RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #72 (Rasheed Wallace)

Post #1 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:12 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. Wes Unseld
71. Tony Parker
72. ???

Target stop time around 9-10am EST on Saturday (may even be a pinch later 'cause it's the one day I can sleep in a little, but I'll try to be close).

Spoiler:

Post #2 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:27 pm

1st 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.

2nd vote: Giannis Antetokounmpo
I'd bumped McAdoo in favour of Giannis; may end up bumping McAdoo further.
Thinking about it, really the ONLY thing I'm comfortable saying McAdoo is better at is shooting [and admittedly he's a good ways better there]. But I think Giannis is at least a tiny bit better and literally everything else (and probably by pretty good margins at things like defense, finishing, and getting to the stripe).

Further, McAdoo's meaningful longevity is barely an edge over Giannis: he seemed to decline so quickly post-merger [or perhaps him struggling to thrive as a superstar post-merger is an indication he wasn't as dominant as '74 and '75 would have us believe?? just being devil's advocate there], and was relatively injury-dinged much of the time.

So yeah, I'm gonna go with Giannis [whose playoff woes are over-blown, imo, though I tend to value rs achievement more than most anyway].

3rd vote: Kevin Johnson
With the scandals in his personal life, it's almost as though the basketball community has turned their heads on this guy [certainly it seems like the only justification for him NOT being in the HOF yet, imo]. His longevity isn't great, but he was a near-monster in his prime.
Only a 3-time All-Star, but right there is a perfect example of how fallable accolades can be.
Take '89 as an example: KJ averaged 20.4 ppg @ +6.0% rTS and 12.2 apg anchoring the 2nd-rated offense [55-win team overall].......did NOT make the All-Star team [though was at least recognized All-NBA 2nd Team that year]. Even after Magic had to bow out of his All-Star appearance due to injury, KJ was NOT selected to replace him [instead they gave an ancient Kareem a legacy nod]. Meanwhile there were also guys like Dale Ellis and Kevin frickin' Duckworth on the West's AS team. :dontknow:

KJ would be at or near the helm of several elite or near-elite offenses: in the 7-year span of '89-'95 the WORST offense seen in Phoenix was a +3.9 rORTG; the best was a +6.2 [average was +5.11 rORTG.......again, that's over SEVEN years].

Among those who have received votes of any kind, I'm presently going with this order:
Wilkins > Giannis > KJ > McAdoo (though waffling, and may drop him even further) > 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.

Odinn21 · Post #3 » by **Odinn21** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:35 pm

72. Rasheed Wallace
This is where it gets psychological. I also have that feeling of having Vince Carter close to McGrady and Iverson. But when I did ordering among the players with traction, McGrady and Iverson were yet to make the list and I had Sheed over Carter. I think that was the more logical decision, so I'm going to stick with it.
I'm big on Sheed's peak and prime. Arguably, they are not as good as Carter's. Carter had a very respective 8 season of 25+ ppg prime with good impact (he was in the top 5% in 14 year RAPM from '99 to '13). Though Sheed's impact was better with the tiniest edge (only 2 player between them). But Sheed's last 3 seasons in Detroit and that 1 season in Boston feel more valuable than what Carter added to his career after 2006-07 season.
A case for Sheed without a comparison to Carter;
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=89482065#p89482065

73. Dominique Wilkins
Well, as one of the highest scoring players in the '80s, Wilkins' rivals felt like they all (Bird, Erving, Gervin, Dantley, King, English) were better than him. Constantly comparing a player to players than him would give a sense of "this player is not that good". But we're at a point that he's not not that good any more. Denying him for further doesn't make much sense to me.
He had a 6-7 seasons of a proper prime. Then he added 2 more valuable seasons to his career after coming back from such injury.
In terms of impact, there are more impactful players. Walton, Jokic, Giannis, but their total career values do not come close enough to pick the better impact players.
The only thing I'd hold against him is he was like Durant in a way, in the playoffs it was rather easy to force him out of his comfort zone and it took a toll on his output and efficiency.

74. Sidney Moncrief
I think we've had Squid flying under the radar a bit too much. Right now, I have him as a placeholder, might change him but I think he should get some recognition at this point.

---

This was on my mind and maybe generates a discussion. What's your biggest disagreements on the list so far?

I disagree with West jumping Oscar but that's a minor one. My strong disagreements are;
- Wade's placement, especially Wade vs. Stockton.
- Billups being that high and being ahead of Pierce, Payton, Allen, Howard, Gasol. I have doubts if Billups should be ranked over Carter and McGrady. He's become a bit too overrated in hindsight IMHO.
- Ginobili but I had already discussed much about him at the time.
- Sam Jones getting overrated due to playing next to Bill Russell and accumulating postseason success and WS (it's insane that one of the driving forces was a flawed statistical concept as WS). We're yet to have a better/similar player with a longer prime in Hal Greer on the list. At least 15, 16 place gap.

By the way, I'm not saying we should reignite those topics. Those are my strong disagreements and curious about yours. That's all.

Dutchball97 · Post #4 » by **Dutchball97** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:52 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. 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.

3. Ben Wallace - Boxscore stats generally don't do defensive specialists justice but even so Ben Wallace still comes out looking very well in stats like WS and BPM. Despite a relatively short 6 year prime Ben still has pretty solid longevity at this point in the list as well. The main factor why I'm voting for him here is his excellent post-season play. 3 consecutive post-season runs with 3+ WS and 1+ VORP is very impressive. That alone would be a strong play-off pedigree at this point but he has multiple other very solid performances in the post-season as well. His pivotal role for the Pistons in some very deep runs and even a championship shouldn't be understated.

Kevin Johnson > Gus Williams > Sidney Moncrief > Anfernee Hardaway > Horace Grant > James Worthy > Bobby Jones > Rasheed Wallace > Jeff Hornacek > Shawn Marion > Larry Nance > Hal Greer > Bob McAdoo > Dominique Wilkins > Dennis Rodman > Bill Walton > Dennis Johnson

Post #5 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:53 pm

Odinn21 wrote:74. Sidney Moncrief
I think we've had Squid flying under the radar a bit too much. Right now, I have him as a placeholder, might change him but I think he should get some recognition at this point.

I see you've bailed on Giannis in favour of Moncrief. Can I still assume Giannis would rank ahead of the other tractioned candidates [and that your previously stated order otherwise stands]?

Odinn21 wrote:
This was on my mind and maybe generates a discussion. What's your biggest disagreements on the list so far?

I disagree with West jumping Oscar but that's a minor one. My strong disagreements are;
- Wade's placement, especially Wade vs. Stockton.
- Billups being that high and being ahead of Pierce, Payton, Allen, Howard, Gasol. I have doubts if Billups should be ranked over Carter and McGrady. He's become a bit too overrated in hindsight IMHO.
- Ginobili but I had already discussed much about him at the time.
- Sam Jones getting overrated due to playing next to Bill Russell and accumulating postseason success and WS (it's insane that one of the driving forces was a flawed statistical concept as WS). We're yet to have a better/similar player with a longer prime in Hal Greer on the list. At least 15, 16 place gap.

By the way, I'm not saying we should reignite those topics. Those are my strong disagreements and curious about yours. That's all.

I don't want to derail too far in this direction, but I'll play....

I have several disagreements, though in the majority of instances I know where it's coming from: my outlier(ish) view on the value of meaningful longevity (and perhaps to a lesser degree: a reduced emphasis [compared to many] on the playoffs).

Directly related to those philosophical differences in criteria......
*I actually think both Stockton and Karl should have gone in a little HIGHER than they did.
**I think Parish should have gone substantially higher, too.
***Artis Gilmore could have gone higher.
****I think Kawhi went TOO high.
*****I think Willis Reed went way too high (Walt Frazier a pinch too high for that matter).
******Although a couple posters were contentiously upset at his placement already, I'd actually have Curry a bit LOWER (behind guys like Stockton, Ewing, Nash, and Wade); though it looks as though he's likely to nudge ahead of at least 2-3 [maybe all 4??] of them after '21.

But probably the two placements I disagreed with the most were two for whom it can't easily be explained away based on things like longevity [because they both had merely middle-of-the-road longevity]: Sam Jones and George Gervin. I think both of them went in way too soon.

Dutchball97 · Post #6 » by **Dutchball97** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:03 pm

Odinn21 wrote:
This was on my mind and maybe generates a discussion. What's your biggest disagreements on the list so far?

I disagree with West jumping Oscar but that's a minor one. My strong disagreements are;
- Wade's placement, especially Wade vs. Stockton.
- Billups being that high and being ahead of Pierce, Payton, Allen, Howard, Gasol. I have doubts if Billups should be ranked over Carter and McGrady. He's become a bit too overrated in hindsight IMHO.
- Ginobili but I had already discussed much about him at the time.
- Sam Jones getting overrated due to playing next to Bill Russell and accumulating postseason success and WS (it's insane that one of the driving forces was a flawed statistical concept as WS). We're yet to have a better/similar player with a longer prime in Hal Greer on the list. At least 15, 16 place gap.

By the way, I'm not saying we should reignite those topics. Those are my strong disagreements and curious about yours. That's all.

Most placements I can understand because each voter values peak/prime vs longevity differently. I'd have Curry in my top 15 but I can see the longevity reasons why he fell to #24 for example. Similarly to how longevity king Robert Parish fell quite a few spots lower than when the longevity focused voters first brought him up, because of his peak not being that spectacular.

The one guy who I do think is way too high is George Gervin. His peak/prime is pretty strong but not special for the 30s/40s range imo, his longevity isn't the strongest either and he did very little of note in the play-offs. That last point especially is a headscratcher to me. I see play-off performance as at least 50% of the equation so somebody who barely did anything in the post-season getting in at #37 is something I still don't understand the justification for. There were still plenty of guys around with similar peaks, similar or often better longevity and much better post-season showings.

Odinn21 · Post #7 » by **Odinn21** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:55 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
Odinn21 wrote:74. Sidney Moncrief
I think we've had Squid flying under the radar a bit too much. Right now, I have him as a placeholder, might change him but I think he should get some recognition at this point.

I see you've bailed on Giannis in favour of Moncrief. Can I still assume Giannis would rank ahead of the other tractioned candidates [and that your previously stated order otherwise stands]?

Currently, I try to entertain ideas about the players without traction and my initial instinct was having Squid over Giannis. If it's needed, Giannis will top the additional mentions.
I might change it to Giannis though. Moncrief had a 5 or 6 seasons of prime. Though he was a bit like McHale, his trajectory in the playoffs sustained longer. In terms of prime quality, coupled with duration, 6 seasons of prime Squid is good enough to have him over 3.5 seasons of prime Giannis. I've always had him among one of the players whose impact exceeded box numbers.

trex_8063 wrote:
Odinn21 wrote:This was on my mind and maybe generates a discussion. What's your biggest disagreements on the list so far?

I disagree with West jumping Oscar but that's a minor one. My strong disagreements are;
- Wade's placement, especially Wade vs. Stockton.
- Billups being that high and being ahead of Pierce, Payton, Allen, Howard, Gasol. I have doubts if Billups should be ranked over Carter and McGrady. He's become a bit too overrated in hindsight IMHO.
- Ginobili but I had already discussed much about him at the time.
- Sam Jones getting overrated due to playing next to Bill Russell and accumulating postseason success and WS (it's insane that one of the driving forces was a flawed statistical concept as WS). We're yet to have a better/similar player with a longer prime in Hal Greer on the list. At least 15, 16 place gap.

By the way, I'm not saying we should reignite those topics. Those are my strong disagreements and curious about yours. That's all.

I don't want to derail too far in this direction, but I'll play....

I have several disagreements, though in the majority of instances I know where it's coming from: my outlier(ish) view on the value of meaningful longevity (and perhaps to a lesser degree: a reduced emphasis [compared to many] on the playoffs).

Directly related to those philosophical differences in criteria......
*I actually think both Stockton and Karl should have gone in a little HIGHER than they did.
**I think Parish should have gone substantially higher, too.
***Artis Gilmore could have gone higher.
****I think Kawhi went TOO high.
*****I think Willis Reed went way too high (Walt Frazier a pinch too high for that matter).
******Although a couple posters were contentiously upset at his placement already, I'd actually have Curry a bit LOWER (behind guys like Stockton, Ewing, Nash, and Wade); though it looks as though he's likely to nudge ahead of at least 2-3 [maybe all 4??] of them after '21.

But probably the two placements I disagreed with the most were two for whom it can't easily be explained away based on things like longevity [because they both had merely middle-of-the-road longevity]: Sam Jones and George Gervin. I think both of them went in way too soon.

I agree that Kawhi Leonard and Willis Reed went way too high. Reed went in when I wasn't active in the project I think. Around the mid 50s, Willis Reed popped in my head but I thought "nah, way too short of a prime and overall longevity" then saw him at #45 and thought again "how the hell did that happen".

---

Dutchball97 wrote:Most placements I can understand because each voter values peak/prime vs longevity differently. I'd have Curry in my top 15 but I can see the longevity reasons why he fell to #24 for example. Similarly to how longevity king Robert Parish fell quite a few spots lower than when the longevity focused voters first brought him up, because of his peak not being that spectacular.

The one guy who I do think is way too high is George Gervin. His peak/prime is pretty strong but not special for the 30s/40s range imo, his longevity isn't the strongest either and he did very little of note in the play-offs. That last point especially is a headscratcher to me. I see play-off performance as at least 50% of the equation so somebody who barely did anything in the post-season getting in at #37 is something I still don't understand the justification for. There were still plenty of guys around with similar peaks, similar or often better longevity and much better post-season showings.

I feel like if you see Gervin's postseason performances in full, not just highlights, I think you'd feel way differently.

Also I think you're overlooking the fact that playoffs format was different back then.
In '78, he played 6 games but he did not lose in the 1st round. The seeding was different. It was a 2nd round exit and Gervin owned a capable defender in Dandridge so hard in the series, it was totally Gervin's impact that the Spurs almost took the Wizards to a game 7 and the Wizards were more well rounded, better team on overall.
You already know about '79.
He had another monstrous series in '80. I'm very well aware that '80 Rockets were a far different, definitely worse team than '10 Celtics but in terms of that series played out, Gervin was like Wade against the Celtics in '10 playoffs. Massive individual performance and an incapable team.
In '81, similar story with '78, it was a 2nd round exit. Gervin had a decent series. Maybe not as great as the prior 3 seasons but his performance was good.
In '82, he took his team to the conference finals to fall to one of the most complete teams ever.

When you open up Gervin's profile page and see runs with less than 10 games, do you assume he failed to get out of the 1st rounds? As I said, playoffs format was different. Gervin put his team in a position to avoid playing in the 1st round 4 times in 5 season span, '78-'82. 5 seasons, 1 first round exit, 2 second round exits, 2 conference finals exits. Combined with how well Gervin performed in those series, I think you're still too harsh on him.

As far as I can remember, I didn't point out these things to you at the time. If I did, or you see this as moot/unnecessary, feel free to ignore. Cheers.

sansterre · Post #8 » by **sansterre** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:49 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.

And here are the 2004 Pistons, with and without Rasheed:

Games without Rasheed: 37-23, 90.2 PF, 86.8 PA, +3.4 MoV
Games with Rasheed: 17-5, 90.0 PF, 77.3 PA, +12.7 MoV

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 the top average AuRPMs from '99 to '04:

1. Shaquille O'Neal, +7.9
2. Tim Duncan, +6.8
3. Kevin Garnett, +6.8
4. John Stockton, +5.9 (5 of the 6 years)
5. Rasheed Wallace, +5.8
6. David Robinson, +5.8

Nobody else averaged above +5.

Obviously I cherry-picked his prime, but that's a six-year stretch where according to AuRPM he was one of the top 5 players in the league, and the four players above him all made it in the first 26 of this ranking.

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. Jeff Hornacek - "Jeff Hornacek!?" you say. "Jeff Hornacek" I say. There are simply not metrics that he looks bad in. His BackPicks BPM, Win Shares CORP and VORP CORP are all well above average for this group. His PIPM is a little underwhelming, though still above average. And his peak WOWYR of +5.2 is one of the best in this group. Surprising, right? And yet, he's weirdly excellent.

Let's imagine that we looked for strong (but not dominant) shooting guard seasons. We're looking for a 2nd/3rd option, so sub 22% usage. He needs to break an OBPM of +2, TS above 57% and post PPX above 22. But we want him to be a solid passer who doesn't make mistakes, so AST% > 22% and TO% below 12.5%. That's a pretty specific player I just asked for. But Hornacek had six of those seasons; nobody else had more than 1. What if I loosened the terms? If I allowed usage rates higher than 22% I'd get Jordan and Kyrie tying with him. If I dropped the shooting efficiency requirement Fat Lever had four of those seasons. If I remove the assist requirement Hornacek had 8 seasons, with Reggie Miller and J.J. Reddick having 5 each. My point is, I'll stipulate that Hornacek was only an average usage player. But within those constraints he 1) scored efficiently, 2) passed well (or at least for volume), 3) turned the ball over very little (Assist:TO of 2.5 for much of his career) and 4) overall contributed to offenses at a solid level. And he did it for a long freaking time. He never really had a "Peak" because his seasons were metronomically excellent. He put up four straight 3+ VORP seasons in Phoenix, then another five in Utah. So if you're trying to remember Hornacek's time when he dominated the league . . . you won't find it. He was merely really good for a very long time.

And he kept showing up on strong teams. His age 25 season (1989) was when the Suns took a big step forward. Was he the one driving it? No, KJ was. But Johnson surely benefited from the spacing that Hornacek provided. And by VORP, Hornacek was the 2nd best player on both the '89 and '90 Suns (two teams that made my Top 100 list). In '92 The Suns posted a +5.68 RSRS with Hornacek as their best player (according to VORP). From 1992 to 1993 the Suns replaced Hornacek with Danny Ainge, and replaced Tim Perry and Andrew Lang with Charles Barkley and Cedric Ceballos. And the team's RSRS improved by . . . +0.59. Perry + Lang -> Barkely + Ceballos is clearly a monster upgrade. And Danny Ainge was no pushover. Was losing Hornacek a bigger blow than we thought? I don't want to overplay it; KJ missed almost half the year and that was clearly a driving force. And I'm not trying to sell you on the idea that Hornacek was a Barkley-level player. He wasn't. But even with KJ missing some time, you'd think the jump from '92 to '93 would be bigger than it was. Unless Hornacek was actually better than anyone realized.

And then Utah. Here are their seasons starting at '93:

1993: 47-35, +1.74 RSRS
1994: 53-29, +4.10 RSRS
1995: 60-22, +7.76 RSRS
1996: 55-27, +6.25 RSRS
1997: 64-18, +7.97 RSRS

They acquired Hornacek in the middle of one of those seasons; any guesses which?

Look. This is all slightly circumstantial. There are other factors that explain why the Jazz went from being decent to being the best team in the conference besides Jeff Hornacek. But Hornacek was clearly a big part of it.

Naysayers would argue that Hornacek was a bad first option. This is totally true. He had no business running your offense as the primary ball handler. But as long as he wasn't asked to take more than 20% of the team's shots he'd space the floor, can shots at a well-above average rate, pass well, not screw anything up and generate a fair number of steals. And the combination of these things had a consistent and genuine impact, even if no one of them is particularly remarkable.

We don't have AuRPM for his whole career, but here are his numbers with the Jazz starting at Age 31:

+3.4, +2.8, +5.9, +5.2, +4.5, +3.1

Two +5 seasons toward the tail-end of his career? That's damned impressive.

R.Wallace > Nance > Hornacek > D.Green? > B.Wallace > Eddie Jones > Horace Grant > Shawn Marion > Kyle Lowry > LaMarcus Aldridge > Terry Porter > Moncrief > Webber > Jokic > P.George > Bosh > Giannis > A.Hardaway > Hill > B.Walton > M.Cheeks > D.Issel > J.Worthy > B.Jones > A.Kirilenko > D.Wilkins > D.Rodman > A.Iguodala > D.Johnson > J.Butler > D.Lillard > H.Greer > C.Mullin > K.Irving > K.Thompson > B.McAdoo

sansterre · Post #9 » by **sansterre** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:51 pm

I think I'm going to tweak my formula by replacing peak WOWYR with 10-yr AuRPM where possible, and scaling WOWYR back in the weighting where I don't have anything better. And I also need to run KJ's numbers. But the AuRPM/WOWYR changes will skew some things, though I expect the rankings to stay reasonably similar, at least at the top.

Dutchball97 · Post #10 » by **Dutchball97** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:55 pm

I'd still have Gervin somewhere in the 40s or 50s. I'm not saying he was a bad play-off performer, just that he didn't achieve as much as other candidates at that point.

Funnily enough I was the first to vote for both Kawhi and Willis Reed. If anything I'd have both of them higher, simply because I believe a couple years at a MVP level is worth more than a decade of barely All-Star level play.

HeartBreakKid · Post #11 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:03 pm

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.

Moncrief> R Wallace > K Johnson> B Wallace >B Jones> McAdoo > Nance > Greer> Hornacek > Wilkins

HeartBreakKid · Post #12 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:04 pm

The Jeff Hornacek vote is interesting. At the very least I don't see much separation from him and Hal Greer. Has Horny made any of the past top 100 list?

Post #13 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:28 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. Dennis Rodman? Hate putting a bad character guy in here and the Worm is the poster boy for (non-drugs) bad character guys. On the other hand, he's probably the GOAT impact guy without scoring, best rebounder in NBA history, terrific defender (though not in his GOAT rebounding seasons), decently smart passer. Also looking at Rasheed and Marion though both also had their headcase moments; Nance seems a hair below those two, Parker/Greer/Nique also a bit lower, Moncrief and Hawkins should be this high but just didn't play enough prime seasons.

Looking for someone to make a case.

I am looking at Rodman, Rasheed, Marion, Nance, Greer, Horace Grant, Jeff Hornacek, Moncrief, McAdoo, 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.

Owly · Post #14 » by **Owly** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:36 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:The Jeff Hornacek vote is interesting. At the very least I don't see much separation from him and Hal Greer. Has Horny made any of the past top 100 list?

HM in 2017 mentions vaguely suggesting 107-114 range.
Got mentions in the back end of 2014 but not votes (on Pen's short(ish)list and mentioned by me as someone whose box-composite numbers were among the best of those still on the board).
No mentions (at a glance, looking at thread 100) in 2011.

Cavsfansince84 · Post #15 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:49 pm

72. 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

73. 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).

74. Giannis Antetokounmpo
-Great 4 yr stretch with 2 mvps, 1 dpoy and I would say some good playoff runs along with the 1 bad one. 4x all nba 3x all defensive

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

others still considering: Silas, Melo, Price, Richmond, Webber(missing a ton of games is why I'm not firm on having him in my top 100 yet), Maurice Lucas, Marques Johnson

Post #16 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:30 pm

A few notes on Sheed [even though he's not on my ballot]....

Re: Impact [mostly on defense], let's look at his league rank in DRAPM (and overall RAPM), beginning with '97 [his 2nd season]:
'97: 27th (35th overall) - note: several ahead of him were smaller minute players
'98: 11th (17th) - again a couple ahead of him in DRAPM are very limited-minute players
'99: 4th (4th) - three ahead of him in DRAPM are Dikembe, DRob, and peak Mourning
'00: 5th (7th) - four ahead in DRAPM are Dikembe, DRob, Bo Outlaw, and Shawn Bradley
'01: tied for 18th (tied for 18th)
'02: tied for 6th (tied for 13th)
'03: tied for 10th (tied for 6th) - guys ahead of him in DRAPM are mostly pretty intuitive or understandable (e.g. Duncan, DRob, Garnett, Divac, Doug Christie, Tony Battie)
'04: 4th (tied for 4th) - ahead in DRAPM are Duncan, Garnett, and Ben Wallace
'05: tied for 18th (tied for 42nd)
'06: tied for 24th (13th)
'07: *actually had an outlier small negative DRAPM this year (tied for 22nd overall [was actually tied for 18th in ORAPM])
'08: tied for 31st (17th)

I'll stop there, as that's a quite large 12-year sample. Some general observations:
*He has a positive ORAPM in 11 of 12 years [are a couple-three years where it's actually better than his DRAPM]. The one negative was a small negative (-0.3).

**He has a postive DRAPM in 11 of 12 years (the one negative was a small -0.5, and happens to be in the season he's forced into playing C for the first time [also 32 years old at that point])

***He has a string of 8 consecutive years in the league's top 20 in DRAPM, including THREE seasons in the top 5

****He's in the top 20 of the league in overall RAPM in 10 of 12 years. The only years he isn't are as a 2nd-year player, and in '05 when he has a sort of outlier bad shooting year [his one and only negative ORAPM].

But he never made and All-Def teams. What was he actually doing well defensively?
Well, here's the quick blurb [written in 2008] from DraftExpress:

Defense: Detroit's best post defender. Makes everyone else look better when hes on the floor. Quickness and experience make him one of the best help side defenders in the game. Always rotates to meet penetration. Goes straight up on jump shooters. Capable of defending the post one-on-one without help. Doesnt fall for fakes. Gives his man a ton of contact when he tries to back down. Plays with a lot of heart. Sure handed. Great timing when blocking and going for strips. Gets steals by reaching in on midrange shooter and swiping the ball. Good area rebounder. Will hack some shooters, but gives smart fouls for the most part. Physical traits, basketball IQ, and defensive mentality make him a great asset to have on this end.

I'd also add that [in his PF years] I recall him being a capable pnr defender, and will also note that he boxed out on the boards [which makes him more valuable there than his individual rebounding numbers suggest]--->that's possible what the above author is suggesting when says he's a good "area rebounder".

Hal14 · Post #17 » by **Hal14** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:00 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 Finals MVP in 79. The dude was an animal. Flying around the court like a bat outta hell, some of the best defense a guard has ever played. Going all out, hustling, taking it strong to the rim.

Next, let's look at 84. 83-84 was his first year on the Celtics. The year before that in 83 the Celtics got swept in the 2nd round by the Bucks. Yes, KC Jones taking over as coach was a factor as well, but the Celtics adding Johnson was a HUGE reason why they went from being swept in the 2nd round in 83 to NBA world champs beating the Lakers in the finals the very next year in 84 (with Magic and Kareem in their prime).

In both 84 and 86 Johnson was one of the team's top 4 players, came through in the clutch time and time again and Bird is on record saying that Johnson was the best teammate he ever played with (meaning Bird thinks Johnson was better than Parish and Mchale).

Johnson was one of the best defensive guards of all time, easily one of the top 10 defensive guards ever. The guy had very good size and strength at the PG position which made him a tough matchup, early in his career had great explosiveness and athleticism, he could score inside, drive to the basket and as his career went on developed a deadly outside shot - especially in the mid range area, not as much from 3 because at the time 3's weren't being taken very much across the league (early in his career there was no 3 point line), plus he could rebound well, unselfishly looked to get the ball to his teammates but would make you pay dearly if you ignored him too much on offense, plus of course his outstanding defense.

Solid longevity, played 14 seasons (13 of which he played 27+ mins a game and all of them he played in 70+ games) which was solid for that era, especially considering he played in a ton (180 to be exact) of playoff games.

How about durability? The guy always played, he was always in the lineup. Out of his 14 seasons:
-he played 72+ games in 14/14 (100%)
-he played in 77+ games in 12/14 seasons (86%)
-he played in 80+ games in 7/14 seasons (50%)

How about Rasheed's durability?
-he played 72+ games in 14/16 (63%)
-he played in 77+ games in 8/16 seasons (50%)
-he played in 80+ games in 10/16 seasons (13%)

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #18 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:11 am

Avoiding actual work, but in case anyone is interested, I compared MVPs, DPOYs and All-nba teams to ranks. (Fully admit this is a homer driven post to see where Giannis stacks up, but could be interesting none the less to see where the hardware stacks up)

Couple notes:
-MVP: 11 out of 41 ABA/NBA MVPs still out there. (5 are ABA- Do they count? Guys like Mel Daniels?) Giannis is biggest snub as 2x MVP

-DPOY: 14 out of 23 remain. Lots of 1 timers (Noah, MWP, Camby, etc). Biggest snub is Ben Wallace: 4x DPOY and 5x all NBA and soul of NBA championship

- 6x all NBA seems to be the magic number: 45 of 49 of those guys are ranks. Other 4: Sharman, Wilkins, Greer and Melo

-Too high list?(I recognize you guys put more thought into this than me but surprises for being too high IMO)
Miller - only 3 time allnba, never an MVP candidate, only 1 finals appearance, He was player of the week 3x in his career. He was arguably not a top 10 player in any year of his career but is top 40 all-time?
Gasol- Similar unless you are including international play. No first team all-nba. Won 2 championships, but I wonder where he ends up if he wasn't on the Lakers late in his career.
Pierce-Another mid-tier guy who was never a MVP candidate and arguably never a top 10 player.
Leonard

Overall, I think I value peak over playoff success since I think a lot of that is due to luck of being a big market team with 3 stars, but I understand some of you value that more.

OK sorry for interrupting, carry on.

Post #19 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:22 pm

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:Biggest Snub: Westbrook 9x all nba and MVP with some playoff success.

Westbrook is #44.

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:-Too high list?(I recognize you guys put more thought into this than me but surprises for being too high IMO)
Miller - only 3 time allnba, never an MVP candidate, only 1 finals appearance, He was player of the week 3x in his career. He was arguably not a top 10 player in any year of his career but is top 40 all-time?
Gasol- Similar unless you are including international play. No first team all-nba. Won 2 championships, but I wonder where he ends up if he wasn't on the Lakers late in his career.
Pierce-Another mid-tier guy who was never a MVP candidate and arguably never a top 10 player.

Re: Pierce
Sure, it's arguable he was never a top 10 player, though off the cuff I'm guessing he had a year or three where he was (likely just barely: i.e. never a top-7 player). But he was very good (somewhere in that 10-25(ish) range in the league) for seriously a solid FIFTEEN YEARS [plus two other solid role player seasons].
For posters who value meaningful longevity, championship odds, cumulative value above replacement or similar, that constitutes a HUGE amount of career value. So this just may be a difference in method/philosophy [if you're more peak-oriented].
Pierce also showed some degree of portability in that he proved capable of carrying garbage casts to mediocrity as "the man", or in being an ideal 2nd-banana on a title team (and then transitioning gracefully to a role player as an old man).

Re: Gasol
Well, basically the same arguments as for Pierce; though I'd be more comfortable stating with confidence that he was a top 10 player in the league at least once or twice ('11 comes to mind; maybe '10 also).

Re: Miller
If you haven't already done so, I'd read some of the arguments in those threads in the late 30s section of the list. If you want to measure career greatness by way of accolades only [I don't advise it], yeah, Miller's gonna look misplaced. But Miller was underrated in his time; period.
I forget which thread it was, but I'd looked specifically at All-Star snubs, and there are MULTIPLE years that are just a joke; insultingly so if you're Miller.
If you look at the best team offenses of the 1990s, a startling number of them are the Indiana Pacers: anchored by Reggie Miller, often with casts that aren't exactly screaming offensive excellence.
And again, his longevity and consistency is fairly top-tier.

Post #20 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:23 pm

Thru post #19:

Dominique Wilkins - 3 (Cavsfansince84, Hal14, trex_8063)
Rasheed Wallace - 2 (Odinn21, sansterre)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bobby Jones - 1 (penbeast0)

~24 hours left

Spoiler: