RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #31 (Bob Pettit)

[falcolombardi]

My temptative vote is reggie miller followed by pippen, with arguments to make fot stockton longevity or pettit era relative peak as my alt over scottie

Got a full 32 hour shift tpday so prolly wont make the in depth post until tomorrow or wednesday tho

whats reggies arg

Offensive excellence in the postseason (individually and team results wise) for a fairly decent time

Indiana was not a roster devoid of talent by any means (mark jackson, rik smits amd detlef schremp were all fairly nice players fpr the time albeit they didnt overlap for all of reggie career) but he was the driving force of their offense regardless of who came and went

In fact reggie playoffs numbers both individually and team offense ratings would make you think of a higher rep player and is only reggie lack of accolades and recognition as the first tier stsr he was in his own time that prevents him from being seen in the tier of someone like barkley offensively imo

Pippen has impressibe results of his own as a lead star, and is a fair pick above reggie too, albeit i like miller longevity a little bit more and he shouldered being a team best player for longer with all tjat entails

My vote reggie

My alt pippen

My nom kawhi for highedt non bill walton prime left

Will expand my post if i get the time

[Owly]

Regarding the discussion about Pettit postseason regress, I will quote his 1956-64 numbers from my old project (note that relative efficiency is against league average here, not against faced opponents):

RS: 39.2 mpg, 16.8 rpg, 3.0 apg, -- tov, 27.3 ppg on 43.9% FG, 75.9% FT and 51.3% TS (+4.64% rTS)
Against -2.0 rDRtg defenses or better (36.78% of playoffs games): 41.5 mpg, 15.9 rpg, 2.8 apg, -- tov, 26.8 ppg on 41.9% FG, 76.6% FT and 50.0% TS (+3.75% rTS)

In short, he went from 25.1 pp36 on +4.6 rTS% in RS to 23.3 pp36 on +3.8 rTS%. Is that a significant drop off? Well, it's certainly not insigniciant, but we can compare to some of the other all-time greats:

1956-64 Pettit: -1.8 pp36, -0.8 rTS%

1989-01 Malone: -3.9 pp36, -7.3 rTS%
1987-96 Barkley: -3.5 pp36, -2.5 rTS%
2001-11 Dirk: -1.9 pp36, -1.0 rTS%
2010-19 Durant: -3.3 pp36, -5.0 rTS%
1972-82 Erving: -2.4 pp36, -2.1 rTS%

I mean, all of these players (but Dirk) saw a drop off that was inarguably bigger and more visible across raw numbers. Although it's fair to criticize Pettit for some weaker showings in some years, I don't think suggesting he was a playoff failer is fair. He did reasonably well against the quality defenses in the playoffs, all things concerned.

Didn't Pettit play a big chunk of his playoff games against the Celtics? That will depress anyone's numbers.

There's a tradeoff there because he played in the clearly weaker conference. And "he" (read: "the Hawks") always played fellow west teams and only sometimes faced Boston. There's a couple of series and a tiebreaker against not-so-powerhouse versions (sub -2 SRS) of the Pistons for instance.

At first glance (and it's harder because the % isn't there back then and distribution of sample can muddy things) it looks like rebounds (and at the margin assists) are maybe a greater area of dropoff, perhaps?

[Rishkar]

Is it unreasonable to think that Jason Kidd was better than Scottie Pippen? I feel like they were pretty comparable defenders and rebounders at their peak (where you would expect Pippen's height to give him the edge), with Kidd being a better passer and Pippen a better scorer. I think Pippen benefited greatly from Jordan collapsing defenses, so I'm not sure how much of the efficiency gap comes from their skillset vs. situation.

[iggymcfrack]

Is it unreasonable to think that Jason Kidd was better than Scottie Pippen? I feel like they were pretty comparable defenders and rebounders at their peak (where you would expect Pippen's height to give him the edge), with Kidd being a better passer and Pippen a better scorer. I think Pippen benefited greatly from Jordan collapsing defenses, so I'm not sure how much of the efficiency gap comes from their skillset vs. situation.

I think Kidd and Pippen are very comparable and should both be going in the 30s somewhere. I’d say both are clearly behind Stockton, but also clearly ahead of Walt Frazier. I’d strongly consider Kidd for a nomination once Kawhi goes in.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

okay, i guess ill vote

DAVIS

I know brow hasnt played long but hes probs the best player left and went crazy for 2020. Also shut down the dubs and steph so

Pippen

6 rings and did okay without mj. idk what his impact is but its probably good.

I'll nominate

Jimmy Butler

made 2 finals and went toe to toe with kawhi and bron and jokic. also is giannis's dad

Davis is not nominated yet.

[tsherkin]

I think Kidd and Pippen are very comparable and should both be going in the 30s somewhere. I’d say both are clearly behind Stockton, but also clearly ahead of Walt Frazier. I’d strongly consider Kidd for a nomination once Kawhi goes in.

Why are they both "clearly ahead" of a guy who may have been a better offensive player than either?

Didn't Pettit play a big chunk of his playoff games against the Celtics? That will depress anyone's numbers.

This is a solid point.

====

And circling back to the Reggie arguments.

Miller is an interesting one. He's kind of the Adrian Dantley of guards in that he was an extremely high-efficiency finisher who didn't offer much else offensively in terms of creating for others. That puts something of a cap on his offensive value. He was also a playoff riser and he had some big crunch-time performances. And of course there are no surprises as to why his All-NBA and MVP looks are limited. This is the right time to start looking at someone like him, and the Pacers had a nice run, 94-00 in particular. 4x All-Star in that span (5 overall). 20/3/3 player through that stretch (61.5% TS, 115.7 TS+), 23/3/2/5 in the playoffs (59.4% TS).

The pre-Finals Pacers who were making the ECFs were like Dale Davis, Derrick McKey, Reggie, Rik Smits and Haywoode Workman. They added Mark Jackson, they started cultivating Antonio Davis. They added Jalen Rose. Then for 2000, you have Travis Best, Austin Croshere, Sam Perkins, etc. They were a deep team. Not a ton of high-end offensive talent besides Reggie, but good depth and defense. The Pacers were like a +3, +3.5 offense through about 93, then went to more of a +1.5 offense, but got better on D when Larry Brown took over. They were a -2ish defense mostly from 94 to 00, though up and down. But when Bird took over, they were (+3.4, -3.4), (+6.5, +2.2, lockout season), and (+4.4, -0.5). You'll notice those are three straight seasons of Reggie scoring LESS than 20 ppg and Indiana having their greatest offensive success (and most of their best team success).

.

So I feel there's some room to wonder exactly how highly we should be regarding Reggie, even though he was quite impressive in what he did. Of course, and this will get back to some of what Doc MJ likes to discuss with Manu and his limited minutes: there are a certain number of possessions where you're getting a very high return on your possession investment, so that definitely has value. How much becomes the debate, and of course Reggie is a little different than Manu because he's no manner of playmaker, he's a hyper-efficient version of Allan Houston, stylistically.

[rk2023]

Is it unreasonable to think that Jason Kidd was better than Scottie Pippen? I feel like they were pretty comparable defenders and rebounders at their peak (where you would expect Pippen's height to give him the edge), with Kidd being a better passer and Pippen a better scorer. I think Pippen benefited greatly from Jordan collapsing defenses, so I'm not sure how much of the efficiency gap comes from their skillset vs. situation.

While Kidd has a great case for being the best guard defender in league history, I am still unsure that compares to Pippen's ability to fit into various defensive value-propositions and have more of an interior impact as a lengthy, bigger player. While Kidd waas much better as a passer and playmaker (though I'm not high on his scoring and gravitational effect), I don't think Pippen is a slouch there per-se and is a more resilient scorer on top of his defensive acumen - which was an understated factor in how damn good the 90s Bulls were as a PS team. Many have pointed his excellence as a second-banana whom really 'did it all' when excluding volume scoring, but he looks - at the least - solid as the main guy when Jordan was hitting dingers in 1994 and 95. I liked HCL's $.02 on the topic, so I'll link that below.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=108445816#p108445816

Basically, I see Pippen as a very consistent, weak-fringe level MVP player from all of 1991-97 - with some other rather solid supporting years in his case.

