RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #73 (Dominique Wilkins)

Post #1 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:57 am

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. Rasheed Wallace
73. ??

Target stop around 9pm EST on Monday.

Spoiler:

Hal14 · Post #2 » by **Hal14** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:28 am

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%)

HeartBreakKid · Post #3 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:32 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.

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

sansterre · Post #4 » by **sansterre** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:42 am

1. 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.

2. Shawn Marion - Pretty much every box-score stat *loves* Marion. He's at least a standard deviation above the mean of this group in BackPicks, PIPM, WS and VORP (in this group he is 3rd, 3rd, 2nd and 2nd respectively in those metrics). He's a really, really weird player. Given his success in box score metrics you might guess he was a scorer but he really wasn't. His usage in his prime was above average (but usually in the 22-23% range) and his efficiency was in the +0% to +2% range for much of it. His only strong shooting seasons were from '06 to '08 with Steve Nash, for which Nash perhaps deserves some credit. But Marion, whether he played a big SF or small PF was a ferocious rebounder for his position/height. If I ask StatHead for players 6'7" or under with seasons at 13% TRB or better, I get Charles Barkley having 14, and then next is Shawn Marion tied with Wes Unseld with 11. I'm not trying to sell you on Marion being a Rodman, he wasn't, he was just a really, really great rebounder for his size. He was never a good passer, but he mitigated the cost there by turning the ball over very rarely (consistent AST:TO > 1). And he was really, really good on defense. Not Bill Russell or anything, but he was a really strong defensive wing. With the understanding that these are just steals and blocks, if I ask StatHead for players that averaged 2.5% steals or better, and 2% blocks or better, I get 6 of Marion and Hakeem, 5 or Erving, 4 of Wade and Kirilenko and then others at 3. Blocks and steals are not great stats, but those are all extremely athletic players. After his prime, Marion reinvented himself as something of a rebounding/defensive specialist, and was a critical piece of the 2011 Mavericks. He played a long career (40k minutes) and also had a strong (if not flashy) prime. His AuRPMs are good but not as good as you'd think (slightly below average for this group) and his -> playoff numbers weren't great. But given his blend of strong prime *and* strong longevity, Marion is hard to pick against here. Unless you like flashy scorers. Then don't vote Marion.

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.

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

Dutchball97 · Post #5 » by **Dutchball97** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 11:32 am

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 > Jeff Hornacek > Shawn Marion > Larry Nance > Hal Greer > Bob McAdoo > Dominique Wilkins > Dennis Rodman > Bill Walton > Dennis Johnson

Post #6 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:31 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.

Looking for someone to make a case.

I am looking at Marion, Nance, Greer, Horace Grant, Jeff Hornacek, Nique, Moncrief, McAdoo, Hawkins, DJ, Ben Wallace in roughly that order (lots of new names being mentioned). 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.

HeartBreakKid · Post #7 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:07 pm

penbeast0 wrote: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.

Looking for someone to make a case.

I am looking at Marion, Nance, Greer, Horace Grant, Jeff Hornacek, Moncrief, McAdoo, Hawkins, DJ, Ben Wallace in roughly that order (lots of new names being mentioned). 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.

Why the large separation between Giannis and Jokic?

Also,where do you rank Wilkins? He seems omitted from your list of extra guys even though he has been a topic of convo for a while.

Post #8 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:22 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].

I find I'm much lower on Bob McAdoo, the more I look at him. So he's sort of fallen in my ranks. And I elevated Bobby Jones' status just slightly.
Among those who have received votes of any kind, I'm presently going with this order:
Wilkins > Giannis > KJ > Marion > Nance > Jones > McAdoo > Rodman > Greer > Hornacek > 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).

HeartBreakKid · Post #9 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:26 pm

Bobby Jones vs Bob McAdoo is an interesting clash of styles. An interesting clash of Bobs as well.

Post #10 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:16 pm

I’m not at all surprised that it’s taken this long for Wilkins to garner serious traction, given the general sentiment about him [or players of his “type”] on this forum (and we're actually barely any lower than I have him on my own ATL).

However, I’m a little surprised at the separation that’s developing between him and other players of similar “type”.
For starters, I’ll again harp on Alex English, by comparison…..

That English was able to garner the support to get in at #68, yet here we are five places later and it’s still in question for Wilkins is a bit puzzling for me.
Because I see a lot of similarities between them: both score-first offensive-minded SF’s who came into the league a mere 6 years apart, who both led some good [but never anything close to great] teams that were always at least a piece or two shy of being a contender; both class acts, both with good longevity.

Looking at their respective 9-year primes (‘86-’94 for Nique, ‘81-’89 for English).....

Wilkins: 23.2 PER, .173 WS/48, +4.5 BPM, +5 net rating in 37.4 mpg. Avg +2.31 PIPM.
English: 21.2 PER, .139 WS/48, +2.7 BPM, +2 net rating in 36.6 mpg (English a bit more durable). Avg. +1.34 PIPM.

One can argue things like WS and BPM are skewed toward the team’s MOV [so theoretically those metrics for Wilkins could be “riding the coattails” of his teammates]. However, a valid counterpoint would be that Wilkins played in a much tougher conference than English did (i.e. if Wilkins’ Hawks had played in the soft WC of the 1980s, it’s fair to assume their MOV would have been even higher [and thus Wilkins’ WS and BPM even better]).

For whatever truth or validity there may be in the initial argument, I think that counterpoint sort of washes it out.

One poster argued the non-box impact of English's off-ball play compared to Wilkins. I countered with the non-box impact created by Wilkins' superior shooting range [spacing] and his tendency to attack the rim and draw defensive help creating better offensive rebounding opportunities for teammates [the "Iverson assist"].
Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to....

Wilkins combined team record: 420-319 (.568). 3 first round exits, 3 semis.
English combined team record: 400-338 (.542). 3 first round exits, 4 semis, 1 CF. Though again: this was in a MUCH weaker conference. Related: the SRS edge to Wilkins’ teams is more substantial than the win% edge.
I personally feel Wilkins’ prime was in a marginally tougher era, too, but that’s subjective.

In a nut-shell, I’ve looked---hard---for a tenable justification to have English FAR ahead of Wilkins, but I can’t really come up with one doesn't crumble under scrutiny.
The case for English ahead at all frankly feels like it leans heavily on “I just think he was better [even though it’s not substantiated by many/any measures]” arguments. Eye-test/opinion, in other words (but you know what they say about opinions).

The media perception of this comparison is certainly one-sided [in Nique's favour]. But was Dominique overrated in his time? Absolutely. And was English underrated in his time? Perhaps.

Consequently, I must admit I feel there’s been a bit of a knee-jerk response [by some] to that disparate media attention, causing Wilkins to be underrated and/or English overrated here.

For that matter, I can bring up George Gervin.
In as much as Wilkins could be labeled a “one trick pony” (sansterre said as much last thread, though I suggested a correction that he was---at the least---a “TWO trick pony” [offensive rebounding]), so could we label Gervin [perhaps even MORE so]:
He was basically a scorer. That was his thing, and basically his ONLY thing. He rebounded fairly well for a SG, though no better than [or arguably even AS GOOD AS] Nique did for a SF. He wasn’t a good playmaking SG [arguably marginally worse than Nique, relative to positional expectation], and he didn’t have a good defensive rep.

Certainly Gervin was a BETTER scorer than Wilkins, absolutely no question.

But was Gervin a better ENOUGH scorer to be voted in a whopping 36 places ago, while we continue to demur on Wilkins?
Nique had a superior turnover economy, fwiw.

And the comparison of offenses led by Gervin vs Wilkins doesn’t look substantially different. A Gervin-led offense peaked a little higher, though that was with an offensive supporting cast that included Mike Mitchell, Artis Gilmore (33 yrs old), Johnny Moore, and early 3pt marksman Mike Dunleavy.
Wilkins led one that was only 0.5 worse [+4.9 rORTG vs +5.4] with a cast of 34-yr-old Moses Malone, Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, and 48 games of partially injured/<100% Doc Rivers.

