RealGM

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Kevin Garnett
13. Oscar Robertson
14. Karl Malone
15. Jerry West
16. Julius Erving
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. John Stockton
22. Dwyane Wade
23. Chris Paul
24. Bob Pettit
25. George Mikan
26. Steve Nash
27. Patrick Ewing
28. Kevin Durant
29. Stephen Curry
30. Scottie Pippen
31. John Havlicek
32. Elgin Baylor
33. 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. Russell Westbrook
52. Alonzo Mourning
53. ????

Many good candidates here: Lanier, Hayes, Iverson, Ginobili, Billups, Wilkins, Dikembe.....to name but a handful near the top of the heap for me. Who will it be?

For modern players, I am looking at Manu Ginobili is probably my top guy at the moment. The minutes limits are troubling (as they are for Bobby Jones) and it seems odd to have a guy who played most of his career as a reserve here (like Bobby Jones) but Manu was an exception to a lot of rules. 90s have been picked through pretty well except for 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 James 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 is the best left then maybe Neil Johnston, the Amare of the 50s, whose great looking numbers overrate his impact.

Vote: Alex English
Alt: Manu Ginobili

Pretty sure I like Manu here with McGrady as alternate but I haven't really looked at the Rodman case in too much detail, think he could have a strong case as the alternate at least. Also gonna give another look to Mutombo and Bobby Jones. I like Harden a lot too, but he's a really similar player to T-Mac, and I think he's clearly behind him at this point of his career.

Just got back from my little out of state tour.

I am shocked that Gasol, Unseld types went over Iverson. I like both and I don't see them doing nearly as much. You can justify his inefficiency to a certain point, but around the #47 mark, he ought to have been tossed in, IMO. Next to Ray Allen, Pierce. Another thing I'd like to point out is Allen's efficiency saw some uptick after the rule changes. His TS% wasn't too bad in Denver.

Manu I'll support any day - impact metrics have always had him really really high and we're at the point in voting where his competition isn't all that strong - though both Moncrief and Sam Jones can have a case amongst fellow SG's. I really do feel Iverson should go before him, though.

Nique vs English should be debated some more, IMO. I perceived Nique as a better player (?) but that can change.

I have Iverson, Manu, Moncrief, Jones, Cowens, Nique, English, Hayes up ahead in some order. Following this I have Mutombo, Dave Debusschere, Thurmond, Billy Cunningham types. The first group IMO still has great offensive effects or great 2 way (Cowens). After this you get great defensive types.

Fundamentals21 wrote:Just got back from my little out of state tour.

I am shocked that Gasol, Unseld types went over Iverson. I like both and I don't see them doing nearly as much. You can justify his inefficiency to a certain point, but around the #47 mark, he ought to have been tossed in, IMO. Next to Ray Allen, Pierce. Another thing I'd like to point out is Allen's efficiency saw some uptick after the rule changes. His TS% wasn't too bad in Denver.

Manu I'll support any day - impact metrics have always had him really really high and we're at the point in voting where his competition isn't all that strong - though both Moncrief and Sam Jones can have a case amongst fellow SG's. I really do feel Iverson should go before him, though.

Nique vs English should be debated some more, IMO. I perceived Nique as a better player (?) but that can change.

I have Iverson, Manu, Moncrief, Jones, Cowens, Nique, English, Hayes up ahead in some order. Following this I have Mutombo, Dave Debusschere, Thurmond, Billy Cunningham types. The first group IMO still has great offensive effects or great 2 way (Cowens). After this you get great defensive types.

Welcome back. I've actually been thinking about writing up an English/Wilkins comparison. We'll see if I have time.

Agree wrt to Iverson, have posted some supporting materials in the last couple threads, and he may well get 1st place vote in this one (also thinking hard on Lanier).

I'm pretty sure I've asked previously, but if you'd like to join the voter panel, let me know. We'll make it effective immediately should you decide to give it a go (we need all the participation from the forum regs we can get at this point). And you needn't worry about joining late, or concerns about only being available for spotty participation, being factors that compromise the "internal consistency" of the project.........because from that standpoint we really don't have internal consistency: several (dozens?) of participants dropped out after a certain point, we've had new ones join, some participants disappear for 3-6 threads at a time and reappear for just 1-2, etc........there's only about 3-4 of us who are consistently chipping in.

So whatever you decide, but you'd be welcomed aboard immediately, fwiw.

trex_8063 wrote:

Fundamentals21 wrote:Just got back from my little out of state tour.

I am shocked that Gasol, Unseld types went over Iverson. I like both and I don't see them doing nearly as much. You can justify his inefficiency to a certain point, but around the #47 mark, he ought to have been tossed in, IMO. Next to Ray Allen, Pierce. Another thing I'd like to point out is Allen's efficiency saw some uptick after the rule changes. His TS% wasn't too bad in Denver.

Manu I'll support any day - impact metrics have always had him really really high and we're at the point in voting where his competition isn't all that strong - though both Moncrief and Sam Jones can have a case amongst fellow SG's. I really do feel Iverson should go before him, though.

Nique vs English should be debated some more, IMO. I perceived Nique as a better player (?) but that can change.

I have Iverson, Manu, Moncrief, Jones, Cowens, Nique, English, Hayes up ahead in some order. Following this I have Mutombo, Dave Debusschere, Thurmond, Billy Cunningham types. The first group IMO still has great offensive effects or great 2 way (Cowens). After this you get great defensive types.

Welcome back. I've actually been thinking about writing up an English/Wilkins comparison. We'll see if I have time.

Agree wrt to Iverson, have posted some supporting materials in the last couple threads, and he may well get 1st place vote in this one (also thinking hard on Lanier).

I'm pretty sure I've asked previously, but if you'd like to join the voter panel, let me know. We'll make it effective immediately should you decide to give it a go (we need all the participation from the forum regs we can get at this point). And you needn't worry about joining late, or concerns about only being available for spotty participation, being factors that compromise the "internal consistency" of the project.........because from that standpoint we really don't have internal consistency: several (dozens?) of participants dropped out after a certain point, we've had new ones join, some participants disappear for 3-6 threads at a time and reappear for just 1-2, etc........there's only about 3-4 of us who are consistently chipping in.

So whatever you decide, but you'd be welcomed aboard immediately, fwiw.

Yeah, sure, I'll join. I think the voter participation is less frequent beyond a certain number, and this is probably it. I am curious about the rest too, so I will toss in my reasoning moving on forward.

Have limited time so this won't be as long as some other posts.

1st Choice: James Harden
2nd Choice: Chauncey Billups


I think everyone knows the arguments for Harden - this is a recent player so unless you're not paying attention to current basketball, you understand the case for. I'll tackle the case against instead.

Longevity - he has 7 high impact years; so there's a solid base there and his impact in Houston has been a very strong peak/prime - imo, the best left.

Defense - the full impact of that is already showing up in the team performance - and what he did last year is one of the most impressive carry jobs we've ever seen.

Playoff performance - I dingg him all time time about his game 6 v Spurs & the '12 Finals. Let's look at those runs in fuller context:
Last year he averaged 29-9-6 58% TS in the playoffs. The 5 TO per game is a bit alarming - but still - pretty strong.

Let's look at '12:

16-5-3 on 61% TS. And as bad as he was in the Finals, I think he was their 2nd best player against the Spurs in the WCF that year.

When we take into consideration the massive peak, and that he has a few years on the same order of magnitude - just not as high - I'm comfortable putting him in here.

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

Billups: Strong playoff performer who had a big impact on winning from '03-'11. Led multiple contenders in Detroit & fueled deep playoff runs including a chip & a very close '05 Finals vs. the Spurs. When swapped for Iverson, we see Denver improve dramatically & Detroit fall off a cliff. Transformed into a true offensive anchor and anchored offenses that finished 6th or better in pts per possession from '06-'08 & when swapped for Iverson, Denver accelerates their offensive rating from 11th to 7th and then 3rd in '09. Has a higher peak than you think breaking the 15 WS mark in '06 with a WS/48 exceeding the .25 mark.

Vote Bob Lanier

Excellent peak by any of MVP, WS, BPM, good intangibles and portability, quality longevity including valuable post prime years with Milwaukee

2nd: Manu Ginobili

iggymcfrack wrote:Pretty sure I like Manu here with McGrady as alternate but I haven't really looked at the Rodman case in too much detail, think he could have a strong case as the alternate at least. Also gonna give another look to Mutombo and Bobby Jones. I like Harden a lot too, but he's a really similar player to T-Mac, and I think he's clearly behind him at this point of his career.

Argument for Harden is he has much more efficient style of game (3s/FTs instead of midrange shots) and has better intangibles than Tmac. Tmac is better defender and has a better playoff record though.

pandrade83 wrote:Have limited time so this won't be as long as some other posts.

1st Choice: James Harden
2nd Choice: Chauncey Billups


I think everyone knows the arguments for Harden - this is a recent player so unless you're not paying attention to current basketball, you understand the case for. I'll tackle the case against instead.

Longevity - he has 7 high impact years; so there's a solid base there and his impact in Houston has been a very strong peak/prime - imo, the best left.

Defense - the full impact of that is already showing up in the team performance - and what he did last year is one of the most impressive carry jobs we've ever seen.

I'm not sure what the bolded is saying. Are you suggesting positive defensive impact? Harden??

I also disagree (perhaps strenuously so) with the notion that Harden "carried" that Rockets team. For a team that was being "carried", they seemed to do OK whenever he sat; he was only a net +3.0 on court during the rs (-3.6 on court in the playoffs, though lolsamplesize there). A noisy metric (on/off), but to say the least these are NOT characteristic numbers of a guy who is conducting an historic "carry job". Also corroborated by RAPM (where his league rank in PI was 40th this past season).

He does have other years with high-level impact (ironically, it's often in his non-peakish---statistically---years), although never top 5 in the league in RAPM to my knowledge.


These are marginal red flags to me (years where impact appears to lag well behind other metrics). That combined with his still kinda lacking longevity (which I'm big on) leaves Harden out of the running for me at this stage. Among perimeter players, I'd like to see Iverson, Billups, Wilkins, English, Manu, McGrady, Carter, and probably KJ all in (not to mention an assortment of bigs yet to be voted in) before I'll get behind Harden.

trex_8063 wrote:

pandrade83 wrote:Have limited time so this won't be as long as some other posts.

1st Choice: James Harden
2nd Choice: Chauncey Billups


I think everyone knows the arguments for Harden - this is a recent player so unless you're not paying attention to current basketball, you understand the case for. I'll tackle the case against instead.

Longevity - he has 7 high impact years; so there's a solid base there and his impact in Houston has been a very strong peak/prime - imo, the best left.

Defense - the full impact of that is already showing up in the team performance - and what he did last year is one of the most impressive carry jobs we've ever seen.

I'm not sure what the bolded is saying. Are you suggesting positive defensive impact? Harden??

I also disagree (perhaps strenuously so) with the notion that Harden "carried" that Rockets team. For a team that was being "carried", they seemed to do OK whenever he sat; he was only a net +3.0 on court during the rs (-3.6 on court in the playoffs, though lolsamplesize there). A noisy metric (on/off), but to say the least these are NOT characteristic numbers of a guy who is conducting an historic "carry job". Also corroborated by RAPM (where his league rank in PI was 40th this past season).

He does have other years with high-level impact (ironically, it's often in his non-peakish---statistically---years), although never top 5 in the league in RAPM to my knowledge.


These are marginal red flags to me (years where impact appears to lag well behind other metrics). That combined with his still kinda lacking longevity (which I'm big on) leaves Harden out of the running for me at this stage. Among perimeter players, I'd like to see Iverson, Billups, Wilkins, English, Manu, McGrady, Carter, and probably KJ all in (not to mention an assortment of bigs yet to be voted in) before I'll get behind Harden.

Not suggesting positive defensive impact at all. I just mean that the impact of it is already baked into the team performance and in spite of that he pulled off an incredible carry job. Sorry for confusion.

pandrade83 wrote:
Not suggesting positive defensive impact at all. I just mean that the impact of it is already baked into the team performance and in spite of that he pulled off an incredible carry job. Sorry for confusion.

Gotcha. Well, as stated above, I still strongly disagree with this idea that he "carried" them; no "second star", but that's a quality supporting cast.
Patrick Beverly isn't a scorer and not a great playmaker......but he can at least reliably hit a spot-up trey and takes good care of the ball on offense; he's meanwhile one of the BEST defensive and rebounding PG's in the league.
Trevor Ariza is a journeyman stud role player, who has been that sort of "utility guy" at SF for multiple good teams (as he did for the Rockets last year).
Ryan Anderson is a pretty nice stretch-4 who would average 13-18 ppg on GOOD efficiency for most teams in the league.
Clint Capela's an EXCELLENT finisher around the rim who plays some defense and rebounds very well (including on the offensive glass) in a limited minutes capacity.

Limited minutes is fine where Capela is concerned, as for reserve bigs they have post-prime (but still very savvy/useful) Nene Hilario, as well as the promising Montrezl Harrell. Sam Dekker's not exactly something to write home about, but also not bad at all at reserve SF. i.e. they have depth in their frontcourt.

And it's important to note I'm talking about their depth before I even get to the 6th-Man of the Year winner, Eric Gordon, who has proven he's capable of 20 ppg seasons on good shooting efficiency (and with a reasonably small turnover rate).

AND beyond that they also had for much of the season defensive specialist Corey Brewer, whom they traded away for additional offensive punch off the bench in Lou Williams.


Unless you firmly ascribe to the theory that a supporting cast is crap if it doesn't contain a second All-Star, there's otherwise no firm footing by which to claim this cast needs carrying.

Sure, you exchange Harden for a league-avg SG, and they wouldn't have a true star; but they'd still have several entirely decent (even very good in a couple instances) players and one of the deepest rosters in the league. And again, noting they were still outscoring the competition even when Harden was out of the game, and I'd wager this team still would have gone .500+ without Harden.

trex_8063 wrote:

pandrade83 wrote:
Not suggesting positive defensive impact at all. I just mean that the impact of it is already baked into the team performance and in spite of that he pulled off an incredible carry job. Sorry for confusion.

Gotcha. Well, as stated above, I still strongly disagree with this idea that he "carried" them; no "second star", but that's a quality supporting cast.
Patrick Beverly isn't a scorer and not a great playmaker......but he can at least reliably hit a spot-up trey and takes good care of the ball on offense; he's meanwhile one of the BEST defensive and rebounding PG's in the league.
Trevor Ariza is a journeyman stud role player, who has been that sort of "utility guy" at SF for multiple good teams (as he did for the Rockets last year).
Ryan Anderson is a pretty nice stretch-4 who would average 13-18 ppg on GOOD efficiency for most teams in the league.
Clint Capela's an EXCELLENT finisher around the rim who plays some defense and rebounds very well (including on the offensive glass) in a limited minutes capacity.

Limited minutes is fine where Capela is concerned, as for reserve bigs they have post-prime (but still very savvy/useful) Nene Hilario, as well as the promising Montrezl Harrell. Sam Dekker's not exactly something to write home about, but also not bad at all at reserve SF. i.e. they have depth in their frontcourt.

And it's important to note I'm talking about their depth before I even get to the 6th-Man of the Year winner, Eric Gordon, who has proven he's capable of 20 ppg seasons on good shooting efficiency (and with a reasonably small turnover rate).

AND beyond that they also had for much of the season defensive specialist Corey Brewer, whom they traded away for additional offensive punch off the bench in Lou Williams.


Unless you firmly ascribe to the theory that a supporting cast is crap if it doesn't contain a second All-Star, there's otherwise no firm footing by which to claim this cast needs carrying.

Sure, you exchange Harden for a league-avg SG, and they wouldn't have a true star; but they'd still have several entirely decent (even very good in a couple instances) players and one of the deepest rosters in the league. And again, noting they were still outscoring the competition even when Harden was out of the game, and I'd wager this team still would have gone .500+ without Harden.

All fair points.

I view harden as the catalyst that enabled all those guys to essentially become the most efficient version of themselves that they could. He allows the 3 point shooters to get those looks, he helps capela get the looks he gets, he allows Beverly to well, be Beverly.

It's not to say those guys are bad players; I just feel that hardens role maximizes the talents they have and I know so much of this is eye test driven.

