RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 (Ben Wallace)

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

Cavsfansince84
General Manager
Posts: 8,243
And1: 6,191
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#21 » by Cavsfansince84 » Wed Apr 7, 2021 5:57 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
So, I have specific concerns with Johnston:

His presence and stats don't appear to correlate strongly at all with team performance, and his playoff performance seems a bit suspect. Specifically you mention him as being a "co-leader" along with Arizin, but the winning really seems to correlate with Arizin and in that championship year it was Arizin who blew the doors off in the playoffs while Johnston really seemed to struggle.

I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, and I do understand if you say "I understand the concerns, but I still think rating Johnston as I do yields the best estimate", but I will say this:

Johnston was a volume scorer as a center who was 6'8" and who to me has always seemed particularly thin.

I kind of wonder how well he was able to be a bucket against a defense with muscle that needs to get a stop.
I kind of wonder if we're seeing a guy who had something of a shorter career because he wasn't going to be scaling with the next generation of big men.

In contrast to him I'd note Cliff Hagan.

For specific point of comparison:

The highest PPG Johnston ever got in the playoffs was 20.3 (during the year his team won the title with Arizin as the main threat), and in that year Johnston shot 48.5% TS in the playoffs which was above his career playoff average.



The issue I have with what you say here is that you are referring to 23 games total when you refer to Johnston's playoff career. 10 of which came in a title run during which Johnston averaged 20.3/14.5/5.1 on 48.5%ts(when league average was 45.8) and Arizin averaged 28.9/8.4/2.9 on 53.0 ts. Overall I don't see that much difference here. Arizin was scoring more while Johnston was doing more rebounding and playmaking.
Touching on him being small and somewhat thin which wouldn't have translated as well to the 60's. That may be true but I don't think it diminishes what he actually accomplished from 53-58 and this is awfully similar to criticisms we heard of Mikan who got in at #19 though obviously Mikan was the more accomplished player but what I'm referring to more specifically is the level of competition he went up against. Lack of team success is also a factor you brought up and which I'm aware of but I think the title he won is a pretty big counter balance to the idea that he couldn't win(more so him basically going from a bench player to filling in for Arizin when Arizin went into the marines in 53). Even if you consider Arizin the better player there's no denying that he was a huge part of that team and that his peers viewed him as a top player based on him being 1st team all nba most years. The hypothetical of what he would have done in the 60's doesn't matter that much to me. Perhaps less so than when looking at the numbers someone like Connie Hawkins put up in the aba when it was just starting up.
It's also worth noting that Johnston had good length and had pretty good skills for a big man. He could dribble fairly well and you can see him doing things like spin moves towards the basket. He also seems to be pretty fluid and quick for his height/era with an outside shot. Which obviously shows in him being hugely efficient as a scorer. I don't think all of this can just get swept under the rug because we see him as undersized and playing in a weaker era. He was also a good enough athlete to start out as a pitcher in mlb before switching full time to basketball.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 43,605
And1: 12,433
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#22 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Apr 7, 2021 6:40 pm

So I'm going to stick with my Top 3, but I do want people to know that I'm listening to them even if its not enough to sway me yet.

[quote="Doctor MJ"]Vote:
1. Damian Lillard
2. Connie Hawkins
3. Ben Wallace

Other preferences in order:

Spoiler:
Chris Bosh
Bill Walton
Nikola Jokic
Billy Cunningham
Grant Hill
Sidney Moncrief
Tiny Archibald
Dave DeBusschere
Larry Nance
Hal Greer
Horace Grant
Dennis Johnson
Terry Porter
Jeff Hornacek
Jerry Lucas
Gus Williams
Carmelo Anthony


On Lillard: I'm trying to think about why his longevity feels different to me than it does others. This might be a misguided notion because it might just be that I'm debating with folks who value longevity more than me in general, but there are people in with limited longevity so I really have to think that there is a contingent of voters that have Lillard's rise a bit stuck in their head because his career is still happening - which is something I think we always need to watch for.

First thing, we're talking a lot about longevity here, so I want to compare a few guys with a career production metric - I'll use Win Shares:

Hal Greer 102
Russell Westbrook 101
Kyle Lowry 97
Damian Lillard 89
Anthony Davis 86
Kawhi Leonard 82
Isiah Thomas 80

Now not all of these players are comparison points for the same reason so don't try to force a throughline hastily, let me lay it out a bit:

I've got Lowry there because that's a continuation of something from last thread. Fundamentally, I'm struggling to make myself believe in an argument of longevity over peak when the guy with the longevity edge has around the same amount of total productivity. I know there's room for more nuance than this, but on a certain level I find myself asking "What specifically am I waiting for Lillard to do before I rank him above Lowry?", and I'm drawing a blank.

Westbrook's on there because I think it's pretty telling. We're now at a point where I think we need to start asking ourselves not if but when Lillard surpasses Westbrook in our rankings. If you're not thinking about this, you should be. I think it's highly debatable who should be ranked higher even now.

Isiah is there because, wait, why do we think Isiah was better than Lillard? And Lillard's already surpassed Isiah's career production? And Isiah got voted in how long ago?

AD & Kawhi are there just for point of reference as guys who have been in the league at least as long as Lillard, have already been voted in, and still lag behind Lillard in career production. (To be clear, I rank both guys ahead of Lillard, but I think the point I'm making here is worth pondering.)

Greer is there because he's being discussed.

When I look at this group, I see a disconnect between how other guys are being evaluated and how Lillard is being evaluated. As I've tried to make clear, if you're someone who just takes longevity really seriously in general you're going to just say "Some dudes too high, Lillard too high would be another mistake", that's fine.

But for anyone who is more like me in the sense of being a bit less longevity concerned, I think Lillard may warrant to re-evaluation.

On the Hawk:

Did you know, that Sweetwater Clifton taught Connie Hawkins when both arrived on the Harlem Globetrotters (Clifton for the 2nd time) after the death of the ABL? Hawkins as a 19 year old had won the MVP of the league they were both in the prior year, and when they got on the same team Clifton apparently sought Hawkins out because of the specific untapped potential he saw from being another guy with very large hands.

The skill was specifically very useful as a Globetrotter, but Hawkins was surprised to realize just how effective it was for him in competitive games. It wasn't just that he had a solid grip on the ball to prevent turnovers or that he could use it to do sneaky passing. It also allowed him to keep his other arm free to battle with people. He was going up for rebounds with one hand so he could use the other hand and arm for...other stuff. He did this in part because he was always a skinny guy for his height (and especially his length), and so while this helped his agility he was vulnerable to brute force.

But while Hawkins took this from his Globetrotters game and it helped make him a completely unique player in the world upon his return to the competitive ranks, he had a deep belief and fear that playing for the Globetrotters was making him poorly suited to playing against serious players. Most of the signature Globetrotter moves couldn't be done against real defenders, and the Globetrotters themselves weren't ever really playing defense themselves.

And I do think this tied in to why Hawkins got off to a bit of a slow start in his first year in the ABA before catching fire and utterly dominated.

On Ben Wallace:

Really hard to know how to place this dude. I'll just say I have no objection to him being in at any point.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,819
And1: 5,545
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#23 » by trex_8063 » Wed Apr 7, 2021 9:46 pm

Thru post #22:

Hal Greer - 2 (Cavsfansince84, Clyde Frazier)
Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Chris Bosh - 1 (trex_8063)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)
Horace Grant - 1 (penbeast0)
Damian Lillard - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)


About 27 or so hours left for this one.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

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

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
sansterre
Senior
Posts: 723
And1: 1,064
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#24 » by sansterre » Wed Apr 7, 2021 9:55 pm

Okay, all of the new guys are included in the rankings now.

1. Jeff Hornacek - 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.

2. Terry Porter - Porter is a weird mix of peak and longevity. He played 35k minutes, with 13 different seasons posting higher than a +1 OBPM, and 9 different seasons posting higher than a +2 OBPM. And he retained fair value even late in his career, posting back-to-back +4 AuRPM seasons for the Spurs at the turn of the century. He's 55th in offensive win shares all-time, and 45th in VORP all-time. Most metrics really like Porter; he's more than one standard deviation above the mean in both PIPM and VORP, and his win shares and BackPicks ratings are still well above average.

Porter was a weird sort of tweeter-guard. He rarely posted higher than league average usage rates, but made up for it with efficiency (consistently scoring in the +4 to +6% range) passing well (assist% in the 25-35% range) and being a fair ballhawk (ten different seasons at 2%+ steals). His seven-year peak:

19.9% Usage, +4.5% rTS, 30.5% Ast, 2.2% Steals, 15.4% TO, +3.3 OBPM, +3.9 BPM

It's good, but not great (though again, it's a strong peak combined with a lot of longevity). But in the playoffs he got better. For his nine-year playoff peak (89-97):

20.2% Usage, +7.3% rTS, 26.1% Ast, 1.6% Steals, 12.2% TO, +4.5 OBPM, +4.8 BPM

So in the playoffs (and in fairness, I'm taking slightly different years), Porter slowed as a distributor and grew into an extremely efficient scorer. A nine-year playoff peak with an OBPM at +4.5? That's pretty nice. I'll give you a hint on this; McHale didn't have a nine-year playoff peak at that level (though select seasons were certainly better).

Regular season Terry Porter? He was a strong player with a decently long career and a good peak. But playoff Terry Porter? Playoff Terry Porter was *really* good. Do you know how many players increase both usage and shooting against playoff defenses? Not a lot of them. But Terry Porter is absolutely on that list.

3. Horace Grant - don't have time to write out the support here but it's coming. At some point.


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 > Webber > LaMarcus Aldridge > D.Issel > A.Iguodala > Schrempf > H.Greer > Moncrief > G.Williams > J.Worthy > C.Anthony > Lucas > Cunningham > A.Hardaway > D.DeBusschere >J.Butler > M. Johnson > D.Lillard > D.Johnson > C.Hawkins > M.Price > C.Mullin > K.Irving > K.Thompson > Archibald
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
Dutchball97
Starter
Posts: 2,166
And1: 1,882
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#25 » by Dutchball97 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 10:34 am

I've been focusing mainly on strong primes but since more longevity based candidates have been getting in lately I haven't really gotten the chance to look at some longevity based candidates. I'm a bit surprised Dan Issel isn't getting serious traction yet tbh. He's 23rd all time in regular season WS, the next highest player we've not voted in yet is Walt Bellamy at #40. In terms of play-offs he also added a lot of value over the years. The only players still on the table that are ahead of him in play-off WS are Horace Grant and Robert Horry.

Now I know Dan Issel was an undersized center who, by the looks of it, wasn't a great defender. Issel being quite a bit better in the ABA than in the NBA also hurts his case but when you've got a guy with this much longevity and a pretty decent peak/prime you'd expect him to get more serious consideration. What do you guys think about him?
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 23,334
And1: 5,317
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#26 » by penbeast0 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 12:35 pm

If Issel had played his career at the 4, he'd probably be on my radar seriously if not already in. The trouble was that as a 5, his very good offense was overshadowed by his weak defense. Think Amare Stoudamire only Issel wasn't as good offensively or as bad defensively and centers who couldn't handle their defensive duties were more of a liability when most teams ran a post or double post offense.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,819
And1: 5,545
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#27 » by trex_8063 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:07 pm

penbeast0 wrote:If Issel had played his career at the 4, he'd probably be on my radar seriously if not already in. The trouble was that as a 5, his very good offense was overshadowed by his weak defense. Think Amare Stoudamire only Issel wasn't as good offensively or as bad defensively and centers who couldn't handle their defensive duties were more of a liability when most teams ran a post or double post offense.


I was actually going to bring up Issel.
And I like the comparison to Amar'e (that's the one my brain always goes to as well). And I agree that Issel was:
a) a little worse offensively compared to Stat: he didn't have Stat's quickness and explosive finishing ability around the rim. He did do a better job of utilizing simple/fundamental [but effective] post manuevers, though. The thing that always impressed me about Issel [within his ability to score] was how quickly he'd establish his line of attack/how quickly he'd move to score. He wasn't particularly quick in terms of physical speed, but he was EXTREMELY quick in terms of decisiveness: he did not give his defender [or opposing help defenders] time to get their feet set; he'd make his move immediately upon receiving the ball, while the defense was still moving.
b) a little better defensively: I haven't actually thought Issel was too terrible in the games I've watched. Certainly I'm not saying he was any GOOD defensively; but not a completely worthless and lazy lump either. Guys like Enes Kanter look significantly worse to my eye.

But ultimately the biggest distinction between Amar'e and Issel [for me] is longevity. That's how I tend to think of Issel and his career: he's basically Amar'e.....but with better longevity.

Issel scored and scored, and did so fairly efficiently, and did so for a number of years [while really never sustaining serious injury].
As a result, he is 23rd all-time [in ABA/NBA combined] in career rs WS.

Obviously not the end-all consideration, but is a consideration that should put him in a position of relevance at this stage of the project, for sure.
He's the ONLY player anywhere in the top 39 all-time who is still on the table; he's one of only two eligible players [Walt Bellamy] anywhere in the top 49.


The other guy I kinda want to break the ice on [who I'm coming to think has been so dramatically underrated in an all-time sense].......is Zelmo Beaty. Thoughts on him?
sansterre, I'd be curious to see where he shows up in your rather unique method.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
Cavsfansince84
General Manager
Posts: 8,243
And1: 6,191
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#28 » by Cavsfansince84 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 7:52 pm

Dutchball97 wrote:I've been focusing mainly on strong primes but since more longevity based candidates have been getting in lately I haven't really gotten the chance to look at some longevity based candidates. I'm a bit surprised Dan Issel isn't getting serious traction yet tbh. He's 23rd all time in regular season WS, the next highest player we've not voted in yet is Walt Bellamy at #40. In terms of play-offs he also added a lot of value over the years. The only players still on the table that are ahead of him in play-off WS are Horace Grant and Robert Horry.

Now I know Dan Issel was an undersized center who, by the looks of it, wasn't a great defender. Issel being quite a bit better in the ABA than in the NBA also hurts his case but when you've got a guy with this much longevity and a pretty decent peak/prime you'd expect him to get more serious consideration. What do you guys think about him?


I have him at 95. I think the problem with Issel is that nothing stands out about him that much outside of the length of his prime. He put up really good aba numbers for a couple years as you said but when his team got Gilmore and then won the title his role had been greatly diminished. Then once he goes to the nba he doesn't get much recognition at all despite putting up decent scoring numbers. So he seems like a guy who is good for a long time but with some obvious weaknesses. I currently have him just behind Melo whose career/playing style is kind of similar imo.
Odinn21
Veteran
Posts: 2,677
And1: 2,023
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#29 » by Odinn21 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 9:54 pm

80. Ben Wallace
I considered players with 5-6 seasons of prime such as Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill. But I think in terms of best 5-6 consecutive seasons, Wallace was straight up better player and he had better prime duration.

81. Hal Greer
I respect his prime very much. Also quite high on his prime duration, especially considering the '60s standards. Scoring, passing, playmaking, defending, he had it all. Mainly, his prime duration almost doubling Moncrief's and Hill's while being a '60s player is the reason why I'm going with Greer over those 2. Their peaks are not good enough to reward like I did with Wallace.

82. Grant Hill
In terms of prime duration, Marion has an advantage over Moncrief and Hill but Marion played around 550-600 games in his prime and Hill played 450ish game (though he'd be closer to 500 with a full season in 1998-99). Between Marion and Hill, Marion has better prime duration and better overall longevity but Hill feels too good to be denied with that many games on that higher quality.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 43,605
And1: 12,433
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#30 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Apr 8, 2021 10:19 pm

Cavsfansince84 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
So, I have specific concerns with Johnston:

His presence and stats don't appear to correlate strongly at all with team performance, and his playoff performance seems a bit suspect. Specifically you mention him as being a "co-leader" along with Arizin, but the winning really seems to correlate with Arizin and in that championship year it was Arizin who blew the doors off in the playoffs while Johnston really seemed to struggle.

I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, and I do understand if you say "I understand the concerns, but I still think rating Johnston as I do yields the best estimate", but I will say this:

Johnston was a volume scorer as a center who was 6'8" and who to me has always seemed particularly thin.

I kind of wonder how well he was able to be a bucket against a defense with muscle that needs to get a stop.
I kind of wonder if we're seeing a guy who had something of a shorter career because he wasn't going to be scaling with the next generation of big men.

In contrast to him I'd note Cliff Hagan.

For specific point of comparison:

The highest PPG Johnston ever got in the playoffs was 20.3 (during the year his team won the title with Arizin as the main threat), and in that year Johnston shot 48.5% TS in the playoffs which was above his career playoff average.



The issue I have with what you say here is that you are referring to 23 games total when you refer to Johnston's playoff career. 10 of which came in a title run during which Johnston averaged 20.3/14.5/5.1 on 48.5%ts(when league average was 45.8) and Arizin averaged 28.9/8.4/2.9 on 53.0 ts. Overall I don't see that much difference here. Arizin was scoring more while Johnston was doing more rebounding and playmaking.
Touching on him being small and somewhat thin which wouldn't have translated as well to the 60's. That may be true but I don't think it diminishes what he actually accomplished from 53-58 and this is awfully similar to criticisms we heard of Mikan who got in at #19 though obviously Mikan was the more accomplished player but what I'm referring to more specifically is the level of competition he went up against. Lack of team success is also a factor you brought up and which I'm aware of but I think the title he won is a pretty big counter balance to the idea that he couldn't win(more so him basically going from a bench player to filling in for Arizin when Arizin went into the marines in 53). Even if you consider Arizin the better player there's no denying that he was a huge part of that team and that his peers viewed him as a top player based on him being 1st team all nba most years. The hypothetical of what he would have done in the 60's doesn't matter that much to me. Perhaps less so than when looking at the numbers someone like Connie Hawkins put up in the aba when it was just starting up.
It's also worth noting that Johnston had good length and had pretty good skills for a big man. He could dribble fairly well and you can see him doing things like spin moves towards the basket. He also seems to be pretty fluid and quick for his height/era with an outside shot. Which obviously shows in him being hugely efficient as a scorer. I don't think all of this can just get swept under the rug because we see him as undersized and playing in a weaker era. He was also a good enough athlete to start out as a pitcher in mlb before switching full time to basketball.


Re: only 23 games how can you draw much of a conclusion? I mean, it's all Johnston has. I'm not going to champion a guy as the GOAT because he never had a bad playoff game if he never actually played in the playoffs. Johnston did play in the playoffs, and seemed underwhelming.

Re: Arizin scoring more while Johnston was doing more rebounding and playmaking. This just seems like you're trying to find a way not to use the data to draw conclusions.

Go look at the Finals:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1956-nba-finals-pistons-vs-warriors.html

In that series, it's not just that the direct box score seems to indicate that Johnston was probably only about the 4th best guy out there. It's the fact that Johnston's team got destroyed on the boards. If Johnston was scoring less and scoring less efficiently in the name of rebounding, then that strategic choice was a dismal failure.

Also, the notion of talking about Johnston as if he's a lead playmaker seems weird to me. George & Gola were the guys getting rave reviews for their passing.

I'll also make clear another point of what I meant:

Johnston first started putting up huge numbers when Arizin went to the military. While Johnston put up big numbers, the team completely fell apart (12-57). I don't think Johnston was ever the lead scorer on an even average level offense.

Re: Maybe small, but like Mikan. Right as I alluded to, the Pistons massacred Johnston on the boards. The concern about Mikan is that he wouldn't scale as well against later competition, the concern about Johnston is that there were indications his technique wasn't working against his tougher contemporaries.

Re: can't just sweep under the rug. Right but it's not sweeping it under the rug to suggest that Cliff Hagan played better in the playoffs than Johnston did. It's not a question of whether Johnston was good at basketball, but did he prove more than all other comers? I'm not so sure.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
Cavsfansince84
General Manager
Posts: 8,243
And1: 6,191
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#31 » by Cavsfansince84 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 11:00 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Re: only 23 games how can you draw much of a conclusion? I mean, it's all Johnston has. I'm not going to champion a guy as the GOAT because he never had a bad playoff game if he never actually played in the playoffs. Johnston did play in the playoffs, and seemed underwhelming.

Re: Arizin scoring more while Johnston was doing more rebounding and playmaking. This just seems like you're trying to find a way not to use the data to draw conclusions.

Go look at the Finals:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1956-nba-finals-pistons-vs-warriors.html

In that series, it's not just that the direct box score seems to indicate that Johnston was probably only about the 4th best guy out there. It's the fact that Johnston's team got destroyed on the boards. If Johnston was scoring less and scoring less efficiently in the name of rebounding, then that strategic choice was a dismal failure.

Also, the notion of talking about Johnston as if he's a lead playmaker seems weird to me. George & Gola were the guys getting rave reviews for their passing.

I'll also make clear another point of what I meant:

Johnston first started putting up huge numbers when Arizin went to the military. While Johnston put up big numbers, the team completely fell apart (12-57). I don't think Johnston was ever the lead scorer on an even average level offense.

Re: Maybe small, but like Mikan. Right as I alluded to, the Pistons massacred Johnston on the boards. The concern about Mikan is that he wouldn't scale as well against later competition, the concern about Johnston is that there were indications his technique wasn't working against his tougher contemporaries.

Re: can't just sweep under the rug. Right but it's not sweeping it under the rug to suggest that Cliff Hagan played better in the playoffs than Johnston did. It's not a question of whether Johnston was good at basketball, but did he prove more than all other comers? I'm not so sure.


Ok, in that finals Johnston averaged 13 and 11 but I see his team getting out rebounded by a 58 to 55 margin, not being killed on the boards as you said while his team won the series in 5 games. In short, I think he played the role he needed to which helped to win his team a title. In regard to playmaking, I didn't say that he led his team in playmaking but that for his career he averaged more assists per game than Arizin. I actually thought it was by a wider margin though. Regarding team ORtg, I think its worth noting that in 56 and 57 when he was only a couple ppg behind Arizing they were the #1 team in the league both years. Also, the year Arizin left they were only .500 the year before and Johnston was in his second season in the league after not playing much as a rookie and the guy who was second on the team in win shares that year only had 2.0. In short, sometimes good or even great players are put in positions where winning just isn't going to happen. You also brought up goat talk which is just weird to me because we are 75+ spots out of goat contention here. So my standards in terms of playoff accomplishments aren't going to be that high but the fact that he did get a ring as a 1b or #2 is good enough for me at this point. I think between his statistical dominance, accolades and ring he easily has one of the best resumes of any remaining player. So that's why I have him on my ballot right now.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,819
And1: 5,545
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#32 » by trex_8063 » Fri Apr 9, 2021 1:03 am

Thru post #31:

Hal Greer - 2 (Cavsfansince84, Clyde Frazier)
Ben Wallace - 1 (Odinn21)
Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Chris Bosh - 1 (trex_8063)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)
Horace Grant - 1 (penbeast0)
Damian Lillard - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Jeff Hornacek - 1 (sansterre)


Time's up, and we have 10 votes spread over nine candidates, which makes Greer the default winner. As it's far from a majority, though, let's validate....

Greer leads DJ 8-1 (1 unknown: HeartBreakKid)
Greer leads Hornacek 7-2 (1 unknown: Hal14)
Greer leads Lillard 7-2 (1 unknown: HeartBreakKid)
Greer leads Walton, Bosh, and Grant by a margin of 7-3 each.
Greer leads Jokic 6-4.
However, Greer trails Ben Wallace 3-6 (1 unknown: Hal14)

So we will enter a runoff between Greer and Wallace.
Hal14, I need to know where Wallace [and Hornacek] fall in the line-up of these nine candidates (ditto HBK: where DJ and Lillard fall in yours).
We'll otherwise be looking for new runoff votes out of the existing voter panel. Greer has a somewhat steep hill to climb to take this one from Wallace [unlikely, given level of participation at this stage]; but as the default winner we need to give him that chance.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

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

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,819
And1: 5,545
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#33 » by trex_8063 » Fri Apr 9, 2021 1:19 am

Doctor MJ wrote:Re: Arizin scoring more while Johnston was doing more rebounding and playmaking. This just seems like you're trying to find a way not to use the data to draw conclusions.

Go look at the Finals:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1956-nba-finals-pistons-vs-warriors.html

In that series, it's not just that the direct box score seems to indicate that Johnston was probably only about the 4th best guy out there. It's the fact that Johnston's team got destroyed on the boards. If Johnston was scoring less and scoring less efficiently in the name of rebounding, then that strategic choice was a dismal failure.



Don't have a horse in this race [not supporting Johnston, likely at all in this project], but just by way of being devil's advocate and/or making a cautionary statement about using a 5-game series to draw big conclusions......

Johnston doesn't have much of a defensive reputation, yet look to opposing center Larry Foust's numbers in the series.....
He does average higher ppg and rpg in the series than during the rs, though imo likely on significantly higher playing time than in the rs [he only averaged 28.1 mpg in the rs; his total TSA/g are MUCH higher in this series].
His FG%, otoh, is -7.2% compared to the rs; his TS% is -3.3% from the rs, despite hitting almost 7% better from the FT-line than his rs standard.

And insofar as comparing Johnston to Arizin, it's worth noting that it's Arizin's man [George Yardley] that really lit this series up, both in terms of scoring AND rebounding: Yardley averaged 17.4 ppg @ 48.0% TS with 9.7 rpg in the rs......in this series he goes off for 24.8 ppg @ 50.8% TS with 15.2 rpg.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
Hal14
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,346
And1: 629
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81-->Sudden death RUNOFF: Greer vs Big Ben 

Post#34 » by Hal14 » Fri Apr 9, 2021 1:37 am

Runoff:
1) Hal Greer
2) Ben Wallace
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 43,605
And1: 12,433
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#35 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 9, 2021 4:14 am

trex_8063 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Re: Arizin scoring more while Johnston was doing more rebounding and playmaking. This just seems like you're trying to find a way not to use the data to draw conclusions.

Go look at the Finals:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1956-nba-finals-pistons-vs-warriors.html

In that series, it's not just that the direct box score seems to indicate that Johnston was probably only about the 4th best guy out there. It's the fact that Johnston's team got destroyed on the boards. If Johnston was scoring less and scoring less efficiently in the name of rebounding, then that strategic choice was a dismal failure.



Don't have a horse in this race [not supporting Johnston, likely at all in this project], but just by way of being devil's advocate and/or making a cautionary statement about using a 5-game series to draw big conclusions......

Johnston doesn't have much of a defensive reputation, yet look to opposing center Larry Foust's numbers in the series.....
He does average higher ppg and rpg in the series than during the rs, though imo likely on significantly higher playing time than in the rs [he only averaged 28.1 mpg in the rs; his total TSA/g are MUCH higher in this series].
His FG%, otoh, is -7.2% compared to the rs; his TS% is -3.3% from the rs, despite hitting almost 7% better from the FT-line than his rs standard.

And insofar as comparing Johnston to Arizin, it's worth noting that it's Arizin's man [George Yardley] that really lit this series up, both in terms of scoring AND rebounding: Yardley averaged 17.4 ppg @ 48.0% TS with 9.7 rpg in the rs......in this series he goes off for 24.8 ppg @ 50.8% TS with 15.2 rpg.


Happy for you to post stats in the thread, don't necessarily have much to say about them.

Re: Yardley as Arizin's man. Yardley was the Pistons' top rebounder all year, so it really doesn't make sense to try to blame the 6'4" Arizin for why Yardley and the Pistons outrebounded the Warriors, particularly since Arizin was busy being the guy who would have won Finals MVP.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 18,530
And1: 14,536
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81-->Sudden death RUNOFF: Greer vs Big Ben 

Post#36 » by HeartBreakKid » Fri Apr 9, 2021 7:58 am

Ah, I edited Lillard in my list but didn't bump the thread because I figured it probably wouldnt make a difference for this round. My apologies for holding it up (I think I just flat out forgot about Dennis Johnson)


Hawkins > Porter > B Wallace > G Hill > Gus Williams > Lillard > Greer> Hornacek > H Grant > Bosh > Dennis Johnson >Lucas > C Anthony > Dave DeBusschere
Owly
Analyst
Posts: 3,376
And1: 1,760
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81 

Post#37 » by Owly » Fri Apr 9, 2021 8:34 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Re: Arizin scoring more while Johnston was doing more rebounding and playmaking. This just seems like you're trying to find a way not to use the data to draw conclusions.

Go look at the Finals:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1956-nba-finals-pistons-vs-warriors.html

In that series, it's not just that the direct box score seems to indicate that Johnston was probably only about the 4th best guy out there. It's the fact that Johnston's team got destroyed on the boards. If Johnston was scoring less and scoring less efficiently in the name of rebounding, then that strategic choice was a dismal failure.



Don't have a horse in this race [not supporting Johnston, likely at all in this project], but just by way of being devil's advocate and/or making a cautionary statement about using a 5-game series to draw big conclusions......

Johnston doesn't have much of a defensive reputation, yet look to opposing center Larry Foust's numbers in the series.....
He does average higher ppg and rpg in the series than during the rs, though imo likely on significantly higher playing time than in the rs [he only averaged 28.1 mpg in the rs; his total TSA/g are MUCH higher in this series].
His FG%, otoh, is -7.2% compared to the rs; his TS% is -3.3% from the rs, despite hitting almost 7% better from the FT-line than his rs standard.

And insofar as comparing Johnston to Arizin, it's worth noting that it's Arizin's man [George Yardley] that really lit this series up, both in terms of scoring AND rebounding: Yardley averaged 17.4 ppg @ 48.0% TS with 9.7 rpg in the rs......in this series he goes off for 24.8 ppg @ 50.8% TS with 15.2 rpg.


Happy for you to post stats in the thread, don't necessarily have much to say about them.

Re: Yardley as Arizin's man. Yardley was the Pistons' top rebounder all year, so it really doesn't make sense to try to blame the 6'4" Arizin for why Yardley and the Pistons outrebounded the Warriors, particularly since Arizin was busy being the guy who would have won Finals MVP.

Personally I'm not going to weight a 5 game sample much but on this ...

If Yardley and Arizin's are matched up (and it's unclear whether you are disputing this - very hard to know of course ... at the end of G2 I've read of a Gola foul on Yardley and a Yardley block on Arizin, fwiw - and an Eckman quote suggests some matched up time, re: Arizin: "He was always clearing his nose. Everyone was scared to get close to him. They thought he had germs. I told them it was asthma, not germs. Yardley said Arizin was spittin' and slingin' snot on him. I told Yardley to spit back on him.") then Arizin's height and Yardley's "first" in team rebounds status (Foust plays less, more per minute, Houbregs close per minute) ... how much does this (especially Arizin's height) matter, you can baseline what's reasonable but even so it's a huge difference at the matchup. Also re "finals MVP" - in a zero (or zero adjacent) footage series isn't that just saying best boxscore on the winning team (off a very incomplete boxscore - not even minutes available). And if so isn't doing so whilst "advocating" for one guy over one on the other team - in a series where the winners won three of their four by 4 points or fewer (admittedly Pistons won theirs by 1) citing a (somewhat hypothetical) accolade - with the appearance of certainty - based on somewhat limited information (admittedly always going to be the case for this era) and a team advantage (which, whilst real, given the relevant measure - i.e. team wins) that could plausibly be flipped - not calling 4-1 for Pistons here, more they take one or two of their losses and have a shot - without the players noted playing any different.
SinceGatlingWasARookie
Head Coach
Posts: 6,062
And1: 1,483
Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Northern California

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81-->Sudden death RUNOFF: Greer vs Big Ben 

Post#38 » by SinceGatlingWasARookie » Fri Apr 9, 2021 9:09 am

Go back and look at what Bernard King accomplished in the 1984 playoffs. He was in a class that only included him and Kareem.

Awsome peak on a mediocre team.
King is OK on longevity as well.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 18,530
And1: 14,536
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81-->Sudden death RUNOFF: Greer vs Big Ben 

Post#39 » by HeartBreakKid » Fri Apr 9, 2021 9:13 am

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Go back and look at what Bernard King accomplished in the 1984 playoffs. He was in a class that only iluded him and Kareem.

Awsome peak on a mediocre team.
King is OK on longevity as well.

drop a vote, i'd be interested in seeing where King ranks since I am really peak based.
SinceGatlingWasARookie
Head Coach
Posts: 6,062
And1: 1,483
Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Northern California

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #81-->Sudden death RUNOFF: Greer vs Big Ben 

Post#40 » by SinceGatlingWasARookie » Fri Apr 9, 2021 9:45 am

King, 34.8 points a gane over 12 games games while shile shooting FG 57.4%. Only King and Kareem did that.. He took the championship Cetlics to 7 games. He was not ball dominant like Dantley. The ball was out of his hands almost as soon as he touched it.

Return to Player Comparisons