RealGM

Of all the players in your top 100 list, who do you think most consistently failed to raise his team even to .500?

For comparison, Kevin Garnett pulled Minnesota to .500 6 years in a row and .500 or better 8 out of the 12 years he was there.

The name that came to mind for me was Bob Lanier, despite having All-Star Dave Bing at guard for most of his prime, he only got Detroit to .500 3 times in his 9 years there and one of those was his rookie year where he was splitting time with Otto Moore.

Pete Maravich is another possibility. He's not close to my top 100 but he may be for some. OF his 9 year prime, he made it to .500 1/4 years in Atlanta then went to the expansion team in New Orleans where they stayed miserable for the next 0/5 year stretch.

I haven't seen Anthony Davis raise many floors. Mitch Richmond, if there are people out there that believe he's top 100. Wade didn't prove a lot outside of Shaq and LeBron relative to his usual list placement, but it was only a few seasons, and not sure if fair. Pau Gasol in Memphis.

penbeast0 wrote:Of all the players in your top 100 list, who do you think most consistently failed to raise his team even to .500?

For comparison, Kevin Garnett pulled Minnesota to .500 6 years in a row and .500 or better 8 out of the 12 years he was there.

The name that came to mind for me was Bob Lanier, despite having All-Star Dave Bing at guard for most of his prime, he only got Detroit to .500 3 times in his 9 years there and one of those was his rookie year where he was splitting time with Otto Moore.

Pete Maravich is another possibility. He's not close to my top 100 but he may be for some. OF his 9 year prime, he made it to .500 1/4 years in Atlanta then went to the expansion team in New Orleans where they stayed miserable for the next 0/5 year stretch.

Players from TWolves - KG, Al Jefferson, Kevin Love, KAT+Gobert..., or TWolves is the franchise that is the heaviest to raise.. They seem to have perennial 20+/10+ bigs but have only won two playoff series in the past 30+ years

SHAQ32 wrote:I haven't seen Anthony Davis raise many floors. Mitch Richmond, if there are people out there that believe he's top 100. Wade didn't prove a lot outside of Shaq and LeBron relative to his usual list placement, but it was only a few seasons, and not sure if fair. Pau Gasol in Memphis.

Grizzlies never made playoffs before Gasol as a franchise and did not make it next 4 years after Gasol left... DeMarcus Cousins a mention, dude had a 5-year prime of 25/12/4/1.5/1.4 but never made playoffs.

Bit of an odd question.

“Failed to lift to .500” is not what I assess as “floor-raiser”. You can give the best player garbage and that will not happen. It is also a somewhat objective question apart from where each person draws the line for their top hundred. There are set answers for this already though once people decide on those names.

So for floor raiser, I absolutely would not include Kevin Garnett. His 2003 and 2004 seasons I have as some of the best floor-raising efforts ever.

Similarly for Bob Lanier, I have 1974 and 1977 among the better floor raising efforts for that era. Bing was not what I would call a valid all-star for most of their years together (he peaked before Lanier entered the league, and I do not love that peak as is), and the talent around them was frequently poor or malcontented.

Then it becomes a matter of peaks to an extent, along with ability to impact a terrible roster. Thinking someone like… Dave DeBusschere, who I am not positive is in my top hundred but might be, would be a good example. Nice piece, but needs the right support to offer a lot of value to a team. Going higher than that is tough. So maybe I am better sticking to easy no question top one hundred names. Jack Sikma maybe? I would prefer to stay away from bigs, but any clear top hundred guard or wing is there partly because I am confident in their peak. Dennis Rodman? He had an outstanding 1992 season, but that is pretty close to the ceiling scenario of what he could do as the best player on a roster. I have never been impressed with the idea of Stockton as a floor raiser if given nothing to work with — cannot anchor defences like bigs and seemingly cannot handle a real scoring load.

Draymond Green my clear #1 I think

Then we have 2nd tier stars, "unproven" floor raisers such as John Stockton, Hal Greer, Tony Parker, Terry Porter

Jaivl wrote:Draymond Green my clear #1 I think

Then we have 2nd tier stars, "unproven" floor raisers such as John Stockton, Hal Greer, Tony Parker, Terry Porter

Yeah Dray's time without Curry showed he couldn't lift a team to 1 more win without a perimeter star to feed. Rodman probably a close second to me because what use are all those offensive rebounds if you can't score from them yourself and there's nobody else to rely on?

It's interesting that their defense doesn't really move the needle on it's own when they're two of the most elite wing/big hybrid defenders that can realistically guard 1-5 but to really make a competitive defensive team without bringing any significant scoring to the table you just need rim protection as equally marginal scorers as Dray and Rodman in the likes of Ben Wallace, Mutombo and Gobert had way more success on their own.

I'm somewhat curious what Karl Malone would have looked like without any help

Probably like one of the better scorers, post-defenders, and big-man passers in the league — historically not exactly a struggling archetype for floor-raising.

SHAQ32 wrote:I haven't seen Anthony Davis raise many floors. Mitch Richmond, if there are people out there that believe he's top 100. Wade didn't prove a lot outside of Shaq and LeBron relative to his usual list placement, but it was only a few seasons, and not sure if fair. Pau Gasol in Memphis.

averaged 15 win lift in peak pelican years iirc. Nothing mind blowing but i guess it's not nothing

Jaivl wrote:Draymond Green my clear #1 I think

Then we have 2nd tier stars, "unproven" floor raisers such as John Stockton, Hal Greer, Tony Parker, Terry Porter

they were able to sweep a playoff team. Dray has also anchored top 10 defenses with bad defensive help. I think dray is more of a "we don't really know" example. Defensive anchors can be capable floor-raisers. Mutumbo did well in atlanta.

AEnigma wrote:1977 among the better floor raising efforts for that era.

Idk, I think there was quite a bit of talent on that team

wojoaderge wrote:

AEnigma wrote:1977 among the better floor raising efforts for that era.

Idk, I think there was quite a bit of talent on that team

Raw talent, perhaps, but hardly unified or without need of Lanier there to stabilise everything.
https://vault.si.com/vault/1977/02/28/moaning-and-winning-in-motown

Hard not to call impact like this “floor-raising”:

Owly wrote:In large samples Lanier was having a substantial impact in '76-'78. The difference with him to without him (per game in points diff) was ...

'76: 5.2
team points differential over the year -86 over 82 games, -1.05 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -92 over 18 games, -5.1 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier +6 over 64 games, 0.1 per game

'77: 6.3
team points differential over the year -85 over 82 games, -1.04 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -107 over 18 games, -5.95 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier 22 over 64 games, 0.35 per game

'78: 4.3
team points differential over the year -102 over 82 games, -1.24 per game
team points differential over 19 games without Lanier -100 over 19 games, -4.35 per game
team points differential over 63 games with Lanier -2 over 63 games, -0.05 per game

trex_8063 wrote:With/Without Records/Wins added per season (pro-rated to 82 games)
‘75: 39-37 (.513) with Lanier, 1-5 (.167) without him/+28.4 wins
‘76: 30-34 (.469) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+11.1 wins
‘77: 38-26 (.594) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+21.4 wins
‘78: 31-32 (.492) with Lanier, 7-12 (.368) without him/+10.2 wins

penbeast0 wrote:Of all the players in your top 100 list, who do you think most consistently failed to raise his team even to .500?

For comparison, Kevin Garnett pulled Minnesota to .500 6 years in a row and .500 or better 8 out of the 12 years he was there.

The name that came to mind for me was Bob Lanier, despite having All-Star Dave Bing at guard for most of his prime, he only got Detroit to .500 3 times in his 9 years there and one of those was his rookie year where he was splitting time with Otto Moore.

Pete Maravich is another possibility. He's not close to my top 100 but he may be for some. OF his 9 year prime, he made it to .500 1/4 years in Atlanta then went to the expansion team in New Orleans where they stayed miserable for the next 0/5 year stretch.

Title and thread are different questions.

Title is theoretical/hypothetical/holistic evaluation of who do you think is least effective in raising a poor team (though the margins of this are themselves a bit fuzzy).

The thread question is somewhat specific (could depend on specific metric regarding career win % or % of seasons above (or at or above) .500 , or seasons with negative points diff or career points dif, or seasons with negative SRS or career SRS etc; is it full career [only Detroit highlighted here] and if not how are years selected) and heavily circumstantial.

As you will be aware from our discussions there is evidence Lanier provided significant lift in Detroit (I see some of my project posts have been cited).



For the being on bad clubs ... Walt Bellamy? Maravich doesn't seem to play on a positive SRS team until the 442 minutes in Boston, but I wouldn't have him near my top 100. Bellamy ... I'd have to look harder at, iron out a set of criteria ... he's at least plausible/understandable even if I'm inclined to think he's out.

Title is a more interesting but harder to define question; especially when it's almost purely theoretical like Stockton not being able to do much without a Karl Malone. I was trying to create a more quantifiable version of the question. Lanier came to mind because we've had discussions on how weak most of his Detroit teams were and how much impact he created so I thought he would generate more discussion. FWIW, I would guess that anyone in the top 100 of all time would be a strong positive floor raiser compared to an average NBA starter.

Would you expect the least impact from players whose focus was mainly defense (Rodman, Bobby Jones -- though 1975), mainly playmakers (Stockton, Nash), or the sort of low efficiency scorers who many people like for their top 100 (Maravich, Iverson -- he exceeded my expectations in Philly during the regular season for example)? Who with a max contract rep today would be the worst floor raiser (Brad Beal? Ben Simmons?)?

Dutchball97 wrote:

Jaivl wrote:Draymond Green my clear #1 I think

Then we have 2nd tier stars, "unproven" floor raisers such as John Stockton, Hal Greer, Tony Parker, Terry Porter

Yeah Dray's time without Curry showed he couldn't lift a team to 1 more win without a perimeter star to feed. Rodman probably a close second to me because what use are all those offensive rebounds if you can't score from them yourself and there's nobody else to rely on?

Don't know about it affecting the conceptual point.

Don't know that data supports Rodman not lifting bad teams. Presumably one is thinking Detroit '93. Depends on the measure and data/source used. The cruder tool, though with more games (though less precise, just binary, and no controls) has Pistons 36-26 with Rodman and 4-16 without (haven't checked, but from a source after the season). Taylor's measures blunt that impact down, focusing on games with Dumars, Thomas and Aguirre in it gives a 2.7 SRS change (and 1.1 WOWY Score), but then if he's less impactful with them all in, that could mean they miss him more when others are out (or his injuries are really badly timed with others also being out, or fluky narrow losses with him out ...obviously could look closer at the detail ... still the crude W-L in/out is pretty striking).

Yet another Detroit player (Lanier, Rodman, Bellamy [briefly] heck Green's from Michigan and played for Michigan state) could be included in this discussion.
DeBusschere is another in the defensive archetype, but I think is more "played on bad teams for a while" than "lacked impact on those teams" ... at least that was what I had in my head...

I remember first just knowing that he (and Howell) played on some bad Pistons teams. Then I think I was of the impression that WoWY type stuff supported him as impactful in Detroit. But whilst there's clear signs of impact on arrival in NYK, Taylor's spreadsheet '69 WoWY for the Detroit side has him slightly negative in Detroit [I think versus Bellamy and Komives]). '64 probably doesn't have enough of an on sample but 4-11 with him (at 20.3 mpg) is a slightly worse percentage than 19-46 without him. So maybe a false memory, IDK.

penbeast0 wrote:Title is a more interesting but harder to define question; especially when it's almost purely theoretical like Stockton not being able to do much without a Karl Malone. I was trying to create a more quantifiable version of the question. Lanier came to mind because we've had discussions on how weak most of his Detroit teams were and how much impact he created so I thought he would generate more discussion. FWIW, I would guess that anyone in the top 100 of all time would be a strong positive floor raiser compared to an average NBA starter.

Would you expect the least impact from players whose focus was mainly defense (Rodman, Bobby Jones -- though 1975), mainly playmakers (Stockton, Nash), or the sort of low efficiency scorers who many people like for their top 100 (Maravich, Iverson -- he exceeded my expectations in Philly during the regular season for example)? Who with a max contract rep today would be the worst floor raiser (Brad Beal? Ben Simmons?)?

Tiny samples but versus 76ers +/- had Stockton as hugely impactful (the best on-off) whilst Malone was positive but ordinary. Tiny sample so a huge dose of salt required but some suggestion of him providing early lift independent of Malone. Latterly too, RAPM being more bullish on him than Malone ... there's a lot time together but that perhaps helps at the margins (to suggest impact separate from Malone).

penbeast0 wrote:Title is a more interesting but harder to define question; especially when it's almost purely theoretical like Stockton not being able to do much without a Karl Malone. I was trying to create a more quantifiable version of the question. Lanier came to mind because we've had discussions on how weak most of his Detroit teams were and how much impact he created so I thought he would generate more discussion. FWIW, I would guess that anyone in the top 100 of all time would be a strong positive floor raiser compared to an average NBA starter.

Would you expect the least impact from players whose focus was mainly defense (Rodman, Bobby Jones -- though 1975), mainly playmakers (Stockton, Nash), or the sort of low efficiency scorers who many people like for their top 100 (Maravich, Iverson -- he exceeded my expectations in Philly during the regular season for example)?

I emphatically would not group Nash in with Stockton. What is 2006 if not a clear and powerful example of floor-raising.

Anyway, the frame matters. Iverson is a more valuable floor-raiser on teams which desperately needed someone who could shoulder the scoring and playmaking load the way he did, but if on a team with a bunch of low impact scorers, he likely would fare poorly. That is partly why I am a bit more willing to consider defensive bigs as fine “floor raisers”: their skills stack so much better. Is Marion a good floor-raiser? In 2003 he seemed to do alright, and he could stack fine with “empty stats” guys.

Bobby Jones is an interesting mention. Might make my top hundred but might not. However, minute restrictions inherently limit your floor-raising value (part of the appeal of Iverson is his general ability to handle higher loads). Manu might come to mind, although he could play higher minutes when truly necessary, and did when Duncan missed time.

Probably correct that most top hundred players could be the best player on a bad team and lift that team to an at least competent level. Separating those players is tricky, although for lack of flexibility I lean toward scorers with weak playmaking and weaker defence. Walt Bellamy not a bad mention on that front, although I have him as fringe top hundred, and he was alright defensively in the right situation. Dan Issel fits that archetype but in his rookie season went to game 7 of the Finals as the best player on a fine but not great roster, so seems a little unfair to him. No idea whether any of Dumars, Jrue, or Dennis Johnson make my top hundred. See, I am still stuck on all these fringe cases. Tough thinking of a clear top hundred player whom I would never possibly consider as having a top hundred peak!

Who with a max contract rep today would be the worst floor raiser (Brad Beal? Ben Simmons?)?

Simmons or Tobias (is he still on his maximum?). Westbrook kind-of cheating; my answer changes for his peak or prime, but would not for Tobias or Simmons.

There have been players I really like/am confident are very high impact mentioned, but it is legit to say if we're confident that your replacement and the lineup with you out is garbage then, even if you might look even more impactful, minutes is extra important here.

So Bill Walton? If he's top 100? Because your floor is the team without Bill Walton ... Even beyond that simplistic angle 2264 is his highest RS minutes and if you're trying to keep him on more than "normal", or IRL or whatever then you're only increasing the risk.

To begin, my definition of all-time great is far more exclusive than a t-100, as I’d like to see some impact and production signals one gets to a certain threshold. My ATG pantheon would be:

Magic Oscar Curry
Jordan West Kobe
James Bird
Duncan Garnett
Russell Kareem Wilt Shaq Hakeem

I’d be intrigued to see if Giannis or a Jokic could perhaps knock out two of these players (maybe even Luka) as they add career value.

Back to the OP question, out of that AT group of players - I would guess that Bird is the worst floor raiser with no knack at him. As talented as Bird was, I think the handle problems he had make it harder for him to sustain an immense offensive load playoff series in and out and while facing several elite defenses. On top of that, while his offensive responsibilities increased - he was a stellar defender around all-defense value but never that much a needle mover

FWIW, I he’s the best offensive ceiling raiser and still a sure fire top 10 offensive talent at his apex (86-88 on that end), while being a better floor raiser than most players not in my ATG+ tier, but that is my answer.