (28.2 "Points", . SIX 1st-Team ALL-League selections, ... SIX 2nd-Teams)

H.M.:
My GOAT #30, #6 SG: Moncrief, S. . (18.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #35, #7 SG: Greer, Hal ... (17.5 "Points", . ZERO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, SEVEN 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #36, #8 C: . Howard, D. . (31.4 "Points", . FIVE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #37, #8 PG: Iverson, A.... (25.6 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #38, #8 SF: TMac ........ (22.1 "Points", . TWO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #39, #8 PF: JLucas, Jerry (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #40, #8 SG: Westphal, P. . (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #43, #9 SF: Wilkins, D. ... (19.3 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #44, #9 PF: Stoudeire, A. (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #45, #9 SG: Harden, J. .. (16.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . ZERO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #49, #10 SF: Hill, Grant . (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #50, #10 PF: McGinnis ... (15.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)

Getting Traction Here (but not with me):
My GOAT #103,#11 C: Reed, Willis . (07.5 "Points", . ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)

fwiw, I think you really undermined yourself at the end of the last thread.

All-Star Teams - I discount them entirely; ALL-League Teams are far superior (covering whole seasons instead of "half-seasons"); and the results, imo, are close to spot on, whereas All-Star selections have had MANY mistakes.

MVPs: I find the MVP-selections to be inferior to 1st-Team ALL-League selections because: a) They're much more limited; b) I've disagreed with the actual choice a number of years (2 Xs Russell over Wilt; Cowens over KAJ; Nash 2X over others; and other years.) I've seen the "MVP SHARES" list; and feel that while that is DECIDEDLY better than just MVPs; it is clearly inferior to the results my system produces. (There's been a relatively recent thread that addressed this very issue.) viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1605350&start=40#start_here Post #45 includes most of the points made back-and-forth between penbeast0 and myself.

I struggle to see how you'll discredit MVPs or even MVP Shares when the same people are voting on this as All NBA.

MVP is the best player on the best team.

All-NBA tends to be the best player, and it has room for more diversity in voting - #2 votes are meaningful since two people get in, as opposed to in MVP voting.

Bill Russell won a ton of MVPs, but Wilt Chamberlain was first team every year.

Lastly, during the early stages of the NBA, MVPs were voted on by players and not by media. This means well-liked players would get more votes, and players like Wilt (who had personality and diva issues) wouldn't win as many.

Purple - In recent time periods, the instances where they do this is becoming increasingly less. The Rose MVP, the Dirk MVP & maybe the '05 Nash MVP are the only times post 1980 where it feels like they just went ahead & did that.

Even in the '70's you only really have the Cowens & Reed MVPs - but you could use MVP shares instead of MVPs if you're uncomfortable with it.

Green - In their overlapping careers, Wilt won just as many as Russell. And in two of those years Wilt played for losing teams, so I'm really not sure what to tell you if you think there's that many times in the 60's where it was biased.

[Lou Fan]

