Some names that have gathered support, Sam Jones, Hal Greer, Nate Thurmond, Bill Walton, Sidney Moncrief, Kevin Johnson, and James Harden. OF that group:
Moncrief is my favorite though his window is so friggin short, but he basically took a similarly talented Milwaukee team farther than Nique ever took Atlanta even beating Bird's Celtics superteam before running into the fo fo fo Sixers. Probably the best man defender on the perimeter of all time; Jordan, when fired up played at that level but Moncrief played at it consistently. And, a terrific offensive player capable of going for 20ppg without being a featured iso star. (Which to me is harder than scoring 25ppg on a team that builds its offense to feature you.) Not a player that ever showed much of a 3 point shot but his ability to draw fouls on opposing big men is something that the Iverson fans were talking about previously so his very high foul draw would tend to counterbalance that. KJ was very very good, though not as dominant as Moncrief in my book and also with injury problems though his allowed him to play for a lot more years, even if many of them were interrupted. Walton just didn't play enough for me to list him in any top 100 careers though his peak was terrific.
Harden is the biggest game changer, his offense is brutally efficient, but his defense is just brutal. Not a fan of players who only worked hard when they had the ball in their hands, no matter how good they were, thus not a big fan of the Bear(no D) but to be honest, he's probably the best player here individually. The only question is how hard a team is willing to work on defense when they see their star taking that side of the ball off and whether that puts a ceiling on how good the team is capable of being (absent an ATG coach who can install that defensive effort anyway as Larry Brown did in Philly).
Sam Jones is the best second option, think he has an edge on contemporary Hal Greer with his efficiency and playoff performances. Greer was the one with more accolades though possibly it was more just about the PPG and a lesser emphasis on how efficient that scoring was and how it integrated into the team game plus of course those accolades are regular season. Although Sam's defense was not special, what we have for numbers and watching what limited games we have makes him willing and not clueless. And, he (and before him Frank Ramsey) turned into something special in the playoffs quite frequently. You can't doubt that a team can win big and win consistently with Sam Jones as their second star.
Thurmond suffers from the opposite problem. His defense, particularly his man defense, was outstanding; his rebounding terrific. But his offense was putrid. He fell in love with his mediocre jumper and frequently not even when he was in post position with the offense revolving around it. He shot too much and too badly in his prime and his passing was not particularly good either. Again, his defense and rebounding make him a strong consideration but I am far from sure I have him ahead of Mel Daniels (big frog in a small puddle but with 2MVPs and 3 titles, 2 as the best player) or Bob McAdoo (weaker league in the 70s but won MVP over Kareem and did it seemingly playing out of position mainly at the C when he was clearly physically outmatched . . . sort of the Amare Stoudamire of his day with more defense but more openly discussed team issues and lack of team success).
Overall, switching up a bit on reflection and going:
Vote: James Harden Alternate: Sam Jones
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:03 am
by dhsilv2
Vote James Hardon Alt Sam Jones
Harden is a 5x allstar and a 4x all nba guy. I get it, we think of him as a kid still, but he's had a hell of a career and we're grossly under valuing him if we don't pause and think about who else is already in. He's got 3 straight MVP level seasons, something we really don't have a lot of players who have done it. Even a guy like Shaq who's a top 15 no question guy, he missed a LOT of games during his peak. Duncan missed games unless you take his 01 as MVP level (RAPM would say it was, I'm iffy there myself) and we're talking a top 10 no question guy here. So the argument against him hinges on the playoffs, and here harden doesn't do so well. Unlike Reed who I championed, Harden has a real drop in quality in the playoffs. That said, at this point he's got as many playoff games played as other peers and his play is still star if not super star level. Who had a 5.9 BPM in 88 playoff games left? I'm willing to bet nobody. A 21 PER over that again, this is star level. So what' left? Oh yeah, his Defense. If Harden was a quality defender, would he not be in already? This is an all time great offensives guy. He's been a 6th man and the man and been great at both roles.
