RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 (Kevin McHale)

Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,401
And1: 8,084
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 (Kevin McHale) 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:27 pm

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. Charles Barkley
22. Kevin Durant
23. Chris Paul
24. Stephen Curry
25. Bob Pettit
26. John Stockton
27. Steve Nash
28. Dwyane Wade
29. Patrick Ewing
30. Walt Frazier
31. James Harden
32. Scottie Pippen
33. Elgin Baylor
34. John Havlicek
35. Rick Barry
36. Jason Kidd
37. George Gervin
38. Clyde Drexler
39. Reggie Miller
40. Artis Gilmore
41. Dolph Schayes
42. Kawhi Leonard
43. Isiah Thomas
44. Russell Westbrook
45. Willis Reed
46. Chauncey Billups
47. Paul Pierce
48. Gary Payton
49. Pau Gasol
50. Ray Allen
51. Dwight Howard
52. ???

Target stop time will be around 6-7pm EST on Monday.

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:.

Joe Malburg 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:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 29,839
And1: 9,601
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#2 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:40 pm

Players we are (or should be) talking about at this point:

PG -- Bob Cousy, Bob Davies, Kevin Johnson, Tony Parker
SG -- Manu Ginobili, Sam Jones, Hal Greer
SF -- Adrian Dantley, Alex English, Paul Arizin, Tracy McGrady
PF -- 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, Dikembe Mutombo

So,

1. Manu Ginobili -- Limited minutes but reasonable career length and just seemed impressively impactful whenever he was on the court. I'd rate him over Kawhi Leonard for career value at this point in Kawhi's life.
2. Kevin McHale -- Similarly, a second option without great longevity but terrific offensive and defensive skills, willing to take a secondary role and be versatile on a winner.
3. Alex English -- Versatility seems to be a theme here. English doesn't have the stats of Adrian Dantley (though he's close) and probably even Ray Allen looks more impressive in raw stats after adjusting for pace, but English played many roles and always made his teams better no matter what role Denver played him in. One of the most underrated players in history despite having scored more in the 80s than Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Dominique Wilkins, Adrian Dantley, or well, anyone else in the game. Also won numerous citizenship awards, one of the great people to play the game.
---
Then: Adrian Dantley
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Cavsfansince84
RealGM
Posts: 14,574
And1: 11,168
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#3 » by Cavsfansince84 » Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:42 pm

52. 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

53. 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)
-10x nba champ
-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).

54. Anthony Davis
-7 year prime imo at this point which I think on average is the strongest perhaps by far of any remaining player
-great athlete and combination of inside scoring/finishing, outside shooting, shotblocking and defense which is going to translate to any era
-4x all nba 1st team
-4x all defensive(2x 1st, 2x 2nd)
-4x top 10 in mvp voting(high of 3rd)
-ranks 12th in career bpm
-ranks 11th in career ws/48
-3x nba leader in bpg
-career 23.9ppg scorer on 107 ts+
-career playoff bpm of 7.4 would rank 6th all time if he qualified(only 3 playoff runs)
-1x champ
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,940
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#4 » by Odinn21 » Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:47 pm

52. 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.


53. Kevin McHale
His peak was great. His prime duration was rather short but he's one interesting case that even though his regular season longevity doesn't stand out, his postseason longevity definitely does.

54. Dikembe Mutombo
I think it's OK to reward him for being one of the biggest defensive forces we've ever seen. Unlike Ben Wallace, he wasn't a limited player with negative impact on offense until later in his career.
I feel like some of the options in the pool lack some certain aspects for my criteria.
For example Reed and Walton suffer from prime duration and overall longevity issues.
I feel like Ginobili and Jones are getting mentions due to heavy winning bias, a bit too much for thinking.
The serious contenders for me right now are Mutombo, Cowens, Parish and Greer with Thurmond being a dark horse. For this ballot, I favoured Mutombo over the others right now but it can change in the future, it's not set in stone yet.

---

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.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#5 » by sansterre » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:00 am

Does anyone know of any strong evidence for Mutombo's defense moving the needle? Obviously it did, but how much? BPM takes a fairly dim view of steals, but AuRPM gives Mutombo several very strong seasons, and his WOWYR is bonkers. I would really like to give him some love, but I'm cautious about voting players that BPM is so meh about. I know he was better than BPM says; I just don't know how much better.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
Cavsfansince84
RealGM
Posts: 14,574
And1: 11,168
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#6 » by Cavsfansince84 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:06 am

sansterre wrote:Does anyone know of any strong evidence for Mutombo's defense moving the needle? Obviously it did, but how much? BPM takes a fairly dim view of steals, but AuRPM gives Mutombo several very strong seasons, and his WOWYR is bonkers. I would really like to give him some love, but I'm cautious about voting players that BPM is so meh about. I know he was better than BPM says; I just don't know how much better.


Mutombo v Thurmond seems like a debate worth having.
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,870
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#7 » by euroleague » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:11 am

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.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,401
And1: 8,084
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#8 » by trex_8063 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:16 am

1st vote: Kevin McHale
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.


2nd vote: Robert Parish
Parish was an entirely fine two-way player. While I think he’s somewhat more remembered for his offense, he was also a very capable defender thru much of his career (especially early on).

For example, during his first SEVEN seasons in the league......
*He never averaged less than 2.8 blocks per 100 possessions (and as high as 4.4).
**In both ‘79 and ‘81 he was 4th in the league in bpg despite playing just 31.7 and 28.0 mpg; was 5th in ‘82 while playing just 31.7 mpg, too.
***He had a cumulative 97 DRtg, leading the league in DRtg in ‘79; had a DRtg in the top 8 four times (three times in the top 3).

Offensively, he was a 7-footer who ran the floor pretty well, while being a competent finisher (making him one of the more notable transition threats among the centers of his era). He was a very very good low-post scorer (could utilize a little hook shot, or that crazy high-arcing turnaround of his), and also had a tiny bit of range (out to about 12-14 feet, anyway, he was quite effective).
Was an entirely decent FT-shooter for a big-man (72.1% for his career).
The primary reason he was averaging just 16-20 ppg during his prime was because he was playing on an extremely stacked team thru most of it. I've little doubt Parish could have avg ~23-24 ppg for a less talent-laden club.

While I don’t think Parish could have been “the man” on a contender, I think we’re well past the point on the list where that is a necessary consideration. Especially when one has the kind of longevity that Parish had: he had a prime that basically lasted 13 years (>1,000 rs games), and five other seasons as decent role player of varying (but certainly relevant) value; only 3 seasons (years 19-21) that were of negligible or nil value.

While he couldn’t have been #1 on a contender, he certainly could have been the #1 on a 40-45 win playoff participant. I think this was more or less proven in '89 when Bird missed the entire season: Parish was arguably the best player [and a worst a "1B"] on a 42-win team.....this was at age 35 (the single-oldest man on the Celtic roster). No Bird to feed him, but old-man Parish still averaged 18.6 ppg @ +7.0% rTS, to go with 12.5 rpg and 1.5 bpg.

And he was capable of being the #2 on a contender. Indeed, he WAS either the 2nd or 3rd best player on MULTIPLE contenders.
He’s got one ring as the clear #2 ('81), another as---at worst---the #2B ('84), a third ring as the clear #3 ('86), and then a 4th ring as a sparsely used limited-value bench player ('97).

He was 7th in MVP voting in ‘81, 4th in MVP voting in ‘82.

A look at his prime production…….
Robert Parish (‘79-’91) (13 years: 1022 rs games!)
Per 100 (rs): 25.8 pts, 15.6 reb, 2.5 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.5 blk with 3.6 tov @ 58.4% TS
PER 20.2, .168 WS/48, 113 ORtg/102 DRtg (+11) in 32.4 mpg
Playoffs Per 100: 22.9 pts, 13.9 reb, 1.9 ast, 1.2 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.2 tov @ .551 TS%
PER 16.5, .121 WS/48 in 34.9 mpg

Robert Parish (full career)
Per 100 (rs): 24.6 pts, 15.5 reb, 2.3 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.5 tov @ .571 TS%
PER 19.2, .154 WS/48, 111 ORtg/102 DRtg (+9) in 28.4 mpg
**And note this is over 21 years, 1611 rs games (more than any other player in history)
Per 100 (playoffs): 22.6 pts, 14.2 reb, 1.9 ast, 1.2 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.1 tov @ .547 TS%
PER 16.6, .121 WS/48, 109 ORtg/105 DRtg (+4) in 33.6 mpg

Career rs WS: 147.0 (#26 all-time)
Career playoff WS: 15.6 (#39 all-time)
9-Time NBA All-Star
2-Time All-NBA (1x 2nd, 1x 3rd)

That’s an awful lot of career value, imo.

^^^These first two picks are the easy ones for me. McHale and Parish are the last two players on the table who are INSIDE my own top 50; there's then a small gap to everyone else who's left on the table.
Among them, I'll go with.....


3rd vote: Bob Lanier
A big body with sweet shooting touch in the mid and close ranges, very good rebounder, fair passing big. Sporadically [like in '74] was a good defensive big, though overall probably not so much. But when looking at his production, efficiency, and signs of lift, as well as his totally decent longevity (generously might be said to have had a 9-year prime [so so], but 14 mostly durable seasons in which he was ALWAYS good).......he seems like a worthy candidate for this stage.

From '72-'80 (extended prime) he averaged roughly 28 pts/100 possessions [give or take a couple tenths], ~14.4 reb/100, and ~4.2 ast/100 @ +4.2% rTS with a fair/respectable big-man turnover economy [based on '78-'84].
This is all while averaging 37.4 mpg thru those 9 seasons.

In '74 he averaged 1.6 steals and 3.7 blocks per 100 possessions with a 27.1% DREB%, anchoring a -3.9 rDRTG [3rd of 17 teams]. He had both the league's best individual DRtg AND the league's best DBPM (this was a league that contained Dave Cowens and Kareem).

Granted, that year appears like a completely outlier for him [defensively], but it's still worth acknowledging.

His WOWYR is more than strong for this stage of the list, with a prime WOWYR of +5.4 (career WOWYR of +5.8).
This jives with some of my own more crude WOWY studies for Lanier [omitted his first four years since he only missed four games TOTAL in that span]......
With/Without Records and Wins added per season (pro-rated to 82 games)
‘75: 39-37 (.513) with Lanier, 1-5 (.167) without him/+28.4 wins
‘76: 30-34 (.469) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+11.1 wins
‘77: 38-26 (.594) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+21.4 wins
‘78: 31-32 (.492) with Lanier, 7-12 (.368) without him/+10.2 wins
‘79: 21-32 (396) with Lanier, 9-20 (.310) without him/+7.1 wins
‘80 Pistons: 9-28 (.243) with Lanier, 5-12 (.294) without
‘80 Pistons overall before trading Lanier for Kent Benson): 14-40 (.259)
‘80 Pistons after trade: 2-26 (.071)
‘80 Bucks before obtaining Lanier: 29-27 (.518)
‘80 Bucks after obtaining Lanier: 20-6 (.769) (Lanier played all 26 games)
‘81: 48-19 (.716) with Lanier, 12-3 (.800) without him/-6.9 wins
‘82: 53-21 (.716) with Lanier, 2-6 (.250) without him/+38.2 wins

The above data spans eight years, SIX different head coaches, and a fair amount of supporting cast turnover, fwiw.

He always took a back seat to some of the other great centers of his day, as he just never seemed to be on a team that could generate the narrative. I'll back-track to that '74 season, because it was a pretty impressive accomplishment (almost a "carry-job", I would say [and I HATE that term, and feel it's way over-used])......but they won 52 games with a +4.02 SRS [2nd of 17] with just Lanier, post-injury Dave Bing, and nothing much behind that [Curtis Rowe was probably the 3rd-best player].
They lost in the first round, though it was in 7-games to 54-win +3.20 SRS Bulls team that boasted Chet Walker, Jerry Sloan, Bob Love, and Norm Van Lier; and the Pistons actually outscored them by 2.3 ppg in the series. The Piston victories were by 9, 14, and 4; while their losses were by 5, 1, 4, and 2.
sansterre would probably say they merely lost a coin-toss, or even that they may have been the marginally better team.


Anyway, that's who I think I'm going with. Next up for me is probably Manu.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,401
And1: 8,084
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#9 » by trex_8063 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:20 am

sansterre wrote:Does anyone know of any strong evidence for Mutombo's defense moving the needle? Obviously it did, but how much? BPM takes a fairly dim view of steals, but AuRPM gives Mutombo several very strong seasons, and his WOWYR is bonkers. I would really like to give him some love, but I'm cautious about voting players that BPM is so meh about. I know he was better than BPM says; I just don't know how much better.


His DRAPM [which is likely the best all-around tool available] is bonkers, too.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,940
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#10 » by Odinn21 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:43 am

sansterre wrote:Does anyone know of any strong evidence for Mutombo's defense moving the needle? Obviously it did, but how much? BPM takes a fairly dim view of steals, but AuRPM gives Mutombo several very strong seasons, and his WOWYR is bonkers. I would really like to give him some love, but I'm cautious about voting players that BPM is so meh about. I know he was better than BPM says; I just don't know how much better.

The Nuggets went from being the dead last to being average on defense in Mutombo's rookie season.

Here's a quick recap;

1991 Nuggets; -10.31 SRS (27th), +6.8 rDRtg (27th) [the 2nd worst SRS in the season was -6.27]
Mutombo joins as a rookie
1992 Nuggets; -7.59 SRS (27th), +0.4 rDRtg (13th) [the 2nd worst SRS in the season was -7.47]
1993 Nuggets; -2.14 SRS (21st), -1.7 rDRtg (8th)
1994 Nuggets; +1.54 SRS (16th), -4.0 rDRtg (5th)
The team makes the playoffs and upsets the 63W (+8.68 SRS, 1st in SRS Sonics) with Deke's defense and the team also forces a game 7 against the 53W Jazz (+4.10 SRS)
1995 Nuggets; +0.96 SRS (13th), -0.1 rDRtg (14th)
The team gets swept by the Spurs in the 1st round. Mutombo does a good job on Robinson. Though I don't recall why Mutombo played and shot so little in that series.
1996 Nuggets; -2.62 SRS (19th), +0.5 rDRtg (17th)
The team misses the playoffs.

1996 Hawks; +1.29 SRS (14th), +0.4 rDRtg (16th)
Mutombo joins the team in the middle of his prime.
1997 Hawks; +5.52 SRS (5th), -4.4 rDRtg (3rd)
The team gets past the Pistons in the 1st round after Deke's massive performance (18.2 ppg on .745 ts, +21.4 rts), then they fall short to the historic Bulls in 5.
1998 Hawks; +3.85 SRS (8th), -0.7 rDRtg (13th)
The team loses to the Hornets in the 1st round, mediocre performance from Mutombo.
1999 Hawks; +2.82 SRS (8th), -5.1 rDRtg (2nd)
Another strong performance by Mutombo against the Pistons in the 1st round. Mutombo did a good job against Ewing, but the Hawks were utterly outclassed by the pace Sprewell and Houston brought. Mutombo was .492 ts scorer and the rest of the team was .405 ts.
The Hawks give up on Blaylock and Smith.
2000 Hawks; -5.41 SRS (26th), +3.8 rDRtg (25th)
The team misses the playoffs.

2001 Sixers; they were doing OK with Ratliff in 2000 and also in 2001 regular season, in fact their Rtg numbers got worse with Mutombo in 2001 regular season. But NPI-RAPM has Mutombo in the top 7-8 percentile in general and he was in the top percentile in D-RAPM.
In the playoffs, Mutombo was massive though. Especially against the Bucks in the ECF. He had a series like he did against the Pistons in 1997. 16.6 ppg on .577 ts (when the rest of the team scored on .462 ts). One could make a case for Mutombo being the best Sixer over Iverson in that series.
He was almost 35 by this point.

I'm not sure how you'd like to interpret this recap but I think it's quite impressive. He proved his defensive qualities in many different situations. The only significant dip in there was 2000 Hawks season but it was like Draymond Green's season without Curry and Thompson, it was hard to care. I remember some vague games of that Hawks team and I thought how disorganized they are at the time. But I wasn't a full-time follower back then, so, I might be off with 2000 Hawks season.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 20,785
And1: 19,192
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#11 » by Hal14 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:51 am

Odinn21 wrote:52. 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.


53. Kevin McHale
His peak was great. His prime duration was rather short but he's one interesting case that even though his regular season longevity doesn't stand out, his postseason longevity definitely does.

54. Dikembe Mutombo
I think it's OK to reward him for being one of the biggest defensive forces we've ever seen. Unlike Ben Wallace, he wasn't a limited player with negative impact on offense until later in his career.
I feel like some of the options in the pool lack some certain aspects for my criteria.
For example Reed and Walton suffer from prime duration and overall longevity issues.
I feel like Ginobili and Jones are getting mentions due to heavy winning bias, a bit too much for thinking.
The serious contenders for me right now are Mutombo, Cowens, Parish and Greer with Thurmond being a dark horse. For this ballot, I favoured Mutombo over the others right now but it can change in the future, it's not set in stone yet.

---

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.

Yes, thank you! Agreed 100% on your thoughts on Pierce/Allen/Billups/Ginobili. Billups and Ginobili are so overrated on here.
1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 20,785
And1: 19,192
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#12 » by Hal14 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:54 am

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 for 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.

Gasol already got voted into this poll, but McHale was better IMO because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,000
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#13 » by Dutchball97 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:54 am

1. Manu Ginobili - The main case for Manu is his play-off production. He's 20th in play-off WS and 19th in play-off VORP for his career, both of which is the best of anyone left. While he played relatively low minutes, it's not like he has no significant regular season production to speak of either. In the regular season he's 71st in WS and 39th in VORP. Besides that his 2005 peak is one of the strongest peaks left and is only rivaled by players with significantly worse longevity like Walton and AD. His VORP in the 2005 play-offs is the 31st highest single season play-off VORP, only behind 13 players who were all voted in the top 20 in this project. His single season play-off WS is surprisingly (since WS seems to favor bigs more as well as seasons before 74 being avaiable unlike with VORP) also 31st. Which is only behind AD and Dwight among players still on the table. I definitely understand the criticisms of Manu with him playing on stacked teams, playing low minutes, being inconsistent year to year in the play-offs but for the #52 spot I don't think those criticisms are enough to not vote for someone who has the most play-off production of anyone left, while also having one of the strongest peaks left available.

2. Kevin McHale - He has a similar case as Pau Gasol imo. Not quite an elite first option but he provides more than you can reasonably expect from your second best player, which played a major part in the Celtics' success in the mid 80s. Somewhat similar to Manu as well in that he's a bit inconsistent year to year in the post-season but he's right behind Manu at 21th in career play-off VORP. His regular season longevity is better than Manu and even more than that probably one of the best left available as well but his imo somewhat lower peak makes me slot him just behind Manu (who I had just ahead of Gasol for that matter too). My biggest criticism of McHale is that he wasn't able to bring his incredible 1987 season to a positive conclusion in the play-offs but it only puts him behind Manu and Pau for me in terms of players I'd otherwise probably have him ahead of.

3. Paul Arizin - And he's back on the table. I was just going to put Dwight here at first but when I compare them straight up I simply prefer what Arizin has managed to achieve. Dwight played longer than Arizin and has an edge in career WS but we shouldn't forget why that is. Arizin missed the 52/53 and 53/54 seasons due to military service and 54/55 was of course also effected by it due to needing to get back into rhythm. If you account for that gap that was created more by circumstance than by injury or personal neglect the difference in total career production really doesn't seem too far apart even with Arizin playing significantly less. Dwight's prime is more concentrated because of this but Arizin managed to be a top level player from 51 till 61 with only the military break inbetween. Dwight has a high peak but it's not like Arizin can't compete with that. In terms of the play-offs I also come away thinking Arizin was better.

In the 56 play-offs Arizin beat Dolph Schayes' Nationals. This round did see a big performance from Neil Johnston as well but against #41 Dolph Schayes who also had a solid team around him that doesn't diminish it from being a good win for Arizin since Arizin did outperform Johnston. In the finals against Yardley's Pistons it was a different story. Johnston was infamously outplayed by Pistons center Larry Foust, while Arizin kept up his high level of play and led his team to a 4-1 win in the Finals. In 2009 Dwight has a very good run as well but I do think people look at it with rose tinted glasses. They needed 6 games to beat the Iguodala/Andre Miller led 76ers, they did beat the defending champion Celtics in a tough 7 game series but this looks a lot worse considering KG didn't play and Allen had a bit of a stinker, sure they beat LeBron's Cavs but Dwight didn't outplay Bron or even really came close to it. The difference was the Magic being a deeper team than those dreadful Cavs teams. Once the Magic faced a really strong Lakers team in the finals it became clear they weren't ever truely a contender. Looking at the rest of their play-off careers it looks pretty comparable but Arizin didn't have those first round match ups against teams that had no business even making the play-offs like Dwight had. When faced with strong competition Dwight often had solid but not spectacular results, while Arizin beat some of the best players of All-Time and nearly always showed up in the big moments.

The main reason I decided to go with Arizin here because Dantley and English are starting to get some serious traction as well. No disrespect to Dantley and English but I just don't think they ever reached the level Arizin did and I don't see huge longevity advantages for them over Arizin either. Arizin was top 3 in MVP voting in back to back years, led the league in WS in 52 (ahead of prime Mikan) and led his team to a title in 56, while leading the league in play-off WS. Dantley and English don't have the same play-off resume and neither was ever a top 5 player.

It does make sense to then say why not Cousy? Players like Dantley, English and Sam Jones never made All-NBA first teams or got serious MVP consideration, while Arizin has 3 All-NBA first teams and was a much more serious MVP candidate in multiple years. Cousy got 10 All-NBA first team selections, got serious MVP consideration in more years than Arizin and actually won the award as well so that thought makes sense on first sight. However, when Cousy won MVP in 1957 he had significantly less WS than numbers 2 to 5 in the MVP voting (Pettit, Arizin, Schayes and Yardley). His All-NBA first teams are also not extremely impressive considering his guard competition. The only 'rival' Cousy had for the guard spots was his own teammate Sharman. Meanwhile Arizin had to go up against Pettit, Schayes and Yardley for only 2 first team forward spots.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,401
And1: 8,084
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#14 » by trex_8063 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:00 pm

Thru post #13:

Manu Ginobili - 2 (Dutchball97, penbeast0)
Kevin McHale - 2 (Hal14, trex_8063)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)
Dave Cowens - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Adrian Dantley - 1 (Odinn21)


Probably 24 hours [or just over] left for this one. Hard to say, but I think Manu and McHale are indeed going to be the front-runners; so if it’s not already clear from your ballot, please state your favourite between them [Cavsfansince84, I already know where you stand, thanks].
Also: changed my fav NFL team to reflect my tribe for the upcoming SB. Go Chiefs! :)

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:.

Joe Malburg 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:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
JoeMalburg
Pro Prospect
Posts: 885
And1: 520
Joined: May 23, 2015
     

Thoughts & Votes 

Post#15 » by JoeMalburg » Mon Feb 1, 2021 2:22 am

Players on my board:

Low efficiency, High fan-appeal - Bob Cousy, Allen Iverson

Big Men, Short Careers - Dave Cowens, Wes Unseld, Bill Walton

Still Active and over 80 inches tall - Giannis Antetokounmpo, Anthony Davis

First thought: I have Cousy at #30, so obviously I think he belongs here are real soon after. He checks a lot of boxes that no one left can.

-He has 10 all-NBA first team selections, no remaining player has more than half that many.
-He won a title and the MVP in the same season. He's the only guy left to make that claim in the NBA.
-He was a member of the 25th and 35th anniversary teams, one of the 50 greatest in 1996 and the first superstar little-man in the NBA.

I won't bother arguing about his obvious flaws, especially statistically, but they simply weren't nearly as problematic then as they'd be today and his resume and reputation reinforce that absolutely. I think basing anything on Bob Cousy's shooting percentage is really missing the point.

Iverson is another guy who this community tends to look down upon for an efficiency flaw that was much less of a concern in his era. Despite his inefficiency, he put together a very impressive resume, indisputably better than a few contemporaries who have been selected above him, based on hypothetical projections/suppositions. If we are going to do the hypothetical game, it seems highly probable that a modern Iverson both benefits from the improved spacing and spends much more time developing his three-point shot which would be a much bigger part of his offense you'd have to assume. His efficiency likely improves significantly with the advantage of better strategy and coaching.

Iverson and Cousy both represent for me this community properly pointing some flaws that were probably overlooked too much in their time, but putting much emphasis on them retroactively and punishing these players to an excessive degree.

On to the old centers. 1969 MVP Wes Unseld, 1973 MVP Dave Cowens and 1978 MVP Bill Walton. They all added titles to their resume as star players and team leaders and Walton and Unseld added Finals MVP awards.

The list of guys left with MVP's and Rings as a lead player is pretty short. It's these three and Cousy. And that's what elevates them into this bracket for me. Reaching one of the highest levels of individual success and team success. Walton has the highest peak, followed by Cowens and then Unseld. Unseld has the longest prime followed by Cowens then Walton. I prefer peak to prime and both to longevity, but it's hard to ignore that these guys don't stack up in terms of length of peak, prime or career with most more modern stars being considered right now.

I'm interested in takes on Walton. It seems to me that if just finishes out the 1978 season and the Blazers win the title and then he just has 6-7 more solid healthy seasons where he is at least an all-NBA player, he's a top 10-15 lock. So that's hard to ignore, even though he didn't have the longevity. In just under two prime years he accomplished more all but maybe 10-15 of players in terms of the peak he reached.

With Willis Reed off the board, I expect Cowens to go pretty soon. They are two pretty comparable players in terms of resume from roughly the same era. It's hard for me to separate them too much. I have Reed one spot above Cowens in the late-40's to early 50s range these days.

Unseld I struggle with. Does he belong in the Cowens/Reed/Gilmore class? Or is he better placed with Parish/McAdoo/Lanier/Mourning/Thurmond?

As for the active players remaining on my board, I ask sincerely, how do Ray Allen and Paul Pierce rank above a two-time MVP and a 4-time All-NBA first team player with a ring in a superstar 1B role?

I understand the longevity argument, but you're talking about no all-NBA first teams between the two of them and never better than a 7th or 9th place finish in the MVP race. They are just not the same level players as Davis and Giannis who have been at some point of their career, the best player at their position in the league. Would everyone really rather have a Pierce or Allen career over almost a decade of Giannis or Davis we've had so far?

Anyway, those are my thoughts, here is my vote:


First Vote: Bob Cousy



Second Vote: Bill Walton



Third Vote: Anthony Davis


Ranking Others receiving votes: Cowens, McHale, Manu, Dantley
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,940
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#16 » by Odinn21 » Mon Feb 1, 2021 2:53 am

Coming from the #51 thread because I don't like going on in a done one.

euroleague wrote:I think "greatness" has a little bit less to do with 'career value' than most people in this thread are voting like. Someone who was an all-star for 10 years wasn't an all-time great... but, someone who dominated the entire league as the best player for 1-2 years, cruising to a title and winning MVP before having tragic injuries derail his career - that's great.

Drazen Petrovic was great, despite his untimely death, for example.

First things first, I don't think anyone here is saying Bill Walton wasn't great. He was great without a doubt.

I have an overall career value approach but I'm more of a peak/prime kind of guy. But the fundamental difference between evaluations of peak, I try to think as a fan of the team.

Imagine the following as 1st round exits, 2nd round exits, CF exits, NBA Finals lose, NBA Titles.
Three scenarios across 10 seasons;
A: 6/1/2/1/1
B: 2/6/1/1/0
C: 5/1/2/2/0

All 3 options win 1 more series than their loses. A: 10-9, B&C: 11-10

There's no doubt a fan would want to have option A despite more 1st round exits due to the title.
Between B and C, it's really debatable. Option B would probably have more consistent and better regular season success and they'd still make a trip to the NBA Finals. Option C, OTOH, would have 4 CF appearances to 2, 2 NBA Finals appearances to 1. That's more top heavy and that's what I'd prefer.

However, there are things we take for granted in success. The first and the most important being regular season success and regular season playtime of the superstars.
That's the reason why I'm not high on Walton's '77 and '78 seasons. That's the reason why I'm also not high on Leonard '19 season. The quality is there but it's not worthy as much as the others (some lesser qualities in some cases) if it's not sustainable.

One of the things we take for granted is the time frame. That's why I always try to consider prime duration. 2 seasons of Bill Walton in which he'd miss more than 15 games per season aren't more valuable than 10 seasons of Elvin Hayes who was clearly inferior to Bill Walton but way way more durable.
I chose Hayes as an example because he's on the quite opposite side of the durability scale.
How Walton can be that great (as in top 50ish level great) when his durability took so much away from the results of his quality?
This is not just about Bill Walton BTW. Very similar things can be said for a less popular figure in Willis Reed.

(Unrelated to my arguments; was Bill Walton that great enough over Willis Reed to be put over Reed? Not for me I guess ut very similar players in this regard.)

Let me put these 2 points as this way;
We know how great Kobe Bryant could be when his team isn't a contender, he could play a regular season as if it was the playoffs. We also know how great Kobe Bryant on a contender team.
That applies to many players, not just top 12-15 level talents. We usually get to see superstars and all-stars in winning and non-winning situations.
A superstar that can not afford to be in a non-winning situations due to durability? Yes, that's a con on his part even though he probably doesn't deserve criticism for it (unless it's intangibles related).
Another thing to consider about winning and non-winning situations; non-winning situations are much much more common.

Also, there are always changes in situations and environments to consider. Those changes usually have a huge impact on the context.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,870
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#17 » by euroleague » Mon Feb 1, 2021 3:06 am

Odinn21 wrote:Coming from the #51 thread because I don't like going on in a done one.

euroleague wrote:I think "greatness" has a little bit less to do with 'career value' than most people in this thread are voting like. Someone who was an all-star for 10 years wasn't an all-time great... but, someone who dominated the entire league as the best player for 1-2 years, cruising to a title and winning MVP before having tragic injuries derail his career - that's great.

Drazen Petrovic was great, despite his untimely death, for example.

First things first, I don't think anyone here is saying Bill Walton wasn't great. He was great without a doubt.

I have an overall career value approach but I'm more of a peak/prime kind of guy. But the fundamental difference between evaluations of peak, I try to think as a fan of the team.

Imagine the following as 1st round exits, 2nd round exits, CF exits, NBA Finals lose, NBA Titles.
Three scenarios across 10 seasons;
A: 6/1/2/1/1
B: 2/6/1/1/0
C: 5/1/2/2/0

All 3 options win 1 more series than their loses. A: 10-9, B&C: 11-10

There's no doubt a fan would want to have option A despite more 1st round exits due to the title.
Between B and C, it's really debatable. Option B would probably have more consistent and better regular season success and they'd still make a trip to the NBA Finals. Option C, OTOH, would have 4 CF appearances to 2, 2 NBA Finals appearances to 1. That's more top heavy and that's what I'd prefer.

However, there are things we take for granted in success. The first and the most important being regular season success and regular season playtime of the superstars.
That's the reason why I'm not high on Walton's '77 and '78 seasons. That's the reason why I'm also not high on Leonard '19 season. The quality is there but it's not worthy as much as the others (some lesser qualities in some cases) if it's not sustainable.

One of the things we take for granted is the time frame. That's why I always try to consider prime duration. 2 seasons of Bill Walton in which he'd miss more than 15 games per season aren't more valuable than 10 seasons of Elvin Hayes who was clearly inferior to Bill Walton but way way more durable.
I chose Hayes as an example because he's on the quite opposite side of the durability scale.
How Walton can be that great (as in top 50ish level great) when his durability took so much away from the results of his quality?
This is not just about Bill Walton BTW. Very similar things can be said for a less popular figure in Willis Reed.

(Unrelated to my arguments; was Bill Walton that great enough over Willis Reed to be put over Reed? Not for me I guess ut very similar players in this regard.)

Let me put these 2 points as this way;
We know how great Kobe Bryant could be when his team isn't a contender, he could play a regular season as if it was the playoffs. We also know how great Kobe Bryant on a contender team.
That applies to many players, not just top 12-15 level talents. We usually get to see superstars and all-stars in winning and non-winning situations.
A superstar that can not afford to be in a non-winning situations due to durability? Yes, that's a con on his part even though he probably doesn't deserve criticism for it (unless it's intangibles related).
Another thing to consider about winning and non-winning situations; non-winning situations are much much more common.

Also, there are always changes in situations and environments to consider. Those changes usually have a huge impact on the context.


Not all championships are equal. I consider LeBron's 2016 championship more valuable by far than his 2012/2013 championships. in terms of greatness, winning has different levels, of course.

Bill Walton won in high school, won in college, won in the nba. He didn't lose a game for over 6 years.

Hayes, over his career, is definitely more valuable. But, let's think about it this way - would you rather miss the playoffs 9 times and win once, or get to the 2nd round every year?

Kawhi didn't show that he can succeed in environments not perfectly built around him. Walton succeeded everywhere he went, and built the environment himself. He could do basically every aspect of the game at an elite level.

Kawhi can score, and he can defend. Not much else
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,940
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#18 » by Odinn21 » Mon Feb 1, 2021 3:19 am

euroleague wrote:Not all championships are equal. I consider LeBron's 2016 championship more valuable by far than his 2012/2013 championships. in terms of greatness, winning has different levels, of course.

I don't agree with James' 2016 title being far more valuable than 2012 and 2013, but I agree with that premise. This premise was one of the angles I had in mind about situations and environments.

euroleague wrote:Bill Walton won in high school, won in college, won in the nba. He didn't lose a game for over 6 years.

We're doing this by professional careers though. If we had high school and college balls in mind, I'd put Abdul-Jabbar as my definitive goat and rate Russell ahead of James and Jordan without much thinking.
It's just pro ball though.

euroleague wrote:Hayes, over his career, is definitely more valuable. But, let's think about it this way - would you rather miss the playoffs 9 times and win once, or get to the 2nd round every year?

I already gave an extensive example about this, as how I see these things.

euroleague wrote:Kawhi didn't show that he can succeed in environments not perfectly built around him. Walton succeeded everywhere he went, and built the environment himself. He could do basically every aspect of the game at an elite level.

Kawhi can score, and he can defend. Not much else

Yeah, Leonard's case is definitely weaker than Walton if we look beyond pro careers. What you said about building an environment is also very true and important. The only thing I wouldn't agree with in this part would be Walton being at an elite level in every aspect. His scoring volume wasn't something special, but this is just nitpicking and beside the point.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,870
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#19 » by euroleague » Mon Feb 1, 2021 4:24 am

Odinn21 wrote:
euroleague wrote:Not all championships are equal. I consider LeBron's 2016 championship more valuable by far than his 2012/2013 championships. in terms of greatness, winning has different levels, of course.

I don't agree with James' 2016 title being far more valuable than 2012 and 2013, but I agree with that premise. This premise was one of the angles I had in mind about situations and environments.

euroleague wrote:Bill Walton won in high school, won in college, won in the nba. He didn't lose a game for over 6 years.

We're doing this by professional careers though. If we had high school and college balls in mind, I'd put Abdul-Jabbar as my definitive goat and rate Russell ahead of James and Jordan without much thinking.
It's just pro ball though.

euroleague wrote:Hayes, over his career, is definitely more valuable. But, let's think about it this way - would you rather miss the playoffs 9 times and win once, or get to the 2nd round every year?

I already gave an extensive example about this, as how I see these things.

euroleague wrote:Kawhi didn't show that he can succeed in environments not perfectly built around him. Walton succeeded everywhere he went, and built the environment himself. He could do basically every aspect of the game at an elite level.

Kawhi can score, and he can defend. Not much else

Yeah, Leonard's case is definitely weaker than Walton if we look beyond pro careers. What you said about building an environment is also very true and important. The only thing I wouldn't agree with in this part would be Walton being at an elite level in every aspect. His scoring volume wasn't something special, but this is just nitpicking and beside the point.

I said "basically" ever aspect. His scoring wasn't special, and I agree.

I listed the 6 aspects, of which he was elite in 5:
Scoring, Rebounding, Playmaking/Passing, Controlling the pace, Defense, and Leadership.

I think Kawhi's claim to greatness is almost solely from his Toronto run.. I don't think he was the best player on the Spurs, but nobody gives FMVPs to Tim Duncan - which is ironic, as the Bill Russell Finals MVP never goes to the player who was most like Bill Russell in recent history.
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,000
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #52 

Post#20 » by Dutchball97 » Mon Feb 1, 2021 9:14 am

Lot of biased Kawhi bashing going on yet again, while he's already been off the table for a while now. Move on.

Return to Player Comparisons