penbeast0 wrote:Dang, Horace is in the conversation, isn't he. I pull my "players to look at" list from the All-NBA teams so he didn't show up but he was a wonderful player, I may sub him in for Chris Mullin or Terry Cummings if someone can convince me. I think Terry Porter is a favorite but isn't quite at this level. Again, would love to see some impact stats on these guys rather than just relying on eye test.
I put most of the available impact data on post #13. Beyond that, I'm going to make the general case for Horace Grant, who I really think belongs.....
I think Grant is frequently overlooked or disregarded for the usual reason(s): he didn’t have an extensive scoring repertoire and thus didn’t score a lot of points. He never came close to that 20 ppg threshold I’d mentioned in a prior thread, and in fact only once topped 15 ppg. Most people see that and assume “well, he couldn’t have been all
that good.”
For the very same reason, he’d frequently be overlooked by the media for certain accolades [the ones you’d referenced] as well.
And I’m not trying to give the impression Horace Grant was some kind of super-star; far from it. But I’d argue he was MUCH better than the impression a casual observer may garner if he looks no further than career ppg and his list of accolades.
In his two best individual seasons (‘92 and ‘94), he was clearly playing at an All-Star level (arguably even All-NBA 3rd Team level). Then he has at least 5
other seasons where he was playing at [at least??] a borderline All-Star level, and a couple others beyond that playing at what could be called solid starter level.......so if you’re keeping count, that’s NINE largely injury-free seasons playing somewhere between “solid starter-level” and “All-NBA 3rd Team level”. And as to the other eight seasons, the ranged between "a little above average NBA player" to (at the
very worst) a decent bench role player. That’s a fair bit of career value accumulated in those 17 seasons.
And as to his portability on to elite teams, I think he proved he’s perhaps one of the most portable players of all-time……
He meshed seamlessly as the [at times not too distant] 3rd wheel on the first 3peat Bulls, stepped up his responsibilities [tallying career highs in ppg, rpg, and apg, still on very good all-around efficiency (more on that below)] as the “Robin” in his first year sans-Jordan (his one actual All-Star selection)--->on a team that was still a solid playoff team [really only a small step below contender level].
Then he moves on and in a flash is well-integrated on an entirely different contender-level roster, built around a different type of superstar. And when that superb roster falls apart with the trade of Shaq and Dennis Scott, the injury-absence [plays just 19 hampered games] of Anfernee Hardaway, plus 24 missed games by Nick Anderson and 34 missed games by Darrell Armstrong, the Magic
still manage a .500 season led by a [32-yr-old, probably early post-prime, AND being forced to play center] Horace Grant and Bo Outlaw.
The following year, with the return of a post-injury Penny and the emergence of Darrell Armstrong as a relevant player, he continues to be a consistent starter at 33 years old [missing no games] for a Magic team that returns to solid playoff level.
He then moves on to Seattle who----with the major roster changes being that they lose aging versions of Detlef Schrempf, Hersey Hawkins, and Dale Ellis, while adding 34-yr-old [decidedly post-prime now] Horace Grant and getting a little healthier season from Vin Baker----
improve by 4 wins and +2.60 SRS, and make the playoffs; Horace is a starter playing >35 mpg for them.
He then moves on to LA and despite being 35 years old and clearly post-prime is immediately installed as a role player starter alongside Kobe and Shaq on yet another contender (the team that would roll thru the ‘01 playoffs to a title, in fact).
He then moves back to Orlando [now part of a somewhat weakish supporting cast built around yet another superstar he’s never played with (TMac)], and despite being 36 years old he’s installed as a starter averaging 29.1 mpg at a “solid role player level” in his 15th season, missing just six games.
In his 16th season he sustains serious injury for the first time and misses basically the whole year.
In his 17th and final season [now 38 years old] he goes back to LA alongside Shaq/Kobe to play as a consistent rotational player (20.1 mpg in 55 games) for yet another contender-level team.
This guy seems able to mesh anywhere and with anyone and consistently contributes in a positive way (as alluded to by the impact data I previously provided, which omits nearly half his prime). So what is it he’s providing?
Well first and foremost one would probably talk about defense and rebounding [though he’s actually an underrated offensive player, too].
Defensively, he’s a solid low-post defender capable of guarding either PF’s or C’s, though he’s also one of the better PF’s defending the perimeter if caught on a switch, and imo one of the better [best??] pnr defending PF’s. I know it’s just a single highlight, but I’ll cite his famous block on Kevin Johnson just to highlight his lateral quickness and ability to recover:
He does this while providing a modicum of shot-blocking (peaked at 1.6 bpg and averaged 1.2 bpg over his best 7-year stretch), decent defensive rebounding (and he does box-out, fwiw).
Offensively, he’s got a very limited post repertoire--->really it was limited to a little jump hook with his right hand, or a simple turning over his left shoulder to pull-up [slight fade] for a short jump-shot.
But he had fairly good hands in traffic and was a decent finisher around the rim (60.9% for the years we have the data, which is mostly his post-prime; 62.4% if looking at only ‘97 and ‘98, the only years in the sample that can even remotely be called his prime). Athletic enough that he’d occasionally be rewarded for running in transition, too.
And if deployed to do so, he was a very effective offensive rebounder: for three straight seasons that include one WITHOUT Jordan (‘92-’94) he hovered around 14% OREB%. Just to put that in perspective, Charles Barkley has a career 12.5% OREB% and only two seasons better than what Grant was AVERAGING over those three years.
Horace could spread the floor somewhat: he had range out to 14-15 feet by ‘92 at least (I remember lots of shots from the short corner during the first 3peat). By later in his prime he’d extended his effective range out to more like 20 ft: for ‘97-’03 he was 44.8% from 16-23 ft (45.4% from ‘97-’99).
And he generally wasn’t a bad FT-shooting big (69.2% for his career).
The combination of these qualities allowed him to score middling volume on good shooting efficiency throughout his prime. His shooting efficiency only started to tank beginning in ‘98 when: a) he was arguably past his prime, and b) no longer had elite offensive talent around him and was being asked to score more [note ‘98 is the 2nd-highest usage of his career, despite being perhaps just beyond his prime]--->this was the year he and Bo Outlaw led a .500 team.
When Horace was nearer his peak and asked to score more (looking at ‘94 here), he averaged 15.1 ppg @ +1.2% rTS…...and that was while having an unusually poor [the single-worst of his career, actually] FT-shooting season (just 59.6%, nearly 10% below his career avg); if he’d had just an average FT-shooting year in ‘94, he’d have averaged 15.4 ppg @ +2.3% rTS as the 2nd-option scorer on a solid playoff team.
Horace also set nice screens, was a decent passing big (career 2.2 apg, 2.7 apg over the 8-year span of ‘90-’97, peaking at 3.4 per game), while
consistently maintaining [in ALL circumstances that he played in] a GOAT-tier turnover economy for a big-man.
**This is the thing that perhaps definitively sets him apart from some of the other PF’s he’s typically compared to, imo.
I frequently use my modified TOV% to compare turnover economies, because it considers turnovers committed vs ALL other aspects of production that involves touching the ball. And although I’ve not run EVERY player in history thru this formula, I’ve run a lot. From what I’ve identified so far, the GOAT-tier of turnover economy among big-men are (career figures):
LaMarcus Aldridge: 6.39%
Dirk Nowitzki: 6.42%
Horace Grant: 6.61%
+/- Anthony Davis: 6.90%
Within his own era, Grant is often compared to guys like Charles Oakley, AC Green, or Buck Williams; though among those, Buck Williams is really the only one I consider particularly close in terms of career value and overall player quality during their average prime(ish) year. Here’s how he compares to these three statistically…..
Horace has higher career averages than Green in ALL FIVE box counting stats, while having just marginally lesser rTS% and same topg. Just my opinion, but I’d also gauge Green as the weakest defensive player of the four.
Oakley, in comparison to Horace, averaged +1.6 rpg, +0.3 apg, and +0.1 spg, but also averaged -1.5 fewer ppg, -0.7 bpg, with +1.1 topg, and a little worse career rTS%, as well.
Williams averaged +1.6 ppg and +1.8 rpg compared to Horace, with nearly 4% better rTS, too. However, he also averaged an additional +1.0 topg, -0.9 apg, and slightly lower stls/blks.
In terms of mTOV%, here’s their career figures:
Horace Grant: 6.61%
A.C. Green: 8.88%
Charles Oakley: 12.33%
Buck Williams: 12.99%
It further warrants looking at the quality of teams this was produced for. Because it’s one thing to put up a particular statline for a 60+ win contending team, quite another to do it for a team struggling to reach 25 wins. Obviously the difference between Grant’s teams and the teams of these other guys is not that large (just using that to make the principle obvious), but there are many gradations of difference in between.
Excellent teams are excellent because they have a lot of talent on the roster. One [often] must be of a certain quality to warrant “star-level” minutes on an excellent or contender-level team; and even with the minutes, their usage tends to decline on better teams (again: contender teams have better/other options)......think Chris Bosh on the Heat, Kevin Love on the Cavs, or Durant/Curry on the Warriors.
Here is the average quality of teams these four played for:
Grant: .639 rs win% (.651 win% in games he was active for), .623 playoff win%
Williams: .540 win% (.544 win% in active games), .461 playoff win%
Oakley: .553 win% (.559 win% in active games), .463 playoff win%
Green: .612 win% (.612 win% in active games), .608 playoff win%
Green’s teams are really the only ones sort of close.
Most of our “all-in-one” rate metrics do account for the quality of teams played for: BPM, WS/48, and net rating all----to some degree----take stock of wins and/or team pt differential.
PER is the only one that does not, and even in that Horace Grant has the highest among the four.
Here are how things compare with these four metrics….
Grant:
16.0 PER, .147 WS/48, +1.4 BPM, 117 ORtg/104 DRtg
(+13)Williams: 15.3 PER, .136 WS/48, 0.0 BPM, 112 ORtg/104 DRtg (+8)
Oakley: 13.4 PER, .107 WS/48, -0.5 BPM, 105 ORtg/
102 DRtg (+3)
Green: 14.4 PER, .131 WS/48, -0.2 BPM, 116 ORtg/106 DRtg (+10)
So Grant carries a small
but definitive edge over everyone in each rs advanced metric (with Grant also having the highest career mpg average of the four, fwiw, though only marginal over Williams; also only fair to note that Oakley played the most seasons, though).
Horace Grant then also has the least drop-off in the post-season (most of his metrics go UP in the playoffs, actually); so the playoff gap is marginally larger.
When I add all this up, I just really don’t think they compare, especially in light of the impact profile we have for them. Using RAPM (available from ‘97 on), and incorporating rs APM for ‘94-’96, here’s how they compare:
Grant (11 seasons, ‘94-’04): +1.83 avg
Williams (5 seasons, ‘94-’98): +0.45 avg
Oakley (11 seasons, ‘94-’04): +0.03 avg
Green (8 seasons, ‘94-’01): -0.94 avg
In Elgee’s WOWYR, Oakley is comparable to Grant, with Williams and Green trailing a bit behind.
This is getting awfully long, but hopefully illustrates the value and relevance of Horace Grant’s career, and paints a little better [and imo: accurate] picture than is typically painted regarding how good he was.