RealGM

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:40 am**

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. Dwight Howard
45. Dolph Schayes
46. Bob Cousy
47. Ray Allen
48. Pau Gasol
49. Wes Unseld
50. Robert Parish
51. ????

Half done! Keep it coming.
~48 hours until this one goes into runoff.

Spoiler:

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:47 am**

'For modern players, I am looking at Manu Ginobili and Russell Westbrook at the moment. 90s have been picked through pretty well except for Mourning, \Mutombo and the oddity that is Dennis Rodman; GOAT rebounder in regular season, but big dropoffs in the postseason or I'd probably be looking at him here.

80s, Sidney Moncrief had a short career but every time I saw him he was brutally effective, particularly defensively. Bobby Jones is another great two way player with limited time (not length of career for him but minutes per game). On the other end, Adrian Dantley is probably the next great scorer over Nique (and King/Aguirre/Marques who didn't have the longevity even if they peaked higher). To paraphrase LA Bird, the only real argument for Nique over English is style over substance; they scored roughly equivalent amounts but English was more efficient, a clearly superior defender, and he scored them in the context of the Nuggets offense without having to have constant isos run for him. No one left is as offensively impressive to me as English and Dantley except for the shorter modern careers like Westbrook and Harden.

60s guys, I am looking at Sam Jones, Hal Greer, Dave Debusschere, and Nate Thurmond, maybe Chet Walker. Thurmond is hurt by his offense and his team winning a title just after trading him for Cliff Ray. 70s there are a bunch of guys like Daniels, Cowens, Hayes, Reed, and McAdoo just among big men. Of these, I'd rather have Dave Cowens though the stats don't always back me up. But having watched them a lot, he had an Alonzo Mourning attitude with stretch the floor midrange shooting. 50s guys, Arizin and Cousy are the best left plus maybe Neil Johnston, the Amare of the 50s, whose great looking numbers overrate his impact.

Vote: Alex English
Alternate: Adrian Dantley

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:24 am**

1st choice: Russell Westbrook
Honorable Mention: Alonzo Mourning

I loved watching Allen Iverson play. His style, his determination & his explosiveness were all captivating. The man had a relentless motor. He's on my all-time "favorite guys to watch" team - but he's not in my Top 50.

Watching him play, you can kind of tell, deep down in a place you don't totally want to admit that your ceiling is capped with him because of efficiency issues.

But what if, you could capture the competitive fire, never say die attitude, motor at max 100% of the time, reckless abandonment & "I can't wait to see this guy play" factor in a sabermetric friendly version? I present to you Russell Westbrook (full disclosure: my favorite player to watch in the league).

The advanced metrics actually love him

One of the biggest knocks on Westbrook is going to be around efficiency - his detractors are going to say that he wasn't an efficient player and that they have stylistic concerns about him. Some (but not all) of these metrics I'm going to present will somewhat over-state his impact. The point isn't to say he had the best season ever (like VORP will) - rather this is to illustrate that all the sabermetrics actually recognize his impact - and should dispel some efficiency concerns.

RAPM - he finished 4th in ESPN's RPM Wins each of the last 2 years, 7th in '15, and 13th in RPM in '14 and a strong "pre-prime" of being 21st in the chained RAPM from '08-'11.
VORP - Last year Russell Westbrook posted the highest single season VORP Score EVER.
BPM - Westbrook has finished 1st in this metric twice ('15 & '17) and holds 2 of the Top 10 scores EVER.
WS - FWIW, he already has more career Win Shares than Willis Reed - who has been in the last several run-offs. He's hit 13 WS + twice - of our remaining candidates from last round, Reed got there twice, Gasol once & Mutombo never.
PER - last time out he broke the 30 barrier. That's relevant because here is your list of guys who also have:

Steph Curry
Anthony Davis
Lebron James
Dwayne Wade
Tracy McGrady
Shaq
David Robinson
MJ
Chamberlain

That's an impressive group. Everyone else is in but Tmac & AD.

An ability to perform well against other elite guards when it matters

In his lone encounter against Paul in the playoffs
Westbrook - 28/9/6 - 61% TS
Paul - 23/12/4 - 61% TS

vs. Steph in the playoffs:

Westbrook - 27/11/7 - 51.2% TS
Steph - 28/6/6 - 61.3% TS

vs. Wade in the '12 Finals:

Westbrook - 27/7/6 - 51% TS
Wade - 23/6/5 - 51% TS

vs. Harden in LY Playoffs:

Westbrook - 34/10/10 * not technically a triple double - rounding here - 51% TS
Harden - 32/7/6 - 57% TS - so much flopping - worse FG & 3PT%'s than Westbrook :noway:

Westbrook doesn't necessarily win all these matchups (2 are wins; 1's a draw & 1's a loss; but in EVERY matchup he competes and acquits himself well) - say what you will about Westbrook but you'll never see anything like this shameful performance:

Watch on YouTube

Elephant in the room: Stylistics & KD

I'll tackle the KD thing - why did he leave? I'll put it in KD's own words:

"he didn't like the organization or playing for Billy Donovan. His roster wasn't that good, it was just him and russ."

"imagine taking russ off that team, see how bad they were. Kd can't win a championship with those cats."

This wasn't a Westbrook issue - this is an org & Billy Donovan issue.

As for stylistics - I know Westbrook took a lot of flack for the style he played last year. But look at the mess Westbrook still got 10 apg with:

Watch on YouTube

Then you have Oladipo - who is basically a homeless man's Westbrook - who somehow managed to shoot a worse TS% than Westbrook last year despite having minimal offensive gravity- as did Sabonis. You're only real offensive weapon - Enes Kanter - can't stay on the floor in the playoffs because of things like this:

Watch on YouTube

I know Adams was there - but I feel like Adams usage rate was probably optimized last year. I want him scoring in the 12-15 PPG range on a high TS%. And that's sort of the point - in that situation, Westbrook probably optimized OKC's chances of winning.