Sam Jones - full disclosure I have seen maybe 1 game with him, I don't feel qualified to champion him, and honestly I was watching Russell because frankly those old game are impossible to watch more than 1 player for me....and it's painful to watch. So that said I have issues with voting for Jones here, but at the same time, he's always ranked higher that this. 5x all star and 3x all nba. That doesn't seem out of line here. It isn't Tmac who was a 7x all nba guy, but he's in now. I'm also a bit confused by his 31-32 prime...seems really old especially for that era. Anyway his per game numbers look good, his role as the scorer on a defensive team is nice. The titles are certainly pushing me here as I think a ranking system should be about what was done vs not just what one can do.
Fully fully open to new ideas here, but without a better argument, I think Jones should be in soon.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:36 pm
by penbeast0
dhsilv2 wrote:Vote James Hardon Alt Sam Jones
First time we've agreed that I remember, lol.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:44 am
by pandrade83
Primary Vote: James Harden Alternate Vote: Kevin Johnson
Harden has 3 years of MVP caliber play (hindsight being 20/20, he probably should've won it in '17) & 5 outstanding (all-star caliber +) years now. In spite of his playoff shortcomings, he still has a BPM of +5.9 on 88 playoff games.
During his playoff runs in Houston alone (last 5 years), he's done 27-5-5 on 58% TS. During this time, the best guy he has played with has been a post-prime Dwight Howard - who brought MAJOR attitude problems or take your pick of Beverly/Gordon/post-prime Josh Smith/Clint Capela, etc.
There's been some atrocious games baked into those #'s but in aggregate, he's been really good. This ranking will look absurd by the end of this season (but I've been arguing him before that became obvious).
Kevin Johnson, Bob McAdoo, Sidney Moncrief, Mel Daniels & Paul Arizin are the next guys up who seem to move the needle enough where they can be the best player on a contender over a multi-year stretch who also had any kind of longevity.
I'm setting aside Arizin because of the 50's era for now & Daniels due to a combination of being unimpressed with his game tape & concerns that his best work was done before the ABA upped it's quality. I remember KJ, & I've watched some YouTube clips of McAdoo/Moncrief to feel like they're all 3 objectively good enough to succeed in any era.
So, KJ vs. McAdoo vs. Moncrief -
From a longevity standpoint, all have done "just enough" to warrant consideration here. Ironically enough, each finished with just about 90 WS (93 for KJ, 89 for Big Mac, 90 for Sid).
Given that, I'm really going to focus in on their best 5 years (89-92, 97 for KJ, '74-78 for McAdoo, '82-'86 for Sid). If you're picking these guys, it's not for longevity, so if we're going to pick primes, let's pick primes.
PER - unweighted 5 yr avg McAdoo - 23.5 KJ - 22 Sid - 20.5
Off reg season performance, McAdoo narrowly takes the edge over Sid with KJ bringing up the rear. Although it's noteworthy that strength of era is reverse of that order and the gap here isn't huge.
All seem to acquit themselves fairly well under the bright lights of the playoffs. Sid has (by far) the biggest drop-off in #'s, but I thought that his tape against rookie MJ is quite impressive defensively, so while I view him as a weaker playoff performer than the other two, the gap is small.
Impact on Winning & other thoughts
KJ shows up strong in the WOWY Data (#25) and is the best player on 4 teams that finish in the Top 5 on SRS. All of these teams have stronger offenses than defenses & KJ is the offensive anchor for that bunch from '89-'92 finishing 2nd, 3rd, 3rd & 5th in offensive rating.
He can reasonably be called the offensive anchor on the '94 squad which finished 1st in offensive rating and was the clear anchor in his last prime season in '97 for a team that finished 7th in offensive efficiency. Amongst players who averaged 20 pts/10 ast on 55+ TS he's in elite company with the Big O, Paul, Magic, Harden, Archibald ('73), Westbrook, Isiah & Deron Williams. Only the BIG O has more seasons of such caliber than KJ.
Buffalo was a dumpster fire before McAdoo hits his stride; other noteable roster changes include the loss of Elmore Smith & the gain of Jim McMillan. Once McAdoo hits his stride in '74, the Braves make the playoffs every year through '76, falling to the Eastern Conference Champ every time pushing the team to at least 6. In '77, Buffalo falls apart a bit - they go 8-12 with McAdoo & 22-40 without him & he's traded for the Knicks for John Gianelli & cash. Seems troubling. Buffalo retreats back to 50 loss territory after McAdoo leaves in 77 & again in 78.
The Knicks record doesn't improve much in '77, but their SRS jumps from -1 to flat from the prior year - they also have to replace Haywood. In '78, despite losing a post-prime Frazier for nothing the Knicks have their best record in 3 years, although the SRS falls back slightly. McAdoo leaves - on not great terms by all accounts the following year, & the Knicks collapse to a 50 loss team.
During this period, McAdoo wins MVP over Kareem, which seems noteworthy - from '74-'76 Buffalo is Top 5 in offensive efficiency and falls off a cliff without him (while also climbing a mountain once he hits his prime). New York's offensive efficiency goes from -0.3 in '76 to +0.6 in '77 to + 0.8 in '78 and then down to -1.6 without him. He later has a useful post prime with the Lakers as a high impact bench player.
The 30-12-55%+ TS club is him, Kareem, WIlt, Bellamy, Oscar & Moses. If you make it just 2 blocks a game, the club is safely, him with KAJ & Wilt.
Moncrief joins an already good but not great Bucks team that was winning in the high 40's & continue to do so when his prime ended. During the Moncrief prime when he led the Bucks in WS every year from '82-'86, the Bucks won an average of 54 games a year in the decisively harder conference, and had a pair of ECF appearances and made it to at least the 2nd round every year. They knocked off Philly with Barkley, Mo Cheeks & post prime DR J/Moses in '86 & swept Boston in '83. MIlwaukee was an average of -4.1 rel DRTG from '81-'86; a huge jump from the -0.2 from '78-'80 & the -1.5 that they were in '87-'89. This really highlights Moncrief's defensive impact and he's one of few perimeter players (especially at this stage) who can really anchor a defense. His 5 X All D & 2 X DPOY awards are backed up by the #'s listed previously.
Offensively, the relatively low usage rate (low 20's), keeps his impact from being too high but he's quite efficient, scoring in the low 20's while getting TS% rates right around 60%. He strikes me as quite likely the strongest ceiling raiser of the bunch, even as he is probably the worst floor raiser.
Of these 3 guys, I ultimately think any order is perfectly reasonable & I don't feel strongly about it. None of these guys has excellent longevity but . . .
KJ offers me the most prime seasons. If he's my point guard & healthy, I feel like I'm guaranteed an offense around the Top 5 when he's in his prime unless my offense is just bad - but even that '97 Suns team was 7th in offense despite not being talented. I also love that he competed very highly in he playoffs. He strikes me as a strong offensive anchor and while the RS metrics aren't quite as strong as McAdoo/Moncrief he did play in a stronger era and that matters to me.
McAdoo offers me the highest peak. His '74-'76 run is really quite outstanding. Looking through rose colored glasses, I'd say he slowed down because his body wasn't built to play center in the 70's.
Moncrief is the best defender of the 3 - by a fairly wide margin. The rare perimeter player who can anchor a defense - and brings an efficient, if relatively low volume offensive game to the table.
I'll be supporting KJ/McAdoo/Moncrief in order but the gap is very narrow & I think I'd do just as well picking the names out of a hat.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:27 am
by dhsilv2
Great write up pandrade83, you've made my next choice easier, looks like McAdoo is next in line for me.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:23 pm
by trex_8063
I’ll be brief ‘cause posting from phone.
1st vote: Nate Thurmond
Reasons stated in post #3 of last thread: Great defensive anchor with consistent record of BIG impact throughout his career.
2nd vote: Kevin Johnson
Had discussed him in each of the last couple threads.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:30 pm
by Dr Positivity
Vote Sam Jones
One of the most clutch players ever with tons of Game 7 and close out/elimination game performances.
62 - Game 6 vs Lakers: 35 pts (17-27)
63 - Game 7 vs Royals: 47 pts (18-27) 63 - Game 5 vs Lakers: 36 pts (13-24)
64 - Game 4 vs Royals: 33 pts (13-25)
65 - Game 7 vs Sixers: 37 pts (15-31)
66 - Game 4 vs Royals: 32 pts (12-19) 66 - Game 5 vs Royals: 35 pts (15-29)
67 - Game 4 vs Knicks: 51 pts (19-30). In game 1 of this series Jones had 38 on 15-18 67 - Game 4 vs Sixers: 32 pts. (13-28)
68 - Game 5 vs Sixers: 37 pts (15-27)
In a team environment and with his unselfishness Jones may not have been putting up all the stats he was capable of in the regular season. He appears to have had the skill to be a great 2nd banana in the playoffs
2nd: Hal Greer
Long, steady 2nd All NBA caliber career
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:43 pm
by Dr Positivity
McAdoo has a great peak considering both his stats and floor spacing but
Longevity - Once he hit the NY/DET/BOS phase of his career he hit a more cancerous good stats bad team phase, then rebounded a bit as a supporting player in LA. Not valueless seasons but not close to top 100 caliber. So his best Buffalo years are a VERY short prime of 3 years. At that point I would start considering whether Walton and Kawhi get over him.
Intangibles - From what I've read McAdoo appears to be the Tmac of his era in terms of his body language. A dominant talent, but even in his prime people wanted him to be more invested emotionally, instead of it coming so easy to him that it looked like he could drop 30 while seeming half asleep. This would also tie into frustrating effort on the defensive end
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:06 pm
by pandrade83
I think there's a meaningful difference between his NY seasons & the Det/Bost years. In NY, he advanced a team (beyond what they were in '76) that had lost 2 major pieces with only McAdoo to replace them - not to mention Monroe declining. His output was still solid in the playoffs. The Det/Bos years - not much value there. Although to be fair to him in Det, the team went 3-21 without him.
I get the sleepy body language thing, but you are who you are, & I the tape to me doesn't look Cutler-esque or anything.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:11 pm
by Outside
This is in reply to Trex's post in thread no. 64, but putting it here to further the conversation about Thurmond.
Must admit----since the difference between adjacent [or nearly adjacent] spots on my list this far out is nothing more than whim or "gut feel"----that you've got me close to switching my alternate vote to Thurmond.
His defense has long been known to me (especially his low-post man D--->by reputation, Head2Head studies, and minimal "eye-test"), though I kinda want to watch a little more game footage paying more attention to his help D at the rim, and also paying more attention to his passing and screen-setting on offense. Do you have any recommended full or partial game videos to watch?
Fabulous video, a real treat. Seems like the raw feed from the game, and it's great watching the game without the announcers and hearing the sounds of the arena. It really gives you the flavor of how the game was played and officiated at that time (Mendy Rudolph is one of the refs).
As for Thurmond, he's in the first 20 minutes of the video and gets subbed out once the Warriors get a big lead and the game is in hand. My observations from the video about Nate:
-- It shows him as an active rebounder. Most players stand and watch when a shot goes up, some box out the guy they're guarding, but very few use that time that the shot is in the air to really move and improve their rebounding position. Rodman was great at that, and so was Russell. Thurmond does it repeatedly in the video, often without a tangible result (the shot goes in), but he's on the move and putting himself in the best possible position to get the rebound.
-- The video is a great example of how he worked offensively out of the high post. The offense frequently goes through him at the high post, and numerous times, other players score underneath, benefiting from the spacing that creates.
-- As has been mentioned numerous times, his efficiency is below average, but he's far more capable offensively than players like Mutombo who had greater efficiency but were marginal offensively. Thurmond takes one midrange jumper that I recall from the video, from the baseline (he made it), he made both of his free throw attempts, and he's got a decent shot from that range.
-- He has multiple assists in the video, showcasing his ability as a passer and how involved he is in the offense. Twice, he quickly takes a made shot out of the net, steps out of bounds, and fires a length of the court pass to get a layup for a teammate at the other end. Multiple times, he makes passes out of the high post that lead to baskets by teammates (not all of those may have been credited as assists; they frequently weren't in those days if the receiving player took a dribble before shooting). Again, far more capable, involved, and beneficial to the offense than the efficiency argument gives him credit for.
-- I think he got a couple of blocks, and Tom Meschery challenged him and scored on him (Meschery was a tough player), but the video shows Thurmond patrolling round the basket and ready to challenge any shot in his area. We have stats showing that he was very effective one-on-one against the best centers of the day (Kareem, Wilt, etc.), but some people have questioned whether he was also effective as a help defender. This shows his mindset of doing just that, taking ownership of the heart of the defense. He was great at it.
trex_8063 wrote:I've seen this one, but not for a long time:
.....actually it was Dipper's (Hal15Greer) 3-part installment that I watched.
This is from the finals in Thurmond's rookie season. Nate was impactful, but it was an awkward fit with Wilt. Thurmond spent a lot of time on offense outside the key, but unlike the Seattle video, he's mostly isolated from the offense rather at the hub of it. Wilt is the center of everything, and while Thurmond still rebounds and plays defense, he's out of position for the most part. He doesn't come into his own until after Wilt leaves and he takes over as center (that process started at the beginning of the 1964-65 season when Wilt missed five games for health reasons. Thurmond averaged 20 points and 25.4 rebounds with Wilt out, including a 28-point, 37-rebound game, and that led the financially-strapped Warriors to decide to trade Wilt that season for several players and cash, going with Thurmond as their center of the future (for a fraction of the cost of Wilt's salary).
There's like a 1-minute recap of G6 of the '67 Finals I've seen (for whatever that's worth). And I'm pretty sure I've seen at least part of a game with Nate in a Bulls uniform (for whatever that's worth: clearly post-prime).
Would like to see some more, if you know of some video links.
That last video is from a game on Feb. 25, 1970. Unfortunately, Thurmond missed that game, so he's not in the video.
But I hadn't seen that Seattle video, so thanks a ton for that. That gives me hope that there are other videos with Thurmond out there. Most of what I've been aware of to this point are the 1964 finals against the Celtics (Nate's rookie season, when he played with Wilt) and various clips from all-star games. If I can find the time, I'll search for Warriors games like the Seattle one.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:31 pm
by Outside
Vote: Nate Thurmond
Alternate: Sam Jones
Please see my prior post in this thread for my arguments for Thurmond.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:14 pm
by penbeast0
Outside wrote:.
Reviewing it to see Thurmond's passing.
Those two out of bounds plays you mentioned were GREAT but his post play offensively was pretty poor. He didn't move much or show situational awareness in his off ball movement and he didn't even look for cutters when he had the ball, either shooting or handing it off to the guard who would come to him for it. Don't know how much is the offense and how much is Thurmond but there was not much court awareness at the offensive end.
I still may go for Nate soon, his case has always been about his defense, but that wasn't a better performance than a typical Mutombo offensive game other than the out of bounds plays.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:50 pm
by Owly
Outside wrote:This is in reply to Trex's post in thread no. 64, but putting it here to further the conversation about Thurmond.
Must admit----since the difference between adjacent [or nearly adjacent] spots on my list this far out is nothing more than whim or "gut feel"----that you've got me close to switching my alternate vote to Thurmond.
His defense has long been known to me (especially his low-post man D--->by reputation, Head2Head studies, and minimal "eye-test"), though I kinda want to watch a little more game footage paying more attention to his help D at the rim, and also paying more attention to his passing and screen-setting on offense. Do you have any recommended full or partial game videos to watch?
Fabulous video, a real treat. Seems like the raw feed from the game, and it's great watching the game without the announcers and hearing the sounds of the arena. It really gives you the flavor of how the game was played and officiated at that time (Mendy Rudolph is one of the refs).
As for Thurmond, he's in the first 20 minutes of the video and gets subbed out once the Warriors get a big lead and the game is in hand. My observations from the video about Nate:
-- It shows him as an active rebounder. Most players stand and watch when a shot goes up, some box out the guy they're guarding, but very few use that time that the shot is in the air to really move and improve their rebounding position. Rodman was great at that, and so was Russell. Thurmond does it repeatedly in the video, often without a tangible result (the shot goes in), but he's on the move and putting himself in the best possible position to get the rebound.
-- The video is a great example of how he worked offensively out of the high post. The offense frequently goes through him at the high post, and numerous times, other players score underneath, benefiting from the spacing that creates.
-- As has been mentioned numerous times, his efficiency is below average, but he's far more capable offensively than players like Mutombo who had greater efficiency but were marginal offensively. Thurmond takes one midrange jumper that I recall from the video, from the baseline (he made it), he made both of his free throw attempts, and he's got a decent shot from that range.
-- He has multiple assists in the video, showcasing his ability as a passer and how involved he is in the offense. Twice, he quickly takes a made shot out of the net, steps out of bounds, and fires a length of the court pass to get a layup for a teammate at the other end. Multiple times, he makes passes out of the high post that lead to baskets by teammates (not all of those may have been credited as assists; they frequently weren't in those days if the receiving player took a dribble before shooting). Again, far more capable, involved, and beneficial to the offense than the efficiency argument gives him credit for.
-- I think he got a couple of blocks, and Tom Meschery challenged him and scored on him (Meschery was a tough player), but the video shows Thurmond patrolling round the basket and ready to challenge any shot in his area. We have stats showing that he was very effective one-on-one against the best centers of the day (Kareem, Wilt, etc.), but some people have questioned whether he was also effective as a help defender. This shows his mindset of doing just that, taking ownership of the heart of the defense. He was great at it.
trex_8063 wrote:I've seen this one, but not for a long time:
.....actually it was Dipper's (Hal15Greer) 3-part installment that I watched.
This is from the finals in Thurmond's rookie season. Nate was impactful, but it was an awkward fit with Wilt. Thurmond spent a lot of time on offense outside the key, but unlike the Seattle video, he's mostly isolated from the offense rather at the hub of it. Wilt is the center of everything, and while Thurmond still rebounds and plays defense, he's out of position for the most part. He doesn't come into his own until after Wilt leaves and he takes over as center (that process started at the beginning of the 1964-65 season when Wilt missed five games for health reasons. Thurmond averaged 20 points and 25.4 rebounds with Wilt out, including a 28-point, 37-rebound game, and that led the financially-strapped Warriors to decide to trade Wilt that season for several players and cash, going with Thurmond as their center of the future (for a fraction of the cost of Wilt's salary).
There's like a 1-minute recap of G6 of the '67 Finals I've seen (for whatever that's worth). And I'm pretty sure I've seen at least part of a game with Nate in a Bulls uniform (for whatever that's worth: clearly post-prime).
Would like to see some more, if you know of some video links.
That last video is from a game on Feb. 25, 1970. Unfortunately, Thurmond missed that game, so he's not in the video.
But I hadn't seen that Seattle video, so thanks a ton for that. That gives me hope that there are other videos with Thurmond out there. Most of what I've been aware of to this point are the 1964 finals against the Celtics (Nate's rookie season, when he played with Wilt) and various clips from all-star games. If I can find the time, I'll search for Warriors games like the Seattle one.
I'm not aware of any others (which isn't to say they aren't out there). However there is footage (games) other than rookie or ASG. It's non-Warriors era though, Bulls vs Warriors '75 games 3 (Thurmond plays 33 minutes) and 7 (only 8 minutes).
There's another Warriors '70 game (from lorak's channel - 1970, March 7th vs the Royals) but again, no Thurmond.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:25 pm
by Outside
penbeast0 wrote:
Outside wrote:.
Reviewing it to see Thurmond's passing.
Those two out of bounds plays you mentioned were GREAT but his post play offensively was pretty poor. He didn't move much or show situational awareness in his off ball movement and he didn't even look for cutters when he had the ball, either shooting or handing it off to the guard who would come to him for it. Don't know how much is the offense and how much is Thurmond but there was not much court awareness at the offensive end.
I still may go for Nate soon, his case has always been about his defense, but that wasn't a better performance than a typical Mutombo offensive game other than the out of bounds plays.