I don't see that as a .500 team without harden though; I'm feeling more like 37-45 or so. If he were to come off the roster it would put guys in roles they aren't qualified for and I think you'd see substantial ripple effects on the rest of the roster that just don't show up when you have their depth going against other teams' backups.

Hopefully that helps explain my position some.

For whoever said he was considering Dennis Rodman, how do you feel about his rebounding dropoff in the playoffs?

Harden GOAT

Vote Reed I still don't feel there's any real interest in this vote, but I'll stick with it. Winning matters. I know some people will argue that it's situational, it's your teammates and that is true. That said I've seen plenty of players who appeared to be in a situation to win and they failed. They didn't get along with teammates as well as you'd like, they were too much about their numbers, etc etc. Reed wasn't that kind of player and that matters. I think everyone knows this and yet we still constantly under value it. Along with that leadership and intangible argument, Reed was one of the most complete players (and big men) we have left. He was a strong plus defender if you want to say elite or great or whatever, I'll leave that for someone else. His offense was better than the box score would tell you, bringing in a very decent jump shot that allowed floor spacing in a era before we really fully understood it as such. His peak is as good or better than nearly anyone left on the board. Yes, longevity is a concern and I'm not sure how to fairly value peaks vs career value add.

Alt MANU GINOBILI Sorry, but you gotta scream his name, it's in a rules somewhere. I've had Iverson here, but after some of the threads on Manu, I've had to move him up. The big reason for this wasn't RAPM, VORP, BPM, 4 titles, his insane value at 35+, not international play... I am moving him up because I started looking at the spurs playoff runs. The spurs under Duncan lost in the first round 4 times. The first being 00 where Duncan missed the playoffs and Manu wasn't on the team. The second was 09 where Manu was injured and didn't play. The second was 11 where Manu by nearly every metric was the spur's best player, Manu missed game and was hobbled for the series, his numbers were great, and he hit about the most crazy clutch shot I can remember (Rex Chapman's 3 in phoenix is about the only shot I can think of I'd take over it), but I always felt had Manu been healthy and played game 1 the spurs find a way in that series. We should point out Duncan was horrible in that series but again had manu been 100% it would have opened the game up for Duncan a bit more. Then the spurs lost in 15 to the clippers in one of the weirder seeded playoffs of all time.

As for the counter to manu here, I completely dismiss the bench aspect of his career. I'll start with if you voted in McHale, Manu and him have very similar numbers of games started. The minutes concern is fair but that's why we are talking about Manu now and not 20 spots earlier. If you think RAPM has any value, then I'll leave you with these.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/97-14-rapm-2 4th
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/97-14-rapm 8th
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/xrapm-points-above-average-91-14 26th

Only the last one, and I have no idea how a 91-14 xRAPM works, but that is the only one that would rank anyone over manu who we don't have in yet. (Tmac plus some all time great defenders in wallace, Mutombo, and AK47).

If you don't care about those metrics VORP stands very strong in favor of Manu. Yes it would also like us to look at Ben Wallace (i see a pattern forming on him), Larry Nance, and Shawn Marion (who I'll be interested to see how the board judges). Of course the playoff's are left out of VORP and Manu's 213 playoff games (18% of his career games were in the playoffs).

I really want to get back to Iverson, especially against players like English, but the more I look over Manu vs the field the more I'm drawn to the absurd impact he had. If I have the choice between a volume scorer, a rim protector, or Manu...I'm taking Manu. There are only a few guys left who you win a title with if they're your best player unless you pair them with a killer number 2 or 3. Reed is absolutely one of them and so is Manu. After that we get into guys who'd need a good bit of luck, but would make your team relevant (and that matters too).

pandrade83 wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:

pandrade83 wrote:
Not suggesting positive defensive impact at all. I just mean that the impact of it is already baked into the team performance and in spite of that he pulled off an incredible carry job. Sorry for confusion.