Another 90s star (who I've been campaigning for as a nominee back to early last month) is Reggie Miller. don't have nothing much to add on top of what I have already mentioned, so will link my prior post. With Miller, his best season(s) might be a slight hair below Pippen if not equivalent (I'm one who is high on Reggie, if one couldn't tell) - but I feel a larger and longer prime sample gives him the nod for me.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=108445816#p108445816

Vote: Reggie Miller
Alternate: Scottie Pippen
Nomination: Kawhi Leonard

[iggymcfrack]

I think Kidd and Pippen are very comparable and should both be going in the 30s somewhere. I’d say both are clearly behind Stockton, but also clearly ahead of Walt Frazier. I’d strongly consider Kidd for a nomination once Kawhi goes in.

Why are they both "clearly ahead" of a guy who may have been a better offensive player than either?

Didn't Pettit play a big chunk of his playoff games against the Celtics? That will depress anyone's numbers.

This is a solid point.

====

And circling back to the Reggie arguments.

Miller is an interesting one. He's kind of the Adrian Dantley of guards in that he was an extremely high-efficiency finisher who didn't offer much else offensively in terms of creating for others. That puts something of a cap on his offensive value. He was also a playoff riser and he had some big crunch-time performances. And of course there are no surprises as to why his All-NBA and MVP looks are limited. This is the right time to start looking at someone like him, and the Pacers had a nice run, 94-00 in particular. 4x All-Star in that span (5 overall). 20/3/3 player through that stretch (61.5% TS, 115.7 TS+), 23/3/2/5 in the playoffs (59.4% TS).

The pre-Finals Pacers who were making the ECFs were like Dale Davis, Derrick McKey, Reggie, Rik Smits and Haywoode Workman. They added Mark Jackson, they started cultivating Antonio Davis. They added Jalen Rose. Then for 2000, you have Travis Best, Austin Croshere, Sam Perkins, etc. They were a deep team. Not a ton of high-end offensive talent besides Reggie, but good depth and defense. The Pacers were like a +3, +3.5 offense through about 93, then went to more of a +1.5 offense, but got better on D when Larry Brown took over. They were a -2ish defense mostly from 94 to 00, though up and down. But when Bird took over, they were (+3.4, -3.4), (+6.5, +2.2, lockout season), and (+4.4, -0.5). You'll notice those are three straight seasons of Reggie scoring LESS than 20 ppg and Indiana having their greatest offensive success (and most of their best team success).

.

So I feel there's some room to wonder exactly how highly we should be regarding Reggie, even though he was quite impressive in what he did. Of course, and this will get back to some of what Doc MJ likes to discuss with Manu and his limited minutes: there are a certain number of possessions where you're getting a very high return on your possession investment, so that definitely has value. How much becomes the debate, and of course Reggie is a little different than Manu because he's no manner of playmaker, he's a hyper-efficient version of Allan Houston, stylistically.

I feel like Kidd and Frazier are a pretty easy comparison since they have very similar offensive numbers at peak, Kidd is widely considered the greatest defensive point guard of all-time, Kidd did it in a tougher era, and Kidd played an extra 20,000 minutes. The only real edge I see for Frazier is the postseason success as the alpha dog, but I don’t see how that makes up for Kidd being a better player and playing a whole extra 2/3 of a career.

[tsherkin]

I feel like Kidd and Frazier are a pretty easy comparison since they have very similar offensive numbers at peak, Kidd is widely considered the greatest defensive point guard of all-time, Kidd did it in a tougher era, and Kidd played an extra 20,000 minutes. The only real edge I see for Frazier is the postseason success as the alpha dog, but I don’t see how that makes up for Kidd being a better player and playing a whole extra 2/3 of a career.

