RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 (Nikola Jokic)

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

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,395
And1: 8,078
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 (Nikola Jokic) 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Sat May 8, 2021 1:25 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. Dominique Wilkins
74. Giannis Antetokounmpo
75. Kevin Johnson
76. Bobby Jones
77. Bob McAdoo
78. Shawn Marion
79. Dennis Rodman
80. Larry Nance
81. Ben Wallace
82. Hal Greer
83. Grant Hill
84. Sidney Moncrief
85. Damian Lillard
86. Chris Bosh
87. Horace Grant
88. Jeff Hornacek
89. Billy Cunningham
90. Dan Issel
91. James Worthy
92. Carmelo Anthony
93. Terry Porter
94. Cliff Hagan
95. ??

Target stop-time around 9pm EST on Sunday [everyone remember their mothers/wives this Sunday, btw].

EDIT: Based on his previous ballot, if ZeppelinPage continues to participate, Tom Heinsohn is likely to be a candidate I'll need you to include on an updated Condorcet listing.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

DCasey91 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:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
prolific passer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,107
And1: 1,438
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#2 » by prolific passer » Sat May 8, 2021 1:32 am

2 of the big 3 STL Hawks are on the list. Can Lenny Wilkens make it a hat trick?
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 20,772
And1: 19,174
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#3 » by Hal14 » Sat May 8, 2021 1:40 am

Hal14 wrote:1. Dennis Johnson
2. Tiny Archibald
3. Walt Bellamy

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).

https://www.sportscasting.com/larry-bird-reveals-the-best-player-hes-ever-played-with/

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%)

Here's a glimpse into how good Johnson was on defense:


Johnson was as good defensively as any guard to ever play. Only guards I might put over him on D are Jordan, Payton and maybe Frazier.

How clutch was Johnson? Take a look at this huge shot to beat the Lakers in the finals:


Want more clutch plays? Larry Bird made a great steal, but it wouldn't have mattered, the Celtics would have still lost that game (and the series) if Johnson didn't race in towards the basket, catch the ball in traffic and finish over a defender:


Johnson blocked 7 shots in a single NBA finals game (1978)

Johnson won NBA finals MVP (1979)

Johnson hit the first game winning 3-pointer in NBA playoff history (1980)



Celtics got swept in the 2nd round by the Bucks. Then they add DJ to the team and beat the Lakers (with prime Magic and prime Kareem) in the NBA finals in 1984.

If you want a guys who put up some nice advanced stats in an era where advanced stats didn't even exist yet, sure go ahead and vote for Hornacek. But if you want to win, then DJ is your guy.

Dennis Johnson is considered by many to be one of the most underrated players of all time:



https://aminoapps.com/c/hoops/page/blog/most-underrated-nba-player-of-all-time-dennis-johnson/pXNH_Qun5plrpdaKeJJ7JElNaBb8Qez#:~:text=Johnson%20(R.I.P.)%20is%20NBA's%20all,the%20most%20underrated%20player%20ever.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3584-the-most-underrated-players-in-nba-history

https://www.celticsblog.com/2014/10/20/7012785/celtic-great-dennis-johnson-clutch-underrated

http://loganssportsratings.blogspot.com/2016/08/top-100-nba-players-45-dennis-johnson.html

Tiny is a 6 time all-star, 3x all NBA 1st team, 2x all NBA 2nd team. You want peak? Only player ever to lead the NBA in both scoring and assists in the same season. And he was a key piece on the 1981 NBA championship-winning Celtics. Solid defender. Very few point guards in the history of the game possessed his combination of scoring and distributing. And he did it in an era before it was easier for point guards to dominate the league (like it's been since 2005). He'd be even higher up this list if not for injuries, but still had 13 seasons which is pretty good longevity, especially for that era.

Bellamy was a dominant center who could do it all - hit shots, score with power inside, rebound, defend, run the floor. Good combination of size, strength and skill. Sure, his ability diminished in his later years, but that's why he's not a top 50 player. If you just look at top 1 or 2 years for peak, there are very few centers who can match Bellamy. It's about time he gets voted in:

1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
User avatar
prolific passer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,107
And1: 1,438
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#4 » by prolific passer » Sat May 8, 2021 1:45 am

Hal14 wrote:
Hal14 wrote:1. Dennis Johnson
2. Tiny Archibald
3. Walt Bellamy

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).

https://www.sportscasting.com/larry-bird-reveals-the-best-player-hes-ever-played-with/

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%)

Here's a glimpse into how good Johnson was on defense:


Johnson was as good defensively as any guard to ever play. Only guards I might put over him on D are Jordan, Payton and maybe Frazier.

How clutch was Johnson? Take a look at this huge shot to beat the Lakers in the finals:


Want more clutch plays? Larry Bird made a great steal, but it wouldn't have mattered, the Celtics would have still lost that game (and the series) if Johnson didn't race in towards the basket, catch the ball in traffic and finish over a defender:


Johnson blocked 7 shots in a single NBA finals game (1978)

Johnson won NBA finals MVP (1979)

Johnson hit the first game winning 3-pointer in NBA playoff history (1980)



Celtics got swept in the 2nd round by the Bucks. Then they add DJ to the team and beat the Lakers (with prime Magic and prime Kareem) in the NBA finals in 1984.

If you want a guys who put up some nice advanced stats in an era where advanced stats didn't even exist yet, sure go ahead and vote for Hornacek. But if you want to win, then DJ is your guy.

Dennis Johnson is considered by many to be one of the most underrated players of all time:



https://aminoapps.com/c/hoops/page/blog/most-underrated-nba-player-of-all-time-dennis-johnson/pXNH_Qun5plrpdaKeJJ7JElNaBb8Qez#:~:text=Johnson%20(R.I.P.)%20is%20NBA's%20all,the%20most%20underrated%20player%20ever.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3584-the-most-underrated-players-in-nba-history

https://www.celticsblog.com/2014/10/20/7012785/celtic-great-dennis-johnson-clutch-underrated

http://loganssportsratings.blogspot.com/2016/08/top-100-nba-players-45-dennis-johnson.html

Tiny is a 6 time all-star, 3x all NBA 1st team, 2x all NBA 2nd team. You want peak? Only player ever to lead the NBA in both scoring and assists in the same season. And he was a key piece on the 1981 NBA championship-winning Celtics. Solid defender. Very few point guards in the history of the game possessed his combination of scoring and distributing. And he did it in an era before it was easier for point guards to dominate the league (like it's been since 2005). He'd be even higher up this list if not for injuries, but still had 13 seasons which is pretty good longevity, especially for that era.

Bellamy was a dominant center who could do it all - hit shots, score with power inside, rebound, defend, run the floor. Good combination of size, strength and skill. Sure, his ability diminished in his later years, but that's why he's not a top 50 player. If you just look at top 1 or 2 years for peak, there are very few centers who can match Bellamy. It's about time he gets voted in:


See you have DJ 1 and Tiny 2. Funny because DJ was brought in to basically replace Tiny due to Tiny's age and injury status.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 29,830
And1: 9,590
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#5 » by penbeast0 » Sat May 8, 2021 2:01 am

1. Jack Sikma -- just the kind of guy who you can fit on any squad and creates wins. Not great but very good
2. Draymond Green -- maybe he has been in the prefect situation, maybe he's really that impactful, but you can't choose your situation, just make the best of what you are presented with and he definitely has done that. Sort of this generation's Dennis Rodman.
3. Bob Dandridge -- similarly, a versatile very good 3rd option who could score if needed, play good defense and swing to the 4 (Milwaukee) or 2 (Washington).


4. Chris Webber
5. Walt Bellamy
6. Zelmo Beaty
7. Maurice Cheeks
8. Dennis Johnson
9. Mookie Blaylock
10. Connie Hawkins
Chris Mullin -- smart pure shooter, lead footed wing defender
LaMarcus Aldridge -- long consistent career
Elton Brand -- shorter career, though it peaked higher than Aldridge, lot of bad teams around him
Marques Johnson -- peaked higher than King, shorter career, substance abuse issues
Bernard King -- a couple of great playoff performances, reasonably efficient scorer but brings little else and had substance abuse issues.
Tiny Archibald -- Amazing for a couple of years on Kings, like Isiaih Thomas that year in Boston, but with his lack of defense and the way his scoring game worked, can't really see him as a key ceiling raiser piece.
Dave DeBusschere -- excellent defender, not a long career, poor shooter relative to league
Bill Walton
Nicola Jokic
David Thompson -- Another skywalker, great scorer, but career destroyed by cocaine
Gus Williams -- inefficient volume scorer without great career length
Tommy Heinsohn -- inefficient volume scorer, rep for poor defense, not a good passer, I don't think he makes my top 8 players who played with Russell much less my top 100 (S. Jones, Havlicek, Sharman, Howell, KC Jones, Cousy, Ramsey, Sanders. . . Jim Loscutoff? Larry Siegfried?).

GUARDS
Dennis Johnson, Gus Williams, Mookie Blaylock, Maurice Cheeks, Nate Archibald

Cheeks (low volume) and Archibald (high volume) are the only ones with significantly positive efficiency, with the other three down below league average during their 5 year primes. DJ has the big rep, both on defense and in awards, Mookie also had a great defensive rep and was ahead of his time shooting low percentage from 2 but a lot of 3's, Cheeks is another very good defender. Cheeks, Blaylock, and Gus Williams generated assists like point guards, DJ didn't. Tiny is the best floor raiser but probably the worst ceiling raiser which I tend to value more.

I rate them:
1. Cheeks -- good defense, leadership, efficient scoring though at low volume, I have to say I'd rather have him as my PG than any of the others except in unusual situations and I don't see DJ as a good enough shooting guard for his ability to guard wings to rate him higher.
2a. DJ -- tempted to go Mookie here but DJ's versatility on the defensive end (and face it, if they are getting any traction it's on their defense) give him the edge despite Mookie's playmaking and range (tempted AGAIN to switch this!)
2b. Blaylock -- spread the floor and played great defense, very modern player. Got assists but not a great creator, scored nearly as much as DJ but no more efficient despite his 3 point range.
4. Nate Archibald -- Isiaih in Boston showed you can compete with a Tiny type PG as the main man, though it's hard. He did show a willingness to sacrifice his personal game for team goals when he went to Boston and his peers rated him highly there.
Gus Williams -- poor efficiency hurts the guy whose game was most built around volume scoring the most.

WINGS
Draymond Green really plays like a 3/4 type, just the system uses him at the 4 and 5 but these are more his peers. Same for DeBusschere who even played some 2 in Detroit. These are the two best defenders, Green the most impactful AND the best playmaker which moves him to the top of these rankings. DeBusschere's shooting is just too ugly to compete at this level despite his rep. Dandridge is the most versatile of the rest, playing 4 in Milwaukee and 2 in Washington as well as the 3. He is an all-defense candidate, which none of the rest can claim while also an excellent 3rd, passible second option scorer on decent efficiency. He did whine in Milwaukee but was a class pro after that in Washington. Marques Johnson, Bernard King, and Chris Mullin all had some strong offensive years, Marques was the only one not a weak defender but also the shortest career of the 3. All efficient volume scorers, none played that long, King had some nice playoff runs. Both Marques Johnson and Bernard King had substance abuse issues and Chris Mullin had one of the ugliest haircuts ever seen outside of boot camp. Close between the 3. Connie Hawkins and David Thompson both would easily have been top 100 player but for injuries (Hawk) and drugs (skywalker).

BIG MEN
Walt Bellamy was a true 1960 (and 70s) center. Good scorer, not a particularly good defender or passer, had a MONSTER rookie year on a super weak expansion team (in the league's most inflated year) then declined from that point on. A rep as being annoying in the locker room and showing up overweight. By the numbers, he's clearly the choice.

Sikma, Webber, Brand all F/C types. Webber and Brand also decent rim protectors though overall Sikma had the only All-Defense award. Sikma and Webber good (some say great) big man passers. Efficiency, Brand was decent, Sikma average, Webber below average; Webber the volume scorer, then Brand and Sikma. Jokic and Walton just didn't have enough peak seasons before this year, though if I could include this season, Jokic would rise a bit in my rankings.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,395
And1: 8,078
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#6 » by trex_8063 » Sat May 8, 2021 2:04 am

1st vote: LaMarcus Aldridge
This was initially almost a coin-flip between him and Webber, but I'm more and more comfortable with it.
I don't think he peaked quite as high (peaking at probably a weak All-NBA 2nd Team level), but he was just so solidly consistent for about 11 straight years. It's left him in fairly high standing in various counting and cumulative metrics, but he also has a handful on years rating out in the top 12-15 of the league in terms of impact (see below).

Where some people try to label LMA as a low-efficiency volume scorer, I'd advise looking to his turnover economy, which is arguably GOAT [like for real: GOAT] among big-men. So his all-around offensive efficiency should be viewed in light of that.

He always struck me as reasonably solid defensively through his prime [above neutral at his worst].

And where some try to label him "empty stats", I'd note that is simply NOT reflected in the actual impact metrics. For instance, I'd note he has NINE seasons >+2 RAPM, and EIGHT above +3.
Below is his league rank in combined PI RAPM by year:
'09: 16th
'10: tied for 18th
'11: 21st
'12 (NPI): tied for 31st
'13: tied for 15th (with All-NBA 1st teamer Tim Duncan)
'14 (NPI): tied for 15th
'15: 25th
'16: 22nd
'17: notable dip (still positive, but no where near top of the league)
'18 (NPI, rs-only): 12th

So that's a solid decade where his impact metrics would fairly consistently posit him as a fringe All-Star at worst (and All-NBA 2nd/3rd team level at best), especially considering he played anywhere from 30.6 to 39.6 mpg [avg of 35.7 mpg] over this decade while missing relatively few games.

tbh, I'm sort of surprised he doesn't have more support. Prior to the start of this current season he:
*Had the 61st-highest career PER of all-time; this while avg >34 mpg in >1000 games.
**Was 61st all-time in career WS.
***Was 90th in career VORP.

And all of this with a decent impact profile, while also nabbing SEVEN All-Star selections [in the tough West, too], FIVE All-NBA honors (3x 3rd, 2x 2nd), and THREE top-10 finishes in the MVP vote (for the people placing serious emphasis on media accolades).

Sure just seems like he ticks off more than enough of the necessary boxes for the mid-90s section of the list.



2nd vote: Chris Webber
Short(ish) prime, and certainly under-achieved his potential [though his potential was REALLY damn high]. He's still a very nice peak and top 2-3 years, with some useful years outside of that. An OK [and somewhat versatile] scorer, EXCELLENT passing big-man, very very good rebounder, good defender when engaged (though I'll freely acknowledge he was NOT consistently engaged).
Although he's an under-achiever [boy, this is a lukewarm endorsement!], I think he did enough in his career to warrant consideration here.


3rd vote: Zelmo Beaty
He's been name-dropped [not only be me, as of last thread]. I'm gonna start pushing for him.
The more I look at him, the more underrated he looks. Several really solid NBA season (seemed pretty reliable for around 18-21 pts and 11-14 reb on VERY good shooting efficiency basically all thru the mid-late 60s). What's more is he has a passable to decent defensive reputation (known as a pretty physical [almost "enforcer"-type??] defender).

Then he jumps into the ABA of the early-mid 70s (an ABA that had Rick Barry, Mel Daniels, and Dan Issel, plus Erving, Gilmore, and McGinnis by Zelmo's 2nd season), and he immediately looks like one of its very best players for those first two seasons. By his 3rd season in the ABA [now age 33], he declines to being merely fringe All-Star level.

I'll try to post a little more later, but he just looks like a very solid candidate.
Cheeks, Sikma, and Porter also very close here.

Have updated my list [for Condorcet purposes] to include ANYONE who has received votes of any kind, plus some others who are definitley on my radar:
LMA > Webber > Beaty > Cheeks > Sikma > Lowry > Walker > DeBusschere > Hawkins > Bellamy > Johnston > G.Williams > D.Johnson > Walton > Jokic > Tiny > Draymond > King > Heinsohn (may change the order on Walton/Jokic/Tiny as we go along, but this is how I'm currently feeling).
Could also see bumping Hawkins ahead of DeBusschere +/- Walker. DeBusschere pops a little [visually] when I was doing the game log project, though. Admittedly not always in a good way [takes a lot of shots at questionable accuracy]; but holy crap was he active. Rebounds, deflections, assists, points, generally busting plays; and fwiw he was willing/capable of shooting from the outside, so there was at least a little spacing effect. He'd fit nice in the modern league (where era portability is important to anyone).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#7 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 5:54 am

prolific passer wrote:2 of the big 3 STL Hawks are on the list. Can Lenny Wilkens make it a hat trick?

I think he is better than a lot of the PGs who made this list or are being considered.
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,000
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#8 » by Dutchball97 » Sat May 8, 2021 5:55 am

1. 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. It's a shame some of the voters don't consider him for the top 100 project at all but at this point of the list we're all simply going to have to accept players will receive votes that others don't have among their next 25 picks at all.

2. Gus Williams - While another voter already has Dennis Johnson on his ballot, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned his teammate on the 79 champion Supersonics yet tbh. Gus Williams was only a 2 time All-Star so I understand he might fly under the radar for some people but this massively undervalues him. His prime quality and duration really isn't much different than Ben Wallace. It maybe shouldn't be a surprise I'm this high on Gus WIlliams because I've consistently put a big emphasis on play-off performance and Gus was a post-season savant who consistently stepped his game up when it counted most. After being the best player for the 78 Sonics that lost game 7 of the finals, he went on to post a 23.8 PER, .210 WS/48 and 6.7 BPM alongside a league leading 2.7 WS and 1.3 VORP on the way to a championship the next year. That isn't the end of Gus Williams being amazing in the play-offs though. In the 1980, 82, 83 and 84 post-seasons he had 20+ PER, .150+ WS/48 and 6+ BPM in every single one of those campaigns.

3. Draymond Green - Looking at just his regular season numbers I'd expect to see him near the bottom of my list but the part he played in the Warriors dynasty is severely underrated. Dray has been both the primary playmaker and the defensive anchor for the Warriors for a long time now. Where Draymond really shines is the play-offs though. I'm not sure if anyone is aware but in his 7 post-seasons Dray has never had a DBPM below 3. DBPM isn't a perfect stat but it generally gives a decent indication of a player's defense and Dray has been elite in it every single year. Draymond was a massive part of getting the Warriors to 5 straight finals, accumulating 2+ WS and 1+ VORP in all of those campaigns.

Anfernee Hardaway > Jimmy Butler > Zelmo Beaty > Paul George > Kyle Lowry > Marques Johnson > Jerry Lucas > Neil Johnston > Walt Bellamy > Chris Webber > Bill Sharman > Bob Dandridge > Maurice Cheeks > Jack Sikma > Frank Ramsey > Andrei Kirilenko > Eddie Jones > LaMarcus Aldridge > Bernard King > Bill Walton > Connie Hawkins > Dennis Johnson > Tom Heinsohn > Dave DeBusschere > Tiny Archibald
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#9 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 5:56 am

I don't know if I should give my #3 vote to Green or Beaty D:
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#10 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 9:13 am

Criteria

Spoiler:
I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health of their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.



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) Mel Daniels - I was about to do a coin flip with Beaty and Green and then I realized Mel Daniels deserves some major consideration. I think if he had won 3 NBA titles and 2 NBA MVP's but his numbers were worse he would have gotten in a long time ago. Mel Daniels should have a bit of a "baby" Bill Russell reputation. Most of his impact came from defense. He was an outlier rebounder, a good scorer albeit with little effective range. His biggest weakness was likely his passing as he was more of a finisher. Mel Daniels doesn't have the earth shattering defense of Bill Russell, but it was consistent enough for the Pacers to become the "Celtics of the ABA". They won 3 titles despite not having near the talent of some other teams - at least in terms of star power. Roger Brown, Netolicky, George McGuisness - none of those guys scream "defense" to me, yet defense is what the Pacers won with. I'm not sure if in a vacuum someone like Daniels is actually a better defender than Green, and as an offensive player he's definitely not better than Beaty - but perhaps he is the best balance? It's really hard to say. I could easily change my vote, but for now I think perhaps we should really think about giving Daniels "benefit of the doubt" for his success. He was the best player on 2 championship teams and a major contributor to one, that seems like a very winning player to me.









Beaty> Green> Hawkins > G Williams > King > Webber > Dennis Johnson >Ramsey> Lowry > Sikma > Archibald > Aldridge > Lucas > Heinsohn > Bellamy > Johnston > DeBusschere > Dandridge
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#11 » by sansterre » Sat May 8, 2021 9:25 am

#1. Draymond Green - Draymond is a weird player to evaluate. Normally I'm big on longevity and Draymond is still playing. But his peak (by certain metrics) was crazy. He's an insane ceiling raiser, like Ben Wallace but better. And unlike the Ben Wallace argument "Yeah, but having him kills your offense" you really can't argue that for Draymond. Because he was on a lot of extremely strong offenses. He wasn't a great scorer by a long shot, but he was an outstanding passer. A lot of people don't realize that Draymond often averaged more Assists/100 than Curry did (the two were neck and neck during their peak years). So despite not being a good scorer (and he was okay, averaging around league average shooting on high teens usage) he actually tended toward being a net positive on offense from all the impact data we have. And his ability to play a hyper-aware long-armed center in a lineup of all athletic wings (and Curry) transformed the Warriors. I'm not making any argument that Green is as valuable to the Warriors as Curry was. But his AuRPM numbers actually come out looking really close to Curry, and in 2017 were above Durant in both AuRPM and RAPM.

The Warriors from 2015 to 2018 were four of the best teams ever and every impact metric we have suggests that Draymond was a very close 2nd in value on three of them. Unlike shot-blocking bigs like Embiid and Gobert, Draymond's defensive value tends to go up in the playoffs. Because smart switchability is a serious asset in playoff defense and Draymond has that as well as anyone.

Do I have him too high here? Maybe. His 2016 PIPM kind of broke my metric. But the impact metrics scream that he was one of the most valuable players in the league during his peak.

Was he a crap floor-raiser? Definitely. And if you like floor-raisers or wins-added, then Draymond is probably far lower on your list.

But we have to make our peace with the fact that he may have been one of the greatest ceiling-raisers ever. And there's some serious value there. From a CORP point of view, he has a pretty respectable argument.

#2. Kyle Lowry - This may seem incongruous, but Kyle Lowry has some pretty strong selling points. His career has actually been quietly impressive. He's got four different 10+ Win Share seasons and over 30k career minutes. He's got four seasons above 4.5 VORP. Did you know that of all active NBA players he's currently 11th in Win Shares and VORP? These are respectably impressive stats. But would you believe that Kyle Lowry's impact metrics are outstanding? He put up a +4.5 AuRPM in 2014, a +4.6 AuRPM in 2015, a +6.5 in 2016 (10th in the league) and a +6.3 in 2017 (6th). His RAPM in 2018 (including playoffs) was 6th in the league (ESPN's RPM has him #1), ESPN's RPM has him 5th in 2019 and it has him 6th in 2020. By Impact metrics, Kyle Lowry's been a Top 10 player in the league for the past five years.

How is this possible? After all, Lowry is a good offensive player but not great. He's pretty consistently in the low 20s for usage and his shooting was only around +3 or +4 in his five-year peak. How good can he be? But he's also a weirdly quality rebounder. Kyle Lowry may be the best rebounding six footer ever (not a huge claim to fame, but still). He has eight different seasons at 7% TRB or higher, while no other six footer has more than 4. You could argue that he's a rebound-chaser, but his impact metrics suggest that isn't the case. He's a strong floor spacer (half his shots are threes and he made them at 38% over the last ten seasons) and a strong passer (passer ratings at 6.5 or higher from Ben Taylor). I won't argue that he has the offensive impact of a Lillard (though he surely has more longevity). But unlike Lillard, Lowry is a strong defender, generally considered an underrated team defender with a knack for drawing charges. And if he's an actual plus on defense (as most metrics consider him) that means he doesn't need to be as good on offense for the same level of impact.

Has he struggled in the playoffs historically? Yes. But no more than Lillard has, and Dame has been getting a fair amount of love in these votes. And recently Lowry has turned it around in the postseason, posting the 4th best RAPTOR-WAR in the '19 playoffs (+6.6 average) and 5th best in the '20 playoffs (+9.3).

Like Porter, like a lot of guys I champion, he's not super-sexy. But he's had a long career and a strong peak. Instead of being an all-offense chucker he's good at everything, and was a key piece in leading the Raptors to their first ever NBA title. Maybe he deserves some love too. :)

#3. Walt Bellamy - If ever a player was optimized to show up well in the limited stats we have from the first two decades of the league, Walt Bellamy is it. His Win Share CORP absolutely blows everyone else out of the water. He put up seven different 10+ Win Share seasons, including a 16 WS rookie year (where he was 2nd in the league). Like Bob McAdoo and Tiny Archibald he hit the league hard, put up a lot of great seasons, but peaked early and was regressing hard by the time he approached his late 20s/early 30s. Bellamy was a monster scorer, perhaps the best scoring big of the 60s besides . . . some guy I can't remember. Bellamy routinely took 25+% of his shots and made them in the +6% to +8% range, which is really good (especially for the 60s). He was also a strong rebounder (not great). Detractors would argue that he didn't really port his performance into the playoffs well, that he wasn't often a motivated defender and that the Knicks took off once they traded him. As to the first two points that's fair, but I don't agree with the last one. Bellamy was built to be a floor-raiser, a guy who could take a lot of shots (and make them well) no matter what the defense did to stop him. But the Knicks had Clyde Frazier *and* Willis Reed *and* Cazzie Russell. They didn't need a floor-raising scorer, they needed a ceiling-raising defender and they got a great one in Dave DeBusschere (incidentally, the change in the Knicks as a result of the Bellamy -> DeBusschere swap is literally the perfect example of the flaws in the "first option uber alles" philosophy of player evaluation. Bellamy had a long career (for that era), during which he put up Top 6 numbers in points five times. A lot of his other metrics aren't great; his WOWYR is low, his playoff metrics aren't great (of course, he didn't make the playoffs at his peak) and the BackPicks BPM doesn't like him much. But his Win Shares are fantastic. Again, he's like Tiny/McAdoo if their peaks had gone way longer. He's not the kind of player I normally like, but the sheer weight of his scoring and performance on weaker teams merits consideration.

D.Green > Kyle Lowry > Bellamy > Eddie Jones > Z.Beaty > Jokic > A.Kirilenko > M.Cheeks > S.Kemp > B.Walton > P.George > LaMarcus Aldridge > Webber > Sikma > A.Iguodala > Schrempf > G.Williams > Lucas > A.Hardaway > D.DeBusschere > J.Butler > M. Johnson > B.King > D.Johnson > C.Hawkins > M.Price > C.Mullin > N.Johnston > K.Irving > K.Thompson > Archibald
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#12 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 9:42 am

Now I'm thinking about Elton Brand....

He's usually regarded as a "peak guy", but he had 8 seasons of 20/10 on good efficiency.. I think what's really more accurate is that people simply did not care about Elton Brand back then or the Clippers. He was just an unsexy player, and that's how the media worked back then. (when people talk about Paul Pierce they almost always refer to him 2008+ because before that people simply just did not care about him before he had a good team)

In addition, the one playoff run he had his team won a series where he was absolutely incredible. He then takes the Suns to 7 games with people saying he was the best player in the series which included an MVP Steve Nash. Not sure how true that is, but it's hard to deny that the guy was playing like an animal.

Keep in mind his entire prime took place during the most defensive oriented era. In many other eras he would consistently be a 25 PPG guy with probably 13 rebounds, or if we go to the 60s and 70s he would be above 15 RPG probably.

We have some peak guys like Bernard King getting a mention who is said to have better longevity than you would think, but Brand had a full prime and was actually healthy for most of it.

It's hard for me to see a lot of the nominated players as better on court players, and a lot of the guys at this point in the project can barely string a few healthy prime seasons. Brand was good for an entire generation AND he had a heck of a peak.
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,000
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#13 » by Dutchball97 » Sat May 8, 2021 9:52 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:Now I'm thinking about Elton Brand....

He's usually regarded as a "peak guy", but he had 8 seasons of 20/10 on good efficiency.. I think what's really more accurate is that people simply did not care about Elton Brand back then or the Clippers. He was just an unsexy player, and that's how the media worked back then. (when people talk about Paul Pierce they almost always refer to him 2008+ because before that people simply just did not care about him before he had a good team)

In addition, the one playoff run he had his team won a series where he was absolutely incredible. He then takes the Suns to 7 games with people saying he was the best player in the series which included an MVP Steve Nash. Not sure how true that is, but it's hard to deny that the guy was playing like an animal.

Keep in mind his entire prime took place during the most defensive oriented era. In many other eras he would consistently be a 25 PPG guy with probably 13 rebounds, or if we go to the 60s and 70s he would be above 15 RPG probably.

We have some peak guys like Bernard King getting a mention who is said to have better longevity than you would think, but Brand had a full prime and was actually healthy for most of it.

It's hard for me to see a lot of the nominated players as better on court players, and a lot of the guys at this point in the project can barely string a few healthy prime seasons. Brand was good for an entire generation AND he had a heck of a peak.


Brand's problem is most likely that his peak isn't as impressive as guys like Walton or Jokic but his longevity isn't as impressive as say a LMA or Sikma so he kind of falls in the middle for both peak and longevity based approaches. I doubt he'll make the list because of that but I wouldn't be surprised to see him pop up in the honorable mentions thread.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,614
And1: 3,131
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#14 » by Owly » Sat May 8, 2021 10:00 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:Criteria

Spoiler:
I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health of their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.



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) Mel Daniels - I was about to do a coin flip with Beaty and Green and then I realized Mel Daniels deserves some major consideration. I think if he had won 3 NBA titles and 2 NBA MVP's but his numbers were worse he would have gotten in a long time ago. Mel Daniels should have a bit of a "baby" Bill Russell reputation. Most of his impact came from defense. He was an outlier rebounder, a good scorer albeit with little effective range. His biggest weakness was likely his passing as he was more of a finisher. Mel Daniels doesn't have the earth shattering defense of Bill Russell, but it was consistent enough for the Pacers to become the "Celtics of the ABA". They won 3 titles despite not having near the talent of some other teams - at least in terms of star power. Roger Brown, Netolicky, George McGuisness - none of those guys scream "defense" to me, yet defense is what the Pacers won with. I'm not sure if in a vacuum someone like Daniels is actually a better defender than Green, and as an offensive player he's definitely not better than Beaty - but perhaps he is the best balance? It's really hard to say. I could easily change my vote, but for now I think perhaps we should really think about giving Daniels "benefit of the doubt" for his success. He was the best player on 2 championship teams and a major contributor to one, that seems like a very winning player to me.









Beaty> Green> Hawkins > G Williams > King > Webber > Dennis Johnson >Ramsey> Lowry > Sikma > Archibald > Aldridge > Lucas > Heinsohn > Bellamy > Johnston > DeBusschere > Dandridge

I won't bite on "if he won 3 NBA titles, but see earlier thoughts about especially the early ABA (which if I had to do a hard cutoff probably includes that first title).

But on "He was the best player on 2 championship teams" ... if you're talking about them because they are "championship teams" I would assume, internal logic wise, this means playoffs. And '70 (an very clearly offensively bent team in the RS, I don't know about playoffs) Brown seems clearly the most productive player. Daniels' defense probably closes the gap somewhat (fwiw Brown seems like an outlier playoffs minute leader on the team - 693, from Netolicky's 603; Daniels third at 533). So I'm assuming you're giving him '72 and '73?

Was he plausibly the best player on those teams? Sure. Is it still a weaker league, yes. Are the Pacers dominant either year? No (both playoff runs feature series in which they didn't outscore opponents, '72 features a net tie and a narrow loss, in a 3 series run) neither in the playoffs nor the RS (in either year). My guess is he's a good player on a good team (that's relatively stable otoh, in an unstable league) that muddles through to titles (in a small league) in ensemble-y casts. To me invoking best player on a champ (or one could argue dynasty given the titles) is invoking a group that is on average much better (obviously got in sooner, of course) but that just shows it's not that titles make great players but having elite players increases your odds for titles.

He's a big man and a rebounding specialist that for a fair chunk of his prime is thin on quality bigs and where (perhaps moreso bigs') stats seem to take a quite a boost versus NBA.

It's murky. Less than complete information so significant uncertainty etc. For me though the lack of longevity hurts him more than most because because there's less of a sample versus quality opposition.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#15 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 10:14 am

Owly wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:Criteria

Spoiler:
I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health of their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.



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) Mel Daniels - I was about to do a coin flip with Beaty and Green and then I realized Mel Daniels deserves some major consideration. I think if he had won 3 NBA titles and 2 NBA MVP's but his numbers were worse he would have gotten in a long time ago. Mel Daniels should have a bit of a "baby" Bill Russell reputation. Most of his impact came from defense. He was an outlier rebounder, a good scorer albeit with little effective range. His biggest weakness was likely his passing as he was more of a finisher. Mel Daniels doesn't have the earth shattering defense of Bill Russell, but it was consistent enough for the Pacers to become the "Celtics of the ABA". They won 3 titles despite not having near the talent of some other teams - at least in terms of star power. Roger Brown, Netolicky, George McGuisness - none of those guys scream "defense" to me, yet defense is what the Pacers won with. I'm not sure if in a vacuum someone like Daniels is actually a better defender than Green, and as an offensive player he's definitely not better than Beaty - but perhaps he is the best balance? It's really hard to say. I could easily change my vote, but for now I think perhaps we should really think about giving Daniels "benefit of the doubt" for his success. He was the best player on 2 championship teams and a major contributor to one, that seems like a very winning player to me.









Beaty> Green> Hawkins > G Williams > King > Webber > Dennis Johnson >Ramsey> Lowry > Sikma > Archibald > Aldridge > Lucas > Heinsohn > Bellamy > Johnston > DeBusschere > Dandridge

I won't bite on "if he won 3 NBA titles, but see earlier thoughts about especially the early ABA (which if I had to do a hard cutoff probably includes that first title).

But on "He was the best player on 2 championship teams" ... if you're talking about them because they are "championship teams" I would assume, internal logic wise, this means playoffs. And '70 (an very clearly offensively bent team in the RS, I don't know about playoffs) Brown seems clearly the most productive player. Daniels' defense probably closes the gap somewhat (fwiw Brown seems like an outlier playoffs minute leader on the team - 693, from Netolicky's 603; Daniels third at 533). So I'm assuming you're giving him '72 and '73?

Was he plausibly the best player on those teams? Sure. Is it still a weaker league, yes. Are the Pacers dominant either year? No (both playoff runs feature series in which they didn't outscore opponents, '72 features a net tie and a narrow loss, in a 3 series run) neither in the playoffs nor the RS (in either year). My guess is he's a good player on a good team (that's relatively stable otoh, in an unstable league) that muddles through to titles (in a small league) in ensemble-y casts. To me invoking best player on a champ (or one could argue dynasty given the titles) is invoking a group that is on average much better (obviously got in sooner, of course) but that just shows it's not that titles make great players but having elite players increases your odds for titles.

He's a big man and a rebounding specialist that for a fair chunk of his prime is thin on quality bigs and where (perhaps moreso bigs') stats seem to take a quite a boost versus NBA.

It's murky. Less than complete information so significant uncertainty etc. For me though the lack of longevity hurts him more than most because because there's less of a sample versus quality opposition.


I don't know, sometimes I think people forget how long the ABA lasted. They went a full 9 years, by 1973 they were already clearly a major league basketball org. Some of his fellow ABA competition in this project are guys like Hawkins who dominated a less sophisticated league.

If we look at the NBA 1970-76, it seems like the guys who had team success during this period have gotten in. I'm not sure if that that's consistent. Was the NBA THAT much better than the ABA by 1973? If so, why even count the ABA at all for this project?

I think he is quite a bit better than Roger Brown and George McGuiness (who I think is a bit of a fools gold type of player). Sure, they were an ensemble cast - but most of the players around this point are. Worthy was nowhere near the most important guy on his team. Sikma, Williams, Johnson were teammates. Hagen's teammate is a top 30 guy of all time and he had one of the best PGs. Green, Webber, Porter, Lowry - all good guys on championship teams/contenders, but more of a piece of the puzzle, even Webber who was the "best guy". I suppose it's comparable to Webber on the kings, maybe Webber is the best guy on a stacked team but he's not some mega force like Daniels - however, I still feel like the Pacers were not as stacked relative to Sacramento.

I don't feel it is much of a hot take to say that Daniels was the centerpiece of the Pacers, and if the Pacers were merely good because they were stable - then that is also because Daniels himself was stable. Sure as heck wasn't Netolicky. :P
Gibson22
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,918
And1: 909
Joined: Jun 23, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#16 » by Gibson22 » Sat May 8, 2021 10:19 am

Guys from this decade who haven't made it: kyrie, blake, pg, butler, lowry, draymond
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,000
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#17 » by Dutchball97 » Sat May 8, 2021 10:23 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Owly wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:Criteria

Spoiler:
I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health of their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.



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) Mel Daniels - I was about to do a coin flip with Beaty and Green and then I realized Mel Daniels deserves some major consideration. I think if he had won 3 NBA titles and 2 NBA MVP's but his numbers were worse he would have gotten in a long time ago. Mel Daniels should have a bit of a "baby" Bill Russell reputation. Most of his impact came from defense. He was an outlier rebounder, a good scorer albeit with little effective range. His biggest weakness was likely his passing as he was more of a finisher. Mel Daniels doesn't have the earth shattering defense of Bill Russell, but it was consistent enough for the Pacers to become the "Celtics of the ABA". They won 3 titles despite not having near the talent of some other teams - at least in terms of star power. Roger Brown, Netolicky, George McGuisness - none of those guys scream "defense" to me, yet defense is what the Pacers won with. I'm not sure if in a vacuum someone like Daniels is actually a better defender than Green, and as an offensive player he's definitely not better than Beaty - but perhaps he is the best balance? It's really hard to say. I could easily change my vote, but for now I think perhaps we should really think about giving Daniels "benefit of the doubt" for his success. He was the best player on 2 championship teams and a major contributor to one, that seems like a very winning player to me.









Beaty> Green> Hawkins > G Williams > King > Webber > Dennis Johnson >Ramsey> Lowry > Sikma > Archibald > Aldridge > Lucas > Heinsohn > Bellamy > Johnston > DeBusschere > Dandridge

I won't bite on "if he won 3 NBA titles, but see earlier thoughts about especially the early ABA (which if I had to do a hard cutoff probably includes that first title).

But on "He was the best player on 2 championship teams" ... if you're talking about them because they are "championship teams" I would assume, internal logic wise, this means playoffs. And '70 (an very clearly offensively bent team in the RS, I don't know about playoffs) Brown seems clearly the most productive player. Daniels' defense probably closes the gap somewhat (fwiw Brown seems like an outlier playoffs minute leader on the team - 693, from Netolicky's 603; Daniels third at 533). So I'm assuming you're giving him '72 and '73?

Was he plausibly the best player on those teams? Sure. Is it still a weaker league, yes. Are the Pacers dominant either year? No (both playoff runs feature series in which they didn't outscore opponents, '72 features a net tie and a narrow loss, in a 3 series run) neither in the playoffs nor the RS (in either year). My guess is he's a good player on a good team (that's relatively stable otoh, in an unstable league) that muddles through to titles (in a small league) in ensemble-y casts. To me invoking best player on a champ (or one could argue dynasty given the titles) is invoking a group that is on average much better (obviously got in sooner, of course) but that just shows it's not that titles make great players but having elite players increases your odds for titles.

He's a big man and a rebounding specialist that for a fair chunk of his prime is thin on quality bigs and where (perhaps moreso bigs') stats seem to take a quite a boost versus NBA.

It's murky. Less than complete information so significant uncertainty etc. For me though the lack of longevity hurts him more than most because because there's less of a sample versus quality opposition.


I don't know, sometimes I think people forget how long the ABA lasted. They went a full 9 years, by 1973 they were already clearly a major league basketball org. Some of his fellow ABA competition in this project are guys like Hawkins who dominated a less sophisticated league.

If we look at the NBA 1970-76, it seems like the guys who had team success during this period have gotten in. I'm not sure if that that's consistent. Was the NBA THAT much better than the ABA by 1973? If so, why even count the ABA at all for this project?


Dan Issel wouldn't have made the list without the ABA years and Julius Erving would've been way lower as well. Mel Daniels has a pretty short career and I'd argue his peak, even for the ABA, wasn't special enough to remedy that. His consistently solid play in the post-season is something that does intrigue me about him but while it is true the ABA wasn't that far behind the NBA anymore in 73, that is also the last year Mel Daniels was at his peak. Playing very well but imo not quite dominating in the late 60s-early 70s of the ABA but falling off towards the later, stronger ABA years while he wasn't even 30 yet makes him a hard sell for me here.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#18 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 10:28 am

Dutchball97 wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
Owly wrote:I won't bite on "if he won 3 NBA titles, but see earlier thoughts about especially the early ABA (which if I had to do a hard cutoff probably includes that first title).

But on "He was the best player on 2 championship teams" ... if you're talking about them because they are "championship teams" I would assume, internal logic wise, this means playoffs. And '70 (an very clearly offensively bent team in the RS, I don't know about playoffs) Brown seems clearly the most productive player. Daniels' defense probably closes the gap somewhat (fwiw Brown seems like an outlier playoffs minute leader on the team - 693, from Netolicky's 603; Daniels third at 533). So I'm assuming you're giving him '72 and '73?

Was he plausibly the best player on those teams? Sure. Is it still a weaker league, yes. Are the Pacers dominant either year? No (both playoff runs feature series in which they didn't outscore opponents, '72 features a net tie and a narrow loss, in a 3 series run) neither in the playoffs nor the RS (in either year). My guess is he's a good player on a good team (that's relatively stable otoh, in an unstable league) that muddles through to titles (in a small league) in ensemble-y casts. To me invoking best player on a champ (or one could argue dynasty given the titles) is invoking a group that is on average much better (obviously got in sooner, of course) but that just shows it's not that titles make great players but having elite players increases your odds for titles.

He's a big man and a rebounding specialist that for a fair chunk of his prime is thin on quality bigs and where (perhaps moreso bigs') stats seem to take a quite a boost versus NBA.

It's murky. Less than complete information so significant uncertainty etc. For me though the lack of longevity hurts him more than most because because there's less of a sample versus quality opposition.


I don't know, sometimes I think people forget how long the ABA lasted. They went a full 9 years, by 1973 they were already clearly a major league basketball org. Some of his fellow ABA competition in this project are guys like Hawkins who dominated a less sophisticated league.

If we look at the NBA 1970-76, it seems like the guys who had team success during this period have gotten in. I'm not sure if that that's consistent. Was the NBA THAT much better than the ABA by 1973? If so, why even count the ABA at all for this project?


Dan Issel wouldn't have made the list without the ABA years and Julius Erving would've been way lower as well. Mel Daniels has a pretty short career and I'd argue his peak, even for the ABA, wasn't special enough to remedy that. His consistently solid play in the post-season is something that does intrigue me about him but while it is true the ABA wasn't that far behind the NBA anymore in 73, that is also the last year Mel Daniels was at his peak. Playing very well but imo not quite dominating in the late 60s-early 70s of the ABA but falling off towards the later, stronger ABA years while he wasn't even 30 yet makes him a hard sell for me here.


Two players isn't a whole lot of representation, and one of them just got in the 90s.

I know there are other guys who made pit stops, and then there is Bobby Jones who I'm glad made it. But I think Jones and Erving's rankings wouldn't have changed that much because they played in the NBA enough and that gave them more credibility. Dr.J would probably still land in the top 20 or 25 and Jones is probably a top 100 guy still. I actually think Dr.J wouldn't fall off that much at all because his NBA career was still really successful in hindsight, but I haven't read the Dr.J relevant threads yet (I'm working my way through the top right now).

I see a lot of us are saying the ABA was a credible league but not quite as strong as the NBA - yet no one is showing it with their actions for the most part. It seems like being one of the best players in the ABA means about as being a role player in the NBA.

It seems like even segregation era NBA has more credibility. Hagan basically got in when there were hardly any black people in the NBA during his most relevant run and didn't have a prime that really spanned toward when the NBA became major league. (not hating on Hagan, I voted for him, just pointing out that I don't think we really take the ABA that seriously even if we say we do).
User avatar
ZeppelinPage
Head Coach
Posts: 6,418
And1: 3,386
Joined: Jun 26, 2008
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#19 » by ZeppelinPage » Sat May 8, 2021 10:50 am

1. Tom Heinsohn
Heinsohn was an incredibly talented, well-rounded player. He joined Holy Cross in '54 and they immediately jumped in points scored and allowed while going 26-2. By his senior year, Holy Cross ranked 33rd in offense and 23rd on defense nationally. When Heinsohn left, they fell to 153rd of 160 teams in points allowed with an 11-12 record.

The '56 Celtics were a middle of the pack team that struggled to play defense and rebound. Auerbach was a tough coach that got the most out of his players (he helped turn Cousy into a good defender), but his team had never obtained the consistent rebounder vitally needed for the era. At one point, Bob Cousy mentioned how badly the Celtics needed a rebounder to give the rest of the players a break, as they were busy trying to gather rebounds together, with Ed Macauley unable to control the boards himself--this tired them out during playoff time. Enter Heinsohn: a switchable shooter with offensive and defensive skills while being, most importantly, a relentless rebounder.

With Auerbach's coaching, Heinsohn was quick to learn the energy needed at the professional level. Before the season, Auerbach mentioned that Heinsohn had been watching Cousy "break his neck" on defense, and that this would help him understand what was needed from him. He learned quick. The Celtics started out 14-4 with Sharman healthy, easily the best team in the league and on pace for 56 wins--finishing 17-8 before Russell joined, going 3-4 without Sharman. They allowed 99 points a game during this stretch and held the #1 offense Philadelphia Warriors to 83 and 78 points in the middle of a 10-game win streak. Auerbach seemed to be using his press defense more than ever with Heinsohn added to the roster, allowing for small ball line-ups where the guards could harass players up the court without a loss in rebounding.

The biggest additions to the team at the beginning of the season were Heinsohn, Andy Phillip, and Lou Tsioropoulos. Now obviously the sudden shift in the Celtics from treadmill to championship contender is not entirely due to Heinsohn. Andy Phillip was a good all-around ball player, and no doubt improved their defense with his stealing and deflection ability (he had a 6 steal game early in the season). Tsioropoulos was also getting quite a bit of praise for how hard he played.

But Heinsohn was the key piece. A player that solved their rebounding issues, a threat on offense with his shooting, driving, and passing ability; a player with high energy that could switch, play for steals and get deflections off-ball--while having the athleticism to contest a variety of shots. He played a pivotal role in turning a previously middling team into a powehouse, that had other teams actively complaining about the talent level of their roster early in the season (without Russell and Ramsey too). By the time the Finals rolled around, Heinsohn was leading the Celtics in scoring as a rookie against the Pettit led Hawks, closing game 7 with a 37 point game on 17-33 shooting, one of the greatest rookie performances in NBA history. All while helping to keep Pettit below his average efficiency. Heinsohn could score when his team needed him most--always playing steady, but exploding for a boost when the team needed him during a critical moment.

Biggest strengths are his defense, rebounding, and gravity. Defensively, Heinsohn was among the very best of the Celtics. In Auerbach's book Basketball for The Player, The Fan, And The Coach--he lists Heinsohn as one of the great defensive cornermen, and for good reason. On top of being a relentless rebounder, he actively played for the ball and used his hands to poke, strip, and deflect. He could switch 1 through 4 with ease and play tough man-to-man defense, often contesting shots and getting blocks on players like Jerry West.

He didn't have all-time efficiency, but his high volume and tough shot making allowed for floor spacing that was beneficial to his teammates. Heinsohn shot a significant amount of jump shots that were difficult and this hurt his efficiency, with that being said he was also a threat to the defense as he could score when left open. With Russell on the Celtics, there was less spacing and more emphasis on making jump shots. The bulk of the jump shooting was often left to guys like Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones. Sharman and Jones were plus with their shooting ability, but the rest of the main offensive options suffered efficiency wise due to being the only ones that could take and make these difficult shots. With less spacing, it was harder to drive to the hoop as well as get to the line. Heinsohn could score when needed, having multiple playoff runs that were significant to their championships, and arguably could have won 2 Finals MVPs. Overall, I value his ability to be a threat on top of the defense he brings--he could even set up his teammates with good passes.

G6 '63 NBA Finals Heinsohn steal on Jerry West in a 2-point game with 2 minutes remaining
Spoiler:
Image

Heinsohn Defensive Sequence
Spoiler:
Image

Steal on Wilt Chamberlain
Spoiler:
Image

Strips on Rudy LaRusso and Guy Rodgers
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

Blocks on Jerry West
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

Passes in Game 2 '57 Finals
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

2. Frank Ramsey
Led the league in WS/48 during the regular season ('58) and playoffs ('57, '59) on ridiculous shooting percentages (+10 relTS% on 17.5 FGA in '59 playoffs, are you kidding me?) As the 6th man, he didn't have the highest volume, but he was still incredibly efficient whether he was in a smaller role or needed to take more shots come playoff time. Defensively, Ramsey was fantastic--lightning quick, playing passing lanes, deflecting and swiping at the ball, and staying with his man off-ball. In the G6 '63 Finals footage, Ramsey has 2 steals and multiple deflections, all while giving up zero baskets man to man. I think his clutch play, efficient scoring, and defensive ability all more than make up for his lack of volume. Definitely one of the greatest 6th men of all-time.

3. Jimmy Butler
Strong two-way impact, low turnover percentage with high assists, advanced and plus/minus stats are all good across the board. Had one of the greatest NBA Finals of all-time statistically last season. One of only 3 players to record a 40+ point triple double in the NBA Finals. Along with his high free throw rate, Butler has a good mix of volume, passing, and defense that I think a lot of other players don't have.

Jokic > Walton > D Green > Webber > DeBusschere > Lowry > Lucas > Johnston > Bellamy > Beaty > King > Sikma > Dandridge > G Williams > Archibald > Dennis Johnson > Aldridge > Hawkins
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#20 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 10:53 am

ZeppelinPage wrote:1. Tom Heinsohn
Heinsohn was an incredibly talented, well-rounded player. He joined Holy Cross in '54 and they immediately jumped in points scored and allowed while going 26-2. By his senior year, Holy Cross ranked 33rd in offense and 23rd on defense nationally. When Heinsohn left, they fell to 153rd of 160 teams in points allowed with an 11-12 record.

The '56 Celtics were a middle of the pack team that struggled to play defense and rebound. Auerbach was a tough coach that got the most out of his players (he helped turn Cousy into a good defender), but his team had never obtained the consistent rebounder vitally needed for the era. At one point, Bob Cousy mentioned how badly the Celtics needed a rebounder to give the rest of the players a break, as they were busy trying to gather rebounds together, with Ed Macauley unable to control the boards himself--this tired them out during playoff time. Enter Heinsohn: a switchable shooter with offensive and defensive skills while being, most importantly, a relentless rebounder.

With Auerbach's coaching, Heinsohn was quick to learn the energy needed at the professional level. Before the season, Auerbach mentioned that Heinsohn had been watching Cousy "break his neck" on defense, and that this would help him understand what was needed from him. He learned quick. The Celtics started out 14-4 with Sharman healthy, easily the best team in the league and on pace for 56 wins--finishing 17-8 before Russell joined, going 3-4 without Sharman. They allowed 99 points a game during this stretch and held the #1 offense Philadelphia Warriors to 83 and 78 points in the middle of a 10-game win streak. Auerbach seemed to be using his press defense more than ever with Heinsohn added to the roster, allowing for small ball line-ups where the guards could harass players up the court without a loss in rebounding.

The biggest additions to the team at the beginning of the season were Heinsohn, Andy Phillip, and Lou Tsioropoulos. Now obviously the sudden shift in the Celtics from treadmill to championship contender is not entirely due to Heinsohn. Andy Phillip was a good all-around ball player, and no doubt improved their defense with his stealing and deflection ability (he had a 6 steal game early in the season). Tsioropoulos was also getting quite a bit of praise for how hard he played.

But Heinsohn was the key piece. A player that solved their rebounding issues, a threat on offense with his shooting, driving, and passing ability; a player with high energy that could switch, play for steals and get deflections off-ball--while having the athleticism to contest a variety of shots. He played a pivotal role in turning a previously middling team into a powehouse, that had other teams actively complaining about the talent level of their roster early in the season (without Russell and Ramsey too). By the time the Finals rolled around, Heinsohn was leading the Celtics in scoring as a rookie against the Pettit led Hawks, closing game 7 with a 37 point game on 17-33 shooting, one of the greatest rookie performances in NBA history. All while helping to keep Pettit below his average efficiency. Heinsohn could score when his team needed him most--always playing steady, but exploding for a boost when the team needed him during a critical moment.

Biggest strengths are his defense, rebounding, and gravity. Defensively, Heinsohn was among the very best of the Celtics. In Auerbach's book Basketball for The Player, The Fan, And The Coach--he lists Heinsohn as one of the great defensive cornermen, and for good reason. On top of being a relentless rebounder, he actively played for the ball and used his hands to poke, strip, and deflect. He could switch 1 through 4 with ease and play tough man-to-man defense, often contesting shots and getting blocks on players like Jerry West.

He didn't have all-time efficiency, but his high volume and tough shot making allowed for floor spacing that was beneficial to his teammates. Heinsohn shot a significant amount of jump shots that were difficult and this hurt his efficiency, with that being said he was also a threat to the defense as he could score when left open. With Russell on the Celtics, there was less spacing and more emphasis on making jump shots. The bulk of the jump shooting was often left to guys like Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones. Sharman and Jones were plus with their shooting ability, but the rest of the main offensive options suffered efficiency wise due to being the only ones that could take and make these difficult shots. With less spacing, it was harder to drive to the hoop as well as get to the line. Heinsohn could score when needed, having multiple playoff runs that were significant to their championships, and arguably could have won 2 Finals MVPs. Overall, I value his ability to be a threat on top of the defense he brings--he could even set up his teammates with good passes.

G6 '63 NBA Finals Heinsohn steal on Jerry West in a 2-point game with 2 minutes remaining
Spoiler:
Image

Heinsohn Defensive Sequence
Spoiler:
Image

Steal on Wilt Chamberlain
Spoiler:
Image

Strips on Rudy LaRusso and Guy Rodgers
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

Blocks on Jerry West
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

Passes in Game 2 '57 Finals
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

2. Frank Ramsey
Led the league in WS/48 during the regular season ('58) and playoffs ('57, '59) on ridiculous shooting percentages (+10 relTS% on 17.5 FGA in '59 playoffs, are you kidding me?) As the 6th man, he didn't have the highest volume, but he was still incredibly efficient whether he was in a smaller role or needed to take more shots come playoff time. Defensively, Ramsey was fantastic--lightning quick, playing passing lanes, deflecting and swiping at the ball, and staying with his man off-ball. In the G6 '63 Finals footage, Ramsey has 2 steals and multiple deflections, all while giving up zero baskets man to man. I think his clutch play, efficient scoring, and defensive ability all more than make up for his lack of volume. Definitely one of the greatest 6th men of all-time.

3. Jimmy Butler
Strong two-way impact, low turnover percentage with high assists, advanced and plus/minus stats are all good across the board. Had one of the greatest NBA Finals of all-time statistically last season. One of only 3 players to record a 40+ point triple double in the NBA Finals. Along with his high free throw rate, Butler has a good mix of volume, passing, and defense that I think a lot of other players don't have.

Jokic > Walton > D Green > Webber > DeBusschere > Lowry > Lucas > Johnston > Bellamy > Beaty > King > Sikma > Dandridge > G Williams > Archibald > Dennis Johnson > Aldridge > Hawkins



Hey Zep, this is unrelated to my ABA posts from earlier - but out of curiosity what do you think of Hawkins as a player? You seem to not mind awarding high peaks in your list, so do you think Hawkins just wasn't that good - if so, why?

Return to Player Comparisons