RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Paul Pierce)

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

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,592
And1: 8,222
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Paul Pierce) 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Wed Nov 22, 2023 3:27 pm

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:
AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
penbeast0
Rishkar
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
ZeppelinPage


Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Joel Embiid
Image

Draymond Green
Image

Dwight Howard
Image

Kevin McHale
Image

Paul Pierce
Image


As requested, here's the current list so far along with the historical spreadsheet of previous projects:

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet
"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
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,294
And1: 9,860
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#2 » by penbeast0 » Wed Nov 22, 2023 3:35 pm

Vote: Kevin McHale: Scoring, defense, rings, consistency, a willingness to play roles that may not maximize his own value in order to help his team win.

Alt: Draymond Green His defensive impact is stronger than the likes of Pierce on offense and while his offense has not matched up to prime Dwight Howard, I think he's more portable across the league on both ends. Howard has struggled when not the main man in a 4 out offense specifically designed to get him space.


Nominate: Bobby Jones. More than a decade of straight 1st team All-Defense votes combined with high efficiency, though not high volume scoring, and good playmaking. Not a great rebounder for his position but could play 2-5 at either end. Probably the greatest glue guy in NBA history and in his time where he was the best player on his team (75 and 76 for example), his team was the best in the league both years though they came up short in the playoffs. Probably too early but haven't been convinced of anyone else here.

Alt: Jimmy Butler Do it all player who plays both ends and has had some nice playoff runs.

Next up: Probably Pau Gasol
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,974
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#3 » by AEnigma » Wed Nov 22, 2023 4:25 pm

VOTE: Paul Pierce
Alternate: Kevin McHale
NOMINATE: Dave Cowens
AltNom: Jimmy Butler
(for now)
AEnigma wrote:Pierce has outstanding longevity and I think was an outright better player (if for era/team reasons a less consistently relevant one) than Drexler. I would have voted him in several spots ago, and while I think he clearly merits similar status to Jason Kidd, I suppose Kidd leading two teams to the Finals and being a nominal MVP contender can justifiably create some amount of separation.

Cowens will be my future nomination as a guy I see as essential to the “story” of the 1970s to a degree not true of Lanier (although I think Lanier was better), and therefore a relatively “necessary” top 50 inclusion. Right now it does not appear as though he will make the top 50, but I do want to push hard for him as the centrepiece of the most successful team of the mid-1970s and a sort of progenitor to what Draymond has been for the Warriors. In his 1972-77 prime, the Celtics won over 70% (58-win pace) of games with him and only 50% when he was out, as part of a strong half decade in which the Celtics made at least the conference finals every year.

Those who read my posts toward the end of the Peaks Project have already seen me post this article, but for those who have not, this is one of my favourite accounts of him:
Spoiler:
Cort Reynolds wrote: He may not have been named MVP of the NBA Finals in 1974 or 1976, but undersized Hall of Fame Boston center Dave Cowens was the key force in winning both clinching games of those memorable championship series for the Celtics.

In the 1970's no one played harder for Boston, or anyone else for that matter, with apologies to Jerry Sloan, Norm Van Lier and Dave DeBusschere, than the fiery 6-8.5 redhead.

In game seven of the epic 1974 NBA Finals, the Celtics faced the tall task of beating Milwaukee on the road. Buck center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was in his youthful prime and enjoyed nearly a six-inch height advantage - which was probably close to a foot when reach is included - over Cowens.



The Bucks had forced a seventh game by winning a double overtime classic in Boston just two days earlier, when Jabbar's long running baseline hook over Celtic backup center Hank Finkel gave Milwaukee a see-saw 102-101 victory.

Cowens had fouled out earlier in overtime, or the outcome may well have been different, with the Celtics likely celebrating title number 12 at home.

John Havlicek had traded baskets with the 7-2 Jabbar throughout the final extra session, scoring nine of his 36 points in the second OT, but Kareem got the last shot in.

Yet a hustling play by Cowens that came to epitomize his career happened late in that classic sixth contest. Dave switched off on a pick defensively to cover Robertson, then used his quick hands to poke the ball away from the Hall of Famer.

The speedy center then out-sprinted the 6-5 guard for the loose ball, which rolled into the backcourt. Cowens dove for the ball and slid with it near the sidelines while the loose leather bobbled in and out of his arms. Oscar trailed the play and never left his feet, almost in disbelief at the bigger man's reckless dive.

Cowens left a sweat streak about 10 feet long on the old Garden parquet, probably along with some skin. While the Bucks argued that he never had possession of the ball, the referees correctly ruled that the 24-second clock had nevertheless run out to give Boston the ball.

Not long after, Cowens fouled out with just 13 points on five of 19 shooting, and his absence contributed to the series-tying Buck win. Determined to redeem himself, the proud Celtic star came out firing in game seven.

Boston came up with a new strategy to aid Dave. The Boston braintrust decided to pressure the aging Robertson hard with defensive ace Don Chaney while he brought the ball upcourt.

And then once Milwaukee was into its halfcourt offense, coach Tom Heinsohn had Paul Silas, Havlicek and others also double down and help while Cowens fronted and battled Jabbar for position.

After he was told about the change in defensive strategy, Dave would relate years later in an interview that he felt like saying, "Yes! I am finally going to get some help on this guy."

After having the redhead go one-on-one for six games with the much bigger man who was the total focal point of their offense, Jabbar had averaged almost 34 points per game, so the Celtic brass felt it had to try something.

By not having to expend as much energy defending the 7-2 Jabbar alone, it seemed as if Cowens had been unchained and energized for the decisive contest.

On offense, the muscular Cowens used his superior speed and quickness to take the slower Jabbar out on the floor and drive by him, taking advantage of Kareem's relative lack of lateral quickness.

The high-leaping, aggressive Cowens won the opening jump over Jabbar and tapped it it to Havlicek, who fed a cutting Chaney perfectly for a layup that set an immediate, positive tone in the contest for the Celtics.

As time ran out in the first period, Dave bombed a 25-footer from the right side at the buzzer that went straight in to give Boston a 22-20 lead.

The Celtics lengthened the lead late in the half as their defense stymied Jabbar and Robertson. Dave triggered the vaunted Celtic fast break with a defensive rebound and airborne outlet pass that led to a 16-footer by Don Nelson.