Gotcha. Well, as stated above, I still strongly disagree with this idea that he "carried" them; no "second star", but that's a quality supporting cast.
Patrick Beverly isn't a scorer and not a great playmaker......but he can at least reliably hit a spot-up trey and takes good care of the ball on offense; he's meanwhile one of the BEST defensive and rebounding PG's in the league.
Trevor Ariza is a journeyman stud role player, who has been that sort of "utility guy" at SF for multiple good teams (as he did for the Rockets last year).
Ryan Anderson is a pretty nice stretch-4 who would average 13-18 ppg on GOOD efficiency for most teams in the league.
Clint Capela's an EXCELLENT finisher around the rim who plays some defense and rebounds very well (including on the offensive glass) in a limited minutes capacity.

Limited minutes is fine where Capela is concerned, as for reserve bigs they have post-prime (but still very savvy/useful) Nene Hilario, as well as the promising Montrezl Harrell. Sam Dekker's not exactly something to write home about, but also not bad at all at reserve SF. i.e. they have depth in their frontcourt.

And it's important to note I'm talking about their depth before I even get to the 6th-Man of the Year winner, Eric Gordon, who has proven he's capable of 20 ppg seasons on good shooting efficiency (and with a reasonably small turnover rate).

AND beyond that they also had for much of the season defensive specialist Corey Brewer, whom they traded away for additional offensive punch off the bench in Lou Williams.


Unless you firmly ascribe to the theory that a supporting cast is crap if it doesn't contain a second All-Star, there's otherwise no firm footing by which to claim this cast needs carrying.

Sure, you exchange Harden for a league-avg SG, and they wouldn't have a true star; but they'd still have several entirely decent (even very good in a couple instances) players and one of the deepest rosters in the league. And again, noting they were still outscoring the competition even when Harden was out of the game, and I'd wager this team still would have gone .500+ without Harden.

All fair points.

I view harden as the catalyst that enabled all those guys to essentially become the most efficient version of themselves that they could. He allows the 3 point shooters to get those looks, he helps capela get the looks he gets, he allows Beverly to well, be Beverly.

It's not to say those guys are bad players; I just feel that hardens role maximizes the talents they have and I know so much of this is eye test driven.

I don't see that as a .500 team without harden though; I'm feeling more like 37-45 or so. If he were to come off the roster it would put guys in roles they aren't qualified for and I think you'd see substantial ripple effects on the rest of the roster that just don't show up when you have their depth going against other teams' backups.

Hopefully that helps explain my position some.

Not to pile on, but I've been asked this on harden, and I don't have a good answer. How do you explain his RAPM numbers? He doesn't measure out nearly as well as one would expect given the numbers at least the last 2 seasons.

1. Dikembe Mutombo
One of the greatest defensive players ever and should have won more than 4 DPOYs IMO. Mutombo is the only player beside Russell who is on both of my defensive Mt Rushmore for peak and overall career. He dominated Robinson/Hakeem/Mourning in late 90s DRAPM data which suggests his relative lacking defensive versatility and agility out in the perimeter did not stop from him being a major defensive force. I rate Mutombo as a slight negative offensively due to him not being a good passer but he at least scores at a solid efficiency on low volume and can make FTs. Remained a top tier defensive player into his 40s and the extra longevity puts him ahead of other centers (namely Reed, Walton) who peaked higher but had their careers significantly cut short by injuries.

Adding something new since I have been posting the same Deke votes for a while now. FWIW, 2001 76ers on/offs after trade....

Iverson
ON (3328 poss): 101. 1 ORtg, 101.5 DRtg, -0.4 Net
OFF (1228 poss): 97.5 ORtg, 97.5 DRtg, -0.0 Net
DIFF: +3.7 ORtg, +4.0 DRtg, -0.3 Net

Mutombo
ON (3483 poss): 100.6 ORtg, 99.0 DRtg, +1.6 Net
OFF (1073 poss): 98.5 DRtg, 105.1 DRtg, -6.6 Net
DIFF: +2.1 ORtg, -6.1 DRtg, +8.2 Net

2. Chauncey Billups

dhsilv2 wrote: ... he hit about the most crazy clutch shot I can remember (Rex Chapman's 3 in phoenix is about the only shot I can think of I'd take over it)....

[img][/img]

penbeast0 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote: ... he hit about the most crazy clutch shot I can remember (Rex Chapman's 3 in phoenix is about the only shot I can think of I'd take over it)....

[img]

Watch on YouTube

[/img]

lol, i see that as dumb luck. maybe i am wrong though.