This is a guy who is a strong playoff performer and is a very high efficiency guy who has had an incredibly high peak and already turned in 6 very high quality seasons & he hasn't had a BAD season yet. It's time for him to get some support.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a 2 Time DPOY winner, Alonzo Mourning is an elite defensive anchor. And we still have a few left who I'll give shout outs to in Mutombo, Wallace, Eaton & Thurmond.

The difference between Mourning & those guys is he really separates himself from them at the offensive end and I don't know if we recognize Mourning for the offensive impact he had.

Mourning was a 6 time 20 PPG scorer who shot between 56-59% TS in those years. His turnover efficiency isn't terrible either at a 15% rate. Mutombo hit the 15 PPG mark just once on worse efficiency than any of Mourning's 20 PPG years, Thurmond creates an offensive drag with his TS%'s - he only hit 50% once in his whole career despite the relatively high volume, & Eaton/Wallace are like playing 4 on 5 offensively.

In this

Watch on YouTube

video, Mourning displays a strong ability to move up & down the court along with some competent post moves. He's not Olajuwon down there, but he's not Dwight either.

He has a clear impact on winning that's displayed in his whole career.

'93 - In Charlotte, the Hornets accelerate from 31 wins to 44 wins in his 1st year (note, Larry Johnson's development is probably worth at least a couple of those) as Mourning hits the close-out shot to eliminate Boston. Mourning is a 24-10 player in the playoffs to go with over 3 blocks.
'94 - Charlotte is 35-25 with Mourning in the lineup, just 6-16 without him. Larry Johnson's prime abruptly ends with injuries.
'95 - Mourning is the leading scorer on a team that becomes Top 10 in offensive efficiency and the team improves defensively. They make the playoffs. Mourning plays well in the series to Chicago, averaging 23 & 13; the Bulls don't have an answer for him.
'96 - Miami's roster has significant turnover so it's hard to attribute too much to one guy, but Mourning was brought in for Glen Rice among others & the Heat still improve by 10 wins. They jump defensively from +1.6 to -3.8.
'97 - Mourning anchors the #1 defense in the league as the Heat win 61 games. Miami makes the ECF.
'98 - Potentially a black mark if I'm being honest. The WOWY impact isn't great - 39-19 with, 16-8 without. Not a huge impact there. The Heat are upset in round 1 by the Ewing-less Knicks. This is the year where Johnson & Mourning get in a fight & JVG is clinging to Mourning's leg like an animal. Just a very strange series. It is noteworthy that Miami loses the game Mourning is suspended for in the series vs. NY.
'99 - Mourning leads the Heat to the #1 seed and finishes 2nd in the MVP voting. From a Mourning advocate perspective, you wish you could erase what happened in the playoffs

Watch on YouTube

and you also wish he would've more thoroughly dominated Ewing but Ewing always played him tough. Still, Mourning had a great year as the defensive anchor on a team that had the best record in the East & was the lead scorer for a team that finished 2nd in offensive efficiency for the 2nd straight year.
'00 - Miami starts to get old. Mourning drags them to the Atlantic title again, finishing 3rd in the MVP Voting.They still can't get over the Knicks hump & Ewing is inexplicably still effective against Mourning.

The the kidney thing happens - but he still comes back after that as a highly valuable defensive role player & is critical in the FInals win over Dallas in '06. Even post-kidney disease, you still see him battling strong.

Watch on YouTube

But the defensive impact - it never goes away.

There's a couple black marks in there - he gets slowed by post-prime Ewing in those Heat/Knicks series more than he should. In some of the Heat years, the WOWY impact is iffy and the assist numbers are pretty brutal.

But look - we're still talking a guy who was regarded as a Top 5 player multiple years, elite defensive anchor, good (not elite but good) offensive player who led winning teams all the way through and showed a tremendous amount of courage in battling back from kidney disease and exhibited outstanding intangibles - for whatever you value that. Anyone who is brought up is going to have some black marks - & if one of Mourning's biggest black marks is he got slowed by a mentor more than he should in the playoffs? I can live with that more than the warts of others. Even the longevity is better than you might think - 8 very strong years ('93-'00) another strong year ('02), 3 post-prime years as an excellent back-up center; others have better but given the kidney disease, it's better than you might think.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:01 pm**

For this spot, I'm tentatively giving my picks to a couple somewhat similar player types. One peaked higher, but the other did it for longer.

1st vote: Russell Westbrook
2nd vote: Allen Iverson

Westy doesn't have great longevity, but it's not terrible either. With 9 seasons, 668 rs games (including a hold-out year), 3 superstar seasons and 4 other All-Star to All-NBA level years to his credit, his longevity is certainly just as strong as Reed's (arguably marginally better).
Rather than regurgitate his numbers, I'm just going to speak in more generalities.
What he's done from a pure production standpoint [this past season] is almost unprecedented. I'd have been backing him sooner if it had resulted in a more high-octane offense. To be fair though, when Steven Adams and Victor Oladipo [overrated, imo] are the 2nd and 3rd best offensive players, and you have a decided lack of 3pt shooters (OKC was 18th/30 in 3PA and dead-last in 3pt%).....there's only so much one star can do. And one wonders how the lanes might open up for Westbrook if he DID have shooters.

Somewhat similar with Iverson (there's a cap to how good your offense will be---unless we're talking about a Lebron-level offensive star---if your 2nd and 3rd-best offensive players are guys like Mutombo and Aaron McKie; though indeed '01 and I think '03 were the only year his team managed to top average).
And for all his low efficiency shooting, I noted previously that he gets a lot of shots up on the rim in instances after he has broken down the defense and forced the low-post defenders to come help and contest the shot (thus leaving teammates with no one boxing them out). And indeed I noted some upward trends in team OREB% associated with Iverson's presence (I'll see if I can locate that data and present it later).

One can question whether Westbrook can truly mesh WELL with another superstar, though his time with Durant at the very least proves he doesn't mesh poorly with one. They had some fairly relevant success together, especially considering strength of conference.
Iverson has perhaps more question marks in this regard, which is a valid question wrt the ceiling of an Iverson-led team. But there's no denying he had a mighty significant career nonetheless, ample enough to give him consideration here.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:41 pm**

Do you seriously think that Adrian Dantley couldn't have done more than Iverson with Iverson's teams?

Both unguardable one on one, both have to have the offense run through them, both at times questionable on defense (though Dantley got complements from Chuck Daly who I greatly respect) . . . but one is below average efficiency while the other is up there with Barkley in terms of most efficient great scorer of all time.

I think Dantley, on those Philly teams, adds a not insignificant amount of value over Iverson . . . consistently.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:00 pm**

trex_8063 wrote:For this spot, I'm tentatively giving my picks to a couple somewhat similar player types. One peaked higher, but the other did it for longer.

1st vote: Russell Westbrook
2nd vote: Allen Iverson

Westy doesn't have great longevity, but it's not terrible either. With 9 seasons, 668 rs games (including a hold-out year), 3 superstar seasons and 4 other All-Star to All-NBA level years to his credit, his longevity is certainly just as strong as Reed's (arguably marginally better).
Rather than regurgitate his numbers, I'm just going to speak in more generalities.
What he's done from a pure production standpoint [this past season] is almost unprecedented. I'd have been backing him sooner if it had resulted in a more high-octane offense. To be fair though, when Steven Adams and Victor Oladipo [overrated, imo] are the 2nd and 3rd best offensive players, and you have a decided lack of 3pt shooters (OKC was 18th/30 in 3PA and dead-last in 3pt%).....there's only so much one star can do. And one wonders how the lanes might open up for Westbrook if he DID have shooters.

Somewhat similar with Iverson (there's a cap to how good your offense will be---unless we're talking about a Lebron-level offensive star---if your 2nd and 3rd-best offensive players are guys like Mutombo and Aaron McKie; though indeed '01 was the only year he manged to top average).
And for all his low efficiency shooting, I noted previously that he gets a lot of shots up on the rim in instances after he has broken down the defense and forced the low-post defenders to come help and contest the shot (thus leaving teammates with no one boxing them out). And indeed I noted some upward trends in team OREB% associated with Iverson's presence (I'll see if I can locate that data and present it later).

One can question whether Westbrook can truly mesh WELL with another superstar, though his time with Durant at the very least proves he doesn't mesh poorly with one. They had some fairly relevant success together, especially considering strength of conference.
Iverson has perhaps more question marks in this regard, which is a valid question wrt the ceiling of an Iverson-led team. But there's no denying he had a mighty significant career nonetheless, ample enough to give him consideration here.

Thoughts on Billups vs Westbrook? I think in Westy’s best years it’s obvious he shines brighter. But Billups still has a lead of about 10K total career minutes. Chauncey obviously struggles mightily his first few years in the league, but the same can be said for Westbrook. I think despite the gaudy totals, a pretty easy case is made for Westy being an “empty calories” type of player as a youngster, so while he may appear more impressive, it’s not obvious to me it was anything other than OKC betting big on him when they had nothing else. Now by 2012 he was a big time player, and by 2015 he was at an MVP type level.

But that’s still not a ton. Billups was ridiculously effective, and seemed to make magic whatever team he joined, even we’ll into his mid 30s before breaking down with LAC. At his peak plenty looked at him as a top 10 player, his vía RAPM his 06-11 stretch looks comparable to the best we saw from, say, Kidd.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:25 pm**

Dr Spaceman wrote:
Thoughts on Billups vs Westbrook? I think in Westy’s best years it’s obvious he shines brighter. But Billups still has a lead of about 10K total career minutes. Chauncey obviously struggles mightily his first few years in the league, but the same can be said for Westbrook. I think despite the gaudy totals, a pretty easy case is made for Westy being an “empty calories” type of player as a youngster, so while he may appear more impressive, it’s not obvious to me it was anything other than OKC betting big on him when they had nothing else. Now by 2012 he was a big time player, and by 2015 he was at an MVP type level.

But that’s still not a ton. Billups was ridiculously effective, and seemed to make magic whatever team he joined, even we’ll into his mid 30s before breaking down with LAC. At his peak plenty looked at him as a top 10 player, his vía RAPM his 06-11 stretch looks comparable to the best we saw from, say, Kidd.

Disagree with the bolded part. And in fact, it was his lukewarm impact metrics that recently persuaded me to shift him down slightly on my list.
Here are his PI RAPM values (and league rank) in the years you specified, plus a couple of earlier prime years:

'04: +2.1 (33rd)
'05: -0.3 (187th)
'06: +0.4 (100th)
'07: +4.3 (12th)
'08: +3.9 (12th)
'09: +3.2 (24th)
'10: +1.1 (74th)
'11: +0.4 (117th)

Kidd, otoh, had three consecutive years in the top 5, plus at least 2-3 other top 10 finishes (best raw RAPM values aren't much better than Chauncey's best, though iirc in Doc's scaled terms, the gap looks a pinch larger).
Chauncey's are more consistent with someone like Allen Iverson than Jason Kidd. And I note it's fairly consistently his defensive split that is pulling him down, which has made me wonder if defensive reputation is somewhat inflated. Memory says he was pretty good defensively in the vicinity of ~'04-'07 or thereabouts; but memory can lie too.
Not that I take these ranks and values at face value (I'm on the record multiple times/places indicating I don't feel that's always appropriate with impact metrics), and I don't put all my eggs into one basket anyway. But suffice to say this gave me room to question whether he was really as "in control of the game" as I previously thought.

That said, I think he's perfectly viable here (I almost gave him my alternate vote), and will likely be lending him some support soon.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:31 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:Do you seriously think that Adrian Dantley couldn't have done more than Iverson with Iverson's teams?

Both unguardable one on one, both have to have the offense run through them, both at times questionable on defense (though Dantley got complements from Chuck Daly who I greatly respect) . . . but one is below average efficiency while the other is up there with Barkley in terms of most efficient great scorer of all time.

I think Dantley, on those Philly teams, adds a not insignificant amount of value over Iverson . . . consistently.

My counter to that is (and has been, as I'd presented on this in prior threads) to then ask: why didn't we SEE BETTER from those Dantley-led Jazz offenses? Those supporting casts were not appreciably worse [offensively] than what Iverson generally had during his tenure in Philly. Or if they were, I'll say it's not by a huge margin and at any rate is reflected in worse ORtg's than we see in Philly during Iverson's time.

With Dantley, his box-based metrics tend to overstate his offensive impact because we can get a little overly focused on individual shooting efficiency. There are other components and factors at play:
*Dantley was not a note-worthy playmaker, Iverson was.
**Dantley didn't break down defenses in a way that enabled or potentiated offensive rebounders; Iverson did.
***Iverson had better turnover economy as well.
****Iverson was able to play slightly larger minutes, too, fwiw.
EDIT: I'd also mention spacing benefits. Not that Iverson was a particularly good shooter, but Dantley wasn't an outside shooter at all.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:39 pm**

On Billups, Tmac, Mourning, Iverson, Westbrook, Hayes, Reed, Thurmond, English, Mutombo, Harden, Manu, Lanier:

Spoiler:

Chauncey Billups - Case for: Combination of passing, getting to the line and free throw line all of which is highly valuable on offense. Somewhat ahead of his time in appreciation for his skillset and value of 3pt spacing. Very good boxscore player with a few top 5s in WS (3rd/5th) and other top 10s and solid but would do better in VORP if his defense was rated better as it probably should've been. Leads Pistons to some strong seasons even without Ben Wallace. Iverson for Billups trade looks terrific for his case with his impact on the Nuggets both as a player and leader and Pistons decline without him. Case against: Ok longevity with about 8 strong years. Good but not great RAPM career, mainly peaking later in his prime. Felt less talented than other players in contention here. Not rated a superstar in his time, not even a star on the level of players like Pierce, Allen and Kidd. His reasonable MVP/All-NBA career somewhat misrepresents the lack of real star labelling there was for Billups. Seen somewhat like the game manager QB on an elite football defense, great at it, but still a game manager. Doesn't necessarily "put pressure on the defense" athletically.

Tracy McGrady - Case for: Amazing statistical peak in 2003 right up there (9.7 BPM!) that’s up there with any Kobe season. Great playmaking wing increasing his value throughout his career along with high volume scoring. Good playoff performer. Case against: Weak longevity and health. Poor intangibles and often seemed half asleep. TS average outside of 03. Never makes it past 1st round as a real player. Him and Yao never seemed to reach their potential together and the Rockets suspiciously overperformed whenever one got injured.

Alonzo Mourning - Case for: One of the best defensive centers remaining, as elite shotblocker and 2x DPOY. Plays the right position to be defense first. Peaks at 2nd in MVP voting in 00 and 1st in 99 RAPM (ascreamingacrossthecourt). Solid 8 years before kidney problems, decent play in 02 and valuable few years as mega shotblocking backup C in 06 and 07. 20 point scorer with above average TS and has midrange floor spacing. Outstanding intangibles, he is both the anti-Dwight and anti-Gilmore in a way. Case against: Not a great offensive threat. Terrible passing numbers and assist to turnover rate. Visually a Meh scoring skillset. May have got the job done in the regular season but to win a title there needs to be a more dynamic offensive player on the team.

Allen Iverson - Case for: Rated well in his time, MVP winner with two other top 5 finishes. Tremendous volume scorer, on ball playmaker which is high value offensive role. For an advanced stats lightning rod, is a respectable 42nd in VORP. Solid longevity compared to other options here, a solid decade. Made Finals with role players. Efficiency problems somewhat connected to context. Played on defense first team with terrible spacing, in pre handcheck rules era. TS improved in Denver when this was rectified. Imagine if he played with the spacing Harden has right now. Case against: Not a great advanced stats player. Rated as overrated by RAPM and WS on the whole. TS when it dips low enough in PHI makes it harder to say he's worth it. Weak defense. Poor intangibles. Very weak portability both for his style of game and his attitude.

Russell Westbrook - Case for: High peak dropping a crazy 32/11/10 MVP season. His last 2 seasons would've ranked high for peaks at this range too. Broke BPM/VORP. A monster talent who puts a ton of physical pressure on the opponent. Plays hard every minute. Has excelled as both 2nd option and 1st. Very good in the playoffs and has come out on the better end of several high profile PG battles. Case against: Rates as top 10 not top 5 peak in RPM. Average longevity, has been a star level player for 7 years, one of them he played 46 games in, and it's only the last 3 where he went to MVP level peak. Low portability both emotionally and style of play, is not taking a backseat to anyone and wants to shoot as much as possible. Mediocre 3pt shooting and floor spacing. Average TS throughout his career and turnover prone.

Elvin Hayes - Case for: Strong longevity and perfect durability leading to high total career marks in points and rebounds. Rated as a star in his time with 2 3rd place MVP, a 5th and several other top 10s and makes 3 1st team All-NBA. Good defensive player and makes a few 2nd team all-defense. Successful in Washington and arguably most talented or best player on a champion, and making 2 other Finals. Case against: Underwhelming TS and a poor passer for his volume, which combines for only ok performance in stats like OWS or OBPM. Terrible intangibles, reviled by many teammates and coaches and has been compared to Chinese water torture, and has been called the worst person they've met in sports. Overall playoff stats are decent, but had choker reputation.

Willis Reed - Case for: High level peak. A player who at different points win MVP and leads league in WS. Outside of the boxscore which is great on its own, has non box value as a 1st team all-defense C who is a great floor spacer for his position. Rated the best player on a team with Frazier. Good intangibles. Quality playoff performer with two Finals MVP. Case against: Short longevity with about 5 prime years and some other decent ones. Not a great passer or dominant offensive player overall, plays weakest offensive position in center. Support as best Knicks player over Frazier may be because white people preferred the quieter black man.

Nate Thurmond - Case for: Rated a high level defender in his time at a key defensive position in C, both man to man where he is supposed GOAT level in an era where it matters a lot, and late career block numbers are promising. With high baseline of value on defense does not need much more on offense to be great. Volume scorer, floor spacer and above average playmaker. A quality decade's worth of longevity. Peaks at 2nd in MVP. Case against: Poor TS while taking a lot of shots for his role. Due to inefficiency weak WS numbers for a player this high.

Alex English - Case for: High volume scoring threat, once leads league in PPG and finishes top 3 several other times. Above average efficiency. Good passer. Durable and has an over decade long prime. Makes 3 2nd team All-NBAs and finishes top 10 in MVP twice. One of the best mid range shooters in history, in era without 3pt this counts for elite floor spacing for his position. Case against: Not a great defensive player. Plays on the fasted paced team of his era with not much defensive responsibility asked for allowing him to put up inflated stats. Ranks 81st in WS and 72d in VORP, despite being an accumulation friendly player (durable with a long career).

Dikembe Mutombo - Case for: 4 time DPOY and some of the highest DRAPM on record. Plays most defensive position so is starting with very high baseline of value from defense alone. Good in overall RAPM including 3rd in ascreamingacrossthecourt numbers. Solid longevity with some good role player years on the back end. Case against: Weak offensive player compared to candidates here as reflected in ORAPM. Low volume scoring, mediocre passing and solid efficiency as a finisher but not elite like Tyson Chandler. Never considered a superstar or finishes top 10 in MVP voting.Never finishes top 10 in BPM/VORP and peaks at 8th/9th in WS.

James Harden - Case for: Legitimate MVP credentials finishing a close 2nd twice. Tremendous offensive value as a playmaking, high efficiency high volume scoring wing with 3pt range and has won mid 50 games with role players. Case against: Some very sketchy showing in big playoff moments. His game relying on 3s and FTs and his tricks to get the latter may be easier to guard in the playoffs. Questionable body language. Below average defense. Ball dominant player. Below average longevity.

Manu Ginobili - Case for: Amazing per minute player including leading the league in RAPM at one point and other top 2/3 finishes. WS and BPM also have him as phenomenal per minute. Skillset wise handling, passing, shooting is high value on offense. Good defender. Great intangibles and effort level. Clutch playoff career. Good longevity continuing to be a high impact SG even in his late 30s. 35th in VORP. Case against: Less minutes than other players leading his raw stats to be a lot lower. Because of this is still only 75th in WS. Weak durability. Had the benefit of playing against 2nd units. Usually not rated a top 10 player peaking at 8th in MVP and 3rd team All-NBA.

Bob Lanier: Outstanding advanced stats player at his peak, finishes 2nd in BPM twice and 3rd twice, 3rd in WS once and 5th twice. High level scoring, rebounding, passing and strong blocks the first few years they were tracked. Peaks at 3rd and 4th in MVP. Good longevity with 11 years of Detroit at a high level and then continuing to contribute in Milwaukee. A victim of "winner bias" - never had the iconic champion team to elevate his profile. Case against: Never makes 1st team All-NBA. Anchored some poor defenses in Detroit. Detroit was not talentless with a perennial all-star in Dave Bing but never could get over the hump in terms of being a contender.

Vote Bob Lanier

I feel Lanier has a good mix between excellent play in his prime with high level finishes in MVP, WS and BPM and having more longevity than some candidates.

2nd Manu Ginobili

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:03 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:Do you seriously think that Adrian Dantley couldn't have done more than Iverson with Iverson's teams?

Both unguardable one on one, both have to have the offense run through them, both at times questionable on defense (though Dantley got complements from Chuck Daly who I greatly respect) . . . but one is below average efficiency while the other is up there with Barkley in terms of most efficient great scorer of all time.

I think Dantley, on those Philly teams, adds a not insignificant amount of value over Iverson . . . consistently.

I think the case for Iverson over Dantley is that Iverson was just a guy who could consistently make the defense collapse. Not just beat his own guy, mind you, but force a rotation that inevitably is going to create space for somebody, whether that be an offensive rebound, a kick out, etc. He wasn’t a great passer, but consistently good enough to take advantage of defensive seams.

I think higher of Dantley than I used to, and it’s notable for instance that Utah in 84 had the second best team TS% in the league. But I think history has shown that beating your own guy and being able to score just isn’t enough. Dantley-so absurd free throw rate of course made him a positive value added, but if we compare him, to say, Dirk, Dirk makes defenses sweat in a way Dantley simply doesn’t.

Im no fan of Iverson either, but pinning his value on the points he produced kind of misses the mark. He consistently pressured defenses to the breaking point. He didn’t shoot well and didn’t make great decisions always with those breaks, but that’s why he’s not one of the 5o best.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:33 pm**

trex_8063 wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
Thoughts on Billups vs Westbrook? I think in Westy’s best years it’s obvious he shines brighter. But Billups still has a lead of about 10K total career minutes. Chauncey obviously struggles mightily his first few years in the league, but the same can be said for Westbrook. I think despite the gaudy totals, a pretty easy case is made for Westy being an “empty calories” type of player as a youngster, so while he may appear more impressive, it’s not obvious to me it was anything other than OKC betting big on him when they had nothing else. Now by 2012 he was a big time player, and by 2015 he was at an MVP type level.

But that’s still not a ton. Billups was ridiculously effective, and seemed to make magic whatever team he joined, even we’ll into his mid 30s before breaking down with LAC. At his peak plenty looked at him as a top 10 player, his vía RAPM his 06-11 stretch looks comparable to the best we saw from, say, Kidd.

Disagree with the bolded part. And in fact, it was his lukewarm impact metrics that recently persuaded me to shift him down slightly on my list.
Here are his PI RAPM values (and league rank) in the years you specified, plus a couple of earlier prime years:

'04: +2.1 (33rd)
'05: -0.3 (187th)
'06: +0.4 (100th)
'07: +4.3 (12th)
'08: +3.9 (12th)
'09: +3.2 (24th)
'10: +1.1 (74th)
'11: +0.4 (117th)

Kidd, otoh, had three consecutive years in the top 5, plus at least 2-3 other top 10 finishes (best raw RAPM values no better than than Chauncey's best, though iirc in Doc's scaled terms, they did come out better).
Chauncey's are more consistent with someone like Allen Iverson than Jason Kidd. And I note it's fairly consistently his defensive split that is pulling him down, which has made me wonder if defensive reputation is somewhat inflated. Memory says he was pretty good defensively in the vicinity of ~'04-'07 or thereabouts; but memory can lie too.
Not that I take these ranks and values at face value (I'm on the record multiple times/places indicating I don't feel that's always appropriate with impact metrics), and I don't put all my eggs into one basket anyway. But suffice to say this gave me room to question whether he was really as "in control of the game" as I previously thought.

That said, I think he's perfectly viable here (I almost gave him my alternate vote), and will likely be lending him some support soon.

You’re right, I was looking at offensive splits. Spreadsheet skills a little rusty :wink:

Although I will say this: if we’re talking about guys with surprisingly low RAPM scores, Westbrook is up there. His defense in particular seems to be a major problem... in 2015 (the year he started rebounding like crazy, also the year he ascended to MVP level according to most) his defense is literally half as negative as his offense is positive.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:39 pm**

Dr Spaceman wrote:
You’re right, I was looking at offensive splits. Spreadsheet skills a little rusty

Although I will say this: if we’re talking about guys with surprisingly low RAPM scores, Westbrook is up there. His defense in particular seems to be a major problem... in 2015 (the year he started rebounding like crazy, also the year he ascended to MVP level according to most) his defense is literally half as negative as his offense is positive.

True enough. Though I don't think it [his defensive split] was ever again that poor.
At any rate, if his impact appeared more consistent with his box-based production, I think I'd have supported him a little sooner than this.

And I'm not totally married to him for this spot. I could potentially be convinced of someone like Iverson, Lanier, Hayes, Billups, or even Wilkins or TMac for this spot, too. They're all a pretty tight cluster, imo. To some degree you just have to throw a dart at the board and take a stand with a couple of candidates.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:45 pm**

trex_8063 wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
You’re right, I was looking at offensive splits. Spreadsheet skills a little rusty

Although I will say this: if we’re talking about guys with surprisingly low RAPM scores, Westbrook is up there. His defense in particular seems to be a major problem... in 2015 (the year he started rebounding like crazy, also the year he ascended to MVP level according to most) his defense is literally half as negative as his offense is positive.

True enough. Though I don't think it [his defensive split] was ever again that poor.
At any rate, if his impact appeared more consistent with his box-based production, I think I'd have supported him a little sooner than this.

And I'm not totally married to him for this spot. I could potentially be convinced of someone like Iverson, Lanier, Hayes, Billups, or even Wilkins or TMac for this spot, too. They're all a pretty tight cluster, imo. To some degree you just have to throw a dart at the board and take a stand with a couple of candidates.

Do you see Mourning and Mutombo as below all of the above?

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:49 pm**

trex_8063 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Do you seriously think that Adrian Dantley couldn't have done more than Iverson with Iverson's teams?

Both unguardable one on one, both have to have the offense run through them, both at times questionable on defense (though Dantley got complements from Chuck Daly who I greatly respect) . . . but one is below average efficiency while the other is up there with Barkley in terms of most efficient great scorer of all time.

I think Dantley, on those Philly teams, adds a not insignificant amount of value over Iverson . . . consistently.

My counter to that is (and has been, as I'd presented on this in prior threads) to then ask: why didn't we SEE BETTER from those Dantley-led Jazz offenses? Those supporting casts were not appreciably worse [offensively] than what Iverson generally had during his tenure in Philly. Or if they were, I'll say it's not by a huge margin and at any rate is reflected in worse ORtg's than we see in Philly during Iverson's time.

With Dantley, his box-based metrics tend to overstate his offensive impact because we can get a little overly focused on individual shooting efficiency. There are other components and factors at play:
*Dantley was not a note-worthy playmaker, Iverson was.
**Dantley didn't break down defenses in a way that enabled or potentiated offensive rebounders; Iverson did.
***Iverson had better turnover economy as well.
****Iverson was able to play slightly larger minutes, too, fwiw.
EDIT: I'd also mention spacing benefits. Not that Iverson was a particularly good shooter, but Dantley wasn't an outside shooter at all.

To bolded part - unless you think about three point shooting only, this is not correct. Dantley was more profic midrange shooter than Iverson. He was deadly from any spot inside the arc.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:59 pm**

Dr Spaceman wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
Dr Spaceman wrote:
You’re right, I was looking at offensive splits. Spreadsheet skills a little rusty

Although I will say this: if we’re talking about guys with surprisingly low RAPM scores, Westbrook is up there. His defense in particular seems to be a major problem... in 2015 (the year he started rebounding like crazy, also the year he ascended to MVP level according to most) his defense is literally half as negative as his offense is positive.

True enough. Though I don't think it [his defensive split] was ever again that poor.
At any rate, if his impact appeared more consistent with his box-based production, I think I'd have supported him a little sooner than this.

And I'm not totally married to him for this spot. I could potentially be convinced of someone like Iverson, Lanier, Hayes, Billups, or even Wilkins or TMac for this spot, too. They're all a pretty tight cluster, imo. To some degree you just have to throw a dart at the board and take a stand with a couple of candidates.

Do you see Mourning and Mutombo as below all of the above?

Good question. How shall I phrase this?......Technically, yes I do [tentatively, at least] have them ranked below the others I mentioned (though not far below); however, I can see arguments for each of them over the group I presented.
Deke and Zo are tougher to rank accurately in the grand scheme of things due to the fact that they're primarily defensive stars (problem is rooted in the generally poor reliability of defensive stats).
I'd not be upset if either go voted in presently, and I would support them in a run-off against Reed for example (poor Willis is having a rough go of it in these runoffs).

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:13 pm**

trex_8063 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Do you seriously think that Adrian Dantley couldn't have done more than Iverson with Iverson's teams?

Both unguardable one on one, both have to have the offense run through them, both at times questionable on defense (though Dantley got complements from Chuck Daly who I greatly respect) . . . but one is below average efficiency while the other is up there with Barkley in terms of most efficient great scorer of all time.

I think Dantley, on those Philly teams, adds a not insignificant amount of value over Iverson . . . consistently.

My counter to that is (and has been, as I'd presented on this in prior threads) to then ask: why didn't we SEE BETTER from those Dantley-led Jazz offenses? Those supporting casts were not appreciably worse [offensively] than what Iverson generally had during his tenure in Philly. Or if they were, I'll say it's not by a huge margin and at any rate is reflected in worse ORtg's than we see in Philly during Iverson's time.

With Dantley, his box-based metrics tend to overstate his offensive impact because we can get a little overly focused on individual shooting efficiency. There are other components and factors at play:
*Dantley was not a note-worthy playmaker, Iverson was.
**Dantley didn't break down defenses in a way that enabled or potentiated offensive rebounders; Iverson did.
***Iverson had better turnover economy as well.
****Iverson was able to play slightly larger minutes, too, fwiw.
EDIT: I'd also mention spacing benefits. Not that Iverson was a particularly good shooter, but Dantley wasn't an outside shooter at all.

Hmmm, this is all otoh, as I don't want to spend the time I normally would crafting a response but

C: Eaton and Jeff Wilkins vs Mutombo/Ratliff/Dalembert, Maculloch, Mohammed, Geiger
I'd say there is a large gap there, both because of quality of depth and the pain of having an immobile non-finisher.

PF: Poquette, Bailey (rookie Malone) vs Hill, Coleman, Kenny Thomas (bits of Van Horn, Kukoc)
Poquette is a CNP. The Philly crew are generally sound role players.

etc

Short version, my instinct is Philly's crew are (certainly) better, especially at their particular roles and would want convincing otherwise. Or at very least to be confident it had been looked at closely.

The playmaker point is fair.

The turnover economy is ... true (moreso if playmaking burden is factored in) but not a large difference and ... less if calculated per bucket rather than shot attempts.

Dantley didn't break down defenses ... hmmm. And that he didn't shoot from outside "at all" (and emphasised) ... my gut is just a no on that one. Versus the Spurs in a 47 point 8 assist outing you see the Spurs double him at 20 feet a three times, they sometimes collapse on him in the post (if his move isn't too quick). Dantley seems to have got his points from a versatile offensive game (just off highlights we see: aggressive in transition, off-ball movement, 20 foot J, drive to the hoop off the threat of J, drive and pullup and postup scoring), but I'm not sure where the idea his game wasn't "outside" "at all", would come from.

You might have a better chance at rebound on an Iverson shot (or more pertinently on one of his misses - missing more often isn't an advantage). But Dantley gives you a better chance to set your defense via a make, you can more often assume a make and so send guys back and I don't think Dantley is "bad" in this regard (the ten FTAs weren't all from his own man), simply that he didn't play with good offensive rebounders.

You discuss offensive ratings and that you don't think Dantley creates offensive rebounding ... but hidden behind this is that the case for AI hinges on offensive rebounding, because Dantley does, otoh, do well for shooting efficiency and so you have to be fairly confident that Dantley is a cause of bad offensive rebounding in Utah ... at the present time, I'm not convinced.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:14 pm**

trex_8063 wrote:...

My counter to that is (and has been, as I'd presented on this in prior threads) to then ask: why didn't we SEE BETTER from those Dantley-led Jazz offenses? Those supporting casts were not appreciably worse [offensively] than what Iverson generally had during his tenure in Philly. Or if they were, I'll say it's not by a huge margin and at any rate is reflected in worse ORtg's than we see in Philly during Iverson's time.

With Dantley, his box-based metrics tend to overstate his offensive impact because we can get a little overly focused on individual shooting efficiency. There are other components and factors at play:
*Dantley was not a note-worthy playmaker, Iverson was.
**Dantley didn't break down defenses in a way that enabled or potentiated offensive rebounders; Iverson did.
***Iverson had better turnover economy as well.
****Iverson was able to play slightly larger minutes, too, fwiw.
EDIT: I'd also mention spacing benefits. Not that Iverson was a particularly good shooter, but Dantley wasn't an outside shooter at all.

If I get the time, I'll try to make the player by player comp for teams, but right now I'm at work and have only brief uninterrupted minutes.

(a) Iverson played the point much of his career, SG the rest, relative to other PGs his playmaking is weak, relative to other SGs it is above average. I certainly wouldn't consider him a "noteworthy playmaker." Dantley was not a point forward type but he does have a positive assist to turnover ratio despite his very high shooting numbers. Better than the Dominique Wilkins or Bernard King, not as good as Mark Aquirre or Alex English.
(b) Have you looked at offensive rebounding on Dantley teams like you did on Iverson teams? And, is this really the equivalent of the massive individual efficiency difference?
(c) Per hundred possessions Iverson turned the ball over 4.5 times/game, Dantley only 3.4. Numbers are similar for per game and per minute. Not sure what you mean with this statement.
(d) Every study I have looked at has concluded that minutes per game tend to be more coach determined than any other factor (possibly except for a very few players like asthmatic Bobby Jones). Dantley averaged over 35 mpg even including his early and late career years, there is nothing to indicate he couldn't play bigger minutes. He did miss less games than Iverson but that may be part of Iverson playing more minutes.

If Iverson had a serious playmaking, defensive, or attitude edge, MAYBE it could help compensate for the ridiculous efficiency edge Dantley enjoys. Or, if the team advantage actually shakes out (Iverson didn't appreciably cause teammates shooting efficiency to rise like playing with Shaq did) . . . it would have to be the often proposed but rarely supported Dantley as ball stopper causing teammate efficiency to drop theory. If you can prove that, I will certainly switch off Dantley but when I watch him, I don't see it (I do for Wilt with Warriors walking slowly upcourt for example).

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:36 pm**

70sFan wrote:To bolded part - unless you think about three point shooting only, this is not correct. Dantley was more profic midrange shooter than Iverson. He was deadly from any spot inside the arc.

ANY spot? See I remember him being proficient in the 10-17 ft range, but being fairly ineffective (and even reluctant to shoot it at all) from anywhere outside of 19-20 feet.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:43 pm**

I looked at the Utah numbers from 80-86 (the Dantley years) and yes, generally those offenses were bad (one average year, one top 10 (9), 4 awful). In 80, there was no playmaker (F Allen Bristow led the team in assists) but they added one in Ricky Green by 1982. The bigs early on were complete stiffs, but they added Thurl Bailey who was a decent post scorer (even if too skinny to rebound or hold position defensively well). His main sidekick was Darrel (Dr. Dunkenstein) Griffith whose game I never liked but who was a legit second scorer.

So, I was ready to concede on this point until I looked at the Iverson offenses you were comparing them to and they were near the bottom of the league 7 of his 10 years there too (twice around the middle, once top 10) and despite having Larry Brown as coach rather than the questionable Frank Layden. So, I don't see this as an advantage for Iverson either, though it makes me wonder if EITHER of them belong this early.

Posted: **Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:46 pm**

Re: Dantley and Iverson... I do think there’s kind of a misconception about how Iverson played. And it ties into something I think is fundamental to NBA basketball.

A lot of people tend to conceptualize Iverson as a much limper version of a modern Rose or Westbrook. That’s not really what he was doing. Hell he looked closer to Steph Curry than either of those guys. And I’m not exaggerating here. Philly’s whole offesnse was him sprinting at full tilt around screens. He wasn’t shooting 3s, but he was quite an effective midrange guy and of course he was breaking guys down off the dribble far better than someone like Reggie Miller ever could. He wasn’t really a ball-pounder, not during his best years anyway.

But the core point is that all that motion, all that running, creates chaos. All 24 seconds of the shotclock, effort has to be made to keep an eye on Iverson, because he was going to find a way to score, and this is important, score quickly if he gets some space. This doesn’t change anything about the negatives attached to him, but it does say something positive: when he’s out there, he’s moving, and he forces himself to be accounted for.

Dantley just doesn’t do this. I mean even on his best days it’s just waiting for the entry a step inside the arc, jab jab jab... get the guy in the air and step around him or step back for a jumper. It’s very Melo-esque except he doesn’t shoot 3s and draws fouls like a madman. But it’s just not hard to make that ineffective at a team level. Both Dantley and Iverson had the luxury of having offenses crafted entirely on getting them looks. They may have even required it. But they’re not equivalent. Iverson put pressure on the D the moment the shot clock started, and one slip up meant he was creating something decent. Dantley wasn’t a Catch and shoot threat at all, even with his outstanding jumper. He wasn’t a catch and go threat either. He was a catch and 15 seconds later he’s probably getting an efficient bucket. As we’ve seen over and over and over again... one way is just more effective.

When I was in grade school, my soccer coach was furious at me because of how long I took with the ball. I’d get the pass, survey, and most of the time make a good decision. But that wasn’t good enough. My coach told me to think about what it’s like to play defense. If a guy is patient, you’ve got time to plan. You can limit the bleeding from a breakdown. Even if he beats you, guys are set and in position. But if a guy comes at you instantly, where all you can rely on is your instinct, you’re going to make far more mistakes. Iverson used to literally cross guys up so badly they’d fall on the ground, and it’s all because he’d catch and just go. It makes a difference.

One final thing: Dantley was a good shooter, but there’s a ton of footage of defenses not actually respect+ting it. For example, look at the highlight video of him against a Phoenix in 84, they literally just let him take jumper after jumper. I don’t know if that’s an aberration, but it’s weird.

RealGM

RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51 (Russell Westbrook)

RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51 (Russell Westbrook)

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #51