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. Dikembe Mutombo
54. Manu Ginobili
55. Chauncey Billups
56. Willis Reed
57. Bob Lanier
58. Allen Iverson
59. Adrian Dantley
60. Dave Cowens
61. Elvin Hayes
62. Dominique Wilkins
63. Vince Carter
64. Alex English
65. Tracy McGrady
66. James Harden
67. Nate Thurmond
68. Sam Jones
69. Kevin Johnson
70. Bob McAdoo
71. Sidney Moncrief
72. Paul Arizin
73. Grant Hill
74. Bobby Jones
75. Chris Bosh
76. Tony Parker
77. Shawn Marion
78. Hal Greer
79. Ben Wallace
80. Dan Issel
81. Larry Nance
82. James Worthy
83. Chris Webber
84. Rasheed Wallace
85. Dennis Rodman
86. Horace Grant
87. Elton Brand
88. Terry Porter
89. Maurice Cheeks
90. Carmelo Anthony
91. Tim Hardaway
92. ???

Just nine spots to go. Who will it be?....

Vote: Mel Daniels
Alternate: Jerry Lucas (Sharman, Howell, Beaty, Jerry Lucas, Dumars, or one of the SFs if someone can compare Connie Hawkins, Chet Walker, Marques Johnson, Kawhi Leonard are also possibles)

Why Mel Daniels? It may be winner's bias, but when I see a team win multiple championships, I tend to look more closely at the makeup of the teams to see WHY they are winning. I don't automatically value big minute contributors to championships, I have been down on Bob Cousy's role on those Celtic titles for example. However, I do value the championships a lot and how a team got there. Indiana was the Boston Celtics of the ABA. They didn't have nearly the big name stars of Kentucky (Gilmore, Issel, Dampier), New York (Erving, Kenon), or even San Antonio (Gervin, Silas, Paultz) but they won the most and the most consistently. Breaking those teams down, Slick Leonard was a competent coach but had little success elsewhere and wasn't that highly regarded for either his game management or his player development. Their guards were pretty weak. Freddie Lewis a below average PG, not much of a distributor and only an average shooter and defender, while their 2 guards changed regularly and were unimpressive. Roger Brown at SF was a nice scorer with good range, great handles, and enough variety that his nickname was "the man of a thousand moves." He was definitely a key factor but he didn't play much defense or add much rebounding or playmaking. The PF were Bob Netolicky (the self proclaimed Joe Namath of the ABA) who was another excellent scorer and decent rebounder with no interest in defense then they replaced him with George McGinnis, another volume scorer (less efficient) and a great rebounder who generated a lot of assists, and turnovers. But for me, looking at this franchise's success, it was all built around Mel Daniels in the middle. A good scorer (consistently close to 20 a game on above average efficiency), great rebounder (usually among top in league), and powerful defender (better positionally than in help defense) who set the tone of the team and acted as their enforcer. His career was short and corresponds almost exactly with the rise and fall of the Pacers as a force in the ABA (his rookie year, he apparently shot a lot of long jump shots and had poor efficiency for Minnesota, which Leonard immediately banned when he came to Indiana).


Mel Daniels is certainly the only multiple MVP winner left. Nobody else changed or dominanted on both ends to the same degree for more than 1-1.5 years (Walton, Hawkins). Daniels was the best player on two championship teams plus a willing support role on a third championship though in a weak league (probably better than the pre-Russell 50s though). I tend to value defense, particularly for big men, and Mel was basically the original Alonzo Mourning with more rebounding but less shotblocking or, to use dhsilv2's comp, Moses Malone (without the longevity of course). He was a 1st round NBA pick (the first to sign with the ABA) and in the NBA would probably have been one of the best centers as well, not in the Jabbar league, but contending with Unseld/Cowens for the rebounding leaderboard and 2nd team All-Defense with good scoring (but poor playmaking). The two MVPs show he was valued above his box scores.

It is reasonable to compare Daniels to Kawhi Leonard as they have similar length of career by now. Kawhi brings excellent wing defense early on, but Daniels was probably more impactful defensively as intimidating defensive centers tend to be (especially in the 20th century). Kawhi's defense is still good and his scoring has blown up, a clearly better option than Daniels; also clearly a better passer. Daniels brings rebounding and toughness at a level equal to guys like Wes Unseld or Dave Cowens who are already in from his era (other league). I think the impact Daniels brought was appreciably higher in his league than that Kawhi has in the current league, enough to overcome the much weaker league he played in. Connie Hawkins would be another early ABA guy, higher peak than Daniels, shorter career though he did have a 1st team All-NBA between his first and second major knee injury. More of a career than Walton, less than Daniels. With careers this short, the difference is magnified. Of the bunch, I rate Daniels the highest.

Lucas, early Kevin Love type that played a long career. Announcers used to call 20-25 footers, "Lucas Layups," as the Royals would station him outside to let Oscar bully people in the paint. Great rebounder, super smart, comes across as a bit of a "rain man" type with his memorizing phone books and needing to know his exact stats. Played well as a role player on the Knicks post prime.

Getting mentioned by position:
PG Mookie, DJ, Archibald
SG Sharman, Dumars, Lou Hudson, Richmond,
SF Chet Walker, Kawhi, Marques Johnson, Bernard King, Billy Cunningham, Wilkes, Dandridge
PF Amare, Connie Hawkins, Bailey Howell, Paul Silas, Kemp, McGinnis, Jerry Lucas, Buck Williams
C Mel Daniels, Mark Gasol, Jack Sikma, Bellamy, Yao. Divac, Zelmo,

I'm switching my vote for these next two spots. As I wrote about Jack SIkma, I started asking myself, "wait, why don't I have him in front of Blaylock"?

Blaylock has a higher sustained peak - but I think Sikma's vastly superior longevity and "ease to build around" gives him the edge - and let's be honest - the margin of difference between players is very small at this stage.

Primary: Jack Sikma
Alternate: Mookie Blaylock

Jack SIkma will be the next candidate I support. SIkma led Seattle in Win SHares all years from '79-'86 with the exception of 1980 where he was 2nd to Gus Williams.

During this stretch, Seattle made the playoffs 5/7 years, won a championship and advanced past the finals 3 times.

Although Sikma doesn't post gaudy block or steal numbers, during this 8 year stretch the Sonics averaged a -1.9 Rel D Rating with 3 years near or exceeding -4. Sikma helps this through a strong defensive impact that sees him lead the league in DWS twice and one box score element that he excels in is rebounding as Sikma leads the league in total rebounds twice

Offensively in Seattle, Sikma shows strong passing skills generating 3-4 apg in the Seattle stretch & accompanying that with strong turnover economy, averaging 14.3% during his Seattle years - pretty solid for a scoring big man who also passes.

Sikma has an effective post-prime in MIlwaukee, being a key part of 3 playoff teams, including leading the '88 & '89 Bucks in WS which both made the playoffs.

The development of an effective 3 point shot helps Sikma maintain effectiveness later in his career as the below video shows.



Overall, Sikma leads ten different teams in WS, 7 of whom make the playoffs. He has 112 career WS, placing him 5th in our list of WS leaders who are not in and he's 6th in VORP amongst those not in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blaylock is a special player , who in my opinion, suffers from a historical standpoint by playing for also-ran Hawks in the 90's. Because he isn't a strong scoring point guard, he's not thought of fondly. But he is one of few point guards who really moved the needle defensively and at the least has a credible argument in the GOAT Defensive PG discussion. In addition to stellar defense, he is an excellent all-around contributor who was a strong rebounder for his position, above average playmaker for others & in the years where he shot well, is a true threat. This is captured by very high VORP Scores that saw him place in the Top 10 in VORP 5 times.

NPI RAPM corroborates what the Box Score tells us - giving him excellent marks in his prime years that we have data for. My longer post about Blaylock is below.

From a regular season standpoint, Blaylock should have gone in some time ago - everything we know about impact loves him - both from a box score & RAPM standpoint.

In the Box Score

-Blaylock leads a pair of 55 W+ Atlanta teams in WS, VORP & PER - PLUS he leads two more playoff teams in all of those metrics in both '95 & '96
-He finishes Top 10 in VORP an impressive 5 times and is Top 10 in DWS (very hard for a guard to do) 4 times.
-He has a pair of double digit WS years to his name including a relatively high peak of 12.5 in '97; this peak is higher than anything Carmelo Anthony achieved, for example.

Impact
-NPI RAPM grades him as a Top 10 player the first two years we have data - it's likely that it would have seen him as having a comparable impact in '94-'96 as well based on how his metrics in the other years stack up.
-Even in '99 - when Blaylock is exiting his prime, RAPM still views him as a decisively high impact player in a wonky season (lock-out - only 50 games - some sample size issues)
-In '98 when he misses 12 games, the Hawks go 44-26 with (52 win pace) & 6-6 without (41 win pace)

The three knocks on him are longevity - he has 72 career WS which isn't great at this juncture - & a lack of memorable playoff moments along with weak shooting efficiency. The shooting efficiency is partially off-set by helping you win the possession battle - more steals than TOs, strong TO economy in general & strong positional rebounding.

WRT longevity, he does have 5 outstanding seasons of play ('94-'98) where it's more likely than not his overall impact is that of an all-star with a 2nd team All-NBA caliber play. His post/pre-prime seasons are a little short on impact & the prime duration is relatively short.

On playoffs - he is poor in '93, '99 & '95 - suffering steep drop-offs all 3 years. Career playoff #"s of 47% TS on 14 PPG is not great - I don't want to come off as letting him off the hook here. He does have some strong defensive performances - one I'll highlight specifically is his performance on Jordan in the '97 2nd round. Jordan was held to 3 PPG less than his rs average on a fairly soft 51% TS. The video clip below shows aggressive & strong defense - both man to man & help throughout the series.

He generally maintains his stealing prowess, rebounding & passing in the playoffs - the biggest hit is to his scoring & offensive efficiency. Although the video I post below does highlight robust defensive impact, you will see a horrible shot attempt at the 14 second mark - and that's one of the things I remember about him - poor judgment on shooting . . . which may be exhibited in his personal life as he is serving a 5 year prison sentence.

At any rate - most players being elected at this stage have fairly steep playoff drop-offs, so I don't view it as comparatively damning, but it needs mentioned. I think if he played for a different franchise, he'd be in by now.

As stated previously, I've switched gears just slightly (wrt Kawhi Leonard). Have been in process of re-assessing some of my evaluations procedures/tools, and suspect there may be a pinch too much winner's bias in one or two of them (which arguably inflated Kawhi's candidacy for me).
Also playing around with a very crude "championship odds" metric (I'm not too many players deep in doing it; just done a handful who are on the table around now); it's based on the rough championship odds Elgee listed for each "caliber" of player---->this skews toward players with strong meaningful longevity----which was already something important within my criteria----it's just a method of looking at things that I'd not played with before. It's somewhat more subjective than a straight stat-based argument, but suffice to say Kawhi doesn't rate out great in this as result of the lacking longevity (though he did come out basically even with Tiny Archibald already, fwiw).

Anyway, although I think quite highly of Kawhi's last 3-4 seasons (and don't think he's had any truly "meaningless" seasons), I'm backing away from him just slightly here (though to be clear: I'd be perfectly content if he thundered to the front of the pack and took this spot).


1st vote: Jack Sikma
Really solid consistent guy. Check out the 11-year stretch from '79-'89 (in which he missed only 25 games total): was----on average---an 18.0 PER, .155 WS/48, +3.0 BPM in 34.8 mpg. Again, that's ELEVEN seasons; peaked statistically in '82 (19.6 ppg (55.9% TS)/12.7 rpg/3.4 apg (2.6 topg)/1.2 spg/1.3 bpg), and was above replacement level all fourteen of his seasons. I'd also point out this is arguably in one of the toughest, most competitive eras in NBA history--->came into the league just after the merger, but leaves before the major expansion dilution of the mid-90's.

By reputation a solid defender (who looks like a good post defender in the limited sample I've watched), good passing big, nice mid-range touch, and really extended his range late in his career (fits right into current league of stretch bigs)---->note that in his final three seasons combined (mostly post-prime) he was 35.6% on 2.9 3PA/36 min. Also a career 84.9% FT-shooter (peaking at a league-leading 92.2% in '88). Clearly a highly elite outside shooting big man. You combine that with solid defense, good big-man passing, and excellent longevity.......that's basically a high-impact player for lots of years. What's not to like?


2nd vote: [tentatively going with] Chet Walker
Not 100% set on this; may decide to switch back to Kawhi for this spot. But Walker's a reasonable-length (and durable) career of providing moderate-high(ish) scoring on good efficiency, fairly respectable rebounding from the SF, and sound defense (although in what is often somewhat limited minutes [for the time period]). Key piece of one of the greatest teams ever. Teams in Chicago had somewhat underwhelming playoff success, but to be fair: the playoff structure at the time was weird, and a high seeding didn't always get you an easy first round match-up.
Weaker era also holds him back a pinch in my eyes, too, fwiw. Still, he'd be a nice candidate here imo.
Again, I may or may not switch back to Kawhi for this pick, too. I'm sorta on the fence.


Other guys I'd be at least semi-comfortable with include Walt Bellamy, Dave DeBusschere, Joe Dumars, Shawn Kemp, Marques Johnson, George McGinnis, and yes pen----even Mel Daniels. Guys like Jeff Hornacek, Vlade Divac, Cliff Hagan, Jerry Lucas, Dennis Johnson, Neil Johnston all worth mentions (or potentially even traction) here, too [imo].

Vote: Jack Sikma
Alternate: Chet Walker

Writing this on the phone, so I don't have my usual array of resources at hand.

Sikma was a very good all around player -- offensively and defensively, and within the offense. He had an inside outside game and was good at other aspects like passing and setting screens. Good rebounder. Worst thing I remember about him is the perm.

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM mobile app

dhsilv2 wrote:Cheeks and Mookie certainly are very similar players imo. Cheeks imo was a bit better offensive player. I tend to value Mookie's on ball defense more.

As for the turnover percentage, I'm not saying that formula isn't a good one, it is. I would point out that simply being in absolute terms a lower turnover player has some value perhaps not capture there. After all the act of taking the ball up the court doesn't get taken into account in the ratio and I'm not sure what the "impact" of that is. Higher scoring point guards as a result I think get a bit of a "discount".

Anyway the real point is I think the points that Mookie was a poor TS% guy is very fair, but his low turnover numbers are especially meaningful.

Anyway either guy imo is fine here. I think I leaned towards Mookie more just because he's less remembered and thought of, as Cheeks, Timmy, and Porter all are pretty much even with mookie in my view.

Transplanting this portion of the discussion (from last thread) here, as it pertains to Mookie (who is still on the table). Gonna stick specifically to the Cheeks/Mookie comparison because it's the easiest (as they're somewhat similar player types).....

In short, I kinda disagree that they're close.
Mookie was the better rebounder, though not sure that shifts the comparison much given we're talking about PG's (Mookie a career 6.1 reb/100 poss vs. 4.3 for Cheeks, fwiw); I suppose one could speculate if playing next to rebounding sponges like Barkley and/or Moses for so much of his career is dragging Mo's number down--->we do see most of his lowest rebounding rates in those years.
Mookie was arguably the slightly better defensive player, but certainly not by any large or terribly relevant degree over someone like Cheeks.....Cheeks, who averaged 3.2 stl/100 poss for his career, who has multiple finishes in the DPOY vote (as high as 2nd or 3rd, iirc), 5x All-D (4x 1st team), and had a ridiculous -8 or -10 (I forget) defensive on/off in '83, for example.

Whatever difference (let's assume in Mookie's favor---which is perhaps debatable) in the above is [imo] more than offset by the offensive edge in Cheeks' favor. Mookie scored at somewhat higher volume scorer, but neither was pouring in the points. And the efficiency with which said scoring was occurring is a big divide: Cheeks is nearly +8% rTS compared to Mookie......that's like the difference between Victor Oladipo and Steph Curry.

And this while also maintaining a little better Ast:TO ratio (career 3.26 vs 2.89 for Mookie) on similar assist rates (10.2 Ast/100 poss for Cheeks vs 9.9 for Mookie).


And then let's not overlook while viewing this comparison in career numbers, that Mo's career was two seasons longer (>200 more rs games, >3,800 more rs minutes).
imo, even if we conclude they're similar and roughly equivalent players, that longevity edge should set Cheeks apart by more than a few places at this stage (where the difference between adjacent spots is basically nothing).

Cheeks is in a tough era, too (one could even argue a tougher era, given he missed the expansion dilution of the late 90's).

Just my 2c, but if Cheeks is actually well-placed in the ~85-90 range, then I have a hard time placing Blaylock this close.

trex_8063 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:Cheeks and Mookie certainly are very similar players imo. Cheeks imo was a bit better offensive player. I tend to value Mookie's on ball defense more.

As for the turnover percentage, I'm not saying that formula isn't a good one, it is. I would point out that simply being in absolute terms a lower turnover player has some value perhaps not capture there. After all the act of taking the ball up the court doesn't get taken into account in the ratio and I'm not sure what the "impact" of that is. Higher scoring point guards as a result I think get a bit of a "discount".

Anyway the real point is I think the points that Mookie was a poor TS% guy is very fair, but his low turnover numbers are especially meaningful.

Anyway either guy imo is fine here. I think I leaned towards Mookie more just because he's less remembered and thought of, as Cheeks, Timmy, and Porter all are pretty much even with mookie in my view.

Transplanting this portion of the discussion (from last thread) here, as it pertains to Mookie (who is still on the table). Gonna stick specifically to the Cheeks/Mookie comparison because it's the easiest (as they're somewhat similar player types).....

In short, I kinda disagree that they're close.
Mookie was the better rebounder, though not sure that shifts the comparison much given we're talking about PG's (Mookie a career 6.1 reb/100 poss vs. 4.3 for Cheeks, fwiw); I suppose one could speculate if playing next to rebounding sponges like Barkley and/or Moses for so much of his career is dragging Mo's number down--->we do see most of his lowest rebounding rates in those years.
Mookie was arguably the slightly better defensive player, but certainly not by any large or terribly relevant degree over someone like Cheeks.....Cheeks, who averaged 3.2 stl/100 poss for his career, who has multiple finishes in the DPOY vote (as high as 2nd or 3rd, iirc), 5x All-D (4x 1st team), and had a ridiculous -8 or -10 (I forget) defensive on/off in '83, for example.

Whatever difference (let's assume in Mookie's favor---which is perhaps debatable) in the above is [imo] more than offset by the offensive edge in Cheeks' favor. Mookie scored at somewhat higher volume scorer, but neither was pouring in the points. And the efficiency with which said scoring was occurring is a big divide: Cheeks is nearly +8% rTS compared to Mookie......that's like the difference between Victor Oladipo and Steph Curry.

And this while also maintaining a little better Ast:TO ratio (career 3.26 vs 2.89 for Mookie) on similar assist rates (10.2 Ast/100 poss for Cheeks vs 9.9 for Mookie).


And then let's not overlook while viewing this comparison in career numbers, that Mo's career was two seasons longer (>200 more rs games, >3,800 more rs minutes).
imo, even if we conclude they're similar and roughly equivalent players, that longevity edge should set Cheeks apart by more than a few places at this stage (where the difference between adjacent spots is basically nothing).

Cheeks is in a tough era, too (one could even argue a tougher era, given he missed the expansion dilution of the late 90's).

Just my 2c, but if Cheeks is actually well-placed in the ~85-90 range, then I have a hard time placing Blaylock this close.

If we are just looking at careers like this, I can see why you'd rank Cheeks higher. That issues is their peaks.

Mookie peaked with a VORP of 7.1, WS 12.5, and a PER at a respectable 20.4. Cheeks were looking at 3.6 10.6 and 17.9.

5 year peak (cheeks was hard to pick here btw)

Mookie 94-98 27.3 VORP 46.7 WS, 18.9 PER
Cheeks 82-86 VORP 16.5 WS 44.9 , 17.8 PER

Both I'm sure would stand out just fine in RAPM or other on off plus minus data attempts.

Back to their metrics, and defense here. Mookie during that above era averaged 2.6 personal fouls per 100. Meanwhile Cheeks was at 3.5 per 100. I want to stress this because Mookie is not some timid defender, he was physical and yet managed just an absurdly low foul rate.

Anyway the point is I believe the Mookie's peak edge easily offsets Cheek's longevity, though i tend to place much less value on longevity than you do.

A couple names I wanted to throw out just out of interest.

Robert Horry - The playoff super star who didn't really do that much regular season.
Dough Chrstie - Odd choice here, but as time goes on I somewhat wonder if he's the reason those kings teams had a top 10 defense. I believe he even had a top 10 RAPM year or two to add to him being an interesting choice.

I don't see either of them getting a vote but they do linger for me.

dhsilv2 wrote:A couple names I wanted to throw out just out of interest.

Robert Horry - The playoff super star who didn't really do that much regular season.
Dough Chrstie - Odd choice here, but as time goes on I somewhat wonder if he's the reason those kings teams had a top 10 defense. I believe he even had a top 10 RAPM year or two to add to him being an interesting choice.

I don't see either of them getting a vote but they do linger for me.

Robert Horry has a very relevant career imo. Never a great player (or even particularly close); but versatile, extremely portable, a good defensive forward in his own right, decent (but not spectacular) impact metrics iirc, playoff "clutch gene", and integrated himself on to a whole bunch of contenders (obv some luck involved there, too). Not a top 100 player, imo, though I suppose I could see where an argument might come from. A relevant career nonetheless.

Doug Christie too, has a relevant career; just not a top 100 one (or even close, imo). Mediocre scoring wing, mediocre rebounding wing, average passing/playmaking wing......but very good defensively. When basically everything other than the defense is average (or less), though, I can't quite see his defense as being sufficient to elevate him to true "star" status in any given year (though he arguably came close in '01-'03). And then he only has a 7-8 year prime with really about 1-2 other seasons where he's even a fair-decent role player.
That's just not enough when we still have on the table [for examples] Yao Ming, Jerry Lucas, Mel Daniels, Bailey Howell, Cliff Hagan, Gus Williams, Bill Sharman, George McGinnis, Spencer Haywood, Connie Hawkins, Walt Bellamy, Dave DeBusschere, Joe Dumars, Jeff Hornacek, Vlade Divac, Shawn Kemp, Neil Johnston, Marques Johnson, Zelmo Beaty, Dennis Johnson, Tiny Archibald, Chris Mullin, Bob Dandridge, Amar'e Stoudemire, Mitch Richmond, Chet Walker, Kawhi Leonard, Bill Walton, Lenny Wilkens, Sam Cassell, Bill Laimbeer, Earl Monroe, Buck Williams, LaMarcus Aldridge, Mark Price, Penny Hardaway, Detlef Schrempf, Terry Cummings, EDIT: and Mookie Blaylock!...........of whom the VAST majority are not gonna make the cut.

The history of NBA/ABA/BAA basketball is just getting so big, that really, 100 players isn't all that many in the grand scheme of things. Lots of great players get left out of a "100 Greatest" list.
Doug Christie's a nice player to mention in a "he was a pretty good player" kind of way [which I believe is all you meant], but doesn't even vaguely come into the discussion (not with any legitimacy, anyway) of a 100 Greatest of All-Time discussion.

Horry wasn't really any better, but he'd be closer to the discussion on basis of superior longevity/durability, and those "legacy points" of being a key role player on 7 title teams.

Thru post #9:

Jack Sikma - 3 (Outside, trex_8063, pandrade83)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)

Little less than 24 hours left till we go to runoff. Who ya' got?

Vote 1 - Tiny Archibald

Vote 2 - Billy Cunningham

- 13 year career
- 5x All NBA (3 1st, 2 2nd)
- 2 top 5 and 3 top 10 MVP finishes
- Only player to ever lead league in scoring and assists (per 100 he still measures as elite, especially for his era)

His ability to get to the line was pretty special for someone his size. He has a career FT rate of .456 with 5 seasons over .500. His prime basically lasted 6 seasons, but he was highly productive and efficient:

Per game: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/architi01.html#1972-1977-sum:per_game

Advanced: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/architi01.html#1972-1977-sum:advanced

The lack of playoff success before Boston leaves something to be desired, but he wasn’t exactly on teams rich with talent, either. He was an important piece for the celtics for a few seasons, and played a big role in their 81 title run. His transition into that role post prime / injury is impressive to me.

Even though we should take anecdotal commentary on players with a grain of salt, i always find it rewarding to look back at them for players before my time. In clips from the Sports Illustrated article below, we see a dominant guard who was a precursor to the plethora of drive and kick PGs we see in the NBA today.

Archibald was one of the smallest players to come into the NBA in years, being listed at a bit over six feet and weighing about 150 pounds. He had speed, but the trend was to big guards. The first time that Cincinnati Coach Bob Cousy and General Manager Joe Axel-son met Archibald at a Memphis motel they mistook him for a bellboy. Now Cousy says he might quit the Kings—the team was renamed upon being shifted to Kansas City-Omaha last year—if he ever were to lose Archibald.

- - - - -

[Former teammate Norm Van Lier] “The brother's mean, man. He comes to play every day and he does it to death. I don't believe there is anything he can't do, and his moves are inexhaustible. He'll stand out there 25 to 30 feet away from the basket dribbling. It looks so easy to go up and take the ball away, right? Wrong. Nate's just baiting you. He wants you to make a move for the ball because when you do, you're all his."

"Nate's one of the most unselfish players in the game," says Chicago's Bob Love. "I've seen him go a whole quarter without shooting, and he still killed us whistling those passes in underneath. The fact he led the league in assists explains his unselfishness. If anything, he's underrated."

- - - - -

Archibald's style has altered the order of the NBA. Once the behemoths were the intimidators; now they find themselves helpless as Archibald bears in on them. "I feel like I can draw a foul most every time," he says. "You would think that the big man has an advantage, but I would say I have it, because he has his arms up high and he has to come down on you. I get shots blocked, but not very often, because I don't just shoot a layup. I go right at the big man and make him commit himself, then I make my move." Nowadays many of the league's top teams have a small guard.

"Nate has added an extra dimension to the game," says Portland Guard Charlie Davis. "Cousy and them could clear out the ball, pass it, but there's never been one like Nate who could set those dudes up, score and pass." Says Jerry West, "He looks like a high school kid and plays like a superstar. One step and he's at full speed and gone." When asked if Archibald's "dominance" of the ball could hurt Kansas City, Oscar Robertson looked incredulous, then responded drily, "The only way his style could hurt them is if he played against them.”

https://www.si.com/vault/1973/10/15/618390/tiny-does-very-big-things

Highlights (music NSFW):

I was not expecting Sikma to jump out here and I was considering going with Divac next which is actually a fairly good choice for a comparison. Looking at the two, it was clear to me, all be it a bit surprising, that Laimbeer fits right in with this group, so lets do a quick 3 players comp.

Just a simple look at their games. All 3 were above average shooters for big men, most could be seen as stretch 5's to some degree at points in their career. All are also above average imo passers, I'm biased but I have Vlade has a bit over the first two. Vlade might be the best post player as well here. Defensively, Laimbeer really made his name on that end. Sikma was clearly a top level defender, really excellent rebounder. Vlade didn't have a lot of foot speed but he's hands down the best shot blocker here though the weakest defensive rebounder. Sikma was a better scorer at his peak, followed by Divac.

Anyway the shooting here is a big value add here. Vlade is the only one here I'd consider a rim protector. Meanwhile Sikma is a great rebounder, and Laimbeer is likely just a hair below. All were above average big men passers, but I'm pretty sure Vlade comes out as the best passer of the group.

Awards
Sikma - 7x allstar 1x all defense 1 NBA title
Laimbeer - 4x allstar 2x NBA champ
Divac - 1x allstar

Playoffs
I don't place a lot of value on the playoffs generally and here I don't think we get any real gaps. 100-120 games each. Jack's advanced stats are a hair lighter but that's due to playing the bulk of his games early in his career.



Best seasons 5 year top numbers. As with all of this, I tend to not see any gaps here. Nearly identical WS by Sikma and Laimbeer with Divac a bit behind. Gun to head a small edge for Sikma here.



Full career we see they all ended with pretty similar career WS's, Sikma stands on top meanwhile Divac stands out in VORP (I'm guessing that his passing is driving this).

Anyway my final assessment, I'd have to say Laimbeer likely had the more influential career which I somewhat think when this close that pushes him over the top for me.

dhsilv2 wrote:....

One more factor, Sikma played in the 70s, pretty clearly the era most weakened by expansion (and quite possibly playing for contracts with the league jumping as an option). For whatever that's worth. Laimbeer's 80s were stronger and Vlade's 00s were the strongest of the 3.

penbeast0 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:....

One more factor, Sikma played in the 70s, pretty clearly the era most weakened by expansion (and quite possibly playing for contracts with the league jumping as an option). For whatever that's worth. Laimbeer's 80s were stronger and Vlade's 00s were the strongest of the 3.

Vlade was really more a 90's center (he literally played all 10 years of the decade) who hung on till 03ish. Sikma entered the league 3 years before Bill, their careers pretty much overlap.

All honesty it's staggering how similar the 3 players are.

Fair enough; I think of Sikma as 70s because that when his success was; Laimbeer as 80s for the same reason; but you are right, Divac is more 90s.

penbeast0 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:....

One more factor, Sikma played in the 70s, pretty clearly the era most weakened by expansion (and quite possibly playing for contracts with the league jumping as an option). For whatever that's worth. Laimbeer's 80s were stronger and Vlade's 00s were the strongest of the 3.

Hmm. Sikma was drafted in 1977 (playing from 77-78 to 90-91), Laimbeer was drafted in 79 (playing one year in Italy iirc, then 80-81 to 93-94 [11 games at the start of that last season]. So it might be a bit misleading to characterise it as "Sikma played in the 70s ... Laimbeer's 80s were stronger". Come to think of it the bulk of Vlade's career was in the 90s.

Then too, for league strength, Sikma's additional early years are all post merger arguably nulifying any "weak" league concerns, at least insofar as they relate to dilution due to expansion (which would come at the back end of the 60s into early 70s and in combination with the ABA, but also ...) Laimbeer's additional years are fairly shortly after a not insignificant expansion with 4 new teams (two starting 1988-89, two 89-90) of whose seasons two had made the playoffs during Laimbeer's full seasons ('92 Heat, '93 Hornets) and, more pertinently, only one had made a positive SRS ('93 Magic).

There's also the question of positional quality. This might reinforce your "ranking" of competition, but only after adjusting the labels, per the above. Divac certainly faced quality top-end centers in the 90s, and Laimbeer too in his additional years on Sikma (though Divac much less so in the early 2000s). Then again some might argue with the depth of quality, and whilst many of the 70s "star" centers were fading in the later years (Cowens, Unseld - or gone Reed, Thurmond and 60s greats like Chamberlain) the later period still has some of them and Jabbar still, and a season (abbreviated) of Walton, and Moses ... so not a bad era itself. Beholder stuff, I guess, unless someone really wants to dig into that.

penbeast0 wrote:Fair enough; I think of Sikma as 70s because that when his success was; Laimbeer as 80s for the same reason; but you are right, Divac is more 90s.

His team success was in the 70's, but 6 of his 7 allstar selections were in the 80's. His personal best seasons were 82-85. If Sikma was 70's, then by that reasoning you could almost call Laimbeer a 90's guy since 90 was one of his better seasons and he won a title that year.

And more to the point Laimbeer and Sikma were on the same east allstar team 3 of the 4 times laimbeer made it.

I stand bloody with head bowed . . .

Vote Mookie

Leonard and Walter have better peaks. Both are too short of careers for me for this spot. That said Mookie gives me one of the best peaks left and is a unicorn level player. He also sings to my high value skills and I'll touch this slightly.


My high Value skills
1. Elite shooting. This isn't Mookie but it is imo the most impactful skill if you're ELITE. That said this isn't linear, a good shooter is nice to have. AN elite shooter is a game changer.
2. Passing. To me passing is the best skill for a non elite skilled player. It's much more linear with a nice peaked value after a point. As a player gets better as a passer their value just keeps going up and it's a steeper curve.
3. team defense.
4. Man defense.
5. shot creation. This is where I'm really far off the majority. most would value this first. I believe there are far more players able to create offense than people seem to believe. Having this skill with the above and imo compound value. I'm fine if people disagree but this is my value system.

While the above isn't a well thought out piece, but it's a rough light view, I'm sure there's more going on in my head. Anyway Mookie hits a lot of value points here in a way that i'd expect in this range. He a really really good passer, elite man defender, good to great team defender, and he's got more shot creation power.

Now I know Trex is pushing this idea that we should question Mookie because his TS% is pretty awful. Clearly creating spacing isn't a value add from Mookie, but we have WS (loves TS%), VORP, PER (looks at TS% closely), and RAPM (should capture everything to a degree) and they all tell us that Mookie's peak is pretty darn good for this range and he was good for multiple years. So yes he can't shoot, but he adds value everywhere else.

We've already discussed Cheeks, but there really aren't any other players outside of the really top tier guys (Kidd/Payton) who are long long ago entries. Over the history of the game Mookie might be the best defensive point guard. I'm going to generally give Kidd and Payton the edge....maybe Paul. Though my personally I think Kidd and Mookie are the best two defensive points of all time. There aren't 20 defensive point guard who can move a team defense meaningfully for the better.

Alt Tiny

OK so full disclosure. I had Divac next on my list. WIth all the Sikma votes I actually thought after a quick look at him, that I'd vote for him. I figured I'd just get this vote over with, vote for him, and I'd be completely good with it. The problem is he's a guy I've seen minimal footage of so I could in my mind visualize him as better than he was. So I watched a few video clips and then I did the analysis I posted earlier. Hrere's the thing....if I have for him I have to have Laimbeer and Divac as my top 3 after Mookie. I just can't see there being a gap between those 3 beyond a point as they're all so clearly similar.

Now I saw a good bit of Divac and he was pretty good and I liked him a lot. I also have seen a good amount of Laimbeer games and I never thought that highly of him.

So after that thought I'm back to Tiny who's got a staggering peak offensive peak. As a peak guy Tiny has a case and his career length is just long enough to let me put him here. I can drill in more if there's any discussion here, but for now I'll stop it here.

Hoping we get one more vote before tomorrow morning which will eliminate the need for a lengthy 3-way runoff.