RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #70 (Wes Unseld)

Post #1 » by **trex_8063** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:31 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. Kevin McHale
53. Manu Ginobili
54. Dave Cowens
55. Adrian Dantley
56. Sam Jones
57. Bob Lanier
58. Dikembe Mutombo
59. Elvin Hayes
60. Paul Arizin
61. Anthony Davis
62. Robert Parish
63. Bob Cousy
64. Alonzo Mourning
65. Nate Thurmond
66. Allen Iverson
67. Tracy McGrady
68. Alex English
69. Vince Carter
70. ???

Target stop time 10-11am EST on Monday.
REMINDER: Please list your order among candidates receiving votes if you haven't already in very recent threads OR if you change your order.

Spoiler:

Post #2 » by **trex_8063** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:58 pm

1st vote: Wes Unseld
Solid [but not great] post defender and team defender (smart in his positioning, physical, and near-impossible to move if he didn't want to be moved; solid box-out big, too). Possible GOAT in screen-setting and outlet passing, as has been often stated. Efficient low-volume scorer, definitely one of the better passing bigs left on the table, and an offensive rebounding threat. Seemingly a model teammate and certainly one of the better intangible leader-types left on the table.

He's ever a hard one to peg, but obviously held in high esteem by his peers [look no further than his dubious MVP award, which [unless I'm mistaken] was voted on by the players at that time]. And he's right there at [or near] the helm of what was arguably THE team of the 1970s.

Considering his full legacy, it certainly seems we're more or less at point where he deserves VERY serious traction.

2nd vote: Dominique Wilkins
Based on rate-metrics he actually appears superior to [at least in rs] English, who went #68; and he has similar longevity.

On Wilkins' impact [focus on offense] during his prime......

Atlanta Hawks rORtg and league rank during Nique’s prime
‘86: +0.7 rORTG (11th/23)
‘87: +4.3 rORTG (4th/23)
‘88: +3.3 rORTG (5th/23)
‘89: +4.4 rORTG (4th/25)
‘90: +4.9 rORTG (4th/27)
‘91: +3.0 rORTG (8th/27)
‘92: -0.9 rORTG (16th/27)***
***Important to note Nique missed 40 games this^^^ year. They were +0.8 rORTG in the 42 games he played, -2.6 rORTG in the 40 he missed.
‘93: +1.3 rORTG (10th/27)
‘94: +0.9 rORTG (12th/27)**
**Nique traded away late season, played 49 games for Hawks that season. They were a +3.3 rORTG before the trade, -1.5 rORTG after the trade. The Hawks were then a -1.7 rORTG in '95.

Below is his primary supporting cast in descending order of playing time for that 5-year stretch in which they were above +3.0 rORTG each year.....
'87: Kevin Willis, Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Tree Rollins, Jon Koncak
'88: Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Kevin Willis, Tree Rollins, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb, John Battle
'89: [late prime/early post-prime] Moses Malone, Reggie Theus, Doc Rivers, Cliff Levingston, John Battle, Jon Koncak, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb
'90: Moses Malone (post-prime), Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Cliff Levingston, Doc Rivers, John Battle
'91: Doc Rivers, Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Jon Koncak, Moses Malone (35 yrs old, very post-prime), John Battle

Dominique Wilkins with/without records in prime
‘86: 49-29 (.628) with, 1-3 (.250) without
‘87: 56-23 (.709) with, 1-2 (.333) without
‘88: 48-30 (.615) with, 2-2 (.500) without
‘89: 51-29 (.638) with, 1-1 (.500) without
‘90: 39-41 (.488) with, 2-0 without
‘91: 43-38 (.531) with, 0-1 without
‘92: 22-20 (.524) with, 16-24 (.400) without
‘93: 39-32 (.549) with, 4-7 (.364) without
‘94: 42-32 (.568) with, 4-5 (.444) without
TOTAL: 389-274 (.587)---on pace for 48.1 wins---with him; 31-45 (.408)---on pace for 33.5 wins---without him. Avg +14.7 wins added.

:dontknow:

Previous suggestions of him as an "empty calorie" stats guy don't seem to hold water for me. Their offense seems to ride heavily on him [and sorta fell apart without him]......or at least close enough that, in combination with his decent longevity, he deserves very serious consideration.

3rd vote: Tony Parker
Parker was a significant piece of a number of contenders, fit very well with what the Spurs were doing.
Not a great 3pt shooter, but so quick and adept at breaking guys down off the dribble that during the 10-year period ['05-'14] which might reasonably be called his "extended prime", he managed to get 37.3% of all attempts at the rim, while converting 66.0% of them........as a 6'2" guard who never dunks.
He had[instagram][/instagram] a 20.5 PER and +2.3 BPM over that 10-year span, peaking at 23.4 and +3.6 [twice], respectively (and that includes a sort of sub-par injury-dinged year). That's not too shabby in terms of career value, considering he's got at least four other respectable value-adding seasons in addition to this decade.

His best 7-years RAPMs [added] are in the company of guys like Shawn Marion, Kyle Lowry, Nene Hilario, and late-career Reggie Miller [also used rs AuAPM for '94-'96 where Reggie's numbers are concerned].......which is not bad company.
Best 10-years company?: Ben Wallace, Eddie Jones, Luol Deng, Gary Payton, Andrei Kirilenko, and Paul Millsap. Again, not bad.

So looking at his full profile (box, impact, team-related "legacy", accolades [fwiw], statistical footprint, etc), he's certainly got the resume that warrants plenty of consideration around #70.

Among those who have received votes of any kind, I'm presently going with this order:
Unseld > Wilkins > Parker > Giannis > Marion > Nance > Sheed > Rodman > Jones > Greer > D.Johnson > Walton/Jokic (I need to think more about where I'd have Jokic in relation to Walton, though presently leaning Walton > Jokic; both are outside my top 100 as of 2020, though, so unlikely to be ahead of many players who may come up in Condorcet for me).

For the record, I could see flip-flopping Rodman and Bobby Jones. Also, I could see moving Greer up a pinch to where he could overtake one or both of them.

Post #3 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:04 pm

1. Bobby Jones, NBA history's greatest "glue guy," with super consistency and versatility, although a defensive star instead of an offensive one. Note that Jones has more 1st team All-Defense teams than any other player in history with 11 (2 ABA). He was 1st All-Defense team every year of his career until his final one where he was 2nd team. One of only 4 guys to ever average 2 blocks, 2 steals in a season and the only one not named Hakeem to do it twice (76, 77 with rounding to nearest 10th). Offensively, he was an 10-15ppg guy who, despite not being a post-up big, led the ABA/NBA in fg% three times and was an excellent passer as well. FInished 2nd and 4th in MVP voting in his two highest minute seasons. All this despite asthma that limited his stamina.

2. Giannis -- Very short prime but appreciably more than Bill Walton, the only player with a higher peak left. That and he didn't demand to be one of the highest paid guys in the league for a decade while only making it to the playoffs once.

3.Wes Unseld Was sort of afraid of voting for Wes, because he was the face of my franchise and the most beloved player in Bullets/Wizard history so I was afraid I was ignoring the stats. And the stats aren't that impressive; he was an excellent rebounder, a good passer for a big man, a decent defender though not much of a rim protector once his career advanced and he grew both heavier and with more trouble with his knees, and a pretty low scorer whose prime was in the weakest era of the NBA outside the 50s. On the other end, his teams consistently won (the Bullets were probably the best overall team for the years of his career), his intangibles are off the chart (except among referees, as he was a constant whiner about foul calls), and he is probably the GOAT at two skills that don't show up on the stat sheet, setting picks and throwing the outlet pass, pretty great at blocking out his man on the boards too (played wider than he was and he was pretty wide). His outlet passing in particular was a thing of beauty as he would get a rebound and, already knowing where his teammates were, would fire a pass out to his guards without ever bringing the ball down below his head. I've tried to teach this to my players and not one has ever mastered it. Class act, defensive coach on the floor type, only guy in NBA history other than Wilt to win ROY and MVP the same year as his addition to the Bullets brought them from worst team in the East to the best record in the league (better than Wilt/Baylor/West, Reed and Frazier, Russell and the Celtics, etc.) It's time.

Then I am looking at Mourning, Rodman, <tentatively adding Shawn Marion here as I think he was the co-MVP of those SSOL Suns teams>, Rasheed, Thurmond, Carter, Parker, Nance, Nique, Moncrief, Hawkins, DJ in roughly that order. Those are subject to change and new players to be added. I don't have Walton on my top 100 despite his iconic status (and not sure about Hawkins or even Moncrief either). I don't see Jokic as top 100 without including this year.

Dutchball97 · Post #4 » by **Dutchball97** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:05 pm

1. Giannis Antetokounmpo - Not the best longevity as he's only 26 and needed a few seasons to grow into his own but at this point in the list I'd definitely argue that 4 elite seasons that include solid post-season play every one of those years is really good. We've already voted in players with similar longevity to that and Giannis' peak is nothing to scoff at. He just lacks that one play-off run that cements him as elite in the post-season to place him ahead of the likes of Arizin or AD in my book. That said I do think Giannis' perception suffers from the same thing as Harden and that's the post-season play generally not living up to the standards set by their insane regular season play even though they still perform really well in the play-offs. Giannis had a disappointing post-season last year but he still had a 31.3 PER, .238 WS/48 and 11.2 BPM over 9 games. Bud's schemes not holding up, Bledsoe starting and Middleton seemingly unable to make a shot when Giannis is on the floor with him are the things that I blame more for the Bucks second round exit than I do Giannis' performance.

2. Wes Unseld - I've mainly voted for players with high peaks but I find myself dabbling into longevity cases more around this part of the list. I've voted Parish and Hayes as well based on similar arguments. None of them might have peaked near MVP level but it's not like we're talking about roleplayers either. Unseld played at a high level for over a decade and especially his play-off impact stands out at this point. He has 4 very deep post-season runs in 71, 75, 77 and 78. In every single one of those years he consistently performed at a high level.

3. Nikola Jokic - I might be voting for Jokic for a while but I think he deserves to make the list at least. Jokic' case is very similar to Giannis in my opinion. Both have 4 high level years along with 1 other positively contributing year. While both have 4 great regular seasons it is clear Giannis has the edge up till 2020, which is why I have him ahead. The difference in longevity is just Giannis' first two years when he was barely a replacement level player so if you're fine with Giannis being voted in this range, how can you justify not having Jokic not in your top 100 at all? Their play-off resumes are comparable at this point as well. Giannis has 5.8 WS and 3.4 VORP in the post-season so far compared to 5.5 WS and 3.5 VORP for Jokic. Giannis has reached the play-offs more often (5 times) than Jokic (2 times) but both have 3 play-off series wins at this point. While Giannis has played 10 more games than Jokic, the reason why the numbers are still close is that both of Jokic' runs were arguably better than any of Giannis' play-off outings. I just think this is closer than a lot of people think already.

Ben Wallace > Kevin Johnson > Anfernee Hardaway > James Worthy > Bobby Jones > Rasheed Wallace > Larry Nance > Hal Greer > Tony Parker > Dominique Wilkins > Dennis Rodman > Dennis Johnson > Bill Walton

sansterre · Post #5 » by **sansterre** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:44 pm

1. Rasheed Wallace - I was shocked to have Rasheed jump leaps and bounds over everyone besides McGrady. Pretty much every metric really, really likes him. VORP (which punishes inefficient scoring) only has him slightly above average for this group, but he has the 3rd highest WSCORP and 2nd highest BPCorp. His PIPMCORP is really good, and his WOWYR of +6.0 is the highest of anyone remaining by a good margin (unless you're counting Bill Walton or Sidney Moncrief). So all the box-score driven metrics think fairly well of him, but the impact metrics think he's even better. Don't forget that he had a habit of showing up on teams that were way better than they seemingly should have been, from the '00 Blazers to the '04-05 Pistons. And also let's point out that the '04 Pistons switched from very good to murderous the second they acquired Rasheed. I'm very comfortable with him being here.

Rasheed's rankings on five of my ranking tools, of the 23 players that have been mentioned so far:

BackPicks CORP, 6th of 23
PIPM CORP, 3rd of 22
Win Shares CORP, 10th of 23
VORP CORP, 8th of 21
WOWYR, 3rd of 21

Box-score counting stats like 'Sheed (he shows up as above average at this point) but his biggest showings are in PIPM and WOWYR, both impact stats (one more than the other). In other words, metrics that focus on what a player does to help his team that doesn't show up in the box score think Rasheed is one of the very best players remaining.

I'll be honest, I kind of thought that this site would have more support for him. Was 'Sheed great at any one thing? Nope! His steals and blocks are fine, but neither of them jump off the page. And yet we *know* that his defense was excellent - it just show up in the box score. His offense wasn't efficient, but he spaced the floor and could carry a respectable part of the offense. But it's so clear that his contribution transcends the box score. Here are his AuRPMs starting in '97:

+3.6, +4.8, +7.0, +6.3, +4.6, +4.9, +5.7, +6.4, +3.2, +5.4, +3.9, +4.5, +3.7

Those are some really sweet numbers. To put it in rankings:

35th, 17th, 4th, 7th, 18th, 13th, 7th, 5th, 42nd, 13th, 22nd, 17th, 30th

A 4th, a 5th and two 7ths? That's pretty nuts. That may not sound impressive, but that means that besides Shaq, Duncan and KG, in those years 'Sheed was one of the very best players in the league.

Rasheed Wallace simply did tons of little things to help his team win. The '00 Blazers didn't jump off the page, but they were a butterfly fart from being NBA champions that year. The '04 Pistons went from being a very good team to be an overwhelming champion when they added 'Sheed.

