RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #44 (Russell Westbrook)

Post #1 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:15 pm

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. Charles Barkley
22. Kevin Durant
23. Chris Paul
24. Stephen Curry
25. Bob Pettit
26. John Stockton
27. Steve Nash
28. Dwyane Wade
29. Patrick Ewing
30. Walt Frazier
31. James Harden
32. Scottie Pippen
33. Elgin Baylor
34. John Havlicek
35. Rick Barry
36. Jason Kidd
37. George Gervin
38. Clyde Drexler
39. Reggie Miller
40. Artis Gilmore
41. Dolph Schayes
42. Kawhi Leonard
43. Isiah Thomas
44. ????

Look to close I guess around 3-4pm EST on Saturday.

Spoiler:

Odinn21 · Post #2 » by **Odinn21** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:21 pm

44. Russell Westbrook
As I kept saying, I was gravitating towards Westbrook for quite some time now, I think it's time to include him.
This is what I wrote about him in the #34 thread when I thought he should start getting some traction.

Spoiler:

45. Ray Allen
Some names I'm considering right now;
Paul Pierce, Robert Parish, Pau Gasol, Ray Allen, Gary Payton, Adrian Dantley, Elvin Hayes, Dikembe Mutombo, Dwight Howard.

Right now, I guess I'm closer to Ray Allen than anybody on there but I'm open to suggestions / discussions.

46. Adrian Dantley
His prime was long and good enough for me to secure this spot.

Edit; I had a massive post about the thoughts I was having but I'll leave just some of the highlights to cut it short.
- Gasol's significant drop off in the playoffs after 2010 is hurting his overall longevity. I couldn't find a reason to pick him over Robert Parish. Very similarly with Hayes vs. Gasol. Also, I'd prefer Kevin McHale over Gasol because McHale peaked higher, his prime level was better despite being shorter and interestingly McHale's longevity in postseason was better.
So, McHale, Parish and Hayes > Pau Gasol for me.
- We're reaching to a point, postseason success wouldn't be taken for granted, let alone deep postseason runs.
What I mean is Ray Allen and Paul Pierce vs. Manu Ginobili and Chauncey Billups.
Manu Ginobili who was cracking under the managed load he was getting, Ginobili was a very impactful beast that you wouldn't be able to trust 75+ games per season and in each playoffs. I just don't see Ginobili doing what Ray Allen did in entire 2000-01 season and I don't see Ginobili making the teams Allen and Pierce had play in the playoffs.
Billups wasn't as good or impactful as the other three.
I feel like having Ginobili and Billups over Allen and Pierce is just too much winning bias.
This "deep postseason runs or postseason games in general won't be taken for granted" will be important for many names BTW. Adrian Dantley, Alex English are some other names that could be in the mix with similar situations.
- Dikembe Mutombo vs. Dwight Howard is an interesting comparison, I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Howard's peak was definitely higher, but I'm not sure his peak/prime lasted long enough. After 2013-14 season, he's been a poor man's Mutombo with major health problems IMHO. We could throw Rasheed Wallace and Wes Unseld in there too.

Post #3 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:04 pm

PG -- Russell Westbrook, Chauncey Billups, Gary Payton, Bob Cousy
SG -- Ray Allen, Sam Jones. Manu Ginobili, Hal Greer
SF -- Paul Pierce, Adrian Dantley, Alex English
PF -- Pau Gasol, Kevin McHale, Anthony Davis, Chris Webber
C -- Willis Reed, Dwight Howard, Robert Parish, Ben Wallace, Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier, Bill Walton, Nate Thurmond

Looking at the PGs, Westbrook is the biggest impact maker but (as we've seen in Washington this year), he can't seem to adjust his game to be anything but what he is. Giant stat producer but also huge proportion of "Oh NO!" plays. I'd have him as the best floor raiser but worst ceiling raiser. Payton scored in good volume, got assists but never really seemed to fulfill his draft predictions about him being Rondo like passer, and has a rep as one of the 3 most likely candidates for GOAT PG defender (though +/- type numbers have soured me on this a bit as Nate McMillan on his own team seems to have more defensive impact). Billups is the opposite of Westbrook here. Lowest floor raiser of the group, but probably the most portable with easily the highest off ball skills. If I have a bad team, they rank Westbrook, Payton, Billups; if I have a good team already, I would reverse that ranking. I will go for Chauncey Billups of the 3 here.

Wings, we have Manu, Allen, Pierce, Sam Jones. and Paul Arizin. Manu could go to PG too. Leaning Allen over Pierce, Jones, and Arizin for the pure wing scorer types. Manu v. Ray Allen again depends what your team is. If you need that big scorer who plays big minutes, Ray Allen. IF you have top talent and you need a swiss army knife player who can do it all, go with Manu. Again, I tend to look at winning championships and am going to go with Manu here.

Bigs, we have Pau, McHale, and Dwight Howard. Webber is a step below the other three. Despite Howard's undoubted impact, I will eliminate him first. Pau v. McHale: my head says McHale for his stronger defense and post game, my gut says Pau for his superior passing, range, and because he played a much bigger role in the Laker championships than McHale did in the Celtics titles. I'll go with Pau here.

So,

1. Chauncey Billups
2. Manu Ginobili
3. Pau Gasol

Hal14 · Post #4 » by **Hal14** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:17 pm

1. Kevin McHale
2. Willis Reed
3. Nate Thurmond

McHale - did everything you could want from a PF. He could score (with more effective post up moves than just about any player ever), he could rebound and is also one of the best post defenders of all time. He beat opposing bigs down the floor and had defensive versatility (at times would defend the 3, 4 and 5)..oh yeah and he won 3 championships, 5 NBA finals appearances. I think a good comparison for McHale is Pippen. Both had really good team success while playing as the no. 2 guy alongside one of the best players ever (Bird, Jordan), neither has great longevity but both had a solid 3 or 4 years where they were arguably the best in the world at their position and a legit top 5 or 6 player in the league. I think who was better between McHale and Pippen is pretty debatable (McHale a better scorer, about even on D, maybe a slight edge on D for Pippen). Pippen got in several rounds ago in this poll, so right here seems about right for McHale.

Willis Reed - Frazier and Ewing both got voted in for this thing a long time ago. Yet Reed is arguably better than both of them. Reed was finals MVP twice, whereas Frazier (while playing on same team as Reed) and Ewing both won finals MVP 0 times.

Nate Thurmond - right in that same tier with Reed, Gilmore and Ewing. I see those four centers as pretty debatable. Ewing and Gilmore both got voted in awhile ago - right here seems about the right spot for Reed and Thurmond. Thurmond has a strong case for being better than them (probably the best defender of the group, but Gilmore has the longevity and ABA Finals MVP, Reed has 2 Finals MVPs so I've got Thurmond just barely ranked behind those other guys.

Thurmond is one of the most underrated players of all time and is top 50, no question in my mind.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/defensive-dominator-thurmond-one-nbas-most-underrated-all-time

Hal14 · Post #5 » by **Hal14** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:19 pm

Odinn21 wrote:46. Dolph Schayes
Initially I had Adrian Dantley in the first version of this post but Schayes' track record, peak, prime level and duration, overall longevity (especially for his time), they are right there and they are great.

Schayes already got voted in.

Odinn21 · Post #6 » by **Odinn21** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:36 pm

penbeast0 wrote:1. Chauncey Billups
2. Manu Ginobili
3. Pau Gasol

Wow, right after I edited my post.

I'd like to get a reason other than "Ginobili brought titles" for Ginobili because that's not what happened in general. Let's take a ride into the past, shall we?

2005- The postseason why Ginobili gets all the love in the world, but not some stick for what happened after.
2006- His overall production went up but his per possession efficiency, which made him great, went down. He was the reason why team fell behind the Mavs by 1-3 and he was also the reason why the game 7 was lost. That foul on Nowitzki right at the end in regular time was just utterly sh.tting the bed.
2007- This time, not only his overall production didn't went up, his per poss eff got worse again. His scoring efficiency got considerably worse. 2007 just doesn't stick out because the Spurs had a fairly easy ride to the title. The only contending team they faced was the Suns and we know what happened in that series. In the first 4 games of that series, Ginobili was 12/5/4 on .417 ts. Other than those games, it was a cakewalk for the Spurs and the issues Ginobili was having didn't grab much attention.
2008- He wasn't fully healthy against the Lakers. The Spurs were actual contenders up until Ginobili's health issues and because of that, they were just utterly outclassed by the Lakers. The only time Ginobili had a good game, the Spurs had a blowout by 19 points. That was the only Spurs win. In the 4 loses, Ginobili averaged 8/4/4 on .359 ts.
2009- He had missed 38 games in regular season and the entire playoffs.
2010- Similarly with 2006, his overall production went up, his per poss eff went down. Though I believe 2010 is the only time in his prime that can't be held against him other than 2005 for postseason issues.
2011- His injury and Duncan's mobility issues were the major reasons why the Spurs couldn't get out of the 1st rounds.

That's the end of prime Ginobili's timeline. Though if we continue;
2012- In the 4 straight games the Spurs lost to the Thunder, Ginobili underperforming was the major reason in 3 of those 4. He had a massive performance in game 5, he went 34/6/7 on .693 ts. In the other 3 games, he was 10/4/2 on .522 ts.
2013- He was also pretty bad against the Heat in the finals, other than game 5.

So, in short, Ginobili didn't brought success, championships as much as people like to believe. He was the reason why the Spurs were denied at a chance to repeat, twice.

---

Edit; Some statistical evidence of what I'm talking about. Ginobili had a very clear drop in his performance compared to regular season.
2006-11; 4.7 obpm in regular seasons vs. 3.3 obpm in playoffs (-1.4 obpm drop)
2006-13; 4.5 obpm in regular seasons vs. 2.7 obpm in playoffs (-1.8 obpm drop)

Particularly in 2006 Mavs series, first 4 games of 2007 Suns series, 2008 Lakers series, 2010 Suns series and 2011 Grizzlies series; 2.5 obpm. That's almost half of 4.7 obpm.
If we add 2012 Thunder series and 2013 Heat series to the already mentioned series; 1.9 obpm. That's less than half of 4.5 obpm.

When it got tough for the Spurs, they faced a team that could beat them, Ginobili had major performance issues.

Dutchball97 · Post #7 » by **Dutchball97** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:55 pm

1. Willis Reed - We're getting to a part of the lists where the most candidates are either solid first options that had limited play-off success or were part of very succesful teams but not as the best player on those teams. Willis Reed doesn't have the strongest longevity but he is someone who had an argument to be the best player in the league for a couple of years. In the 70s Reed was seen as more important to the Knicks than Frazier and while that view has been kind of debunked now, we also shouldn't underestimate Reed's importance in winning 2 titles in a very underrated era.

2. Paul Arizin - A guy who hasn't even really gotten mentioned yet but he's a similar case to Reed imo. At his peak he had a good argument to be the best player in the league. He doesn't have elite longevity but it's not terrible either. I'm going for someone who led his team to a title with a strong performance over worse players with better longevity.

3. Manu Ginobili - I'm not entirely sure about Manu yet as there are a couple other very deserving candidates. Other than Manu I'm mainly looking at Billups, Westbrook, Allen, Jones, Pau Gasol, McHale and Howard. For now I'm fine with going for Manu next but I could still be persuaded otherwise.

Cavsfansince84 · Post #8 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:50 pm

Dutchball97 wrote:1. Willis Reed - We're getting to a part of the lists where the most candidates are either solid first options that had limited play-off success or were part of very succesful teams but not as the best player on those teams. Willis Reed doesn't have the strongest longevity but he is someone who had an argument to be the best player in the league for a couple of years. In the 70s Reed was seen as more important to the Knicks than Frazier and while that view has been kind of debunked now, we also shouldn't underestimate Reed's importance in winning 2 titles in a very underrated era.

2. Paul Arizin - A guy who hasn't even really gotten mentioned yet but he's a similar case to Reed imo. At his peak he had a good argument to be the best player in the league. He doesn't have elite longevity but it's not terrible either. I'm going for someone who led his team to a title with a strong performance over worse players with better longevity.

3. Manu Ginobili - I'm not entirely sure about Manu yet as there are a couple other very deserving candidates. Other than Manu I'm mainly looking at Billups, Westbrook, Allen, Jones, Pau Gasol, McHale and Howard. For now I'm fine with going for Manu next but I could still be persuaded otherwise.

Only issue I have with Arizin right now is whether he was clearly even the best player on his own team in that 56-57 window when they won the title much less in the whole league. I mean yes there is an argument he was but it seems as though there's an argument for Johnston as well who led the team in the rs metrics I have seen. Not that Arizin is a bad choice here, just that I think there's some gray area there.

Post #9 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:03 am

Odinn21 wrote:....

Thanks, something to think about.

Hal14 · Post #10 » by **Hal14** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:58 am

penbeast0 wrote:Bigs, we have Pau, McHale, and Dwight Howard. Webber is a step below the other three. Despite Howard's undoubted impact, I will eliminate him first. Pau v. McHale: my head says McHale for his stronger defense and post game, my gut says Pau for his superior passing, range, and because he played a much bigger role in the Laker championships than McHale did in the Celtics titles. I'll go with Pau here.

So,

1. Chauncey Billups
2. Manu Ginobili
3. Pau Gasol

1) Put Pau's Laker teams in the 80s and he wins 0 titles. Put the Bird/Parish/McHale Celtics in the 2000s and they win 5.

2) Might want to watch some footage of McHale later in his career. He actually developed some really good range on his shot. Then again, it wasn't until both Gasol and McHale were past their prime before either of them really developed strong range, so not sure I would use that as much of a factor here. If we did factor it in, we'd have to account for difference in eras. By that I mean, Gasol simply had better range because in his era, that's the way the game was being played - especially from 2005 on - bigs had to be able to shoot from further away - and overall the entire league was shooting way more 3's than they did in McHale's era. It's like saying "Oh, Nash had better range than Isiah" well yeah no kidding! Look at the era they played in - nobody was shooting 3's in Isiah's era, when he was in college there was no 3 point shot - whereas Nash played in the era when the game revolved around the 3 and it was a much more emphasized part of the game.

3) Pau with superior passing to McHale? Eh, I don't see it as much of a difference there either. Maybe a slight edge for Gasol. The perception is that McHale is this black hole who never passes, but if you actually watch some of his footage you'll see lots of outstanding interior passing as well as good transition passing.

The slight edge Gasol has passing-wise can easily be chalked up to the fact a) he often times played in the high post where he could more easily see the entire floor, hit cutters or dump the ball in to a teammate in high post so it is less about him being a better passer and more about the way he was used on offense and b) he played in an era with less physicality and more floor spacing which makes it easier for him to make good passes whereas McHale played in an era with less spacing and more physicality, he gets the ball in the post with defenders draped all over him so all he could do is either kick the ball back out to the perimeter or try and score.

McHale is the better scorer by a decent margin and the better defender by a decent margin. 2nd best player on what many (including me) consider to be the greatest team of all time, the 86' Celtics. The year after that in 87, McHale finished no. 4 in MVP voting. Yes, despite the fact that he was on the same team as Bird (voted top 10 of all time in this poll, top 5 of all time according to many, including myself, coming off 3 straight MVPs), McHale was STILL top 4 in MVP voting that year. Pau played alongside Kobe, who was an MVP contender. Surely, if Pau is in the same conversation as McHale then Pau would have been an MVP contender while playing on the same team as Kobe (just like McHale was an MVP contender while playing alongside prime Bird), right? Wrong. This is Gasol while on Kobe's team:

2008 - no MVP votes
2009 - no MVP votes
2010 - no MVP votes (Chris Bosh, Stephen Jackson and Joe Johnson did get MVP votes though)
2011 - no MVP votes
2012 - no MVP votes
2013 - no MVP votes (Marc Gasol, Ty Lawson and David Lee did get MVP votes though)
2014 - no MVP votes

In fact, Gasol never once in his career got so much as one single point on the NBA MVP ballot.

McHale meanwhile got points in the MVP voting 3 times.
1986 - 13th in voting, 3 points
1987 - 4th in voting, 254 points
1991 - 19th in voting, 1 point

-McHale 7 all star games, Gasol 6
-Mchale 6 times on the all defensive team, Gasol 0
-McHale 1 time all NBA 1st team, Gasol 0
-McHale 0 times all NBA 2nd team, Gasol 1
-McHale would have undoubtedly made the all NBA 3rd team at least a couple of times but it didn't exist until end of Mchale's prime and after his foot surgery
-3 titles, 5 NBA finals appearances, 7 times in conference finals for McHale compared to 2 titles, 3 NBA finals appearances, 4 times in conference finals for Gasol

This gigantic edge in awards for McHale and going deeper into playoffs more times - despite the fact that he played 5 less seasons than Gasol.

Also keep in mind in 87 when Mchale had his best season - some even think he was even better than Bird that year - again, keep in mind this was Bird in his prime coming off 3 straight MVPs - yet in 87 McHale was seen by many people as just as good as Bird and seen by some people as even better. McHale was having his best season in 87, and the Celtics would have won the title but Mchale had a stress fracture in his foot as well as other key Celtics players who were hurt:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-04-sp-4497-story.html

There's little doubt in my mind that a healthy Celtics team wins the title in 87. Then we're talking about a guy in Mchale who was not only the 2nd best player on the greatest team of all time in 86, but if the Celtics were healthy in 87 and won the title, Mchale would have been arguably the best player on possibly the 2nd greatest team of all time. Keep in mind, Magic says that he thinks 87 was the best team his Lakers ever had. That tells you how good that 87 Celtics team was when healthy.

Playing most of the 87 season with that severe foot injury resulted in a shorter career for McHale and resulted in him being less effective in his later seasons, but that's the way players played in his era. They were tough and they played through pain. They were warriors. And McHale should be recognized for that, and not penalized.

Lastly, I don't think there's really much debate that McHale was arguably the GOAT when it comes to scoring in the low post / most effective post moves. Hakeem? Kareem? Who else is even in the same conversation as McHale when it comes to low post moves/low post scoring? Gasol, meanwhile...is there anything that Gasol is arguably the GOAT at? Of course not.

Watch on YouTube

Post #11 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:47 am

1st vote: Pau Gasol
Another decent star with outstanding longevity, Pau entered the league at age 21 and was immediately probably a top 30 player in the league (basically borderline All-Star level player): averaged 17.6/8.9/2.7 @ +4.6% rTS and 2.1 bpg, though admittedly for a terrible team, and kinda turnover-prone as a rookie. tbf, it wasn't much of a cast around him: Shane Battier is a very underrated player (though perhaps cast too high when the 2nd [or arguably 1st??] best player on a team); after that it was Jason Williams and Stromile Swift as 3rd and 4th, and mostly trash behind that.
So overall....pretty good coming out party for the rookie.

In '06 he averaged 20.4/8.9/4.6 @ +1.9% rTS with 1.9 bpg for a team that won 49 games and had the 5th-rated +3.74 SRS (this was with Shane Battier, Mike Miller, an OLD Eddie Jones, and a bunch of spare parts, btw). They were swept in the first round, though due to a brutal WC [and even more brutal SW division that contained the defending champs and the eventual WC champ] and the stupid playoff structure of the time they drew the 60-win Mavericks team (you know, the one that would win the conference). Pau did struggle a bit in the series.

If you somehow blend these two seasons, you get an idea of what "average" P.Gasol was in Memphis.

But in '08 Kobe was barking at the Lakers to either make them a contender or he'd walk, so they bring in Pau......and he almost immediately meshes as the perfect Dick Grayson to Kobe's Bruce Wayne, making the Lakers an instant contender.
Pau would have likely his three BEST seasons as a Laker [from '09-'11], collectively averaging 18.7/10.3/3.4 on approximately +5(ish)% rTS, good turnover economy, and decent defense during those years. They'd win two titles, with Pau playing pretty good in both runs ('10 in particular: 19.6 ppg @ +5.6% rTS, 11.1 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.1 bpg, and only 1.9 topg.....that's a really nice line).

He'd continue to have relevant seasons all the way out to his 17th season (age 37), ultimately sitting 30th in NBA/ABA history in career rs WS (and currently tied for 40th all-time [w/ Clyde Drexler] in ps WS). He's actually ahead of Chauncey Billups in rs WS [and WS love Chauncey], though is behind Chauncey in ps WS.

He lacks All-NBA accolades more because his prime overlaps that of Tim Duncan [#5 on this list], Kevin Garnett [#11 on this list], and Dirk Nowitzki [#15 on this list]---as well as much of Lebron James [#1 on this list] and other sporadically excellent forwards such as Paul Pierce, Elton Brand, Shawn Marion, and Chris Bosh----than from him lacking All-NBA chops.
I've little doubt that if his competition was John Havlicek, Billy Cunningham, Truck Robinson, Gus Johnson, Bob Love, and Elvin Hayes......Pau would have a few more than he does [likely including at least one 1st Team nod].

At any rate, I think he at least deserves serious consideration at this stage.

2nd vote: Paul Pierce
Will try to write more later, honestly.
In short, he's a nice two-way star who was capable of carrying some awful casts up to mediocrity, and transitioned nicely into a role as the 2nd-best on a title-winner. Nice longevity overall as well.

3rd vote: Russell Westbrook
I've been critical of him at times, and I still think his '17 MVP was undeserved. But he's accrued a pretty impressive 12-year career at this point, and certainly has to be in the running at this point. As I look at his resume closely, I may even opt to move him up in my rotation; we'll see....
(Though I'm waffling again and thinking of switching back to Gary Payton, who I originally had ahead. :-?

......open to suggestion)

Also on my immediate radar are Dwight Howard, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, and Ray Allen. Chauncey Billups in the vicinity too.
After them come players like Iverson, Manu, Lanier, Hayes. AD might slip in somewhere around that range for me. Then I might be willing to consider Cousy [I mention since he's had support recently].

eminence · Post #12 » by **eminence** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 3:30 pm

Does anyone remember/know why Dantley missed the '86 playoffs?

Owly · Post #13 » by **Owly** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 3:50 pm

eminence wrote:Does anyone remember/know why Dantley missed the '86 playoffs?

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/29/sports/pro-basketball-coach-of-jazz-sees-dantley-a-big-scorer-as-big-deficit-too.html

This source says back spasms (and that Layden thought he could/should have played ... Layden was very outspoken).

eminence · Post #14 » by **eminence** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 3:57 pm

Owly wrote:
eminence wrote:Does anyone remember/know why Dantley missed the '86 playoffs?

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/29/sports/pro-basketball-coach-of-jazz-sees-dantley-a-big-scorer-as-big-deficit-too.html

This source says back spasms (and that Layden thought he could/should have played ... Layden was very outspoken).

Layden was always entertaining at the very least.

sansterre · Post #15 » by **sansterre** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:31 pm

Hal14 wrote:1) Put Pau's Laker teams in the 80s and he wins 0 titles. Put the Bird/Parish/McHale Celtics in the 2000s and they win 5.

Are you sure of this? Please remember, 1986 was *one* year. And it was one of the best years any team has ever had. But the 80s Celtics were *not* wall-to-wall dominant like many remember. Their next strongest year was '81, and then it was five years before they had a better year. It took them a while to sort out the Tiny Archibald thing and get a solid shooting guard. And McHale took a while to develop.

Don't get me wrong, the 00s was definitely the weakest of the last three decades (in terms of top teams), but I think it may be a reach to say the 80s Celtics win 5 rings in the 00s. Unless what you mean is "the '86 Celtics would win five rings in the aughts" which is fine (and probably on the low end) but I think it's possible that you're misremembering the level of quality from the 80s Celtics.

Also, I think the '08, '09 and '10 Lakers would have translated extremely well to the 80s. They were big in the paint, and Kobe's game fits quite nicely in that era (perhaps better than his own). I think that those Lakers teams would have competed decently with any 80s teams besides the very best ('86 Celtics and '87 Lakers specifically).

Also, aren't we risking confusion by comparing the '80s Celtics (built without serious concern for the cap and the power of the players' union) to the Lakers of the aughts who had to work within the cap? It's not exactly apples to apples.

Also, surely there are better tools for comparing Player A and Player B than saying "Player A's teams were better"?

For funsies, let's compare the Celtics through the 80s into the aughts:

The 1980 Celtics (61 wins, +7.37 SRS, knocked out in Conference Finals) moved into 2000. Well, that record and SRS would make them the 2nd best team of 2000, behind the Lakers. But let's not forget that Bird kind of fell apart in the playoffs against the Sixers (not necessarily his fault, but it did happen). Do I like the Celtics to win the East? Why not. To beat the '00 Lakers or '00 Blazers? Not sold.

The 1981 Celtics (62 wins, +6.05 SRS, won Championship) moved into 2001. I really like the '81 Celtics, but betting on them over the '01 Lakers seems like a fool's errand.

The 1982 Celtics (63-19, +6.35 SRS, lost in Conference Finals) moved to 2002. That would be the best record in 2002, but the SRS was behind the Lakers and Kings, comparable to the Spurs. Do I think that the Celtics would win the East? Sure. How do I like them against the '02 Lakers/Kings/Spurs when they couldn't beat the '82 Sixers? Not a ton if I'm going to be honest, but don't think it would be a mismatch.

The 1983 Celtics (56-26, +5.34 SRS, lost in Semis) moved to 2003. That would be the 4th best record and SRS in the league. I totally buy that they'd win the East (not much of a win) but could they beat the '03 Spurs given that they couldn't beat the '83 Bucks? I'm betting against it.

The 1984 Celtics (62-20, +6.42 SRS, won NBA Finals) moved to 2004. That would be the best record and second best SRS in the league. Could they beat the '04 Pistons? Maybe? My formula has the '04 Pistons ranked higher, but that doesn't necessarily mean much.

The 1985 Celtics (63-19, +6.46 SRS, lost NBA Finals) moved to 2005. That would be the best record, but 3rd best SRS (behind Phoenix and San Antonio). Could the Celtics have won the East? Probably. Could they have beaten the '05 Spurs with Bird injuring his hand during the Finals? I doubt it.

The 1986 Celtics in 2006, I'm just giving this to the Celtics. Let's not kid.

The 1987 Celtics (59-23, +6.57 SRS, lost NBA Finals) moved to 2007. 3rd best record, 4th best SRS (Mavs, Suns and Spurs). The Celtics definitely would have won the East. Would they have beat the '07 Spurs? Maybe. But this team also had a lot of serious injuries (McHale's broken foot and whatnot). So I'm not convinced.

The 1988 Celtics (57-25, +6.15 SRS, lost in Conference Finals) moved to 2008. Tied for 3rd in record, 5th in SRS (Celtics, Pistons, Jazz, Lakers). Would the '88 Celtics have beaten the '08 Celtics? Maybe. Would they have beaten the '08 Lakers after? I don't know. We know that the '88 Celtics lost to a strong Pistons team, so I'm not convinced that this is a win for them.

The 1989 Celtics we won't discuss. They barely count for this purpose.

So we get:

1 Definite Win (1986/2006)
1 Possible Win (1984/2004)
5 Probable Loss (1980/2000), (1983/2003), (1987/2007), (1988/2008), (1982/2002)
3 Definite Loss (1981/2001), (1985/2005), (1989/2009)

So we're probably looking at 2-3 titles, about what they got in the 80s. Obviously this isn't remotely scientific (and you can quibble about me about some years being "probable losses" instead of "possible wins") but it does illustrate several things:

They had one monster year (1986)
They had one strong year where everything worked out and they're not matched up with any ATG 2000s teams(1984)
They had two strong years derailed by injuries (1985, 1987)
They had one nonexistent year (1989)
They had one strong year (1981), but in this trans-decade experiment they end up with the '01 Lakers, the one Top 10 all-time team from the aughts.
They had four years (80, 82, 83, 88) where they were knocked out before the Finals, and never by an ATG team (unless you really like the '88 Pistons), so their likelihood of winning Finals in their 2000s seasons is a little suspect.

This was a very long way of saying "I think the 5 titles in ten years might have been a reach".

Joao Saraiva · Post #16 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:11 pm

Votes
1. Chauncey Billups
2. Dwight Howard
3. Manu Ginobili

Billups is for me the prototype of what a great PG is. Superb tempo control, can shoot and delivers big plays, involves his teammates, defends well enough so he isn't a mismatch on defense and he can exploit on offense: posting up smaller guards, pulling back to shoot or driving against bigger guys. He has a complete arsenal, and that's what made him such a great post season player.

He has only one championship and FMVP, but he has several long playoff runs that I consider successfull ones.
2005 is an obvious one, where 1 shot only is the difference in a 7 game series. He also was the best player on the court in the 05 finals.

I beleive the Pistons had success from 03 to 08 with 6 ECF consecutive appearences, and then in 09 he was also in the WCF with the Nuggets, putting up a great fight against the Lakers. This type of longevity and consistency is something I value a lot about Billups.

Like someone pointed out earlier Billups didn't exactly succeed out of the gates, but being successfull later didn't hurt guys like Nash or Dirk, so why should it hurt Billups?

Joao Saraiva · Post #17 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:13 pm

I wonder how much weight should I put into Manu's less minutes vs Paul Pierce, Reed and Pau Gasol. How do you guys feel about that?

Is Paul Pierce at the same level of Manu but more useful cause of much more minutes? Or was Ginobili really much better and super elite when he was on the court?

Odinn21 · Post #18 » by **Odinn21** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:14 pm

sansterre wrote:
Hal14 wrote:1) Put Pau's Laker teams in the 80s and he wins 0 titles. Put the Bird/Parish/McHale Celtics in the 2000s and they win 5.
...

SRS is one of the things you can’t assume plug and play about.
Also 1987 Celtics were pretty beat by the time they made it to the NBA Finals. They’d win over the Pistons without Ben Wallace and one man army Cavaliers. They’d also have a pretty good chance at beating the Spurs which were quite like them. A strong trio without proper depth.

More importantly there’s more than stats. What he said is somewhat accurate but not in the manner he intended.

The Celtics had two players that created their own shots, Bird and McHale. If you look at the timeline, Bird became an actual playoff performer when McHale became a threat and unburdened Bird to a degree. Gasol wasn’t the scoring threat McHale was. Especially not with creating his own efficient shots.
So, maybe the Celtics wouldn’t end up with 0 titles but they’d do worse with Gasol instead of McHale.

Also, Bird/Parish/McHale trio would wreak havoc in the ‘00s if the assumption is a direct plug and play. The salary cap prevented teams from forming super teams / super trios. That’s why the first trios broke out took major pay cuts (Garnett/Pierce/Allen and Wade/James/Bosh) and it was near end of the decade. Such Celtics, Bird/Parish/McHale trio, probably wouldn’t be happening in 2000 and building on it.
So that part of the sentence is kind of mute.

freethedevil · Post #19 » by **freethedevil** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:17 pm

1. If we use ast% to to% as an aestimation(an admittedly crude measure) Westbrook from 12-14 looks like a better creator than peak isiah thomas
2. Westbrook's longetvity and peak are crminally undderrated I think. Even as early as 2014, he was able to assisr 30% of shots(on a to ratio of 10%) draing comapable defensiev attention to kevin durant in the 14 wcf. I don't think its unreasonable to say for that series, westbrook outplayed mvp durant. In 2015, at full strength the thunder played 48 win basketball without durant and then in 2016 westbrook authors what should be considered a masterclass at this level, being arguably the most valuable player on a thudner team that at full strength won at a 66 win pace and then it culumnates in an all time performace against the 70 win spurs team.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2016-nba-western-conference-semifinals-thunder-vs-spurs.html
Westbrook assiststed 53% of his team's shots on 13% of his team's turnvers. Westbrook's effiency is bad, ut take a looka t everyone else's. Everyone, yes...EVERYONE else on the thudner saw their effiency skyrocket and if you watch the series its pretty clear why. The spurs essentially are treating westbrook like an atg inside threat triple teaming him at the rim and largely leaving everyone lese on single coverage. Durant shot atrciously from three but was able to have the best scoring performance of his career(at least when adjsuting for defneisve opposoiton) largely becaue the spurs were leaving him with one defender to beat on his drives.

Then in 2017, he had agreat regular season, leading the league in on-ball creation, and posting impact that ranged from second to third best only after lebron and curry. In the playoffs his team was outmatched, but the thunder with westbrook outscored the rockets while getting decimated without suggesting that the thunder's bench was the deciding factor here.

Westbrook's creation is nigh unrivalled, posting comparable box creation to stephen curry and chris paul. Contrary to rep, impact data suggests prime westbrook was a playoff elevator. In the regular season metrics have him closely following durant, in the playoffs, his aupm skyrockets with 16-18 westbrook posting impact signifcantly higher than anything from durant or harden.

Is this to say westbrook is a better player? No, not neccesarily. Impact is not the end all be all, and creation isn't th eonly skill in the game. Westbrook has proben he can absolutely be the best or at least a 1. b on title level rosters, but his skills don't scale as well as durant or even harden does. But I don't think it makes sense to treat them as a different calibre of player when everything holistic suggests they aren't andI think that level of peak paired with a strong prime(relative to whose left) is suffecient to put him in consideration for these spots.

For what its worth, despre his reputation as a choker, from 2010-2020 westbrook has made the most clutch shots on top 10 effiency for volume clutch shooters.

Westbrook in my eyes is not only one of the most valuable peaks left, he had an undderated playoff prime and was a playoff elevator at his best worthy of championship-level teams.

Therefore

I'm going to go

1. Mchale, highest career value left. Great lngetvity, top 40 corp, so yesah, he gets first.
2. Westbrook(highest peak left aside from walton) top tier longetivty(for the remainig candidates)
3. Ray Allen. Top 30 Career Corp. He's here for career value tho his peak is probably better than people remember. Much is made of iverson making the final. Not enough is made of ray allen shooting 10% better than ai shot against the best defense in the league.

Post #20 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:46 pm

Thru post #19:

Chauncey Billups - 2 (Joao Saraiva, penbeast0)
Kevin McHale - 2 (freethedevil, Hal14)
Russell Westbrook - 1 (Odinn21)
Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)
Willis Reed - 1 (Dutchball97)

Probably about 26 hours left for this one.

Spoiler: