RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #46 (Chauncey Billups)

[trex_8063]

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. Russell Westbrook
45. Willis Reed
46. ??

This one will conclude sometime around 4pm EST on Wednesday.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

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: Gary Payton
Was about 7-10 places higher on him until just very recently. But he's certainly big in the picture by this point [maybe even overdue??].
Criticized for low shooting efficiency [fair enough point], but he's also got a fantastic turnover economy. Better, for instance, than guys like Jason Kidd, Tim Hardaway, Allen Iverson, Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, and John Stockton to name a handful; not much worse than Chris Paul, actually.
Obviously strong defensive acumen early in his prime. Was at the forefront of perhaps the 3rd-best team of the 90s [solid decade as far as competition; giving 1st and 2nd to the Bulls and Jazz, btw]. WS/48 is NOT in love with him [due to aforementioned pedestrian shooting efficiency], yet he's STILL 28th all-time in rs WS.

Best 7-year RAPM added [utilizing Elgee's AuPM as proxy for '94-'96] is right in the immediate vicinity of guys like Russell Westbrook, Arvydas Sabonis, Hakeem Olajuwon, Andre Iguodala, James Harden, Baron Davis, and Penny Hardaway. So pretty good company for this stage of the list, especially noting Payton played more minutes than any of them in their respective samples: nearly 39 mpg on average in those 7 years, while missing just ONE game total [not a typo].



Also on my immediate radar are Dwight Howard, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Ray Allen, and Chauncey Billups.
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].

Of these honourable mentions, McHale is the one I could most easily be swayed to switching a vote for.

[Odinn21]

I'm one of the avid Reed fans possible at this time but I think #45 was just too good for him. His longevity wasn't on the same level as Bill Walton for sure but I think he should be treated similarly for now because we're yet to run out of players with proper prime longevity, let alone overall longevity. Anyways.

46. Paul Pierce
Russell Westbrook was the final piece I had his spot decisively. I kept Ray Allen on my ballot after him but recent discussion made me go Pierce over Allen. Pierce's sustained impact over such a long period was just better.

47. Ray Allen
He lost his spot to Pierce but I think he's still in the top 50 pretty much. Peak, prime level and duration, longevity, he has it all. Also, I think he's understated for his off-ball presence.

48. Adrian Dantley
His prime level is just too good at this point and his prime lasted long enough.

I have some thoughts about some notions;

- 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'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.

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, when they faced a team that could beat them, Ginobili had major performance issues.

[trex_8063]

(copied from last thread)

As content has slowed a bit, I'm just going to throw some figures out there for some of the guys with a tad of traction [fwiw...food for thought and/or discussion]....

Peak [rs] Scaled PER
Dwight Howard - 26.75 ('11)
Kevin McHale - 24.08 ('87)
Pau Gasol - 23.96 ('07)
Manu Ginobili - 23.96 ('07) [note: in only 27.5 mpg]
Paul Pierce - 23.14 ('06)
Chauncey Billups - 23.09 ('08 [note: only 32.3 mpg])
Gary Payton - 23.02 ('00)
Ray Allen - 22.62 ('01)
Sam Jones - 22.54 ('66 [note: only 32.2 mpg])
Bob Cousy - 21.73 ('52 [was 21.72 in '53 as well])


Peak [rs] Scaled WS/48
Chauncey Billups - .2710 ('06)
Dwight Howard - .2657 ('11)
Manu Ginobili - .2647 ('05)[/size] [note: in only 29.6 mpg]
Pau Gasol - .2615 ('11)
Kevin McHale - .2527 ('86)
Sam Jones - .2310 ('66 [note: only 32.2 mpg])
Ray Allen - .2283 ('01)
Paul Pierce - .2122 ('08)
Gary Payton - .2035 ('00)
Bob Cousy - .1831 ('57)


Prime WOWYR
Paul Pierce: +7.2
Gary Payton: +6.8
Chauncey Billups: +5.7
Bob Cousy: +4.4
Dwight Howard: +4.2
Kevin McHale: +3.6
Sam Jones: +3.4
Manu Ginobili: +3.0
Pau Gasol: +2.4
Ray Allen: +1.0


Best 7-Years RAPM added (minutes played in those seasons [shortened seasons pro-rated], and crude product {RAPM * minutes} with product rank in group) (utilizing AuPM as proxy for '94-'96; Reed, Cousy, Jones, and McHale excluded obviously)
Manu Ginobili - 44.6 (13,325, 594,295 [1st])
Paul Pierce - 26.89 (19,050, 512,254.5 [3rd])
Dwight Howard - 25.84 (18,655, 482,025.2 [4th])
Gary Payton - 24.65 (22,078.12, 544,225.66 [2nd])
Ray Allen - 23.19 (20,625.16, 478,297.46 [5th])
Chauncey Billups - 16.2 (17,774, 287,938.8 [7th])
Pau Gasol - 15.8 (18,599, 293,864.2 [6th])


*Total Value Above Replacement by PER and WS/48 [SD scaled, and calibrated for seasons played], and all-time rank
*Scaled PER and WS/48 used, "replacement level" set at PER of 13.5 in rs [12.5 in playoffs] and WS/48 of .078 in rs [.064 in playoffs]; modifiers used the make WS/48 of .100 be worth the same "score" as PER of 15.0; playoff minutes weighted 3.25x as heavy as rs minutes; calibrated to dilute advantage of extensive longevity.

Kevin McHale - 11,586.88 (33rd)
Pau Gasol - 11,291.63 (36th)
Dwight Howard - 10,593.2 (41st)
Paul Pierce - 10.217.94 (45th)
Chauncey Billups - 9,900.42 (47th)
Manu Ginobili - 9,693.17 (49th)
Ray Allen - 9,576.4 (50th)
Gary Payton - 8,631.86 (56th)
Sam Jones - 7,927.99 (65th)
Bob Cousy (**excluding '51)- 6,852.29 (88th)


For whatever this is worth to you.....

Thanks Anybody else in the Top 50 of this ranking we don’t have in yet?

Which one?
The answer is yes regardless: fairly sure there are multiple players in the top 50 [aside from those listed] of any of these categories who are still on the table.

[Cavsfansince84]

46. Chauncey Billups
-very good all around guard also known for being clutch shooter in playoffs
-strong floor general
-led Pistons teams which made 5 straight ecf in rs win shares every year and in vorp 3x
-led 04 title Pistons in rs/ps wins shares and also won fmvp
-led league in ps win shares in 05 while losing finals in 7 games
-joins the Nuggets in 09 and they go from being swept in the first round the year prior to losing in 6 games in the wcf to the Lakers the following year
-respectably long prime of 9 years imo which isn't that short
-3x all nba(1x 2nd, 2x 3rd)
-2x all defensive 2nd team
-4x top 15 in mvp voting(high of 5th)
-43rd in career vorp
-30th in career playoff vorp
-efficient scorer with career ts+ of 109(4.5% above league average)

47. Paul Pierce
-Very strong combo of size, respectable athleticism, all around scoring/playmaking skills, 3 pt shooting, defense, playoff production and prime longevity. Not that many players who can check as many boxes as Pierce could(both as a player and resume wise) which also translated into him being a very good floor raiser imo while showing he could take a lesser role on teams that contended for and won titles which is why I have him above a lot of the other high scoring wings. He also got to the line a lot which helped to make him a very efficient scorer.
-1x nba champ/final mvp
-4x all nba(1x 2nd team, 3x 3rd team)
-5x top 15 in mvp voting(high of 7th)
-10x all star
-25th all time in win shares
-41st in career bpm while also being 22nd in career vorp
-Capable of carrying an offense as a scorer. 5 seasons averaging over 25ppg
-19th all time in points scored while also having a career ts+ of 107(3.5% above league average) and career ts add of 1772
-very good player for a very long time. Recording 13 seasons with a vorp of 3.0 or higher and 7 seasons above 4.5.

48. Dave Cowens
-Great combination of scoring, rebounding, defense and playmaking which led to very high win teams
-Very strong playoff performer, averaging 18.9/14.4/3.7 for his career. Led league in ps win shares in 76 despite not getting fmvp
-career treb% of 17.1 and ast % of 13.7 which are both good for a pf/c(Shaq's career %'s were 17.8/13.9)
-2x nba champ
-1x nba mvp
-4x top 4 in mvp voting(shows how highly regarded he was in his era)
-3x all nba 2nd team
-3x all defensive(1x 1st, 2x 2nd)
-Had 4 years with a ts+ above 100 in his prime so wasn't that inefficient as a scorer
-prime length of 9 years imo which is right there with most players despite career more or less ending at 31

[penbeast0]

PG -- 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 -- Dwight Howard, Robert Parish, Ben Wallace, Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier, Bill Walton, Nate Thurmond

Looking at the PGs, 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 though I dropped him behind Pau after reading and listening to my fellow project posters last thread.

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. Pau Gasol
3. Manu Ginobili
---
4. Kevin McHale
5. Gary Payton

Looking at Cowens, Anthony Davis (has he played enough), Howard for bigs,
Looking at Arizin, Sam Jones, English, Dantley, Pierce for wings
No other PGs on my radar yet.

[Dutchball97]

1. Manu Ginobili - At this point in the list it's going to get very hard to find players who have both great peaks and some semblance of longevity. Manu's 2005 run was amazing and their are plenty of other seasons where he played a significant, high level role on the way to consistently good results. Even if he didn't play the most minutes, he was simply a winning player who should get his due somewhere around here on the top 100.

2. Chauncey Billups - It's a bit strange as I didn't expect to vote Billups anywhere close to top 50 before the start of the project but I've been convinced. He has 5 straight years of elite post-season runs, something which even some of the top guys can't replicate. Longevity for me isn't necessarily about how many total points are scored or how many total minutes/games are played but more about the ability to play at a high level consistently. Billups played a huge role for one of the biggest underdog title teams ever. With the majority of the remaining candidates having like 1-2 really good post-seasons, it's refreshing to see a candidate who delivered year after year.

3. Paul Gasol - I still prefer Paul Arizin over contemporaries like Cousy, Jones and Greer as well as over the other SFs getting traction like Pierce and Dantley. On the other hand I think I did overrate some parts of Arizin's career a bit before looking into it a bit deeper. I'll get back to him in upcoming threads, hopefully people will be more willing to consider him at that point.

I considered Allen and Dwight for this spot as well but they are the types of players with 1 very strong post-season, which they never quite got close to again. I prefer players who have at least 2-3 good runs tbh. McHale is probably right behind Gasol. The Jokic/AD/Giannis group is very interesting to me but I'm not quite sure where I'll go for them, probably around the same general radius as Walton. Things are really starting to get difficult now.

[Odinn21]

1. Manu Ginobili - Manu's 2005 run was amazing and their are plenty of other seasons where he played a significant, high level role on the way to consistently good results.

I considered Allen and Dwight for this spot as well but they are the types of players with 1 very strong post-season, which they never quite got close to again. I prefer players who have at least 2-3 good runs tbh.

Isn’t this very ironic? From 2005 to 2011, Ginobili had 1 great postseason run, 1 average run and 4 bad runs.
Ginobili never got close to his performance in 2005 playoffs ever again.
Your #1 pick is literally going against your own criteria.

Spoiler:

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.

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, when they faced a team that could beat them, Ginobili had major performance issues.

[Dutchball97]

1. Manu Ginobili - Manu's 2005 run was amazing and their are plenty of other seasons where he played a significant, high level role on the way to consistently good results.

I considered Allen and Dwight for this spot as well but they are the types of players with 1 very strong post-season, which they never quite got close to again. I prefer players who have at least 2-3 good runs tbh.

Isn’t this very ironic? From 2005 to 2011, Ginobili had 1 great postseason run, 1 average run and 4 bad runs.
Ginobili never got close to his performance in 2005 playoffs ever again.
Your #1 pick is literally going against your own criteria.

4 bad runs? That's wild to me. The only bad run I see is 2008, it's not even bad per se it's just disappointing. I mean you've been pretty clear about your dislike of Manu but this take seems biased to say the least. If anything I might've been too harsh on Ray Allen, who did have a strong 2005 run as well besides his amazing 2001, but after that it becomes barren in play-off land for Allen while Manu has multiple strong showings (or bad showings apparently in your opinion).

So thanks for your concern but no Manu does not literally go against my own criteria.

[Odinn21]

1. Manu Ginobili - Manu's 2005 run was amazing and their are plenty of other seasons where he played a significant, high level role on the way to consistently good results.

I considered Allen and Dwight for this spot as well but they are the types of players with 1 very strong post-season, which they never quite got close to again. I prefer players who have at least 2-3 good runs tbh.

Isn’t this very ironic? From 2005 to 2011, Ginobili had 1 great postseason run, 1 average run and 4 bad runs.
Ginobili never got close to his performance in 2005 playoffs ever again.
Your #1 pick is literally going against your own criteria.

4 bad runs? That's wild to me. The only bad run I see is 2008, it's not even bad per se it's just disappointing. I mean you've been pretty clear about your dislike of Manu but this take seems biased to say the least. If anything I might've been too harsh on Ray Allen, who did have a strong 2005 run as well besides his amazing 2001, but after that it becomes barren in play-off land for Allen while Manu has multiple strong showings (or bad showings apparently in your opinion).

So thanks for your concern but no Manu does not literally go against my own criteria.

If you see all those and take them as my dislike of Ginobili, I'd say that's your own bias of my opinion because what you said isn't explained at any point unlike my dislike.
I have explained why those bad showings in my opinion to be bad showings. If the only thing you can say is Manu has multiple strong showings, it's kind of unearned.
How is any of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 is strong showing to join 2005 and make it multiple strong showings?
(Hope you're not going to say 2007 just because the Spurs won the title... He was 13/5/4 on .455 ts for half of the road, he sucked against the only strong team the Spurs faced until the Suns were thrown out of their rhythm. Even including the last 2 games, he had 1 awesome game (game 6), 2 average games (game 3&5) and 3 horrible games (game 1&2&4) in 6.)

2006-11; 4.7 obpm in regular seasons vs. 3.3 obpm in playoffs (-1.4 obpm drop)
This doesn't separate good or bad series, this doesn't show the only series the Spurs were threatened. If Ginobili had multiple strong showings, how did this happen?

I must hate Ginobili for arguing over him not being a top 50 ever with such performance issues...

Here, obpm of prime Ginobili in playoffs;
2005- 6.1 obpm (which I already gave him credit for)
2006- 2.4 obpm
2007- 3.3 obpm
2008- 2.9 obpm
2010- 4.3 obpm (the playoffs I rated as average for him)
2011- 4.2 obpm (the playoffs his health issue was one of the 2 major issues that caused the Spurs to fail getting out of the 1st round)
How is this multiple strong showings? Truly? I got called for hating Ginobili for pointing out this?

[Dutchball97]

Isn’t this very ironic? From 2005 to 2011, Ginobili had 1 great postseason run, 1 average run and 4 bad runs.
Ginobili never got close to his performance in 2005 playoffs ever again.
Your #1 pick is literally going against your own criteria.

4 bad runs? That's wild to me. The only bad run I see is 2008, it's not even bad per se it's just disappointing. I mean you've been pretty clear about your dislike of Manu but this take seems biased to say the least. If anything I might've been too harsh on Ray Allen, who did have a strong 2005 run as well besides his amazing 2001, but after that it becomes barren in play-off land for Allen while Manu has multiple strong showings (or bad showings apparently in your opinion).

So thanks for your concern but no Manu does not literally go against my own criteria.

If you see all those and take them as my dislike of Ginobili, I'd say that's your own bias of my opinion because what you said isn't explained at any point unlike my dislike.
I have explained why those bad showings in my opinion to be bad showings. If the only thing you can say is Manu has multiple strong showings, it's kind of unearned.
How is any of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 is strong showing to join 2005 and make it multiple strong showings?
(Hope you're not going to say 2007 just because the Spurs won the title... He was 13/5/4 on .455 ts for half of the road, he sucked against the only strong team the Spurs faced until the Suns were thrown out of their rhythm. Even including the last 2 games, he had 1 awesome game (game 6), 2 average games (game 3&5) and 3 horrible games (game 1&2&4) in 6.)

2006-11; 4.7 obpm in regular seasons vs. 3.3 obpm in playoffs (-1.4 obpm drop)
This doesn't separate good or bad series, this doesn't show the only series the Spurs were threatened. If Ginobili had multiple strong showings, how did this happen?

I must hate Ginobili for arguing over him not being a top 50 ever with such performance issues...

Here, obpm of prime Ginobili in playoffs;
2005- 6.1 obpm (which I already gave him credit for)
2006- 2.4 obpm
2007- 3.3 obpm
2008- 2.9 obpm
2010- 4.3 obpm (the playoffs I rated as average for him)
2011- 4.2 obpm (the playoffs his health issue was one of the 2 major issues that caused the Spurs to fail getting out of the 1st round)
How is this multiple strong showings? Truly? I got called for hating Ginobili for pointing out this?

I think it's weird in the first place that you're arguing harder against a candidate instead of spending more time on arguing who you think should be considered instead. You have like 2 sentences explanation for your votes (which barely meets the minimum requirement) and then an entire paragraph about why you think Manu is overrated. Not only that but you even tag the first person to vote for Manu with a snarky response that wasn't likely to spark any meaningful discussion.

If you're so focused on obpm in the play-offs then why did you vote for Pierce? In 2005 he had a 7.6 OBPM, which is better than Manu's best so definitely a good showing. However, this 7.6 OBPM came in a first round loss to the 6th seed Pacers. If you think it's better to have 7.6 OBPM over one series over having 6.1 OBPM over four series on the way to a ring then you should also be pushing for Donovan Mitchell. Last year Mitchell had an even higher 9.3 OBPM over the same 7 games as Pierce played in 2005, yet I don't see anybody saying Mitchell had a better post-season than Jokic or LeBron who had 6.1 and 6.6 OBPM respectively over significantly more games. Well after that impressive first round loss you get 3.7 OBPM in 2002 and 4.7 OBPM in 2003. By your own words that's about average then. You lambast Manu for having only 3.3 OBPM in the 2007 title run but you don't care that Pierce only had 2.6 OBPM in his only title campaign? That's also Pierce's 4th highest play-off OBPM.

It might be a good idea to make sure you're consistent with your own method before accusing others of making biased picks that go against their reasoning.

[Odinn21]

I think it's weird in the first place that you're arguing harder against a candidate instead of spending more time on arguing who you think should be considered instead. You have like 2 sentences explanation for your votes (which barely meets the minimum requirement) and then an entire paragraph about why you think Manu is overrated. Not only that but you even tag the first person to vote for Manu with a snarky response that wasn't likely to spark any meaningful discussion.

If you're so focused on obpm in the play-offs then why did you vote for Pierce? In 2005 he had a 7.6 OBPM, which is better than Manu's best so definitely a good showing. However, this 7.6 OBPM came in a first round loss to the 6th seed Pacers. If you think it's better to have 7.6 OBPM over one series over having 6.1 OBPM over four series on the way to a ring then you should also be pushing for Donovan Mitchell. Last year Mitchell had an even higher 9.3 OBPM over the same 7 games as Pierce played in 2005, yet I don't see anybody saying Mitchell had a better post-season than Jokic or LeBron who had 6.1 and 6.6 OBPM respectively over significantly more games. Well after that impressive first round loss you get 3.7 OBPM in 2002 and 4.7 OBPM in 2003. By your own words that's about average then. You lambast Manu for having only 3.3 OBPM in the 2007 title run but you don't care that Pierce only had 2.6 OBPM in his only title campaign? That's also Pierce's 4th highest play-off OBPM.

It might be a good idea to make sure you're consistent with your own method before accusing others of making biased picks that go against their reasoning.

I'm trying to get a proper response for actual discussion and you still try to make it personal.

Pierce was in the same percentile as Ginobili in regular season RAPM.
Pierce's career average is 34.2 mpg which would be a career high for Ginobili (31.1 is the highest). In their career, Pierce played 70% more minutes than Ginobili.
Pierce didn't crack under 30+ minutes as much as Ginobili did.
Who said I solely rely on obpm? Bunch of useless examples to make me look inconsistent.

You can either discuss without trying to get personal and have some answers or we can just quit talking.
You literally made an effort to make me look inconsistent with unrelated stuff based on your off point assumption to get personal. And you didn't give any following reasoning at all after I pointed out your initial reasoning was off point.

1. Manu Ginobili - Manu's 2005 run was amazing and their are plenty of other seasons where he played a significant, high level role on the way to consistently good results.

I considered Allen and Dwight for this spot as well but they are the types of players with 1 very strong post-season, which they never quite got close to again. I prefer players who have at least 2-3 good runs tbh.

This was your reasoning. This said Ginobili had at least 2-3 good runs. And when I showed you how inaccurate is this (still, no answer about multiple strong postseason showings) and instead of recognizing and addressing it, you went personal.

Anyways.

[Dutchball97]

I think it's weird in the first place that you're arguing harder against a candidate instead of spending more time on arguing who you think should be considered instead. You have like 2 sentences explanation for your votes (which barely meets the minimum requirement) and then an entire paragraph about why you think Manu is overrated. Not only that but you even tag the first person to vote for Manu with a snarky response that wasn't likely to spark any meaningful discussion.

If you're so focused on obpm in the play-offs then why did you vote for Pierce? In 2005 he had a 7.6 OBPM, which is better than Manu's best so definitely a good showing. However, this 7.6 OBPM came in a first round loss to the 6th seed Pacers. If you think it's better to have 7.6 OBPM over one series over having 6.1 OBPM over four series on the way to a ring then you should also be pushing for Donovan Mitchell. Last year Mitchell had an even higher 9.3 OBPM over the same 7 games as Pierce played in 2005, yet I don't see anybody saying Mitchell had a better post-season than Jokic or LeBron who had 6.1 and 6.6 OBPM respectively over significantly more games. Well after that impressive first round loss you get 3.7 OBPM in 2002 and 4.7 OBPM in 2003. By your own words that's about average then. You lambast Manu for having only 3.3 OBPM in the 2007 title run but you don't care that Pierce only had 2.6 OBPM in his only title campaign? That's also Pierce's 4th highest play-off OBPM.

It might be a good idea to make sure you're consistent with your own method before accusing others of making biased picks that go against their reasoning.

I'm trying to get a proper response for actual discussion and you still try to make it personal.

Pierce was in the same percentile as Ginobili in regular season RAPM.
Pierce's career average is 34.2 mpg which would be a career high for Ginobili (31.1 is the highest). In their career, Pierce played 70% more minutes than Ginobili.
Pierce didn't crack under 30+ minutes as much as Ginobili did.
Who said I solely rely on obpm? Bunch of useless examples to make me look inconsistent.

You can either discuss without trying to get personal and have some answers or we can just quit talking.
You literally made an effort to make me look inconsistent with unrelated stuff based on your off point assumption to get personal. And you didn't give any following reasoning at all after I pointed out your initial reasoning was off point.

1. Manu Ginobili - Manu's 2005 run was amazing and their are plenty of other seasons where he played a significant, high level role on the way to consistently good results.

I considered Allen and Dwight for this spot as well but they are the types of players with 1 very strong post-season, which they never quite got close to again. I prefer players who have at least 2-3 good runs tbh.

This was your reasoning. This said Ginobili had at least 2-3 good runs. And when I showed you how inaccurate is this (still, no answer about multiple strong postseason showings) and instead of recognizing and addressing it, you went personal.

Anyways.

Your idea of reasonable discussion is apparently calling someone's pick ironic and not consistent within my criteria because you adamantly believe Manu only had one good post-season. You try to discredit Many by saying his play-off OBPM wasn't good most years, yet when I point out PIerce is worse on that department you suddenly don't care about it. How is it unrelated that you want to knock Manu for something you don't knock your own pick for?

I never asked for this discussion, so I don't know what you want. I already read your points on Manu, I considered them and I still voted for him. If that makes you irrationally angry, that's on you and not me.

[Odinn21]

Your idea of reasonable discussion is apparently calling someone's pick ironic and not consistent within my criteria because you adamantly believe Manu only had one good post-season. You try to discredit Many by saying his play-off OBPM wasn't good most years, yet when I point out PIerce is worse on that department you suddenly don't care about it. How is it unrelated that you want to knock Manu for something you don't knock your own pick for?

I never asked for this discussion, so I don't know what you want. I already read your points on Manu, I considered them and I still voted for him. If that makes you irrationally angry, that's on you and not me.

I wasn't the one who said "I'd prefer multiple strong postseason runs over single runs". You applied your criteria, not mine, over Pierce by my method to say I'm the inconsistent thinking lad in here. It was still your criteria, your way of thinking. Again not mine. I never said that I have Pierce over Ginobili because he had more strong postseason runs at any point. What you did was a diversion.

The diversion, example of Pierce, is unrelated because I talked about your criteria being inconsistent with your own pick. And that was ironic. I didn't criticize your pick with my own criteria. You said you'd prefer players with multiple strong runs, I stated Ginobili didn't have one other than 2005. Ginobili fails your own criteria.
I mean, if you see Ginobili worthy of the current spot despite my concerns, if you think Ginobili meets your multiple strong postseason runs criteria, you should be able to defend selecting him on his own merit, shouldn't you?..
I gave it a chance at a discussion to see if there's something else or more to see, it didn't turn out that way.

I'm so irrationally angry BTW, just so so much... You were the one who couldn't leave out any feeling based assumptions, even your closing sentence is an example of this, but I'm angry, yeah.

This is not fruitful to the project though. I answered after saying anyways because I felt compelled to do so after seeing personal assumptions kept going on. This is my last post to you in this thread, won't go further. Cheers.

[Dutchball97]

Your idea of reasonable discussion is apparently calling someone's pick ironic and not consistent within my criteria because you adamantly believe Manu only had one good post-season. You try to discredit Many by saying his play-off OBPM wasn't good most years, yet when I point out PIerce is worse on that department you suddenly don't care about it. How is it unrelated that you want to knock Manu for something you don't knock your own pick for?

I never asked for this discussion, so I don't know what you want. I already read your points on Manu, I considered them and I still voted for him. If that makes you irrationally angry, that's on you and not me.

I wasn't the one who said "I'd prefer multiple strong postseason runs over single runs". You applied your criteria, not mine, over Pierce by my method to say I'm the inconsistent thinking lad in here. It was still your criteria, your way of thinking. Again not mine. I never said that I have Pierce over Ginobili because he had more strong postseason runs at any point. What you did was a diversion.

The diversion, example of Pierce, is unrelated because I talked about your criteria being inconsistent with your own pick. And that was ironic. I didn't criticize your pick with my own criteria. You said you'd prefer players with multiple strong runs, I stated Ginobili didn't have one other than 2005. Ginobili fails your own criteria.
I mean, if you see Ginobili worthy of the current spot despite my concerns, if you think Ginobili meets your multiple strong postseason runs criteria, you should be able to defend selecting him on his own merit, shouldn't you?..
I gave it a chance at a discussion to see if there's something else or more to see, it didn't turn out that way.

I'm so irrationally angry BTW, just so so much... You were the one who couldn't leave out any feeling based assumptions, even your closing sentence is an example of this, but I'm angry, yeah.

This is not fruitful to the project though. I answered after saying anyways because I felt compelled to do so after seeing personal assumptions kept going on. This is my last post to you in this thread, won't go further. Cheers.

You could've tried to approach a conversation without making assumptions but you didn't. You could've taken a hint by my first reply that I wasn't keen on you cross examining me on my choice but you didn't. You could've not made a fuss about you needing more of an explanation for my pick while barely explaning your own picks but you didn't.

Now you're painting me as an illusionist bank robber who will benefit somehow from pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and getting Manu voted in earlier than you think he should be. It's wild, it's unnecessary and then you have the audacity to act like you're on some higher pedestal after all that. Hopefully you'll finally come through on your promise and stop trying to start an argument over a discussion only you want to have. Cheers, indeed.

[Hal14]

1. Kevin McHale
2. Nate Thurmond
3. Bob Cousy

McHale - did everything you could want from a PF. He could score, 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. McHale had more effective post up moves than just about any player ever. Only other guys who really are in that conversation are Hakeem and Kareem.

Watch on YouTube

I think a good comparison for McHale is Pippen - it's pretty debatable IMO which was better. Both had really good team success while playing as the no. 2 guy alongside one of the best players ever (Bird, Jordan), both had good but not great longevity, 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. McHale a better scorer, about even on D, maybe a slight edge on D for Pippen, Pippen did better as his team's no. 1 guy in 93-94 than McHale did in 88-89 but that was also post-surgery McHale playing in a more competitive league than Pippen played in 93-94. By 93-94 there was more expansion teams and the effect of all those additional teams was really starting to cause rosters to be more thin on talent.

Any case you make for Pippen to give him a small edge is canceled out by the fact that a) Pippen refused to go into the game in the final seconds of a crucial playoff game in 94 because his coach drew a play up for a teammate and b) Pippen selfishly sat out 1/2 the season in 97-98 because of a dispute with team management and c) Mchale was always a class act, teammates loved him, coaches loved him, respected by opponents and ALWAYS played, even if he was hurt like in the 87 NBA finals when he played through more pain than just about any player ever in order to try and help his team win a title. Pippen got voted in 14 rounds ago in this poll - how is it that Pippen got voted in 14 rounds ago yet McHale is still on the board? Recency bias.

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

Thurmond went against Wilt, Russell, Chamberlain, Kareem, Unseld, Bellamy, Beaty, Cowens, Reed - all in their prime. Yet he still managed:

-7 all star games in 14 seasons

-2 times all defensive 1st team, 3 times all defensive 2nd team...despite the fact that all defense awards didn't exist until his 6th season! Clearly one of the best defensive players of all time and one of the best rebounders of all time

-Did not make a 1st or 2nd team all NBA (obviously those usually went to Wilt/Kareem/Russell) but there's very little question he would have made quite a few all NBA 3rd team selections if it existed back when he played

-Finished 2nd in MVP voting in 66-67, finishing ahead of Russell, Robertson and Barry - Thurmond finished no. 2 behind Wilt who was no. 1. Finished 11th in 69-70, 8th in 70-7, 8th in 71-72, 9th in 72-73 and 8th in 73-74

-Helped his team to NBA Finals in 67, where they lost to arguably the greatest team of all time, the 67 Sixers. That series Thurmond averaged 14 PPG and 26.7 RPG while playing 47 MPG, going head to head vs Wilt. Thurmond's Warriors fell in 6 games to Wilt's Sixers. Let's compare that to the Eastern Division Finals - Russell (while also going against Wilt) averaged less PPG (11) and less RPG (23) than Thurmond, and Russell's Celtics lost in 5 games to Wilt's Sixers. How did Wilt do in each series? His numbers. were better in the Eastern Division Finals, going against Russell than they were in the NBA finals vs Thurmond. Wilt went from 21 PPG, 32 RPG and 10 APG vs Russell down to 17 PPG, 28 RPG and 6 APG vs Thurmond.

[DQuinn1575]

1. Sam Jones
2. Dave Cowens
3. Paul Pierce


Ive mentioned Jones in numerous posts, for his playoff performance, as he was probably most impactful player left in championships.
Cowens was dominant, top 5-6 player in league for a number of years.
Pierce was great player for number of years.

[Some smartguy]

Pau Gasol
Paul Pierce
Kevin McHale

[Joao Saraiva]

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?

[penbeast0]

Pierce v. English from the thread with their names:

Pierce has the edge in rebounding and length of career. The 00s are also a stronger era than the 80s were.

On the other hand, English has a small edge as a RS scorer (more volume, more efficient for era, but only a little), a small edge in playmaking (less assists, but less turnovers despite the extra volume), and his playoff scoring average for his career was much more resilient than Pierce's as he outscored Pierce in the playoffs 24.4 to 18.7 on similar efficiency despite Pierce averaging slightly more minutes. Playoffs matter enough for me to prefer Alex English here since both were primarily valuable as scorers.