Looking at the average of their FIVE best NBA team offenses [not necessarily consecutive]:
Gervin: +3.84 rORTG
Wilkins: +3.98 rORTG (Nique led three that were better than Gervin’s 2nd-best)

Gervin was able to lead good offenses for longer/more consistently, though it doesn’t amount to a huge difference in a notably larger sample. For example, the avg of best EIGHT years NBA offenses?
Gervin: +3.52 rORTG
Wilkins: +3.02 rORTG (did the split on ‘94 for Wilkins)

Anyway......not really upset or ranting, if that’s how this comes across. Merely......let's say "self-conscious" as to how this looks from an internal consistency standpoint.

HeartBreakKid · Post #11 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:10 pm

I've seen you bring up Wilkins roster a few times Trex, and I've never got around to commenting on it - but isn't Wilkins teammates there to help score. I mean why wouldn't a team that has Willis, Webb, Rivers and Malone plus a franchise player be a top 5 offense? It would be very troublesome if that wasn't a good offense.

The same team you're talking about is the 1990 Atlanta Hawks - they were the 25th worst defense. In other words, you are basically listing 5'5 Spudd Webb and 34 year old Moses Malone as if they are not impressive players, which may or may not be true (I think Spud was bad), but they are certainly not in the NBA for their defense.

So if you give Wilkins a bunch of one way offensive players he can give a team a great offensive rating. I don't think that is anything particularly telling of anything at this point. Carmelo Anthony anchored a better offensive relative to the league in 2013 and no one seems to want to talk about him.

I can't really speak much of why Gervin got in early because I was not part of the project at the time - but him being another class of scorer does seem quite important if the overwhelming majority of both players impact come from scoring. I don't care much for Gervin but I would assume that is the logic behind it (perhaps reputation plays a part as well).

Alex English is grouped up with the scoring small forwards because well, he did score a lot. But he was not as one dimensional as them. Some of those players were not only not well rounded, but legitimately weak at some major aspects of basketball. Alex English was not a weak passer or defender . Unlike in a comparison with Gervin, English scoring stats are comparable with Wilkins - if not from a glance it seems better which would already put Wilkins behind him.

English averaged more assist per game with a presumably less ball dominant style. English is seen as a good defender while Wilkins is not - even if you wanted to argue that English was not a world beater on defense it's still telling that he was probably not "weak" at that end.

Wilkins anchored a great offense with a lot of one way offensive players. Alex English anchored a better offense with better teammates. Doesn't seem like you can take away much from that.

With that being said, I did have a lot of players ranked in front of English during his time of inception - so even if I were to concede that there shouldn't be a large gap between him and Wilkins, it wouldn't mean that Wilkins should be voted in now.

sansterre · Post #12 » by **sansterre** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:15 pm

I wasn't hugely high on either player. My adjusted ranking (using 10-yr AuRPM for anyone with a peak post '94, and using a reduced-weight WOWYR for everyone else) has Wilkins respectably higher than English. Then again, players that are that far back sometimes underperform in these metrics. But to my ignorant eyes English read like a player that got a respectable reputation bump from scoring numbers which were in turn driven by playing on high-pace teams. I agree that Wilkins and English shouldn't be that far apart, but for me that would mean English dropping. The big turn-off for me with Wilkins (besides low WOWYR) is the drop in playoff performance. But especially if you're rolling with regular season-centered metrics, especially box-score driven, Wilkins may be the best of this group.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #13 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:33 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
penbeast0 wrote: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.

Looking for someone to make a case.

I am looking at Marion, Nance, Greer, Horace Grant, Jeff Hornacek, Moncrief, McAdoo, Hawkins, DJ, Ben Wallace in roughly that order (lots of new names being mentioned). 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.

Why the large separation between Giannis and Jokic?

Also,where do you rank Wilkins? He seems omitted from your list of extra guys even though he has been a topic of convo for a while.

You didn't ask me, but Giannis has basically 2 years of games on Jokic, won 2 MVPs and 1 DPOY in competing years with Jokic, and pretty much similar playoff success (though Giannis had higher expectations cause he's Giannis so it looks worse). This pull is supposedly as of after last season. If Jokic wins MVP this year (or even if he doesn't but you add in this huge season) they are much more comparable.

Post #14 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:35 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:I've seen you bring up Wilkins roster a few times Trex, and I've never got around to commenting on it - but those players are hardly scrubs. I mean why wouldn't a team that has Willis, Webb, Rivers and Malone plus a franchise player be a top 5 offense? It would be very troublesome if that wasn't a good offense.

I never said they were scrubs......just like I never said Mike Mitchell, Artis Gilmore, Johnny Moore, or Mike Dunleavy were scrubs.
On the contrary, the players listed were listed precisely because they were the best offensive players on each respective cast.
The question I was prompting people to ask themselves was: is Willis/Webb/Malone (34 yrs old)/Rivers (only 48 games, partly injured) a better offensive supporting cast than Mitchell/Gilmore (33 yrs old)/Moore/Dunleavy?

I would argue no (but it's debatable).

HeartBreakKid wrote:So if you give Wilkins a bunch of one way offensive players he can give a team a great offensive rating. I don't think that is anything particularly telling of anything at this point.

I agree: you give a supposed offensive stud a handful of good(ish) offensive cast-mates, a relatively elite offense should result (and it did, for both stars).
Again, the question is: if Gervin is so much better (to be ranked 40-ish places higher), shouldn't the resultant offenses have been A LOT better?

HeartBreakKid wrote: Carmelo Anthony anchored a better offensive relative to the league in 2013 and no one seems to want to talk about him.

Well, now that you mention him, I DO think we ought to have him in the discussion.

HeartBreakKid · Post #15 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:44 pm

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
penbeast0 wrote: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.

Looking for someone to make a case.

I am looking at Marion, Nance, Greer, Horace Grant, Jeff Hornacek, Moncrief, McAdoo, Hawkins, DJ, Ben Wallace in roughly that order (lots of new names being mentioned). 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.

Why the large separation between Giannis and Jokic?

Also,where do you rank Wilkins? He seems omitted from your list of extra guys even though he has been a topic of convo for a while.

You didn't ask me, but Giannis has basically 2 years of games on Jokic, won 2 MVPs and 1 DPOY in competing years with Jokic, and pretty much similar playoff success (though Giannis had higher expectations cause he's Giannis so it looks worse). This pull is supposedly as of after last season. If Jokic wins MVP this year (or even if he doesn't but you add in this huge season) they are much more comparable.

Then their longevity is even. Giannis has two years of games on Jokic. Well, his first two years he was not a good player (he was actually terrible his first year). There is not much value to playing games if you're not good.

In contrast, Jokic was always a good player - and he should have won rookie of the year but mainly lost out due to lack of press, hype, understanding of non-boxscore stats etc. He was a much better player than KAT, which with hindsight seems rather obvious - and at the time people tried to argue it but were kind of shut down for being "stat" nerds. Jokic is a horrible defender, KAT is a good defender cause he gets blocked shots type of stuff.

Giannis has two MVP's which is great, but you could still argue Jokic was a better player than him both of those years. Jokic ranked higher than Giannis in our Player of the Year votes in 2020 which takes into account the playoffs. In 2019, Giannis did rank higher (2nd) but Jokic still placed 5th - so in other words, Giannis might have more MVPs but he is not necessarily a higher class of player and it is very debatable that Giannis peaked higher.

Jokic having similar playoff success with a worse team in a stronger conference would make Giannis look pretty bad, expectations aside.

Post #16 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:44 pm

sansterre wrote:I wasn't hugely high on either player. My adjusted ranking (using 10-yr AuRPM for anyone with a peak post '94, and using a reduced-weight WOWYR for everyone else) has Wilkins respectably higher than English. Then again, players that are that far back sometimes underperform in these metrics. But to my ignorant eyes English read like a player that got a respectable reputation bump from scoring numbers which were in turn driven by playing on high-pace teams. I agree that Wilkins and English shouldn't be that far apart, but for me that would mean English dropping. The big turn-off for me with Wilkins (besides low WOWYR) is the drop in playoff performance. But especially if you're rolling with regular season-centered metrics, especially box-score driven, Wilkins may be the best of this group.

Yeah, and a caveat to what I was saying earlier would be the question: if it was a mistake to rank English and Gervin so high, do we want to *repeat the mistake a third time just for the sake of internal consistency?

*though this assumes it's still a mistake at this stage to go with Wilkins (which, as you allow, we may have reached a point where it's no longer a "mistake" for Wilkins, especially if you roll heavily on rs metrics). EDIT: Goes without saying that I don't think it's a mistake for Wilkins to go in ASAP.

HeartBreakKid · Post #17 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:49 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:I've seen you bring up Wilkins roster a few times Trex, and I've never got around to commenting on it - but those players are hardly scrubs. I mean why wouldn't a team that has Willis, Webb, Rivers and Malone plus a franchise player be a top 5 offense? It would be very troublesome if that wasn't a good offense.

I never said they were scrubs......just like I never said Mike Mitchell, Artis Gilmore, Johnny Moore, or Mike Dunleavy were scrubs.
On the contrary, the players listed were listed precisely because they were the good offensive players on each respective cast.
The question I was prompting people to ask themselves was: is Willis/Webb/Malone (34 yrs old)/Rivers (only 48 games, partly injured) a better offensive supporting cast than Mitchell/Gilmore (33 yrs old)/Moore/Dunleavy?

I would argue no (but it's debatable).

HeartBreakKid wrote:So if you give Wilkins a bunch of one way offensive players he can give a team a great offensive rating. I don't think that is anything particularly telling of anything at this point.

I agree: you give a supposed offensive stud a handful of good(ish) offensive cast-mates, a relatively elite offense should result (and it did, for both stars).
Again, the question is: if Gervin is so much better (to be ranked 40-ish places higher), shouldn't the resultant offenses have been A LOT better?

HeartBreakKid wrote: Carmelo Anthony anchored a better offensive relative to the league in 2013 and no one seems to want to talk about him.

Well, now that you mention him, I DO think we ought to have him in the discussion.

My internet might be a little wonky, but I thought I had edited my original post a bit before. I redacted me putting words in your mouth and calling them scrubs - and I further clarified that I don't think highly of George Gervin, was just playing devils advocate for why he would be ranked higher.

HeartBreakKid · Post #18 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:53 pm

I just want to further emphasis that Giannis and Jokic are essentially even.

I think people are looking at Giannis and thinking well, he's been in the league longer - thus he has much better longevity.

It's not really the case.

Giannis was a project, he was incredibly raw, he was not even good enough to be in the top division in Greece before he joined the NBA.

He was an awful player who only got minutes because he is a project and there is no real penalty for having a bad team in the NBA. He was not an NBA player as a rookie, and he was not a good player his 2nd year either (he was playing guard during these years, and the guy is a power forward now despite only being in his mid 20s).

Jokic was a good player from year 1. Maybe not a star player, but he could help a championship team for sure. His only weakness was poor stamina - other than that he was pretty much the Jokic we know today. Passing, scoring, rebounding - it's all there. He should have been rookie of the year, he was always better than Porzingis and KAT for the same exact reason he is better than them today.

Giannis did not really peak higher than Jokic - or at least it's very debatable. MVP's are not necessarily better than non MVPs. Again, many people thought Jokic was better than Giannis last season - and last season was Giannis' peak season.

Their playoff success is comparable. Jokic has as many wins as Giannis more or less but with better stats.

It seems like they should be almost neck to neck. How can some people rank Giannis and not have Jokic in the top 100? MVP does not mean best player in the NBA, Bob McAdoo has an MVP and he was not the best player or that close.

Post #19 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:53 pm

Thru post #17:

Dominique Wilkins - 2 (Hal14, trex_8063)
Larry Nance - 1 (sansterre)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bobby Jones - 1 (penbeast0)

Just gonna do the update now....
About 31 hours left for this one.

Spoiler:

Cavsfansince84 · Post #20 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:57 pm

73. 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

74. 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).

75. 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

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

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