Shortly afterward, Cowens nailed consecutive foul line jumpers that gave the visitors a 53-40 intermission edge. Their defensive strategy, cooked up between games six and seven by Celtic patriarch Red Auerbach, Heinsohn and the legendary Bob Cousy, was working almost to perfection.

Robertson, who had played for Cousy in Cincinnati before their falling out led to the Big O's trade to Milwaukee, was hounded into perhaps the worst playoff game of his career at a very inopportune time.

If nothing else, the all-court pressure put on by the quicker Celtics rushed the Bucks and took vital seconds off the shot clock, forcing hurried decisions and field goal tries. With veteran leader and playmaker Robertson flustered, the Buck offense floundered.

As a result, scoring machine Jabbar was amazingly held without a single point in the entire second stanza and for half of the third period. This was a major drought when one realizes that Kareem came into game seven averaging his number per outing in the 1974 playoffs (33).



At the other end, Boston closed the door with a clever bit of body control and quick reactions. Cowens missed a half hook in the lane that richocheted off Jabbar's hands to a nearly-prone Westphal, who was just getting up off the hardwood after being floored while setting a screen.

Paul then hung in the air as he looked to shoot a short jumper over the looming 7-2 Buck center. But at the last second, he double-clutched and instead tossed a beautifully improvised short alley-oop pass to Cowens past Jabbar. Dave caught the ball in the air on the right side of the lane and cleverly kissed it in off glass before Kareem could recover. That was the final nail in the Milwaukee coffin.



Havlicek, who enjoyed a great series, was named Finals MVP even though he tallied a modest 16 points on six of 20 shooting in the decisive contest.

His second fourth quarter three-point play on a foul line jumper as he was hit in the stomach capped a decisive 11-0 spurt that put the game well out of reach, 98-79.

But the game seven MVP was definitely Big Red. The final box score showed Cowens with game-high totals of 28 points and 14 rebounds, compared to 26 and 13 for Jabbar.

Yet the considerable numbers did not show his great intangible contribution, as well. Or how much energy the fiery redhead had supplied his team. Nor how his defense had helped Kareem wear down and fade. He sank just six of 11 free throws in the game and went scoreless for over a third of the game in the crucial middle section when Boston took command.

Or how Cowens had ignited the deadly Celtic transition game with his defensive rebounding and quick outlet bullets, often firing his passes in midair while coming down with the carom.



Due in large part to the scrambling defensive strategy of Boston, Jabbar only took 21 shots in the decisive seventh contest, six below his series average for attempts to that point.

He also converted only 10 field goals after making 14.5 baskets per contest over the first six games - well below his 54 percent shooting accuracy to that point in the title series.



The grueling style of play that the speedy 1970's Celtics employed, in concert with a short bench and going deep into the playoffs each year (and thus having shorter off-seasons), had started to take a toll on the club. Plus, team captain Havlicek and sixth man Don Nelson were each 36.

In 1976, a grizzled Boston squad fought its way to the Finals despite a foot injury to Havlicek. It was the 13th Celtic championship series appearance in 20 years, and the last before the Larry Bird era.



It was Cowens who took over and scored seven points in a clutch 9-4 Celtic spurt that clinched the crown.

Despite being plagued with five fouls, the redhead gambled and came up with the biggest play of the game. As Adams drove along the right side of the lane, Dave dangerously reached in and poked the ball away from the Rookie of the Year, lunging to tip the loose sphere away from Adams.

He then snatched up the loose ball and dribbled, or more accurately roared, 80 feet upcourt at top speed on a 2 on 1 fast break, a runaway red-headed center locomotive.

As he approached the basket, the Celtic center crossed over to the right side and gave a slight head fake to freeze defender Heard. Dave then laid in a twisting backhanded layup over his shoulder while being fouled. He cashed in the free throw to give Boston a 71-67 lead and a huge momentum swing.

After a Phoenix score, Dave sealed Adams outside the low block and took a perfectly timed top-side feed from Charlie Scott before converting a right-handed layin for a 73-69 advantage.

Cowens then forced a bad miss by Adams by hotly contesting his 15-footer. Adams later canned two foul shots to cut the lead back to two. Yet Havlicek swished a clutch 18-footer from the left wing to make it 75-71.

After a Westphal miss, Dave took an entry pass and spun quickly along the right baseline with his trademark move past Adams for a pretty layup. The pet move gave Boston a little breathing room with a 77-71 margin at the 3:29 mark.

White banked in a tough right side runner and added a free throw to stretch the lead to nine, and it was all over but the shouting as Boston ultimately held on to win, 87-80.

After the final buzzer sounded, a tired Cowens hugged retiring teammate Nelson as they strode off the court as champions for the last time. For Nellie, it was a satisfying fifth ring after being released by the Lakers over a decade earlier.

With White struggling and Hondo hurt, it was clearly the clutch late offensive burst from Cowens that capped banner number 13. His aggressive, all-out defense also led to a drought of over five minutes without a basket for the Suns down the stretch.

Even though Dave scored 21 points in the decisive win, paced the defense and led all players in rebounds during the series while averaging 20.5 ppg, teammate JoJo White (21.7 ppg) was named Finals MVP.

Yet in true Cowens fashion, Dave probably didn't care that much, as long as Boston won. He was simply about winning, an undersized center who won on great athleticism (strength, speed, quickness and jumping ability), high basketball intelligence, skill, and a burning desire as bright as his red mane.

"There is no player with greater desire than Dave Cowens," said CBS commentator and fiery Hall of Famer Rick Barry during the 1976 Finals.

A powerful leaper, Cowens frequently won jump balls against much taller centers like Jabbar and an older Chamberlain, and used great positioning to frustrate Kareem and occasionally block his shots as well by forcing him to turn back to his right shoulder, away from his patented hook.

Back then a center jump ball was held at the start of each quarter, and if that rule seems antiquated, consider that the original rules up through the 1930's required that there be a center jump after every basket. So each quarter jump ball could be a key extra possession gained.

As Havlicek, who played the first seven seasons of his career with the great Bill Russell and then his final eight with Cowens, the 1970-71 co-Rookie of the Year, once said - "no one ever did more for the Celtics than Dave Cowens."

In the post-game six locker room TV interviews with CBS, Havlicek reinforced this claim. "We were able to keep Dave on the floor (not foul out), and that made the difference," said Hondo.

Unfortunately, Dave's all-out style and annual deep playoff runs eventually contributed to his body breaking down by the time he reached his early 30's.



Heinsohn, who after the death of Red Auerbach assumed the mantel of Mr. Celtic after 50-plus years as star player, championship coach and team announcer, called his 1970's Boston teams "the quickest of all Celtic clubs."

As such he designed a revolutionary point center/forward type of up-tempo offense to take advantage of the extraordinary blend of skills, athleticism and desire of his speedy red-headed center and Havlicek, as well as the sharpshooting White.

Those Celtics did not have a true point guard. White, Chaney and Havlicek shared the ballhandling duties, while Cowens often directed the offense from the top of the key with his passing, driving and shooting ability.

Based on voting trends my alternate nomination will probably be deciding between Gervin and Butler… I definitely take Butler for better peak, prime, and extended prime, but I am not sure if he ever separated himself as an impact player the way I think most of the top bigs on the board did. And on that note, I do hope people seriously consider Cowens over Gervin. Gervin was an impressive scorer, but while he did have more success than someone like Dantley, it was not really that much more, nor would I typically characterise his teams as outright weak. I would rather have Hayes and Lanier from that era too.
WintaSoldier1
Junior
Posts: 275
And1: 161
Joined: Mar 18, 2022
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#4 » by WintaSoldier1 » Wed Nov 22, 2023 5:24 pm

Wondering where/when Iverson will be brought up, Hopefully he’s nominated before the 55th Spot.

As for my personal opinion, Still a large supporter of the Dwight Howard train, Really appreciate his defensive prowess and sheer presence on the inside.
May go back and watch some film as I’m relatively young and narrative & Nostalgia may be the things undoing to my perspective relative to everyone else.

I don’t really care either about the era transferability or era portability some people have attempted to discredit Dwight for… It’s silly to try and patronize someone’s achievements based on what they weren’t able to do when they never were given a opportunity.

It’s like calling Issac Newton stupid because he didn’t have the same modern information we have and then speculating he would never have been able to have the same deal of success as an intellect.

Nominate: Iverson- Think he has a lot of similar characteristics people seem to adore for Reggie and Manu… Just expressed in a different sense.[ He plays basketball like he’s always playing a game of 21]

I’m a Iverson “Hater” but there’s a lot to appreciate about his game can’t see how he can’t be brought up soon especially when people who share similar commonalities with him have been ushered to grace
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,294
And1: 9,860
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#5 » by penbeast0 » Wed Nov 22, 2023 5:41 pm

WintaSoldier1 wrote:Wondering where/when Iverson will be brought up, Hopefully he’s nominated before the 55th Spot.

As for my personal opinion, Still a large supporter of the Dwight Howard train, Really appreciate his defensive prowess and sheer presence on the inside.
May go back and watch some film as I’m relatively young and narrative & Nostalgia may be the things undoing to my perspective relative to everyone else.

I don’t really care either about the era transferability or era portability some people have attempted to discredit Dwight for… It’s silly to try and patronize someone’s achievements based on what they weren’t able to do when they never were given a opportunity.

It’s like calling Issac Newton stupid because he didn’t have the same modern information we have and then speculating he would never have been able to have the same deal of success as an intellect.

Nominate: Iverson- Think he has a lot of similar characteristics people seem to adore for Reggie and Manu… Just expressed in a different sense.[ He plays basketball like he’s always playing a game of 21]

I’m a Iverson “Hater” but there’s a lot to appreciate about his game can’t see how he can’t be brought up soon especially when people who share similar commonalities with him have been ushered to grace


The problem with Iverson is that all he gives you is scoring and he's inefficient at that. He will shoot his team into wins they didn't deserve and shoot his team into losses they should have won. He's not a good playmaker for a small guard, generally played two rather than one, weak defender, poor attitude, only one decent playoff run and his team that year won with defense, not offense.

Compare him to other high scoring players who didn't play much defense and guys like George Gervin and Adrian Dantley are miles ahead of him. Add a second skill like playmaking and you add guys like Lillard who also deserve to be there ahead of him. A lot of shorter prime scorers who were clearly superior in their prime like Neil Johnson, McAdoo, Marques Johnson, the list goes on and on. And that ignores the guys who were great at other facets of the game like a Dennis Rodman and the well rounded or two way players.

He's more in the Maravich category of guys whose cultural impact far outpaces their actual basketball impact (though a better player than Pistol Pete). I don't think he belongs in the top 100 by my criteria (impact on winning).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,974
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#6 » by AEnigma » Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:18 pm

Iverson is in my top 100, and I may consider nominating him around #75, but I am in agreement that I do not see any non-cultural case for him to go much higher than that. Glib response, but his only real playoff relevance was as part of a run where he was arguably outplayed by the opposing shooting guard every single round.
Djoker
Starter
Posts: 2,148
And1: 1,879
Joined: Sep 12, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#7 » by Djoker » Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:05 pm

I'd argue Iverson is actually underrated these days. His turnovers were insanely low for a guy with such high usage and that should factor into any analysis of his overall offensive efficiency.
WintaSoldier1
Junior
Posts: 275
And1: 161
Joined: Mar 18, 2022
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#8 » by WintaSoldier1 » Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:22 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
WintaSoldier1 wrote:Wondering where/when Iverson will be brought up, Hopefully he’s nominated before the 55th Spot.

As for my personal opinion, Still a large supporter of the Dwight Howard train, Really appreciate his defensive prowess and sheer presence on the inside.
May go back and watch some film as I’m relatively young and narrative & Nostalgia may be the things undoing to my perspective relative to everyone else.

I don’t really care either about the era transferability or era portability some people have attempted to discredit Dwight for… It’s silly to try and patronize someone’s achievements based on what they weren’t able to do when they never were given a opportunity.

It’s like calling Issac Newton stupid because he didn’t have the same modern information we have and then speculating he would never have been able to have the same deal of success as an intellect.

Nominate: Iverson- Think he has a lot of similar characteristics people seem to adore for Reggie and Manu… Just expressed in a different sense.[ He plays basketball like he’s always playing a game of 21]

I’m a Iverson “Hater” but there’s a lot to appreciate about his game can’t see how he can’t be brought up soon especially when people who share similar commonalities with him have been ushered to grace


The problem with Iverson is that all he gives you is scoring and he's inefficient at that. He will shoot his team into wins they didn't deserve and shoot his team into losses they should have won. He's not a good playmaker for a small guard, generally played two rather than one, weak defender, poor attitude, only one decent playoff run and his team that year won with defense, not offense.

Compare him to other high scoring players who didn't play much defense and guys like George Gervin and Adrian Dantley are miles ahead of him. Add a second skill like playmaking and you add guys like Lillard who also deserve to be there ahead of him. A lot of shorter prime scorers who were clearly superior in their prime like Neil Johnson, McAdoo, Marques Johnson, the list goes on and on. And that ignores the guys who were great at other facets of the game like a Dennis Rodman and the well rounded or two way players.

He's more in the Maravich category of guys whose cultural impact far outpaces their actual basketball impact (though a better player than Pistol Pete). I don't think he belongs in the top 100 by my criteria (impact on winning).


[ Will watch Iverson tape later on today and re-evaluate my opinion to further or sway]

I don’t think analytical analysis does a fair job and showcasing the control over a game he had just do to his ability to create & Chuck; Alike to Kobe… Great shot makers can using Shot Chucking as a way to control the tempo of the game by pure virtue of Habit and I believe Iverson has a huge amount of invisible value that fails to be showcased just due to the nature of who he was as a play and the attention & Command he controlled…

I also am a huge believer in shots that are reboundable for your teammates… While it isn’t a “Screen Assist” I think there’s lots of value in players like Iverson who can get inside and shoot shots that have high ORB Value and can bolster your teammates who don’t have great shot creation ability by giving them opportunity to get “Bum Buckets” down low by throwing the ball at the rim in a way they’re able to position themselves for a rebound.

[If this doesn’t make sense, Unlike today where high volume 3 point shooting is such a point of emphasis it’s created the long rebound… A rebound in which your team is in a much harder spot to clean up points down low and it often leads to 2 For a dollar interactions (Kicking it back out for another 3) ]

I think there’s a lot of interactions Iverson has on the court with his team and the opposing team that’s hard to calculate or tangibly see unless you’re looking for it, and that seems to be the division between our perspective!

Will Watch some Tape and Get back to you although.
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,474
And1: 7,083
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#9 » by falcolombardi » Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:14 pm

I am not quite as high on paul pierce as aenigma or others but i think he rather has the best combo of prime/longevity on this group edging out mchale for career value

A solid playoff performer, with legit 1st option talent (if still needing talented teams on both ends to win and only winning as a team second best player)

His absolute value as a first option may be a bit lower than say, peak howard/westbrook, but he makes up for it with a much longer prime and less team attitude issues than dwight (and green)

Vote- paul pierce

Alt vote- i see this as a battle of mchale longevity vs howard peak with draymond being somewhat inbetween both with a incredibly if short lived and somewhat circunstational/fluke peak in 16/17~

I am not sold enough on howard being a great enough "top player" for a team for me to look past his longevity short comings and attitude issues the way i could justify for jokic and giannis (not attitude issues with those 2* just the longevity example)

Mchale offers a safe, noncomnital medium point. Not quite as impactful at his best as dray/howard albeit a better longevity/lower headache guy than either

I am getting more and more fed up with a lot of dray off court issues so i am fine with pushing draymond lower than i originally intended

Vote- paul pierce

Alt vote- mchale

Nomination- ray allen
I think he is someone who deserves fairly close comparision to paul pierce here. Worse fdefender for sure but imo a more valuable offensive player too at most contexts

Alt nom- bob lanier

Not too sure about my alt nom but i like the case being wrote for him even if i am still mostly unfamiliar

Seems like a fairly impactful player with a fairly translatable game and longevity

Vote- paul pierce

Alt vote- mchale

Nom- ray allen

Alt nom- bob lanier
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,592
And1: 8,222
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#10 » by trex_8063 » Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:37 pm

Induction vote: Paul Pierce
The Truth shall set you free!

Curious [to me] he doesn't have stronger support at this stage. To give a few bullet-point type arguments for him.....

I see a guy who is 20th all-time in career rs points scored; and he did it while having a positive TS Add for the first seventeen years in a row of his 19-year career. Since the +100 TS Add benchmark has been cited by others, I'll comment that he has EIGHT seasons above +100; he as TEN seasons above +80......FOURTEEN seasons above +60.
That's more seasons that the entire careers of all but one of the other nominees.

The guy was a good team defender to, registering a positive DRAPM throughout most of his career, with some years in the neighborhood of +2 on defense (which is basically All-D territory for a wing).
He wasn't a zilch as a playmaker either (81st all-time in assists, fwiw, though a pinch turnover prone).

He's 27th all-time in rs WS. He's 24th since 1973 in rs VORP.
A reasonably good playoff performer, he's 38th and 33rd, respectively, in the playoffs, too. All but seven of the guys ahead of him in playoff WS and four of those ahead in playoff VORP are already inducted on our list......of those 7/4 guys who are ahead of him, ALL of them are behind him in BOTH WS and VORP in the rs.

In fact, there is no one ahead of him in rs VORP who is NOT already inducted, and only one guy [barely] ahead of him in WS who is not already inducted.

He was the clear 2nd-best player on a champion (actually winning FMVP, fwiw); the 54th-greatest team ever by Sansterre's reckoning. And he demonstrated that he could take godawful broken casts (perhaps like Dray's in '20??) and at least lift them to mediocrity (35-ish wins).

He may not rate as too "relevant" in a POY share type evaluation; I haven't looked at each year closely, but off the cuff I'd guess he was never a top-5 player in the league. However, I'm critical of methodology that says fringe top-5 is really something, while being 6-8 in the league is meaningless. And that's probably where Pierce fell some years.....
If I had to guess, I'd say he likely peaked around 7th or 8th-best in the league (though he arguably has a few such seasons). But there are arguably 14-15 straight seasons where he's [at least] top 20-25 in the league. In other words, he has more years as at least a fringe/borderline All-star that four of our candidates have seasons in the league.

He was a "good role player" for 2-3 additional years besides.

That he's a strong candidate at this stage honestly feels so self-evident [to me] that going on at greater length feels a pinch superfluous, so I'm going to stop there.



Alternate induction vote: Kevin McHale (I guess; could see switching to Dwight as well; am sort of flip-flopping presently)


Nomination: Pau Gasol
Alt Nomination: Gary Payton


Pau is a guy I'm really fairly surprised we're not talking about yet. Seriously, how is his career significantly lacking in comparison to Kevin McHale's, for example? A little lower in terms of peak, probably, but notably superior in terms of effective longevity.

Arguments re: Payton were made last thread. Perhaps I'll copy/paste.
"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
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,294
And1: 9,860
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#11 » by penbeast0 » Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:58 pm

WintaSoldier1 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
WintaSoldier1 wrote:Wondering where/when Iverson will be brought up, Hopefully he’s nominated before the 55th Spot.

As for my personal opinion, Still a large supporter of the Dwight Howard train, Really appreciate his defensive prowess and sheer presence on the inside.
May go back and watch some film as I’m relatively young and narrative & Nostalgia may be the things undoing to my perspective relative to everyone else.

I don’t really care either about the era transferability or era portability some people have attempted to discredit Dwight for… It’s silly to try and patronize someone’s achievements based on what they weren’t able to do when they never were given a opportunity.

It’s like calling Issac Newton stupid because he didn’t have the same modern information we have and then speculating he would never have been able to have the same deal of success as an intellect.

Nominate: Iverson- Think he has a lot of similar characteristics people seem to adore for Reggie and Manu… Just expressed in a different sense.[ He plays basketball like he’s always playing a game of 21]

I’m a Iverson “Hater” but there’s a lot to appreciate about his game can’t see how he can’t be brought up soon especially when people who share similar commonalities with him have been ushered to grace


The problem with Iverson is that all he gives you is scoring and he's inefficient at that. He will shoot his team into wins they didn't deserve and shoot his team into losses they should have won. He's not a good playmaker for a small guard, generally played two rather than one, weak defender, poor attitude, only one decent playoff run and his team that year won with defense, not offense.

Compare him to other high scoring players who didn't play much defense and guys like George Gervin and Adrian Dantley are miles ahead of him. Add a second skill like playmaking and you add guys like Lillard who also deserve to be there ahead of him. A lot of shorter prime scorers who were clearly superior in their prime like Neil Johnson, McAdoo, Marques Johnson, the list goes on and on. And that ignores the guys who were great at other facets of the game like a Dennis Rodman and the well rounded or two way players.

He's more in the Maravich category of guys whose cultural impact far outpaces their actual basketball impact (though a better player than Pistol Pete). I don't think he belongs in the top 100 by my criteria (impact on winning).


[ Will watch Iverson tape later on today and re-evaluate my opinion to further or sway]

I don’t think analytical analysis does a fair job and showcasing the control over a game he had just do to his ability to create & Chuck; Alike to Kobe… Great shot makers can using Shot Chucking as a way to control the tempo of the game by pure virtue of Habit and I believe Iverson has a huge amount of invisible value that fails to be showcased just due to the nature of who he was as a play and the attention & Command he controlled…

I also am a huge believer in shots that are reboundable for your teammates… While it isn’t a “Screen Assist” I think there’s lots of value in players like Iverson who can get inside and shoot shots that have high ORB Value and can bolster your teammates who don’t have great shot creation ability by giving them opportunity to get “Bum Buckets” down low by throwing the ball at the rim in a way they’re able to position themselves for a rebound.

[If this doesn’t make sense, Unlike today where high volume 3 point shooting is such a point of emphasis it’s created the long rebound… A rebound in which your team is in a much harder spot to clean up points down low and it often leads to 2 For a dollar interactions (Kicking it back out for another 3) ]

I think there’s a lot of interactions Iverson has on the court with his team and the opposing team that’s hard to calculate or tangibly see unless you’re looking for it, and that seems to be the division between our perspective!

Will Watch some Tape and Get back to you although.


This idea that players who chuck inefficiently help their team has always bothered me. I'd guess the impact is generally the other way. When you know Iverson's going to just go one on three, where's the incentive to make sharp cuts and work hard without the ball? And, by driving the lane constantly, he packs it for a team that doesn't have great spacing already. When the guy shooting the most has one of the lowest efficiencies on the team, I'd be saying get the ball to a higher efficiency guy is basic common sense. Everyone has their comfort spots and even a Tyrone Hill or a George Lynch is capable of getting you a couple more points a game if you have better spacing and ball movement.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
WintaSoldier1
Junior
Posts: 275
And1: 161
Joined: Mar 18, 2022
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#12 » by WintaSoldier1 » Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:19 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
WintaSoldier1 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
The problem with Iverson is that all he gives you is scoring and he's inefficient at that. He will shoot his team into wins they didn't deserve and shoot his team into losses they should have won. He's not a good playmaker for a small guard, generally played two rather than one, weak defender, poor attitude, only one decent playoff run and his team that year won with defense, not offense.

Compare him to other high scoring players who didn't play much defense and guys like George Gervin and Adrian Dantley are miles ahead of him. Add a second skill like playmaking and you add guys like Lillard who also deserve to be there ahead of him. A lot of shorter prime scorers who were clearly superior in their prime like Neil Johnson, McAdoo, Marques Johnson, the list goes on and on. And that ignores the guys who were great at other facets of the game like a Dennis Rodman and the well rounded or two way players.

He's more in the Maravich category of guys whose cultural impact far outpaces their actual basketball impact (though a better player than Pistol Pete). I don't think he belongs in the top 100 by my criteria (impact on winning).


[ Will watch Iverson tape later on today and re-evaluate my opinion to further or sway]

I don’t think analytical analysis does a fair job and showcasing the control over a game he had just do to his ability to create & Chuck; Alike to Kobe… Great shot makers can using Shot Chucking as a way to control the tempo of the game by pure virtue of Habit and I believe Iverson has a huge amount of invisible value that fails to be showcased just due to the nature of who he was as a play and the attention & Command he controlled…

I also am a huge believer in shots that are reboundable for your teammates… While it isn’t a “Screen Assist” I think there’s lots of value in players like Iverson who can get inside and shoot shots that have high ORB Value and can bolster your teammates who don’t have great shot creation ability by giving them opportunity to get “Bum Buckets” down low by throwing the ball at the rim in a way they’re able to position themselves for a rebound.

[If this doesn’t make sense, Unlike today where high volume 3 point shooting is such a point of emphasis it’s created the long rebound… A rebound in which your team is in a much harder spot to clean up points down low and it often leads to 2 For a dollar interactions (Kicking it back out for another 3) ]

I think there’s a lot of interactions Iverson has on the court with his team and the opposing team that’s hard to calculate or tangibly see unless you’re looking for it, and that seems to be the division between our perspective!

Will Watch some Tape and Get back to you although.


This idea that players who chuck inefficiently help their team has always bothered me. I'd guess the impact is generally the other way. When you know Iverson's going to just go one on three, where's the incentive to make sharp cuts and work hard without the ball? And, by driving the lane constantly, he packs it for a team that doesn't have great spacing already. When the guy shooting the most has one of the lowest efficiencies on the team, I'd be saying get the ball to a higher efficiency guy is basic common sense. Everyone has their comfort spots and even a Tyrone Hill or a George Lynch is capable of getting you a couple more points a game if you have better spacing and ball movement.


I don’t hate your pessimistic approach towards players especially based on how they’d hypothetically( or actually) effect the team around them.

I do agree Iverson-Ball ultimately effects the team in a way that disengages everyone from moving off the ball, and basically turns the game into a “Hoop Session”( The idea Basketball is about getting into your bag and getting a bucket); And that does hurt the way a player can influence your team for higher aspirations.

At the same time, I’m looking at it from a more individualistic standpoint and while I do agree there’s a lot of things that scream “Great Hooper, Bad Basketball Player” If i had to put a term onto it; I still cannot within my mind discredit his actual ability just because the way he expresses himself on the court fails to create an adhesive environment for his teammates.

Maybe if he had a different coach or yadada he could’ve done it differently, but I still think the talent he displays is something I can’t overlook for the near future.

I know exactly where you’re coming from and express this opinion irl a lot about my contemporaries I play basketball with and am often met with large amounts of pushback myself, Mostly as an anthesis to the glorification of Talent over decision making basketball.

But in this list where, we’re ranking the best basketball players ever; I think Iverson’s talent overcomes his poor decision making ability on the floor just due to the nature phenomenon he creates on the floor
trelos6
Senior
Posts: 567
And1: 236
Joined: Jun 17, 2022
Location: Sydney

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#13 » by trelos6 » Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:42 pm

Vote: Dwight Howard

Image

One of the best defensive players of all time. His peak was arguably a top 3 player in the league. Offensively,he was limited, but what he did was effective. Great catch radius. Some monster dunks. 20.7 pp75 on +8.7% rTS. In the playoffs, he was still 23.2 pp75 on +10.7% for his 3 year peak. He was a monster down low.

I have him with 3 weak MVP seasons, 8 All NBA, 9 All Star, and 12 All D.

Alternate vote: Embiid

Looking at the players available, only Embiid and Dwight can have arguments to have been the best player in the NBA. Though I don't think Embiid was ever a top 3 player, he's still been roughly in that area for the last few years. His longevity is not great, but his peak gets him here.

Nomination: Jimmy Butler

Fantastic 2 way player. His time in Miami has really elevated him, as he’s put in some weak MVP level post seasons.

Alt. Nom: TBA
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,474
And1: 7,083
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#14 » by falcolombardi » Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:49 pm

Being quite honest i expected myself to have already been championing draymond at this stage bsck when the project started

But the 1-2 punch of the poole and gobert situations put that on a chokehold

Are we really sure draymond attitudes against rivals -and- teammates wouldnt be much worse in a less stacked team where winning didnt amelloriate thinghs as much?

This is a guy who gets away with murder at phisicallity in the court, at screaming on refs ears and even at attacking teammates. In a non dinasty team would refs and front offices give him as much of a leash?

I may be even lower on his intangibles than i am on dwight intangibles
User avatar
OldSchoolNoBull
General Manager
Posts: 9,076
And1: 4,468
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Ohio
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#15 » by OldSchoolNoBull » Wed Nov 22, 2023 10:34 pm

Funny, I was thinking about Iverson the last few days, about when we should start talking about him, and about the fact that he's not very popular here on the PC board.

I know perfectly well what the arguments against him are - inefficient scorer, low-effort defender, not always a great teammate, only got past the second round once, etc.

People here say that Sixers won in 2001 with their defense. I get that, but their most impactful defender by far in the playoffs was Mutombo, who was acquired mid-season. The Sixers were 41-14 before the trade. Here are the RS+PO RAPM numbers for 2000-01 for the main players on the Sixers roster pre-trade(O-RAPM/D-RAPM/Total):

Aaron McKie: 2.8 / 0.9 / 3.6
Toni Kukoc: 2.4 / 0.1 / 2.5
Allen Iverson: 1.9 / 0.3 / 2.1
Eric Snow: 0.4 / 1.1 / 1.5
Theo Ratliff: -1.9 / 3.5 / 1.5
Tyrone Hill: -0.6 / 0.6 / 0
George Lynch: -1.9 / 1.9 / 0
Matt Geiger: -0.4 / -0.9 / -1.3
Jumaine Jones: -0.9 /-0.9 / -1.8
Todd MacCulloch: -0.5 / -1.6 / -2.1

(Dikembe Mutombo: -2.2 / 4.8 / 2.6, if you're wondering)

The players with good D-RAPM - Snow, Ratliff, Lynch - are all are below Iverson in total RAPM. The only two players with a higher RAPM than Iverson are offensive guys - Kukoc and McKie.

I can read the numbers, but every shred of intuition I have from 30+ years of following the NBA tells me that that Sixers team wouldn't have sniffed the playoffs without Iverson, much less made the Finals(albeit in a weak conference). And that seems like some degree of impact to me.

But then on the other hand...that's one season. I think of another high-volume, low-efficiency scorer who never had much team success in the playoffs - Dominique. Dominique is in danger of falling out of my top 100 because of his inefficiency. So I struggle with my logical consistency. Does Iverson get in simply because he had the good fortune of playing in a conference that didn't have Bird's Celtics, Moncrief's Bucks, or the Bad Boys in it, and therefore was able to make the Finals one time?

Maybe what tips it for me is Iverson's size.

----

I have been given grief by one particular poster for "curving up" based on height. I've only done it for MJ and for Barkley(for his rebounding), and I think Iverson may end up being the third.

The guy is listed at 6'0'. Most think he's more like 5'11'. There is a limit to how efficient you can be when the person guarding you is always going to have at minimum a 3-4 inch height advantage.

There are guys like Bogues and Webb who were even shorter, but Bogues was also inefficient, Webb a bit more efficient than Iverson, but both on far, far lesser volume. There's Isaiah Thomas who at 5'9' was considerably more efficient at his peak, but still not close to Iverson's volume. There's Nate Robinson, who was not particularly efficient. CP3 was much more efficient but again on lower volume. Archibald is the only player I can think of in that six-feed-and-under height range who scored at similar volume to Iverson at higher efficiency, and Archibald's career was de-railed a bit due to injury. Oh, and there's Trae, but he's 6'1'.

Simply put, the fact that a 5'11' guy scored 26+ppg 10 years in a row, four of those being 30+, is incredible, regardless of efficiency.

----

I'm undecided on if/when Iverson should get in. It's difficult to evaluate him because his name carries such weight. I would argue that in terms of name recognition and cultural impact, he's one of the five biggest stars the league has seen in the last 25 years, along with Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, and Steph, in no particular order. You could make an argument for KG or Wade or Durant, I suppose, but I think Iverson was/is bigger. This is about starpower and not necessarily impactfulness on the court, although the two overlap in all of these other guys in a way they don't with Iverson, and that's the dilemma. (The opposite is a guy like Duncan, who is one of the 5-10 greatest players ever, but had very little starpower, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were a whole lot of people who don't follow basketball so closely who simply don't know the guy's name).

At his apex, the guy was big enough to help jump-start the NBA 2K franchise, gracing it's cover for five years. He's one of the most influential players ever. You look at the way Stephen Jackson and Matt Barnes were talking to him when he was on their podcast, or the way Wade talked about him at his HOF induction(Iverson was on stage with him)...his peers revere him.

This concludes my Iverson ramblings for now. I'm yet to draw a final conclusion.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,616
And1: 3,133
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#16 » by Owly » Wed Nov 22, 2023 11:36 pm

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Funny, I was thinking about Iverson the last few days, about when we should start talking about him, and about the fact that he's not very popular here on the PC board.

I know perfectly well what the arguments against him are - inefficient scorer, low-effort defender, not always a great teammate, only got past the second round once, etc.

People here say that Sixers won in 2001 with their defense. I get that, but their most impactful defender by far in the playoffs was Mutombo, who was acquired mid-season. The Sixers were 41-14 before the trade. Here are the RS+PO RAPM numbers for 2000-01 for the main players on the Sixers roster pre-trade(O-RAPM/D-RAPM/Total):

Aaron McKie: 2.8 / 0.9 / 3.6
Toni Kukoc: 2.4 / 0.1 / 2.5
Allen Iverson: 1.9 / 0.3 / 2.1
Eric Snow: 0.4 / 1.1 / 1.5
Theo Ratliff: -1.9 / 3.5 / 1.5
Tyrone Hill: -0.6 / 0.6 / 0
George Lynch: -1.9 / 1.9 / 0
Matt Geiger: -0.4 / -0.9 / -1.3
Jumaine Jones: -0.9 /-0.9 / -1.8
Todd MacCulloch: -0.5 / -1.6 / -2.1

(Dikembe Mutombo: -2.2 / 4.8 / 2.6, if you're wondering)

The players with good D-RAPM - Snow, Ratliff, Lynch - are all are below Iverson in total RAPM. The only two players with a higher RAPM than Iverson are offensive guys - Kukoc and McKie.

I can read the numbers, but every shred of intuition I have from 30+ years of following the NBA tells me that that Sixers team wouldn't have sniffed the playoffs without Iverson, much less made the Finals(albeit in a weak conference). And that seems like some degree of impact to me.

But then on the other hand...that's one season. I think of another high-volume, low-efficiency scorer who never had much team success in the playoffs - Dominique. Dominique is in danger of falling out of my top 100 because of his inefficiency. So I struggle with my logical consistency. Does Iverson get in simply because he had the good fortune of playing in a conference that didn't have Bird's Celtics, Moncrief's Bucks, or the Bad Boys in it, and therefore was able to make the Finals one time?

Maybe what tips it for me is Iverson's size.

----

I have been given grief by one particular poster for "curving up" based on height. I've only done it for MJ and for Barkley(for his rebounding), and I think Iverson may end up being the third.

The guy is listed at 6'0'. Most think he's more like 5'11'. There is a limit to how efficient you can be when the person guarding you is always going to have at minimum a 3-4 inch height advantage.

There are guys like Bogues and Webb who were even shorter, but Bogues was also inefficient, Webb a bit more efficient than Iverson, but both on far, far lesser volume. There's Isaiah Thomas who at 5'9' was considerably more efficient at his peak, but still not close to Iverson's volume. There's Nate Robinson, who was not particularly efficient. CP3 was much more efficient but again on lower volume. Archibald is the only player I can think of in that six-feed-and-under height range who scored at similar volume to Iverson at higher efficiency, and Archibald's career was de-railed a bit due to injury. Oh, and there's Trae, but he's 6'1'.

Simply put, the fact that a 5'11' guy scored 26+ppg 10 years in a row, four of those being 30+, is incredible, regardless of efficiency.

----

I'm undecided on if/when Iverson should get in. It's difficult to evaluate him because his name carries such weight. I would argue that in terms of name recognition and cultural impact, he's one of the five biggest stars the league has seen in the last 25 years, along with Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, and Steph, in no particular order. You could make an argument for KG or Wade or Durant, I suppose, but I think Iverson was/is bigger. This is about starpower and not necessarily impactfulness on the court, although the two overlap in all of these other guys in a way they don't with Iverson, and that's the dilemma. (The opposite is a guy like Duncan, who is one of the 5-10 greatest players ever, but had very little starpower, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were a whole lot of people who don't follow basketball so closely who simply don't know the guy's name).

At his apex, the guy was big enough to help jump-start the NBA 2K franchise, gracing it's cover for five years. He's one of the most influential players ever. You look at the way Stephen Jackson and Matt Barnes were talking to him when he was on their podcast, or the way Wade talked about him at his HOF induction(Iverson was on stage with him)...his peers revere him.

This concludes my Iverson ramblings for now. I'm yet to draw a final conclusion.

Got to be brief

Not sure what offense, defense splits are meant to mean as far as pro-Iverson.

Nobody denies "some degree of impact". Not the numbers you cite. Not box aggregations. I'm not aware of any meaningful critics suggesting it.

"Wouldn't have sniffed the playoffs", well that depends what you replace the minutes with, but that (phrasing) seems very strong. Not sure how much single season matters anyhow but those numbers are perfectly good but nothing historically great and any individuals intuition ... without significant status ("I'm the GM of multiple title teams") probably won't mean much to others.

You're honest about stuff, which is good.

If you want to kick Wilkins fairly, playoffs might be the place (though obviously that's the wrong starting point, you get the criteria you think is fair and live with the results). But yes, if Wilkins' efficiency bothers you I'd suggest Iverson's should too. It depends on what one makes of the overall offensive package but on a raw scoring level Wilkins (RS) is circa neutral (very slight negative, though removing marginal years at start and end, outside prime and the tilt goes the other way). Iverson's tilt is more clearly negative though this could be overstated (career TS+ of 98 and TS Add of -425.9, Elvin Hayes is 96 and -1138.4 [though on a longer career than either Iverson or Wilkins]).

Not sure about the merits of curving for height. Even less sure of doing it ad hoc for certain players. Per above I'd suggest a more consistent approach.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,606
And1: 3,365
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#17 » by LA Bird » Thu Nov 23, 2023 7:19 am

Vote 1: Paul Pierce
Vote 2: Dwight Howard
Nom 1: Jimmy Butler
Nom 2: Bob Lanier


Was going to do a writeup for Pierce but seeing as he has a few first place votes already, I'll write about McHale instead. I feel like his 1989 season doesn't get talked about enough. It's equivalent to the 1994 season for Pippen, the perfect opportunity to prove his value with his team's #1 superstar out. Except Pippen stepped up while McHale didn't. His scoring and shooting efficiency both went down, assists were down, turnovers were up, his defensive metrics were the worst of his career, and the Celtics dropped to 20th of 25 teams defensively. They had a +1.3 SRS overall and were swept in the first round. They did face a tough opponent in the Bad Boys Pistons but McHale didn't have any problems against them just the year prior with Bird around. And the other side of the equation is that while McHale didn't have much success without Bird, the converse is not true. Bird's Celtics won their first two titles without much contribution from McHale (5/3 in 81 Finals and 13/6 in 84 Finals) and they were still a 7+ SRS team in 86 without McHale.

This is a concern for me because without the team success argument, I don't think McHale's numbers by themselves is that great. For example, these are the career stats of McHale vs Nance, another PF from the same era who is usually ranked far below him.

McHale: 30118 MP, 17.9 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 1.7 APG, 0.4 SPG, 1.7 BPG, 60.5% TS, 20.0 PER, 113.0 WS, 34.3 VORP
Nance: 30697 MP, 17.1 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 2.6 APG, 0.9 SPG, 2.2 BPG, 58.6% TS, 19.9 PER, 109.6 WS, 43.5 VORP

McHale is clearly a better scorer (especially in playoffs) but Nance is ahead, at least statistically, in all other areas. Hell, Nance's peak scoring average (22.5 ppg on 60.7% TS) is actually almost identical to McHale's in his one season without Bird (22.5 ppg on 60.8% TS) and one could argue Nance's style of scoring is more era portable and easier to build around. If we dig into non-box impact metrics, Nance is ahead in ElGee's prime WOWYR (+5.1 vs +3.6), career WOWYR (+5.6 vs +2.6), and generally looks better in Moonbeam's RWOWY graph too. As a counterpoint, McHale was among top of the league in the limited 1988 RAPM data from squared2020 (even above Bird) but the problem with that is we saw how the Celtics dropped off the following season without Bird. All in all, I think the gap between McHale and Nance is not that big and considering one is usually ranked in the 40s and the other in the 80s in all time lists, the question then becomes whether McHale is moving down, Nance is moving up, or a bit of both. Personally, I don't feel comfortable going super high for Nance yet which means I can't really justify putting McHale in my top 50 while staying consistent.

Re: Nominations
I would actually prefer to have Lanier as my first pick but seeing as he has zero traction at the moment, I've opted to go with Butler instead to send him through first.
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,974
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#18 » by AEnigma » Thu Nov 23, 2023 1:17 pm

^ Good write-up. I am voting McHale as an alternate because I have him second among the five names, but 1989 is definitely a blemish, and there is a fair argument that he has the second lowest peak and lowest prime of these candidates (I have his peak on par with Draymond’s and his prime on par with Pierce’s). I think it is fair to penalise Nance for never really achieving anything or elevating his performance in the playoffs, but I also agree those two — and Robert Parish, and Rasheed Wallace as another secondary star big — should generally be within twenty spots of each other.

Appreciate you starting us out on Lanier. I will probably join you next round.
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,474
And1: 7,083
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#19 » by falcolombardi » Thu Nov 23, 2023 1:27 pm

I wanna add bob lanier as my alt nomination
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,827
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Deadline ~5am PST, 11/25/2023) 

Post#20 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu Nov 23, 2023 2:25 pm

Vote is for Dwight Howard - Defensively dominant for 3-4 years in a row. He was quite good his first couple years in Houston as well. Short prime, but I feel that his scoring around the rim put some serious double, even triple team pressure that made him a more reliable scorer than Westbrook, Green, and in my opinion, even Drexler.

My alternate vote is for Joel Embiid - I just saw Samurai nominate him and I'm trying to think "why not"? Hasn't had a great post season yet that I can recall, but seems in rank with the guys here, if not better because he seems a step above most of them in the RS. I might take him over Howard, I do feel he is the "better player" but I could be overlooking the rather big defensive gap in Howard's favor.



Kevin McHale - He's pretty close to Embiid/Howard for me. I had him ranked above them in the last list, just feel that with the season or 2 when he had a team to himself he didn't really prove that he would be a more dominant "#1 guy" than them. Not that I care about who is better at being the guy, but part of me giving McHale a boost is also taking into account that his numbers are repressed due to his role.


Green is interesting - when I compare him to Kevin I can see an argument, but when I compare him to Howard it feels like I am reaching and playing off of narratives.
longevity but Westbrook was cooked by the time he was like 29, so he did last longer than them at this point but not by a lot.

Paul Pierce - Hm...if I cared about longevity I'd consider him but peak/prime don't think he is on the level of Howard/Embiid and to an extent McHale. Not sure how he compares to Green.


My nomination is for Willis Reed - Arguably just as good as Frazier albeit his career feels even shorter.


Alternate vote for Cliff Hagen - I feel this is a consistent pick with my lack of importance on longevity.



Cliff Hagen has some real playoff heroics and is perhaps the biggest catalyst to the Hawks only title. He has a couple of years where he is the playoff hero. He never quite plays at that level for the rest of his career, but he is still good scorer for his era, just not eyepopping like 58 and to a lesser extent 59.

I think most of the players after him typically more regular season guys (at least the guys who are going to be getting votes soon). I'm going to favor someone who had a 05 Manu like run here.

Return to Player Comparisons