Last but not least my favorite player of all-time (yes I'm admitting to my slight bias though I try not to be) Tracy McGrady. T-Mac was the ideal point-forward and if for some reason we were cloning shooting guards I'd argue T-Mac would be the best choice. McGrady had it all 6'9" elite athleticism and wingspan. He had absolutely no holes in his game. I'll go through every portion of his game but not overly extensive. First his passing ability was great, truly elite. He knew how to find his teammates at the best time in the best spot and had the type of vision you can only be born with. He could pass out of any double-team and he basically never turned the ball over. His turnover pct was often below 10% which is really incredible. Another reason for his turnover averse play was his ball-handling. Tracy McGrady is the greatest SG ball handler of all time and at 6'9" that's really saying something. He could dribble the ball anywhere he wanted on the court and while sometimes his fancy displays of ball-handling killed ball movement they mostly enabled him to attack and score from wherever he wanted. These two traits made him the best point-forward of his time (pre LBJ of course). He could do literally whatever he wanted as far as scoring the basketball. He could get to the basket and finish with ease, he had a solid post up game with a great fadeaway, he could pull up for 3 off-the dribble, he could spot up and hit shots, he could run off screens, he could any type of step-back, turnaround, hop step mid range jumpers you could think of, he could play in the pick and roll to score or pass, and he could explode out of the triple-threat. He had the most variety in his coring of any player I've ever seen and possibly the most ever. He was really the perfect wing. T-Mac was really beautiful to watch. Watching T-Mac play was like watching Federer play tennis it looks as tho they were born to play the sport and they just glide around the court gracefully dismantling their opponents in a way that seems effortless. This seemingly effortlessness in McGrady's game probably partially contributed to the perception of him being a lazy player. McGrady's work ethic was pretty poor and if he had Kobe or MJ killer in him, provided he was healthy, he'd be top 3 all-time. He was never a great leader and he was a pretty quiet guy but his intangibles other than work ethic weren't a negative. I can't honestly blame him for his lack of effort if your best teammates were Juwan Howard and Mike Miller you'd probably be pretty frustrated and lazy too. Those Orlando supporting casts are so laughably bad that they dwarf LBJ and Kobe's and even Garnett's. No wonder his back couldn't take him carrying all those scrubs for 4 years . His situation was just completely hopeless. Maybe that's why he always settled for deep contested 2s his jumper was awesome but no one can hit contested perimeter shots consistently at a high percentage. He easily could've gotten to the rim more or created more open looks but he really seemed to half-ass games at time because of how **** his teams were. He was literally the only guy on the team who could create any shots for himself or others. That's probably another reason he settled because he was tasked with doing literally everything for his team and he was probably exhausted. Had he played on even a decent team he would have the energy to attack the rim way more. Same goes for defense when he was playing at 100% effort he looked like an All-NBA defender but he was an average defender his whole career because he didn't care to play defense most of the time and he also didn't have energy to play D. McGrady was the only person on his team that defenses had to give any **** about and he still destroyed defenses. At his peak in 03 he had 30 ast % to 8.4 yes 8.4 tov % and had the greatest season of all-time tied with Michael Jordan according to OBPM at 9.8. The Magic still only went 42-40 and he played amazing in the playoffs and they still lost in 7 to the Pistons. It's honestly depressing to think about. If only Tim Duncan signed with the Magic and Grant Hill could stay healthy they would've been the greatest team of all-time and maybe McGrady's back wouldn't have been destroyed by carrying the 600 pound Shawn Kemp and all those other scrubs on his back. His 1 year peak is top 10 and his 7 year prime is awesome but it could've been so much more. He was the third best player in the league in the early 00s behind Shaq and TD and was the best offensive player in a time dominated by defense. This is getting ridiculously long so I'm done but I could go on for even longer if I wanted lol. I'm willing to answer any questions/debate with people about this but I think it's time for McGrady.
1st Vote: T-Mac
2nd: Nique for now
There is absolutely no excuse for not choosing T-Mac after Paul Pierce just got voted in. T-Mac DOMINATED the era Paul played in and was universally considered the better of two players and it wasn't particularly close. For those picking Howard and people who are longevity guys T-Mac had an 8 year prime and 15 years total it's not great but it's solid. Howard voters why pick Howard when he has same longevity and lower peak with horrid intangibles?

[scrabbarista]

44. Elvin Hayes
45. Dolph Schayes

*For combined (RS) points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals, Elvin Hayes is 9th in the history of the NBA and ABA combined. If you aren't giving him consideration around the 44th spot, then career totals should probably not enter into your thought at any point on this list. 9th and 44th! C'mon!

*Hayes was the most productive player on the '78 Bullets title team, although Unseld was generally more heralded. By my count, there is only a handful of players remaining who were the best player on a title team, so Hayes at least needs to start receiving consideration.

*Hayes' MVP finishes, in spite of the fact that apparently not a single person with a vote actually liked him:

1971-72 NBA 0.006 (17)
1972-73 NBA 0.021 (10)
1973-74 NBA 0.082 (5)
1974-75 NBA 0.299 (3)
1975-76 NBA 0.018 (8)
1976-77 NBA 0.020 (7)
1978-79 NBA 0.126 (3)

*Hayes also led the league in scoring in '69, and was a 12x All-Star.

For me, his combination of longevity and production for a championship team make him too hard to ignore.

[Clyde Frazier]

Please remember to BOLD your votes or they may be missed when tallying

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Please remember to BOLD your votes or they may be missed when tallying