Thurmond's case is primarily based on his defense and rebounding, but I do think he's better offensively than given credit for. I disagree with your characterization of his court awareness offensively, but [shrug].
Unlike Mutombo, Thurmond is a floor spacer, not just because he takes midrange shots, but also because of how much he operates out of the high post, handling the ball, setting screens, and keeping his defender occupied away from the basket. Mutombo did nothing of the sort.
Thurmond's line for that game was 18 points, 29 rebounds, and 6 assists. I did a search for the number of games Mutombo had with six assists or more:
That's a season when he played only 51 games due to injury, and BBR's log includes 14 games where his assist total isn't listed, which means that he had 12 out of 37 games with six or more assists. And that's just one season.
You don't do that without some court awareness.
Just for fun, I did a search to see how many 18-point, 29-rebound games there have been in league history.
There have been a total of 162 such games. Wilt dominates the list with 68 such games. Russell had 25. Thurmond had 22. The three of them account for 115 of the 162. This is somewhat a reflection of the high rebounding totals of the 60s, as there have been only five such games since 2000 and 15 since Thurmond last did it in 1973, but the fact is that Thurmond represents himself well on the list compared to his contemporaries who are already voted in -- Hayes (2 games), Kareem (1), Lanier (1), Cowens (1), Unseld (0), and Reed (0).
If only we had his blocked shots.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:53 pm
by LA Bird
Same votes...
1. Nate Thurmond The GOAT low post man defender and one of the top 10 defensive players of all time. A solid passer but unfortunately still a negative on offense because he shot too much at too low of an efficiency. This probably wouldn't be a problem today if he had a better coach who stressed more on team offense rather than measuring player performance by just individual points - opponent points. Thurmond's box score stats weren't great but his WOWYR scores are impressive, which I think is more important considering his defensive impact weren't captured at all without steals or blocks. Thurmond would have ranked slightly higher if he didn't miss significant time in two of his prime seasons (68, 70).
2. Kevin Johnson
Not sure why there is a sudden surge in support for Sam Jones. For somebody whose arguments rests heavily on his playoff heroics, Jones' playoff stats weren't really that great. He only has 1 playoff run above 20 PER and it was in the same year when Boston set the record for worst offense ever by a championship team (-4 relative to league average in both regular season and playoffs). Jones' career playoffs advanced stats were also all down across the board compared to regular season, which is not what you would expect considering his postseason reputation.
I would suggest Arizin if we want a player from the 50s/60s. I think he is the only remaining player who had been the best player in the league at one point and he has Jones beat in peak, longevity and total career stats.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:20 am
by Clyde Frazier
Vote 1 - Bob McAdoo
Vote 2 - Paul Arizin
Can obviously go in a lot of directions at this point. McAdoo’s prime isn’t as long as I’d like, but he had some really solid production during those years and peaked highly in 75:
Regular Season (won MVP) 34.5 PPG, 14.1 RPG, 2.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, 2.1 BPG, 56.9% TS (+6.7% vs. league average)
1. Nate Thurmond The GOAT low post man defender and one of the top 10 defensive players of all time. A solid passer but unfortunately still a negative on offense because he shot too much at too low of an efficiency. This probably wouldn't be a problem today if he had a better coach who stressed more on team offense rather than measuring player performance by just individual points - opponent points. Thurmond's box score stats weren't great but his WOWYR scores are impressive, which I think is more important considering his defensive impact weren't captured at all without steals or blocks. Thurmond would have ranked slightly higher if he didn't miss significant time in two of his prime seasons (68, 70).
2. Kevin Johnson
Not sure why there is a sudden surge in support for Sam Jones. For somebody whose arguments rests heavily on his playoff heroics, Jones' playoff stats weren't really that great. He only has 1 playoff run above 20 PER and it was in the same year when Boston set the record for worst offense ever by a championship team (-4 relative to league average in both regular season and playoffs). Jones' career playoffs advanced stats were also all down across the board compared to regular season, which is not what you would expect considering his postseason reputation.
I would suggest Arizin if we want a player from the 50s/60s. I think he is the only remaining player who had been the best player in the league at one point and he has Jones beat in peak, longevity and total career stats.
I'm with you on Jones. The mythos behind the titles and the fact that he had some monster games coupled with leading multiple title teams in scoring props him up.
But once you dig into the #'s, the playoff thing goes away & the teams he led in scoring were pretty awful from an offensive standpoint.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:13 am
by penbeast0
Outside wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
Outside wrote:.
Reviewing it to see Thurmond's passing.
Those two out of bounds plays you mentioned were GREAT but his post play offensively was pretty poor. He didn't move much or show situational awareness in his off ball movement and he didn't even look for cutters when he had the ball, either shooting or handing it off to the guard who would come to him for it. Don't know how much is the offense and how much is Thurmond but there was not much court awareness at the offensive end.
I still may go for Nate soon, his case has always been about his defense, but that wasn't a better performance than a typical Mutombo offensive game other than the out of bounds plays.
Thurmond's case is primarily based on his defense and rebounding, but I do think he's better offensively than given credit for. I disagree with your characterization of his court awareness offensively, but [shrug].
Unlike Mutombo, Thurmond is a floor spacer, not just because he takes midrange shots, but also because of how much he operates out of the high post, handling the ball, setting screens, and keeping his defender occupied away from the basket. Mutombo did nothing of the sort.
Thurmond's line for that game was 18 points, 29 rebounds, and 6 assists. I did a search for the number of games Mutombo had with six assists or more:
That's a season when he played only 51 games due to injury, and BBR's log includes 14 games where his assist total isn't listed, which means that he had 12 out of 37 games with six or more assists. And that's just one season.
You don't do that without some court awareness.
Just for fun, I did a search to see how many 18-point, 29-rebound games there have been in league history.
There have been a total of 162 such games. Wilt dominates the list with 68 such games. Russell had 25. Thurmond had 22. The three of them account for 115 of the 162. This is somewhat a reflection of the high rebounding totals of the 60s, as there have been only five such games since 2000 and 15 since Thurmond last did it in 1973, but the fact is that Thurmond represents himself well on the list compared to his contemporaries who are already voted in -- Hayes (2 games), Kareem (1), Lanier (1), Cowens (1), Unseld (0), and Reed (0).
If only we had his blocked shots.
Wasn't speaking of everything, just that one film when I broke it down. Presumably his line for the rest of the game was far superior because other than those out of bounds passes, his offense that quarter was not good.
Re: RealGM Top 100 #66
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:21 am
by penbeast0
Spoiler:
eminence wrote:.
penbeast0 wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
Colbinii wrote:.
Texas Chuck wrote:.
drza wrote:.
Dr Spaceman wrote:.
fpliii wrote:.
euroleague wrote:.
pandrade83 wrote:.
Hornet Mania wrote:.
Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.
SactoKingsFan wrote:.
Blackmill wrote:.
JordansBulls wrote:.
RSCS3_ wrote:.
BasketballFan7 wrote:.
micahclay wrote:.
ardee wrote:.
RCM88x wrote:.
Tesla wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:.
kayess wrote:.
2klegend wrote:.
MisterHibachi wrote:.
70sFan wrote:.
mischievous wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
Jaivl wrote:.
Bad Gatorade wrote:.
andrewww wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
Cyrusman122000 wrote:.
Winsome Gerbil wrote:.
Narigo wrote:.
wojoaderge wrote:.
TrueLAfan wrote:.
90sAllDecade wrote:.
Outside wrote:.
scabbarista wrote:.
janmagn wrote:.
Arman_tanzarian wrote:.
oldschooled wrote:.
Pablo Novi wrote:.
john248 wrote:.
mdonnelly1989 wrote:.
Senior wrote:.
twolves97 wrote:.
CodeBreaker wrote:.
JoeMalburg wrote:.
dhsilv2 wrote:.
The votes stand at Harden 3, Thurmond 3, Sam Jones and Bob McAdoo 1 each. Eliminating Sam Jones and Bob McAdoo do not transfer any votes to the leaders so:
RUNOFF between James Harden and Nate Thurmond . . . hard to imagine more diametrically opposed players.