The argument for Rasheed (besides the fact that his longevity is pretty good) is that he was good at so many things that his teams were always way better than you'd guess, and he was incredibly scalable. You know how Draymond Green is great, but the way we really know it is because of his impact metrics (because his box score stuff isn't as impressive)? Rasheed is very similar. Both did way more than their counting stats.

2. Larry Nance - Don't laugh. I know that nobody else has mentioned him (except for TRex bringing his name up to me). But I'm telling you, Larry Nance was considerably better than you think. You know that Bill James observation that people like players who do one thing historically well more than players who are quite good at everything (Lou Brock vs. Ron Santo is a good example - Santo was miles better, but Brock was more historically notable). Anyhow. This applies to Nance particularly. He was an athletic 6'10" power forward who played strong defense. He consistently posted strong defensive stats (Block% above 3.5 and Steal% above 1 for much of his career) and pretty much every metric we have (which are, in fairness, mostly box score driven) really like his defense. But he was no Hakeem or Ewing. He was merely an unusually good defending 4. He also rebounded well, averaging 13+% TRB for most of his career, but he was never great. Just quite good. Passing/ball control? His turnover were low for a big, and his assists were in the "not a liability, but definitely not strong" for a big. His scoring? His usage rate was rarely higher than 22%, and his PP75 were never much above 21-22%. But his efficiency was exceptional, posting seven different seasons with an rTS% above +5, and four above +6. You know who his statistical (not play style, just statistical) comp is? Kevin McHale.

McHale: 30.1k minutes, 22.4% usage, +6.7 rTS, 13.2% Reb, 8.1% Ast, 11.7% TO, 0.6% Stl, 3.2% Blk, +2.4 / +0.1 / +2.5
Nance: 30.7k minutes, 20.6% usage, +4.9 rTS, 13.6% Reb, 11.8% Ast, 11.3% TO, 1.4% Stl, 3.8% Blk, +2.3 / +1.4 / +3.6

They're comparable as rebounders. As passers Nance has a small edge. McHale is clearly the better scorer but Nance (according to box score metrics) was the notably better defender. Now, I'll be the first to admit that McHale's defense is underestimated by DBPM. I'm not trying to suggest that Nance was the better defender necessarily. But if I said "Picture McHale, slightly worse scorer, comparable defender and slightly better passer" . . . that's a pretty good player, right? And I'll stipulate that McHale's scoring took a jump in the postseason where Nance's didn't, but still. McHale got in a while ago. And it's worth mentioning that McHale's WOWYR numbers are fairly humdrum (+3.6 prime) compared to Nance's +5.1 prime.

So if Nance was so good, why is nobody talking about him? Because his teams never won. He was dominant on a series of decent Phoenix teams, and then they traded Nance and immediately took off. That may sound like a bad look for Nance but Phoenix got a haul for him. They basically got West and Corbin (their quality defensive bigs for the next five years) and Dan Majerle while replacing Nance with free agent Tom Chambers. Both teams got what they needed. And in Nance's twilight years (where he was still very good) his Cavs were quite good, breaking 50+ wins several times. But he was never on a team that made the Finals. And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Nance was an excellent all-around player that both impact metrics (WOWYR) and box score metrics think very well of.

3. Ben Wallace - I don't have time to write a ton. Ben and Horace Grant are actually neck and neck in my rankings but I feel like Big Ben is the easier sell here.

R.Wallace > Nance > B.Wallace > Grant > Marion > Unseld > Moncrief > Bosh > A.Hardaway > Parker > Issel > Giannis > Greer > Wilkins > Worthy > B.Jones > Walton > Rodman > Jokic > McAdoo

Hal14 · Post #6 » by **Hal14** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:48 pm

Hal14 wrote:1. Dominique Wilkins
2. Dennis Rodman
3. Dennis Johnson

English just got voted in but he is only barely ahead of Wilkins so Wilkins gets my vote here.

Both Wilkins and English were extremely elite players throughout the 80s - English was the decade's leading scorer while Dominique had higher finishes in MVP voting. Both are right there in that next tier of great players from the 80s after Bird/Magic/Jordan. Both English and Wilkins were absolutely lethal scorers who also helped their team in other ways. Neither had great team success, but it's understandable given the highly competitive era with so many great teams that were stacked with better supporting casts than they had. If either guy carried their teams to the finals they would have been voted in way before now.

As for Rodman, apparently I'm higher on him than others. Rodman was:

-Top 5 rebounder of all time - arguably the best
-Top 5 defender of all time - arguably the best
-In terms of running through a wall to make a play, going all out to help his team, hustle, diving on the floor for loose balls - he's also top 5 of all time in that, arguably the best
-Won 5 titles. Was a top 3 player on his team for 3 of those titles (96-98) and probably a top 3 player on the other 2 (89, 90)..many people even think he should have won finals MVP in 96.

To me, that's good enough to be a top 70 player of all time. Sure, you can say that he couldn't score and that he was a head case who at times caused team turmoil - but that's why he's here and not 20 spots higher.

Love him or hate him, you've got to respect that he was one of the greatest players of all time:

Watch on YouTube

Johnson was one of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time, he was a significant contributor for 3 NBA championship teams and played in 5 NBA finals - all of them as a top 4 player on his team. He was NBA Finals MVP in 79. Bird says Johnson was the best teammate he ever played with - yes that means Bird thinks Johnson was better than both McHale and Parish. Johnson had solid longevity, he was a clutch performer (hit game winning shot to beat Lakers in LA in game 4 of 85 finals, made the game winning layup to beat the Pistons in game 5 of 87 ECF, etc.) he showed the versatility of being able to play both guard positions. Very strong case to be top 70 of all time - and has a strong case that he accomplished more and in terms of being a 2-way player, being clutch and being a winner, Johnson has a strong case for being better than quite a few players who have been voted in to this poll over him.

Post #7 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:30 pm

Are we going to start seeing support for Klay Thompson soon? 8 seasons as one of the best off ball players in NBA history with excellent defense. Very little playmaking or rebounding, not Reggie Miller impressive on the drive or drawing fouls in addition to the relatively short career.

Cavsfansince84 · Post #8 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:43 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Are we going to start seeing support for Klay Thompson soon? 8 seasons as one of the best off ball players in NBA history with excellent defense. Very little playmaking or rebounding, not Reggie Miller impressive on the drive or drawing fouls in addition to the relatively short career.

I've put in some thought on Klay recently and I have to say I am leaning more towards him barely making my top 100 if at all. This is mainly due to me viewing his skills as mostly that of a shooter who can play defense. Even his ts%'s are not that great for a guy lauded as an atg level 3pt shooter who also has had the benefit of maybe playing with the goat gravity/3pt guy. I'd also say that despite playing on some great teams and even having some great games that he was more clearly the 3rd or more likely 4th best player on those teams. So that combined with what I would view as a somewhat short prime are why I'm not close to having him on my current ballot. I don't even have him on my extended 100. I think there's a lot of other guys out there who had bigger overall impact and more complete careers.

sansterre · Post #9 » by **sansterre** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:54 pm

I'm running the stats on another 20 players or so and I'm definitely vaulting a certain sharp-shooting 2 up near the top of my list . . . but it's not Klay.

Post #10 » by **trex_8063** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:07 pm

Cavsfansince84 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Are we going to start seeing support for Klay Thompson soon? 8 seasons as one of the best off ball players in NBA history with excellent defense. Very little playmaking or rebounding, not Reggie Miller impressive on the drive or drawing fouls in addition to the relatively short career.

I've put in some thought on Klay recently and I have to say I am leaning more towards him barely making my top 100 if at all. This is mainly due to me viewing his skills as mostly that of a shooter who can play defense. Even his ts%'s are not that great for a guy lauded as an atg level 3pt shooter who also has had the benefit of maybe playing with the goat gravity/3pt guy. I'd also say that despite playing on some great teams and even having some great games that he was more clearly the 3rd or more likely 4th best player on those teams. So that combined with what I would view as a somewhat short prime are why I'm not close to having him on my current ballot. I don't even have him on my extended 100. I think there's a lot of other guys out there who had bigger overall impact and more complete careers.

Yeah, he's not remotely close to making my ballot anywhere in this project.

*Career +3.2% rTS (good, not great) despite being almost exclusively assisted catch-n'-shoots, while playing most of that a) on a great offensive system, b) with arguably the biggest off-ball gravity threat ever, and c) with a good playmaker.

**VERY limited passing/playmaking SG, as well as being a somewhat poor rebounding SG.

***Only eight seasons under his belt, and only 4-5 of those at a remotely high level.

****Good defensively, yes; but it's not like he was peak-engaged Kawhi out there [which is probably what it would take for me to consider him in this project, all other things being the same].

I'd consider a player like Jeff Hornacek (a little less volume but notably better shooting efficiency, better playmaker, only slightly lesser defender, while having FAR superior effectively longevity) before Klay would show up on my radar.

Post #11 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:27 pm

Mea Culpa, I was overrating him in my head when I saw a thread about him.

Post #12 » by **trex_8063** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:32 pm

Partial quotation from last thread:

sansterre wrote:I normally don't make negative posts about players.

But I think Dominique Wilkins is seriously overrated here.

......

His prime WOWYR of +1.2 is wildly low. I don't think it's a coincidence that the box-score metrics have a lot of respect for him, but the impact metrics are a lot more gun-shy.

Few points re: the bolded....
1) PIPM is a little more bullish on him, though, yes?
2) All impact metrics available for this time period are of questionable/limited efficacy, I think you would agree.
Since the post [of mine] that was partial prompt for your reply was making a point of comparing to English, I might note that English looks quite a bit better than Wilkins via WOWYR, but then a fair bit worse via PIPM.......either one or both are highly inaccurate for that to occur.
From that standpoint, perhaps some stock should be put in box-based metrics, because at least they accurately reflect what they're measuring [even if that isn't actual impact]. Especially given....
3) Wilkins' raw WOWY actually looks pretty good in his prime, as I show in my above post.
You once asked me to explain why the actual WOWY looks so different from the WOWYR score given. I offered some theories, but at this point I'll just turn that question back at you: you tell me.

The burden of proof/explanation is not upon me: I haven't manufactured a metric that attempts to express something. I merely presented some actual WOWY from his prime [and anyone is free to check my homework]. It simply is what it is. You can make sense of it however you wish.

Though I will note: in most years it was a small sample of games missed, but still in EACH AND EVERY ONE [of nine] the record/win% was worse [often by substantial margin] without him.
In the two seasons with significant missed games:
'92 (40 missed games): they were on pace for 43 wins with him, 33 wins without him.
'93 (11 missed games): on pace for 45 wins with him, barely 30 wins without him.

The offensive trends are MORE substantial, as noted.
And finally: there are NOT relevant missed times for major roster components in really ANY of the seasons listed for his prime to otherwise account for the drops/lifts seen in and around his prime (Koncak missed significant time in I believe '88 and '90; 2nd-year Spud Webb [still limited minute bench player] missed some time in '87, iirc....that's basically it).

You can theorize that "oh, a guy who shoots this much and passes that little can't be of much use"; but that doesn't ALWAYS make it so (or at least, not to the degree you may lean toward thinking it is).

Post #13 » by **trex_8063** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:58 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Mea Culpa, I was overrating him in my head when I saw a thread about him.

I assume you're referring to the one comparing him and Rodman?

Even though I'd [in the last thread] offered a pretty scathing review of Rodman, I don't find a Rodman/Klay comp close at all in an all-time sense.

Although again, where Rodman is concerned, he would seem a hard sell near #70 for me if character matters at all [Mr. "character matters"].
If we're looking for guys who appeared a little bigger than their numbers and/or their accolades, I'd suggest Horace Grant [who rates better than Rodman in box-based numbers, in most impact measures (PIPM, RAPM for '97+, and AuPM for <'97, only marginally lesser in WOWYR), who played effectively for longer, and who was not a head-case (but rather was a near-model teammate whose portability seems almost unparalleled)].

Post #14 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:05 am

Character matters, as does defensive effort by the star, because I think it impacts winning. Sometimes there are workarounds that are successful anyway; usually based on outstanding coaching, sometimes on outstanding talent. MJ is a top 3 player of all time despite some serious character flaws, partially because he is just such an outstanding talent, partially because I believe Phil Jackson is the GOAT coach. Nique's Hawks were able to produce good defensive results despite Nique being a lazy defender because Mike Fratello was able to install a defensive ethic in the rest of the team and they could cover for him. Rodman's teams won in Detroit and Chicago despite his (very clear) character flaws. They lost in San Antonio as they were unable to create an effective workaround for that particular group of players. Character matters, talent matters, results matter, that's why we have this thread every few years.

And, of course, the thread is mainly for us. The work of outstanding psychological and economic decision makers like Paul Meehl, Robyn Dawes, and Daniel Kahneman have shown that for almost every variable heavy type analysis field, a simple statistical algorithm has significantly more predictive verity than the opinions of even the top experts in the field. This is true in fields from stock price predictions to medical prognosis for newborns (the Apgar score). Most of us aren't even that expert (I'm certainly not) so my guess is that a formula driven analysis like santerre's is probably going to be more accurate as an actual assessment of greatness than off the cuff analysis like mine.

But, I don't care since, as I said, that isn't the point of these projects. The point is to talk about basketball history and greatness and share our opinions of the people we have seen or read about with a forum of like-minded fans. I'm having fun here, and I want to thank all of you for participating, particularly Trex for running it.

(I know I've said it before but if there is anything I've said here, this is the thing that most bears repeating.)

sansterre · Post #15 » by **sansterre** » Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:20 am

trex_8063 wrote:Partial quotation from last thread:

sansterre wrote:I normally don't make negative posts about players.

But I think Dominique Wilkins is seriously overrated here.

......

His prime WOWYR of +1.2 is wildly low. I don't think it's a coincidence that the box-score metrics have a lot of respect for him, but the impact metrics are a lot more gun-shy.

Few points re: the bolded....
1) PIPM is a little more bullish on him, though, yes?
2) All impact metrics available for this time period are of questionable/limited efficacy, I think you would agree.
Since the post [of mine] that was partial prompt for your reply was making a point of comparing to English, I might note that English looks quite a bit better than Wilkins via WOWYR, but then a fair bit worse via PIPM.......either one or both are highly inaccurate for that to occur.
From that standpoint, perhaps some stock should be put in box-based metrics, because at least they accurately reflect what they're measuring [even if that isn't actual impact]. Especially given....
3) Wilkins' raw WOWY actually looks pretty good in his prime, as I show in my above post.
You once asked me to explain why the actual WOWY looks so different from the WOWYR score given. I offered some theories, but at this point I'll just turn that question back at you: you tell me.

The burden of proof/explanation is not upon me: I haven't manufactured a metric that attempts to express something. I merely presented some actual WOWY from his prime [and anyone is free to check my homework]. It simply is what it is. You can make sense of it however you wish.

Though I will note: in most years it was a small sample of games missed, but still in EACH AND EVERY ONE [of nine] the record/win% was worse [often by substantial margin] without him.
In the two seasons with significant missed games:
'92 (40 missed games): they were on pace for 43 wins with him, 33 wins without him.
'93 (11 missed games): on pace for 45 wins with him, barely 30 wins without him.

The offensive trends are MORE substantial, as noted.
And finally: there are NOT relevant missed times for major roster components in really ANY of the seasons listed for his prime to otherwise account for the drops/lifts seen in and around his prime (Koncak missed significant time in I believe '88 and '90; 2nd-year Spud Webb [still limited minute bench player] missed some time in '87, iirc....that's basically it).

You can theorize that "oh, a guy who shoots this much and passes that little can't be of much use"; but that doesn't ALWAYS make it so (or at least, not to the degree you may lean toward thinking it is).

PIPM is sort of split. The box score metrics love him, ElGee's WOWYR hates him and PIPM has him about average for this group.

You're absolutely right about the questionability of early impact data. And I could totally be wrong about Wilkins.

I just see:

1) super-low passing for a ball-dominant player;
2) weak defensive reputation; and
3) really low WOWYR

and I read that as "this player is definitely worse than his box-score metrics suggest". And he probably is, at least some worse. How much worse exactly is an open question. And the box score metrics (for me) say that he's the best player on the board. I just wanted to bring up some cautionary points (when I started poking around, I didn't expect his TSA/AST to be as bad as it turned out to be).

I almost certainly overstated by characterizing him as "wildly overrated".

Cavsfansince84 · Post #16 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:23 am

penbeast0 wrote:Character matters, as does defensive effort by the star, because I think it impacts winning. Sometimes there are workarounds that are successful anyway; usually based on outstanding coaching, sometimes on outstanding talent. MJ is a top 3 player of all time despite some serious character flaws, partially because he is just such an outstanding talent, partially because I believe Phil Jackson is the GOAT coach. Nique's Hawks were able to produce good defensive results despite Nique being a lazy defender because Mike Fratello was able to install a defensive ethic in the rest of the team and they could cover for him. Rodman's teams won in Detroit and Chicago despite his (very clear) character flaws. They lost in San Antonio as they were unable to create an effective workaround for that particular group of players. Character matters, talent matters, results matter, that's why we have this thread every few years.

And, of course, the thread is mainly for us. The work of outstanding psychological and economic decision makers like Paul Meehl, Robyn Dawes, and Daniel Kahneman have shown that for almost every variable heavy type analysis field, a simple statistical algorithm has significantly more predictive verity than the opinions of even the top experts in the field. This is true in fields from stock price predictions to medical prognosis for newborns (the Apgar score). Most of us aren't even that expert (I'm certainly not) so my guess is that a formula driven analysis like santerre's is probably going to be more accurate as an actual assessment of greatness than off the cuff analysis like mine.

But, I don't care since, as I said, that isn't the point of these projects. The point is to talk about basketball history and greatness and share our opinions of the people we have seen or read about with a forum of like-minded fans. I'm having fun here, and I want to thank all of you for participating, particularly Trex for running it.

I agree with you here for the most part. I let numbers do a lot of the work for me when I rate players which includes box score numbers to a large degree. Then after getting a decent idea of what value their prime years add I then add in intangibles to some degree(which defense and bb iq are part of) and their playoff success. It's like I'm reluctant to downgrade Dominique that much when he ranks 34th all time in vorp and was leading teams which had a decent amount of success. Sure some metrics might not like him that much but when media also are continually voting him top 10 in mvp voting despite his weaknesses it leaves a strong validation of him as a positive player on top of what I saw of him myself.

Cavsfansince84 · Post #17 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:58 am

70. Dominique Wilkins
-7x all nba(1x 1st, 4x 2nd, 2x 3rd), 5x top 10 in mvp voting(high of 2nd)
-10x 25+ppg on usually close to league average efficiency(both below and above)
-ranks 34th all time in vorp, 52nd in win shares
-led teams which won 50+ games 4 straight years during his prime

71. Hal Greer
-7x all nba 2nd team. 9-10 year prime where he is between 20-23ppg on very good efficiency(ts+ between 103 and 106) while being a + defender. Many high scoring playoff runs including the 67 title Sixers that he led in playoff scoring(27.7ppg).

72. Giannis Antetokounmpo
-Perhaps the highest peak of any player left(along with Walton and Jokic) and I am very reserved on ranking any player whose prime is in the 5 years or less range but he's been at such a high level for the last 2 seasons(2 mvps & a dpoy) with another 2-3 strong seasons prior that I have to rank him here. Just an all around unstoppable type of player who I think could do very well in a reduced usage role as well.

73. Parker
74. Jones
75. Unseld
76. McAdoo
77. Lucas
78. DeBusschere
79. Rodman
80. Johnston
81. Cunningham
82. Worthy
83. Cheeks
84. Ben Wallace
85. KJ
86. Hill
87. Mullin
88. Marion
89. Issel
90. Butler
91. DJohnson
92. Moncrief
93. Jokic
94. Dumars
95. Irving
96. Hagan
97. Nance
98. Bellamy
99. Rasheed
100. Richmond

others still considering: Silas, Melo, Price.

HeartBreakKid · Post #18 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:42 am

Criteria

Spoiler:

1) Bill Walton. He is the best player by far here. He was probably a top 3 player in the world during his last couple years in college as well, though I believe this is NBA only. I am quite certain that Bill Walton is a top 20 peak ever. He is a top ten defensive anchor which alone adds more value than anyone left, and his offensive passing can generate very efficient offenses without him needing to score.

2)) Nikola Jokic. #2 vote I'll give to the only guy who is large and passes better than Walton. I'm not a longevity guy but Jokic has actually been a star caliber player for longer than people think. He was greatly underplayed in his 2nd season and Malone was criticized for that even back then. He has 4 seasons of all-star impact and two seasons where I had him as the 2nd best player in the league. I do think his offense is so special from his position that it causes an imbalance that makes him more valuable than two way bigs. His scoring ability might be the best among all the bigs left, and what's great about him is that he doesn't need to score a lot to have impact. Walton's defense is so intense that I can't imagine taking Jokic over that, but everyone else left is a tier or 2 down from either Walton's offense or his defense.

3) Giannis Antetokounmpo - I can see why he isn't getting much traction as he's still young. Though he has 6 seasons of being a good player and 5/6 of them he was all-nba caliber I think. Two well deserved MVP's is nothing to scoff at and even though he is slammed for his playoff failures he still did make the conference finals. I am fairly convinced that his crazy ability to finish in the paint as well as have the handles to get into there produces so much gravity that if he played with another real star you wouldn't be able to just "stay back and let Giannis shoot". As he is now he still requires 3-4 guys jumping in the paint - what if you replaced Khris Middleton with Curry, Bryant, Durant, Pierce etc - these are all guys who were 2nd options or co-anchors of teams. Seems like a lot of players who do not have MVP caliber teammates are held to the same standards as guys with them which does not make sense to me. I can see why me picking Jokic would be controversial, but Giannis seems pretty primed for this type of competition - I don't think he is any less valuable than Anthony Davis, and I am still not sure how Davis winning a title with LBJ convinces people that he is a much better post season player than Giannis.

Unseld > R Wallace > Jones> McAdoo > Nance > Greer> Parker> Wilkins

Post #19 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:48 pm

Thru post #18:

Dominique Wilkins - 2 (Cavsfansince84, Hal14)
Wes Unseld - 1 (trex_8063)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bobby Jones - 1 (penbeast0)
Rasheed Wallace - 1 (sansterre)

About 16 hours left for this one.

Spoiler:

Post #20 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:52 pm

Cavsfansince84 wrote:.

Your extended listing keeps changing thread-to-thread; keeps me on my toes.
I'm not complaining, mind you; I actually dig it: it means you're fluid, considering [presumably] arguments, and constantly reconsidering your order as a result. You're not married to a pre-determined hierarchy which doesn't shift regardless of what you read, and only searching for argumentation that defends it.
I sincerely compliment you for that approach.