Page 1 of 3

RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49 (Pau Gasol)

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:31 pm
by 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. Chauncey Billups
47. Paul Pierce
48. Gary Payton
49. ???

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

RSCD3_ wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:48 pm
by Odinn21
49. Ray Allen
He usually led his teams to great offensive efficiencies. Defense was a weak point for him in general but his understated off-ball presence on offense kind of negates that. Peak, prime level and duration, longevity, he has it all.
This was what I wrote in the Pierce vs. Allen thread;
Spoiler:
Odinn21 wrote:The strongest seasons among these 2 players;
2001, 2005 for Allen & 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 Pierce.
I'd probably take 2001 Allen as the best but that's almost a tie and Pierce's just better on sheer number of seasons.

In 2005 and 2006, they were near the top of their form and Pierce was just better. Allen was better on offense, his efficiency and off-ball play were just massive. But he was quite a negative impact on defense. Pierce was also good on offense even though not just as much, but his defensive level was just way better than Allen's level.

I don't think there's a significant difference between their prime duration or overall longevity. So, Pierce is ahead of Allen for me since his prime level was higher on average.


50. Adrian Dantley
His prime level is just too good at this point and his prime lasted long enough. I feel like he shouldn't be separated from Pierce by a tier, and he should be in the next tier right after George Gervin. This was what I wrote about him in the Pierce vs. Dantley thread;
Spoiler:
Odinn21 wrote:
Is Paul Pierce in the same category as either of these guys or is he the next level down with guys like Dominique Wilkins?

I feel like it goes something like this;
Pierce and Dantley in the same tier. English is half a tier below. Wilkins is at least one tier below than any of the other 3.

I never agreed with Dantley being a black hole or a ball stopper or being an ineffective 30 ppg scorer.
Interestingly, Magic's injury in 1989 NBA Finals has a huge impact on Dantley's career outlook.
The Bad Boys became contenders with Dantley's arrival in 1986. It feels very inaccurate to say Dantley was the problem when they went to game 7 in CF in '87 and game 7 in NBA Finals in '88 (could've won without the phantom foul on Abdul-Jabbar). Then Dantley was traded out for Aguirre and the Pistons win the title against one of the weakest competitions ever. Bam, Dantley's career outlook goes down the drain because there was no title with him but there's one without him at the first try.
Dantley's arrival, along with drastic improvement sophomore Dumars had, was the reason why the Pistons went from being 45-46W team with first or second round exit to being a contender.
And if his scoring wasn't impactful, the Jazz wouldn't be that successful in '84 and '85.

As for Dantley vs. English, I think Dantley peaked clearly higher for me. Prime to prime, I also see Dantley as clearly better than English. English just didn't match offensive quality and impact that Dantley had.
Also, I started a thread about similar comparison awhile back. You might want to take a look at the discussion on there.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1961034

Pierce vs. Dantley feels harder because Pierce wasn't the scorer Dantley was. OTOH, Pierce was in the top percentile in 10+ season RAPM. Yeah, we don't and can't have RAPM for the '80s but even though I'm high on Dantley's overall impact, I'm not that high. I can't put him in the top percentile impactful players in his time.
Pierce can't match Dantley's scoring, Dantley can't match Pierce's overall impact (defense and off-ball play being the major reasons). The era differences are always there to consider. I'd assume you ask about these SFs to figure out your preferences for the top 100 project? I currently have Pierce ahead of Dantley on there. That's probably because I usually have more confidence in my picks those I got to watch while their career was happening, not just relying on hindsight.


51. Kevin McHale
Well, TBH, I could change this but I feel and think that leaving out McHale out of my top 50 is the most uncomfortable pick, so, I have him in there. At least for now.

I have some thoughts about some notions;
Odinn21 wrote:- 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 playoffs with the teams Allen and Pierce had.
Billups wasn't as good or impactful as the other three.


Odinn21 wrote: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.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:03 am
by Hal14
Hal14 wrote: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.



Rebounding-wise he was excellent, especially considering he had to compete for rebounds with 2 other strong rebounders on his own team, Parish and Bird.

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.

McHale was not only versatile on defense (guarded the 3 at times with Bird guarding the 4, plus of course McHale guarded 4's and at times even guarded 5's when Parish sat down) but he also had the versatility of being highly effective in both half court offense and fast break offense. Everyone knows about his awesome low post moves in half court, but he was also excellent at running the floor in transition, beating his man down the court, out running and out working opposing bigs to get down court faster fopr easy buckets. Plus he hustled back on D to prevent fast break buckets by the opposition.

Plus McHale developed an effective outside shot in the mid range and even could hit 3's later in his career.

Let's compare McHale to Gasol, who's also getting some votes in this poll:

McHale was the better scorer by a decent margin and the better defender by a decent margin. Best post moves of any PF ever. More team success than Gasol, despite playing less seasons. And even though Gasol has a longevity edge, that edge isn't as significant when you consider his era was less physical, more days off in between games to recover, more advancements in nutrition, sports science, weight training, strength and conditioning, had better facilities, better equipment and even though he played more seasons, he did miss a ton of games during his career. In his 18 year career, Gasol played in 70+ games and 24+ MPG in the same season just 8 times. McHale did it 7 times.

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) Range is comparable. McHale 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
<br>
-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</p>

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.

In this ESPN poll, released in 2016, Mchale ranks as the no. 6 PF of all time, ahead of Pettit, ahead of Gasol, ahed of Schayes and ahead of every PF who is still on the board for this project.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankPFs/ranking-greatest-power-forwards-nba-history

Also in 2016, ESPN ranked McHale the no. 31 player of all time so I think it's about time we vote him in here as the no. 46 player.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank160201/all-nbarank-31-35

Nate Thurmond - right in that same tier with Reed, Gilmore and Ewing. I see those four centers as pretty debatable. Ewing, Gilmore and Reed all got voted in already - it's Thurmond's time now. Thurmond has a strong case for being better than all 3 of 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.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:13 am
by Cavsfansince84
49. 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

50. Sam Jones

-Going with Jones here for sustained excellence in both rs and ps and obviously his role in the greatest dynasty in nba history which I think his role in is probably underrated in general. I'm just going to go through and post his rank on those teams in win shares for both the rs and ps from 62-67 to show what I am talking about. rs first and ps second(62-66 all being title teams)
62: 2nd 2nd
63: 2nd 2nd
64: 2nd 1st
65: 2nd 2nd
66: 2nd 2nd
67: 4th 1st(tie)
So as we can see and which the actual numbers do a better job of showing is the degree to which it was Russell and Jones at the top and then usually quite a large gap between them and everyone else on those teams. His role on 5 of those title teams was very large which is something no one else left can match when it comes to contributing to post season success imo(granted Cousy could be argued but I think Jones was better).

-3x all nba 2nd team
-3x top 10 in mvp voting(high of 4th)
-6 seasons averaging over 19ppg with career ts+ of 104(highly efficient for a wing)
-5 playoff runs averaging over 23ppg all at or above .516 ts%(when league average was under 50%)
-career ws/48 of .182 which ranks 35th all time
-known as clutch playoff scorer
-from 1962-1966 the Celtics played in 6 decisive game 5 or game 7's and Jones averaged 32.5ppg in those games which were all wins(most by 3 pts or less).

51. Pau Gasol
-a lot has already been said about him so will mostly just mention some accolades & stats regarding his career
-4x all league(2x 2nd team, 2x 3rd team)
-led Lakers in rs win shares every year from 09-12 when they won 57+ games 3 times and big part of 08 team after the trade
-led Lakers/league in ps win shares in 2010 during title run, 2nd in ps win shares on two other finals/title teams
-ranks 29th all time in vorp
-ranks 40th in career playoff win shares
-efficient scorer with career ts+ of 105(approx 2.5% above league avg)
-Overall very good longevity

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:30 am
by penbeast0
PG -- Bob Cousy
SG -- Manu Ginobili, Ray Allen, Sam Jones, Hal Greer
SF -- Adrian Dantley, Alex English, Paul Arizin, Tracy McGrady
PF -- Pau Gasol, Kevin McHale, Anthony Davis, Chris Webber, Elvin Hayes, Giannis
Antetokounmpo
C -- Dwight Howard, Robert Parish, Dave Cowens, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Nate Thurmond, Bill Walton


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. Pau Gasol
2. Manu Ginobili
3. Kevin McHale
---
Then, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, Ray Allen, in that order.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 5:42 am
by euroleague
1. Bob Cousy
2. Bill Walton
3. Kevin McHale

1. Cousy was a revolutionary player in the NBA, and he was a huge contributor on many championship teams. His stats may not have been good, but as a PG, much of his impact wasn't in his scoring stats. His elite playmaking set the stage for Russell's passing to develop, and his transition offense helped the defense by tiring out opponents. It's no coincidence that the Celtics were consistently first in ppg - his offense also allowed for offensive rebounding to be more effective.

Many people hating on Cousy never actually watched these games. I myself haven't watched enough of them to be an expert, but what I have seen of Cousy has him as an elite floor general whose impact went far beyond his stats.

2. Bill Walton - This may be a lot higher than most have him, but his run at his best was so elite, both in the regular and post-season, i feel comfortable putting him this high. MVP, FMVP, would've won DPOOY, 6MOY with the Celtics on a GOAT level team. McHale had a bigger role on those teams, and will probably be my next selection, but Walton's brief period of being arguably the best player in the league, and winning Portland's only title, put him this high for me.

3. Kevin McHale - One of the best post players ever, and the second man on one of the greatest teams ever. He was the Scottie Pippen of the 80s, except with a higher peak and less availability. Although he was a terrible passer, his defense and elite offensive efficiency compensated for that more than well enough to make him an MVP candidate in a very competitive era - which separates him from the the remaining candidates.

It's a shame any one of these candidates will miss the top 50, behind chauncey billups and paul pierce....I'm pretty high on Pierce, but Cousy is a legend of the game... Walton was an MVP and McHale definitely contributed more to the Celtics than Pierce. Just on face value alone they far outstrip 2 guys who were never even all-NBA 1st or top 5 in the league (Billups has 1 top 5 MVP, but I'd take Wade in 06 over Billups)

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:47 am
by Dutchball97
1. Manu Ginobili - Incredible peak, consistently high impact player that is only really hurt by relatively low minutes. There are a few guys left who were the leaders of succesful teams instead of second fiddles like Manu but I don't really see any of those leaders (Cousy, Hayes, Payton to name a few big ones) as better or more important than Manu.

2. Pau Gasol - Another extremely valuable second option. The 08-10 stretch is consistently great both in the regular season and post-season. Those years alone are enough for me to see Gasol above some other candidates but he also showed promise as a legit first option that just didn't have the right team around him.

3. Kevin McHale - I'm not planning to get back on the Arizin train before he gets some traction but that's not a big problem as there is a group of players that really aren't that far apart available so I don't feel too strongly about certain picks above others. McHale and Pau are very close in my mind but I prefer Gasol's more concentrated peak. Ray Allen is also right around the corner. Sam Jones as well but I do have him behind Arizin. Dwight might get my vote soon but with so many center candidates getting traction now I'll have to look into it a bit.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 5:06 pm
by 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: Dwight Howard
Truly there are a number of guys on my immediate radar for this final spot: Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Ray Allen all feel perfectly appropriate to me as well. Everyone else in the immediate vicinity on my ATL have already been voted in. The next-closest competitors for me are probably Bob Lanier, Manu Ginobili, Allen Iverson, and Anthony Davis.......but they're all distinctly separated from the others noted above.

Popular opinion on Dwight has REALLY dwindled in the last half-dozen or so years. I feel people have forgotten just how good he was in that '09-'11 range. imo, he peaked in the same general vicinity as bigs like Anthony Davis and Patrick Ewing. This was a guy who was anchoring ON AVERAGE a -5.3 rDRTG during those three years (worst was -4.3, best was -6.4===>which, if I've counted right, is tied [with the '12 and '69 Celtics] for the 23rd-best defense EVER; 12 of those ahead belong to either Russell or Duncan [it's better than ANYTHING anchored by Dikembe, Hakeem, or Wilt]).
He did so without an assortment of true defensive specialists around him (decent ones, for sure; but not great ones).
They simultaneously managed to build some fairly successful offenses around him, by basically just surrounding him with shooters and daring teams to double-team him. Dwight was arguably the best big-man finisher outside of prime Shaq when he got the ball down low. He was just so strong and such an explosive leaper......teams were screwed if he got the ball down there.
Surrounded by mostly what I would call "good role players" he actually led one team to the NBA finals in this span.

While his prime dwindled very quickly after his back injury/surgery in '12, it's not like he was instantly ineffective. He still had some fair/decent years out to around '15 or so, and then of course a somewhat happy resurgence in a 6MOY-candidate kind of role for a title team last year. Not to mention he had a few fairly decent years BEFORE that '09-'11 span, too.
All-around it amounts to a career that looks relatively well-positioned for a top 50 placement, imo.


3rd vote: Kevin McHale
I'd be content with Ray Allen or Robert Parish too. But I'm gonna go with McHale. While his longevity is lesser than Allen or Parish, he peaked substantially higher imo, and his average prime year carries more value.
Although I think isolation scoring is generally overvalued by most, McHale was as good at as just about anyone ever. And though he's frequently not giving the ball back [not a playmaker to the degree he was called "the Black Hole"], I never found him to be a "ball-stopper"; always seemed like he was quick/decisive with it when he wanted to score (Dan Issel was the same, fwiw). And MAN could he put the ball in the bucket!
And then he provided solid defense on the other end, pretty versatile too (guarding 3-5 as needed), and frequently the Celtic's leading shot-blocker.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 5:50 pm
by trex_8063
Transferring this part of conversation from page 2 of the #48 thread, as still relevant here (and that page is broken anyway).....

DQuinn1575 wrote:
I said looking at the percentage is really really bad.
Looking at the % is really really bad, as you are penalizing Shaq in his Miami year, and Jabbar in his later years for not being in top.
That logic makes Shaq look worse for winning a title in Miami, or Jabbar look worse for winning in 1987.
You should read and understand what is written before you reply.


My bad. Was confused by the "...times in top rung ["top rung" presumably meaning #1]".
Anyway, not suggesting looking at % above/below studies in isolation, just as I suggest not using "top 2 finishes" in isolation either......because the broader points regarding the inherent flaws and arbitrary nature of "threshold studies" still stand. If you insist on using them, though, I'd at least suggest using a variety and amalgamate the findings.

Or actually, if you're absolutely dead-set on utilizing playoff WS as measure of contribution to titles as a major criteria, probably would be best to construct a "Title Shares" metric [now that I'm curious, I may do it myself for illustrative purposes]: if a player has 10% of his team's playoff WS during a title year, he gets a .100 share, 20% gets .200, and so on.

That would be a more precise measure of contribution to titles, would not unfairly "penalize" anyone for not being #1, though truthfully is still probably over-rewarding those who were overtly lucky in team circumstance (which is a group to which Sam Jones certainly belongs). In spite of the latter, I'm sure the resulting listing/ranking would be substantially different than the one you'd previously shown (with Jones right on top, even above Lebron, Bird, KAJ). Maybe he still comes out as highest of all players left on the table [for what that's worth]; but I doubt it paints him near as rosy as the arbitrary top 2's did.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:18 pm
by Dutchball97
I had a look at the title shares and I don't think it's gonna be that productive of an excercise. In 1964 Sam Jones led the Celtics in play-off WS with 28% of the teams total play-off WS. For comparison, Steph Curry had 24.5% of his team's play-off WS in 2015 and LeBron had 27.3% in 2016. It might be useful for comparisons in-era but it doesn't look usable to compare guys like Jones with modern players.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:10 pm
by Joao Saraiva
Votes
1. Dwight Howard
2. Manu Ginobili
3. Adrian Dantley


Not a popular choice here but I'm going with Dwight.

I'm super high on his peak and 3 year prime (09-11). He was a ultra defensive force at the time, and seeing those Magic teams rank #1 in DRTG is in large part due to his play. Mobile, fast, great rim protector, covered a lot of ground at his size... he was just amazing.

On offense he wasn't a great shot creator for himself or for others, but he was always an effective offensive force in PnR situations as a roll player. He also forced a ton of fouls and would use the size and strenght mismatch in the post when he had that chance.

3 times DPOY, 8 times all-star, 4 times in the top 5 MVP votes and I believe he should have won it in 2011.

His longevity isn't brutal but it's good, and he's still adding to it today in a smaller role, since he was still useful and got along with it in the Lakers last season.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:53 pm
by No-more-rings
I don't understand Billups going in over someone like Paul Pierce, and over Payton seems pretty dubious too.

Pierce has twice as many all star appearances(10 to 5), one more all nba team and both have two finals appearances under their belt with a championship and FMVP. Billups has two defensive selections to none for Pierce, but this is meaningless to me as he's obviously not a better defender than Pierce who offers much more size and versatility. I feel he's maybe getting too much credit for the Pistons success, and I'm not so sure he should be ranked in ahead of Ben Wallace.

Aside from Billup's outlier hot shooting streak in the 09 playoffs, i sort of doubt he's a better playoff performer than Pierce. Pierce was able to be a major contributor to a team's title hopes from 01-12, Billups was only like 02-10 since he got hurt in 2011. Pierce is definitely a better floor raiser, given what he did in 02, and how he could take a team to the playoffs and go down swinging so to speak like we saw in 03 or 05. So i don't think anyone would make the case that Billups is a better floor raiser, or that he can really drag mediocre casts to the playoffs, or at least we never got to see him have the chance. He had that year with prime KG they got swept in the first round, then after that during his prime he had pretty talented teammates, Rip Hamilton, the Wallaces, Prince, then eventually Melo, JR Smith, Nene, Birdman etc, he was a big part of these teams success I'm just saying it's unclear to me just how much he raises a team's ceiling. I think he turned the Nuggets into a fringe contender in 09, when they were already a 50 win team the year before. It's sort of hard for me to say that Billups was more important to the Pistons in their finals runs than Pierce was for his, i think very arguably both Wallaces were more valuable, while Pierce was only behind KG in 08, and 2010 was sort of an ensemble thing, but Pierce's ability to create shots for himself and play very good perimeter defense was sort of underrated even up through like 2012. Billups peaked at like a borderline superstar level similar to Pierce, but Pierce's prime seems longer, I'd say like 01-09, to 05-10 for Billups.

Just as a reference, Pierce went 16 spots higher than Billups in the 2014 project, and 12 spots higher in the 2017 project. How do the voters justify that exactly? Comparing him to Payton, i mean Payton's peak was clearly higher and his career resume is firmly more impressive as well so i don't think that needs a ton of explanation. I think Billups over those two is clearly wrong.

I respect the work put in, but so far this one has had the worst results over the last 3 projects. My biggest issues are Mikan(19th much too high), Wade(28th too low), Frazier(30th too high), Billups over the two i mentioned already, and the fact that Dwight will probably fall out of the top 50 is really like WTF? I know he's sort of devolved into a toxic personality over the years but to ignore the force that he was in Orlando is just silly. He was considered almost on par with Kobe, Wade and Lebron for a few of those years. His career value didn't end there either, he was a fringe top 10 player in 2014, solid star level player in 2015 and was a valuable role player in a championship last year. The way he's portrayed by some users these days you would think he was a Gobert level player in his prime or something.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:36 pm
by DQuinn1575
Dutchball97 wrote:I had a look at the title shares and I don't think it's gonna be that productive of an excercise. In 1964 Sam Jones led the Celtics in play-off WS with 28% of the teams total play-off WS. For comparison, Steph Curry had 24.5% of his team's play-off WS in 2015 and LeBron had 27.3% in 2016. It might be useful for comparisons in-era but it doesn't look usable to compare guys like Jones with modern players.


It doesn't look useful because ___________ ?
((BTW I was going to do the math a little different, but can try it this way and another - based on ws/minute which should be similar, but hurt guys with lower production over large minutes)

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:44 pm
by sansterre
DQuinn1575 wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:I had a look at the title shares and I don't think it's gonna be that productive of an excercise. In 1964 Sam Jones led the Celtics in play-off WS with 28% of the teams total play-off WS. For comparison, Steph Curry had 24.5% of his team's play-off WS in 2015 and LeBron had 27.3% in 2016. It might be useful for comparisons in-era but it doesn't look usable to compare guys like Jones with modern players.


It doesn't look useful because ___________ ?
((BTW I was going to do the math a little different, but can try it this way and another - based on ws/minute which should be similar, but hurt guys with lower production over large minutes)

I feel like one of the challenges to this sort of thing is that Win Shares can only work with box score stats.

Let us imagine a series of teams that were average at best on offense, but were the best ever on defense. These teams only had one or two scorers of note, and Sam Jones was the best of them (unless you go earlier, when it was his predecessor Bill Sharman).

So. What are the parts of the game that we care about?

Scoring
Rebounding
Passing
Defensive Impact aside from Blocks and Steals
Blocks and Steals

We know that Sam Jones was the best on his team for many years at the first one. Sure he wasn't a great rebounder, and was only a sufficient passer, but he deserves credit for his part as the best scorer on a team that won a ton of titles. And for the players (K.C. Jones, Jim Loscutoff, etc) who specialized on defense, well, we know we'll miss out on much of their defensive impact, but at least we can work with blocks and steals. Just kidding. There aren't any recorded.

So basically, Win Shares has to divide up a ton of team success between the Celtics, but it can only use offensive stats (and defensive rebounding). Given that Jones was probably the most valuable offensive player on the team for many years, is it possible that Win Shares is wildly overrating him simply because it has no way to allocate credit to defensive players in that era?

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:54 pm
by Dutchball97
DQuinn1575 wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:I had a look at the title shares and I don't think it's gonna be that productive of an excercise. In 1964 Sam Jones led the Celtics in play-off WS with 28% of the teams total play-off WS. For comparison, Steph Curry had 24.5% of his team's play-off WS in 2015 and LeBron had 27.3% in 2016. It might be useful for comparisons in-era but it doesn't look usable to compare guys like Jones with modern players.


It doesn't look useful because ___________ ?
((BTW I was going to do the math a little different, but can try it this way and another - based on ws/minute which should be similar, but hurt guys with lower production over large minutes)


We pretty much know 64 Sam Jones wasn't more important to getting a title than LeBron in 2016 or Curry in 2015. Kawhi in 2014 was right behind Duncan for WS in the play-offs in a similar vein to Jones/Russell in 64, while also having a stacked team around them but Kawhi only has around 15% of his team's play-off WS. It feels off, so I don't personally feel it'll be useful to spend a lot of time on this only to end up with a list that doesn't look representable of what we know.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:32 pm
by DQuinn1575
sansterre wrote:
DQuinn1575 wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:I had a look at the title shares and I don't think it's gonna be that productive of an excercise. In 1964 Sam Jones led the Celtics in play-off WS with 28% of the teams total play-off WS. For comparison, Steph Curry had 24.5% of his team's play-off WS in 2015 and LeBron had 27.3% in 2016. It might be useful for comparisons in-era but it doesn't look usable to compare guys like Jones with modern players.


It doesn't look useful because ___________ ?
((BTW I was going to do the math a little different, but can try it this way and another - based on ws/minute which should be similar, but hurt guys with lower production over large minutes)

I feel like one of the challenges to this sort of thing is that Win Shares can only work with box score stats.

Let us imagine a series of teams that were average at best on offense, but were the best ever on defense. These teams only had one or two scorers of note, and Sam Jones was the best of them (unless you go earlier, when it was his predecessor Bill Sharman).

So. What are the parts of the game that we care about?

Scoring
Rebounding
Passing
Defensive Impact aside from Blocks and Steals
Blocks and Steals

We know that Sam Jones was the best on his team for many years at the first one. Sure he wasn't a great rebounder, and was only a sufficient passer, but he deserves credit for his part as the best scorer on a team that won a ton of titles. And for the players (K.C. Jones, Jim Loscutoff, etc) who specialized on defense, well, we know we'll miss out on much of their defensive impact, but at least we can work with blocks and steals. Just kidding. There aren't any recorded.

So basically, Win Shares has to divide up a ton of team success between the Celtics, but it can only use offensive stats (and defensive rebounding). Given that Jones was probably the most valuable offensive player on the team for many years, is it possible that Win Shares is wildly overrating him simply because it has no way to allocate credit to defensive players in that era?


Actually. win shares is allocating defense, but not giving credit to the right people - probably giving Sam Jones too much credit for his defense, and KC Jones not enough. But within offense it shouldnt be too bad, as we are mostly working with the same stats.
But basically win shares takes the total defense and attempts to give people credit - again it probably over credits Sam Jones and under credits KC, Satch Sanders. Loscutoff. So no, it's definitely not perfect.

But Curry is getting the same thing for Golden State - he is getting as much credit in WS for non box score defense as Klay or Draymon, which again we dont think is correct.

And. I'm not married to Win Shares. I'm using it because I dont have a better tool to quantify 1964. If someone gives me something better, or as good, I'll use it.

But I really do think Sam Jones was the second best player for the Celtics, and I really do think overall for the dynasty he contributed the second most. With a good part of Havlicek's value being post dynasty, we have 1.5 players for the team that won 11 championships.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:37 pm
by DQuinn1575
trex_8063 wrote:Transferring this part of conversation from page 2 of the #48 thread, as still relevant here (and that page is broken anyway).....

DQuinn1575 wrote:
I said looking at the percentage is really really bad.
Looking at the % is really really bad, as you are penalizing Shaq in his Miami year, and Jabbar in his later years for not being in top.
That logic makes Shaq look worse for winning a title in Miami, or Jabbar look worse for winning in 1987.
You should read and understand what is written before you reply.


My bad. Was confused by the "...times in top rung ["top rung" presumably meaning #1]".
Anyway, not suggesting looking at % above/below studies in isolation, just as I suggest not using "top 2 finishes" in isolation either......because the broader points regarding the inherent flaws and arbitrary nature of "threshold studies" still stand. If you insist on using them, though, I'd at least suggest using a variety and amalgamate the findings.

Or actually, if you're absolutely dead-set on utilizing playoff WS as measure of contribution to titles as a major criteria, probably would be best to construct a "Title Shares" metric [now that I'm curious, I may do it myself for illustrative purposes]: if a player has 10% of his team's playoff WS during a title year, he gets a .100 share, 20% gets .200, and so on.

That would be a more precise measure of contribution to titles, would not unfairly "penalize" anyone for not being #1, though truthfully is still probably over-rewarding those who were overtly lucky in team circumstance (which is a group to which Sam Jones certainly belongs). In spite of the latter, I'm sure the resulting listing/ranking would be substantially different than the one you'd previously shown (with Jones right on top, even above Lebron, Bird, KAJ). Maybe he still comes out as highest of all players left on the table [for what that's worth]; but I doubt it paints him near as rosy as the arbitrary top 2's did.



So I took win shares for championship teams to try and assign championship credits to players. One approach would be to add the win shares for a team, and then give each player. I started in 1952, the first year with minutes, and divided up the Lakers:


Player Tm G WS WS/48 WinShare
George Mikan* MNL 13 2.4 0.206 8.5 0.28
Vern Mikkelsen* MNL 13 1.9 0.180 8.5 0.22
Pep Saul MNL 13 1.5 0.139 8.5 0.18
Bob Harrison MNL 12 0.6 0.131 8.5 0.07
Slater Martin* MNL 13 0.7 0.068 8.5 0.08
Lew Hitch MNL 13 0.1 0.035 8.5 0.01
Joe Hutton MNL 12 0.3 0.098 8.5 0.04
Jim Pollard* MNL 11 0.9 0.096 8.5 0.11
Howie Schultz MNL 12 0.1 0.051 8.5 0.01

So, Mikan got 28% of the title.

I also did it by wins, so you would have to be positive to earn shares, so you don't earn shares just for showing up. I took the WS/48 x minutes, and back out anything
below .100 per player, or .500 for a team. I dont want to give credit to Slater Martin above as he was at .340, so not really helping the tean win.



Player Tm G WS WS/48 weight Team Share
George Mikan* MNL 13 2.4 0.206 58.62 126.2 0.465
Vern Mikkelsen* MNL 13 1.9 0.180 39.60 126.2 0.314
Pep Saul MNL 13 1.5 0.139 20.67 126.2 0.164
Bob Harrison MNL 12 0.6 0.131 7.29 126.2 0.058

So here, we are giving Mikan a bigger share, as well as Mikkelsen, but giving no credit to Jim Pollard, Martin. etc., as they weren't really helping the team win.
I like this approach better, but have it both ways.

So the Top years look mostly like we expect - Doctor J in the ABA, Connie Hawkins in ADA, Wade, Bord, Jordan, James, Shaq/ Probably a surprise with Cliff Hagan.
Russell a couple of times:


] Player Tm G WS WS/48 weight Team Share
1976 ABA Julius Erving* NYA 13 3.7 0.321 121.77 130.3 0.935
2000 NBA Shaquille O'Neal* LAL 23 4.7 0.224 124.00 141.8 0.875
1958 NBA Cliff Hagan* STL 11 2.7 0.312 88.62 109.9 0.807
1968 ABA Connie Hawkins* PTP 14 4.0 0.310 129.36 189.7 0.682
1984 NBA Larry Bird* BOS 23 4.7 0.236 130.70 197.0 0.663
2006 NBA Dwyane Wade MIA 23 4.8 0.240 134.26 207.6 0.647
2003 NBA Tim Duncan* SAS 24 5.9 0.279 182.76 300.0 0.609
1962 NBA Bill Russell* BOS 14 3.6 0.257 105.50 174.4 0.605
1993 NBA Michael Jordan* CHI 19 4.4 0.270 133.11 234.6 0.567
2002 NBA Shaquille O'Neal* LAL 19 3.8 0.236 105.54 186.4 0.566
1983 NBA Moses Malone* PHI 13 2.8 0.260 83.84 148.5 0.565
2012 NBA LeBron James MIA 23 5.8 0.284 180.87 327.2 0.553
1954 NBA George Mikan* MNL 13 3.5 0.391 123.38 224.5 0.550
1965 NBA Bill Russell* BOS 12 3.3 0.286 104.35 195.0 0.535
2019 NBA Kawhi Leonard TOR 24 4.9 0.249 139.91 261.5 0.535
1955 NBA Dolph Schayes* SYR 11 1.8 0.242 51.55 97.0 0.531
1994 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* HOU 23 4.3 0.208 106.81 203.9 0.524

But if we add them all up for all the years, we get most of the usual suspects:

WS/48

Bill Russell* 3.50
Michael Jordan* 2.79
Magic Johnson* 2.01
Tim Duncan* 1.91
LeBron James 1.86
Shaq 1.78
Sam Jones* 1.66
Larry Bird* 1.49
Kobe Bryant* 1.37
Julius Erving* 1.35
George Mikan* 1.34
John Havlicek* 1.33
Kareem 1.31

With Mikan being below where he should be due to a 1952 cutoff here.

But again, who do I get contributing to championships - Sam Jones. And yes he is helped by being on the Celtics, but he is also contributing to them winning. Note he gets a 24% share 4 times.




Player Tm G WS WS/48 weight Team Share
1964 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 10 2.1 0.290 67.64 141.0 0.480
1963 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 13 1.9 0.206 47.70 141.4 0.337
1966 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 17 2.2 0.179 47.56 157.4 0.302
1965 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 12 2.0 0.195 47.03 195.0 0.241
1961 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 10 1.0 0.194 24.25 193.0 0.126
1962 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 14 1.5 0.143 21.67 174.4 0.124
1959 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 11 0.6 0.144 8.45 161.3 0.052
1960 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 13 0.4 0.098 - 177.8 -
1968 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 19 1.1 0.074 - 144.9 -
1969 NBA Sam Jones* BOS 18 0.7 0.069 - 134.9 -

Note no credit for 3 years where he didnt contribute enough. But a key contributor on 4 teams, and a contributor on 7.

PS - if I do it by win shares alone, with minutes the all-time list helps guys who were on a lot of championships like Horry and does help Sam Jones.

WS/48 WS

Bill Russell* 3.50 2.89
Michael Jordan* 2.79 1.77
Sam Jones* 1.66 1.52
Tim Duncan* 1.91 1.28
Magic Johnson* 2.01 1.28
John Havlicek* 1.33 1.24
LeBron James 1.86 1.19
Kobe Bryant* 1.37 1.14
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 1.31 1.08
Scottie Pippen* 0.95 1.02
Shaquille O'Neal* 1.78 1.02
Tom Heinsohn* 0.82 1.00
Robert Horry 0.96 0.97
Julius Erving* 1.35 0.96
Larry Bird* 1.49 0.89
Frank Ramsey* 1.08 0.87
George Mikan* 1.34 0.84


In the end, Jones contributed a lot to many championships, and should be included as a Top 50 player.


1. Sam Jones
2. Dave Cowens - dominant player in regular season, plus key player on two title teams.
3. Paul Pierce

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:44 pm
by Cavsfansince84
DQuinn1575 wrote:

In the end, Jones contributed a lot to many championships, and should be included as a Top 50 player.


1. Sam Jones
2. Dave Cowens - dominant player in regular season, plus key player on two title teams.
3. Paul Pierce


Pierce is already voted in bro.

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:55 pm
by Odinn21
DQuinn1575 wrote:In the end, Jones contributed a lot to many championships, and should be included as a Top 50 player.

Yes, Sam Jones contributed to many championships. But I don't think that alone would earn him enough to put him in the top 50.
Dwight Howard got his only ring as a role player. Does this situation make Howard less deserving of top 50 compared to Sam Jones?
Similar with Ray Allen or other players went out without a ring? What about Kevin McHale, arguably bigger roles and certainly better performances in 2 title runs, middle of the road?

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49

Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:52 pm
by DQuinn1575
Odinn21 wrote:
DQuinn1575 wrote:In the end, Jones contributed a lot to many championships, and should be included as a Top 50 player.

Yes, Sam Jones contributed to many championships. But I don't think that alone would earn him enough to put him in the top 50.
Dwight Howard got his only ring as a role player. Does this situation make Howard less deserving of top 50 compared to Sam Jones?
Similar with Ray Allen or other players went out without a ring? What about Kevin McHale, arguably bigger roles and certainly better performances in 2 title runs, middle of the road?


McHale
1981 - 18 mpg in playoffs
1984 - BPM 1.1, VORP 0.5, WS/48 .142

really hard to say McHale had a better performance in 2 title runs - even if you call 86 better, Jones has about 5 years better than either of the other two.

So I feel pretty good about Jones over McHale.

Howard is a tough call. It's a question of regular season performance and playoffs, and how to balance it. I'm leaning towards Jones, but again it's a tough call when to weigh the contributions to titles.