Frazier wasn't an incompetent shooter for most of his career and was an outstanding defender. Frazier was a 54.2% TS player. Kidd was a 50.7% TS player. Frazier did while scoring 20+ ppg for 6 straight seasons. Kidd was actually quite bad at scoring until he developed his shot later on into his career, mostly as a roleplayer. There's more to that offensive conversation than I think you're allowing. I don't think Kidd was a better player at all. The minutes deal is of some consequence, of course, but I actually think Frazier was a much more valuable player than Kidd was.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I feel like Kidd and Frazier are a pretty easy comparison since they have very similar offensive numbers at peak, Kidd is widely considered the greatest defensive point guard of all-time, Kidd did it in a tougher era, and Kidd played an extra 20,000 minutes. The only real edge I see for Frazier is the postseason success as the alpha dog, but I don’t see how that makes up for Kidd being a better player and playing a whole extra 2/3 of a career.

Frazier wasn't an incompetent shooter for most of his career and was an outstanding defender. Frazier was a 54.2% TS player. Kidd was a 50.7% TS player. Frazier did while scoring 20+ ppg for 6 straight seasons. Kidd was actually quite bad at scoring until he developed his shot later on into his career, mostly as a roleplayer. There's more to that offensive conversation than I think you're allowing. I don't think Kidd was a better player at all. The minutes deal is of some consequence, of course, but I actually think Frazier was a much more valuable player than Kidd was.

Yeah, I think Frazier has both volume and efficiency advantages over Kidd as a scorer:

Career Regular Season:
Frazier: 18.1 PP36 on +4 rTS
Kidd: 12.6 PP36 on -2.3 rTS

Career Playoffs:
Frazier: 17.5 PP36 on +5.4 rTS(relative to RS league average over his career)
Kidd: 12.1 PP36 on -3.2 rTS(relative to RS league average over his career)

(I've used PER36 for volume because PER 100 Possessions data for Frazier is incomplete and missing his peak years, though based on what we have the gap there is a bit smaller than on PER36.)

[Doctor MJ]

I feel like Kidd and Frazier are a pretty easy comparison since they have very similar offensive numbers at peak, Kidd is widely considered the greatest defensive point guard of all-time, Kidd did it in a tougher era, and Kidd played an extra 20,000 minutes. The only real edge I see for Frazier is the postseason success as the alpha dog, but I don’t see how that makes up for Kidd being a better player and playing a whole extra 2/3 of a career.

Frazier wasn't an incompetent shooter for most of his career and was an outstanding defender. Frazier was a 54.2% TS player. Kidd was a 50.7% TS player. Frazier did while scoring 20+ ppg for 6 straight seasons. Kidd was actually quite bad at scoring until he developed his shot later on into his career, mostly as a roleplayer. There's more to that offensive conversation than I think you're allowing. I don't think Kidd was a better player at all. The minutes deal is of some consequence, of course, but I actually think Frazier was a much more valuable player than Kidd was.

I have similar thoughts.

When defense keyed in on these guys as offensive fulcrums, Frazier was a star scorer, and Kidd was a problem for his team in the half-court.

I also would also object to the idea that those arguing for Kidd as the best defensive point guard of all-time have done serious comparison with Frazier. I think Kidd's certainly got an argument, particularly when you factor in longevity, but I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that Frazier was inferior on defense to any other point guard.

Re: extra 2/3 of a career. Putting aside what the ratio is, let's just keep in mind that they both have the same number of All-NBA seasons. Hence, an argument crediting Frazier's alpha years but giving Kidd the nod based on longevity is basically saying "Sure, when both players were elite Frazier was better, but don't forget all those years Kidd played below elite levels!".

My guess would be that for those siding with Kidd based on longevity that chip in Dallas is carrying quite a bit of the weight.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, I think Frazier has both volume and efficiency advantages over Kidd as a scorer:

In both league-relative and absolute terms. He was just considerably better at it than Kidd, for whom scoring was always a weakness until he returned to Dallas for Dirk's big run and had learned how to hit spot-up 3s (and after a decade of developing his FT shooting, at that). Ason Kidd no longer by then to his credit, but not in his hey day.

Kidd can definitely be argued as the superior playmaker, but that trade off in scoring is large and significant, and I don't think there is a meaningful difference in defense at all, no matter how much era-shaming folks want to do about the late 60s and 70s.

[Doctor MJ]

.

So I feel there's some room to wonder exactly how highly we should be regarding Reggie, even though he was quite impressive in what he did. Of course, and this will get back to some of what Doc MJ likes to discuss with Manu and his limited minutes: there are a certain number of possessions where you're getting a very high return on your possession investment, so that definitely has value. How much becomes the debate, and of course Reggie is a little different than Manu because he's no manner of playmaker, he's a hyper-efficient version of Allan Houston, stylistically.

So, not really responding here with well-thought out point in mind, but since summoned while two guys I've tended to champion are referenced:

- I think both players are hard to rank fundamentally because people at the time fundamentally didn't understand the value they brought.

- In the case of Reggie, he was largely classified as a fringe all-star who got named all-star whenever his team had a good enough record while I think he was valuable enough that he should have been an all-star lock in general. The first time he makes all-star is in 1990, the last time in 2000. If he had made all-star every year in that range - which I believe he deserved - that's 11 all-star years. And frankly I think if you're thinking along those lines, he deserves it for 2001 too, so I'll say it's a 12-season all-star prime which is quite respectable.

- Then there's the matter of how he stepped up in the playoffs. While I wouldn't want to claim that I think Reggie should have been getting Top 5 MVP placements ever year for his regular seasons, come playoff time, I think his play warranted such ranking a number of times...and this combined with his solid longevity is what puts him in the discussion at right around this point in the project for me.

- Ginobili of course is far harder to evaluate still. In the case of Miller we're talking about a guy who was indisputably his team's alpha and him being underrated at the time was simply about folks being more impressed by other alphas who shot a lot more. That's a very different thing from a guy who literally got slotted in at 6th man after his coach despaired at not knowing what to do with him. His coach doing this means that we'll never get an answer as to what he was capable of.

- To some degree this is moot here because this is a project that's more about what-was than what-might-have-been, but I'd argue that we have a tendency to default to "6th man level impact" with Ginobili as our what-was, while the +/- data tells a very different story.

[tsherkin]

- I think both players are hard to rank fundamentally because people at the time fundamentally didn't understand the value they brought.

This is precisely why I summoned you, to offer a counterpoint to my initial impression of Reggie

eserved - that's 11 all-star years. And frankly I think if you're thinking along those lines, he deserves it for 2001 too, so I'll say it's a 12-season all-star prime which is quite respectable.

He wasn't meaningfully worse in 2001 than in 2000, so I'm with you there. Hell, he wasn't that far off in 2002.

- Then there's the matter of how he stepped up in the playoffs. While I wouldn't want to claim that I think Reggie should have been getting Top 5 MVP placements ever year for his regular seasons, come playoff time, I think his play warranted such ranking a number of times...and this combined with his solid longevity is what puts him in the discussion at right around this point in the project for me.

He was very specifically a playoff riser in volume scoring, and while he saw a dip in his efficiency, he was still exceptionally efficient for his era. And technically above league average even by 2023 standards (and something like +2.5 to +3.0 by 2023 playoff standards). He was quite adept at scoring in the playoffs.

- Ginobili of course is far harder to evaluate still. In the case of Miller we're talking about a guy who was indisputably his team's alpha and him being underrated at the time was simply about folks being more impressed by other alphas who shot a lot more. That's a very different thing from a guy who literally got slotted in at 6th man after his coach despaired at not knowing what to do with him. His coach doing this means that we'll never get an answer as to what he was capable of.

I didn't mean to compare them directly so much as to make the point that there is value to hyper-efficiency in smaller samples, and that you do sometimes have to think unconventionally to appreciate certain players. Reggie wasn't just showing good efficiency, he was an efficiency monster. From 90-01, he averaged +8.7 rTS and had 3 seasons in double digits, which were actually also his highest-volume seasons. So we're talking some guard-version Adrian Dantley-type crap here, which IS worth noting.

- To some degree this is moot here because this is a project that's more about what-was than what-might-have-been, but I'd argue that we have a tendency to default to "6th man level impact" with Ginobili as our what-was, while the +/- data tells a very different story.

Right, and we've hashed out what that might mean elsewhere, and it's less important here. More I wanted to see if I could nab you to offer some alternative, positive thoughts to support a Reggie case.

I have made the comparison a couple times now between Miller and Dantley. It isn't QUITE right, because Dantley needed the ball for a little longer sometimes, but both exerted good to great foul pressure (people forget Reggie's FTr, but he was .418 from 90-01, which is insane for how he played the game, and when) and wicked absolute and relative efficiency. Even if they didn't provide a lot else, those are big wins from a possession perspective, and I suspect that mattered even more to the Pacers in the late 90s and early 2000s as the game slowed down to an abysmal crawl. You start blocking the efficiency-pumping joy of transition play, and having someone like Reggie who was a 121 ORTG guy on his career becomes a huge, huge boon. You still need folks to drive your offense, you still need defenders (because he wasn't a particularly good one a lot of the time) and you still need all that other stuff, but he's giving you some big, big wins in that respect.

[Doctor MJ]

Is it unreasonable to think that Jason Kidd was better than Scottie Pippen? I feel like they were pretty comparable defenders and rebounders at their peak (where you would expect Pippen's height to give him the edge), with Kidd being a better passer and Pippen a better scorer. I think Pippen benefited greatly from Jordan collapsing defenses, so I'm not sure how much of the efficiency gap comes from their skillset vs. situation.

Not unreasonable. I'd keep in mind that Pippen was bigger, longer, and more agile than Kidd though. Can Kidd's brain make up for that? Perhaps, but the concept of "he's smarter and that makes up for his lack of size" is a guard-thing in general, and in general it rings true for offense but not defense.

What I'd say in general is that I'm more confident in Pippen's ability to be a Top 2 player on an all-time level team than I am with Kidd for reasons that are both obvious and suspect. We don't know how Kidd would do with a Jordan-like player, and while that's not his fault, it does tend to give me more confidence in Pippen.

Of course as I say all of that, Kidd does have the longevity argument here as he does in many other comparisons.

[iggymcfrack]

I feel like Kidd and Frazier are a pretty easy comparison since they have very similar offensive numbers at peak, Kidd is widely considered the greatest defensive point guard of all-time, Kidd did it in a tougher era, and Kidd played an extra 20,000 minutes. The only real edge I see for Frazier is the postseason success as the alpha dog, but I don’t see how that makes up for Kidd being a better player and playing a whole extra 2/3 of a career.

Frazier wasn't an incompetent shooter for most of his career and was an outstanding defender. Frazier was a 54.2% TS player. Kidd was a 50.7% TS player. Frazier did while scoring 20+ ppg for 6 straight seasons. Kidd was actually quite bad at scoring until he developed his shot later on into his career, mostly as a roleplayer. There's more to that offensive conversation than I think you're allowing. I don't think Kidd was a better player at all. The minutes deal is of some consequence, of course, but I actually think Frazier was a much more valuable player than Kidd was.

Yeah, I think Frazier has both volume and efficiency advantages over Kidd as a scorer:

Career Regular Season:
Frazier: 18.1 PP36 on +4 rTS
Kidd: 12.6 PP36 on -2.3 rTS

Career Playoffs:
Frazier: 17.5 PP36 on +5.4 rTS(relative to RS league average over his career)
Kidd: 12.1 PP36 on -3.2 rTS(relative to RS league average over his career)

(I've used PER36 for volume because PER 100 Possessions data for Frazier is incomplete and missing his peak years, though based on what we have the gap there is a bit smaller than on PER36.)

First off, using career numbers isn’t fair to Kidd since it weights all his years as a role player equally to peak years. Also, Frazier played at a much faster pace and was nowhere near as good of a passer. Frazier never had an AST% over 30 in a season where he played at least 30 minutes total. Kidd had an AST% over 30 in each of his first 17 seasons.

Frazier had 11 seasons where he played meaningful minutes and he averaged a 19.2 PER over that span. In Kidd’s best 11 season span, he had a 19.3 PER. BPM wasn’t available for the first 6 seasons of Frazier’s career, but when it was available, he peaked at 3.8. Kidd had 10 seasons with a BPM of 4.2 or higher.

Sure, Frazier was a better scorer, but Kidd was a better defender, a much better rebounder, played in a much tougher era, was a MUCH better passer and had MUCH better longevity. Like I don’t get how you get an edge for Frazier out of all that. Taking Frazier over Kidd when his only edge is scoring is the kind of logic that puts Durant and Kobe as top 10 players all-time.

[tsherkin]

First off, using career numbers isn’t fair to Kidd since it weights all his years as a role player equally to peak years.

50.5% TS in NJN. 50.4% in DAL. 50.9% in PHO. 53.2% his one year in New York. It doesn't matter what portion of his career you look at, he was dreadfully inefficient.

Also, Frazier played at a much faster pace

You think that his entire game was predicated on transition success?

and was nowhere near as good of a passer. Frazier never had an AST% over 30 in a season where he played at least 30 minutes total. Kidd had an AST% over 30 in each of his first 17 seasons.

That's not an argument. AST% doesn't describe passing ability, especially when talking about guys with different shooting volumes and teams with iso scorers. You CAN make a very successful pro-Kidd argument for passing and I'm reasonably confident everyone would agree with you, but that was not the way to do it.

Sure, Frazier was a better scorer, but Kidd was a better defender, a much better rebounder, played in a much tougher era, was a MUCH better passer and had MUCH better longevity. Like I don’t get how you get an edge for Frazier out of all that. Taking Frazier over Kidd when his only edge is scoring is the kind of logic that puts Durant and Kobe as top 10 players all-time.

You haven't really produced any proof that he was a superior defender. Or that he played in a tougher era.

[Doctor MJ]

I have made the comparison a couple times now between Miller and Dantley. It isn't QUITE right, because Dantley needed the ball for a little longer sometimes, but both exerted good to great foul pressure (people forget Reggie's FTr, but he was .418 from 90-01, which is insane for how he played the game, and when) and wicked absolute and relative efficiency. Even if they didn't provide a lot else, those are big wins from a possession perspective, and I suspect that mattered even more to the Pacers in the late 90s and early 2000s as the game slowed down to an abysmal crawl. You start blocking the efficiency-pumping joy of transition play, and having someone like Reggie who was a 121 ORTG guy on his career becomes a huge, huge boon. You still need folks to drive your offense, you still need defenders (because he wasn't a particularly good one a lot of the time) and you still need all that other stuff, but he's giving you some big, big wins in that respect.

Good thoughts in general.

I'm afraid I'm a Dantley skeptic. I definitely see the connection between the two as hyper-efficient scorers, and get why someone would be high on both, but the way teams moved on from Dantley, along with the WOWY we calculate, is extremely problematic in my book.

In terms of what was happening in his game, I think the essence of it is

a) I don't think Dantley needed it just a little longer. Sometimes he was quick sure, but the chess match often took considerable time.
b) Dantley wanted the ball toward the interior, and thus clogged space rather than opening space up.

Now, I think you can play like Dantley in theory and make use of spacers around you, but in practice this is not how it played out for him.

[Doctor MJ]

Frazier never had an AST% over 30 in a season where he played at least 30 minutes total. Kidd had an AST% over 30 in each of his first 17 seasons.

So, I think it's important to point out that AST% is more about roles and systems than it is about passing ability. Kidd was an outstanding passer of course, but during his prime he also played in schemes that were predicted on him dominating the team's decision making.

Frazier by contrast was playing in Holzman's read & react scheme where no one player dominated the ball or decision making to the same extent. His assist numbers thus don't represent a failure to do what Kidd did in any meaningful way.

Which was more impressive? A point that can be debated, but we shouldn't confuse Kidd for a guy who was regularly leading elite offenses like this.

[tsherkin]

I'm afraid I'm a Dantley skeptic. I definitely see the connection between the two as hyper-efficient scorers, and get why someone would be high on both, but the way teams moved on from Dantley, along with the WOWY we calculate, is extremely problematic in my book.

In terms of what was happening in his game, I think the essence of it is

a) I don't think Dantley needed it just a little longer. Sometimes he was quick sure, but the chess match often took considerable time.
b) Dantley wanted the ball toward the interior, and thus clogged space rather than opening space up.

Now, I think you can play like Dantley in theory and make use of spacers around you, but in practice this is not how it played out for him.

My point was more about guys limited to just scoring and the value they bring.

Dantley... it depends which Dantley you look at. He did a lot of his work off-ball when he was with Utah, and that didn't detract from anyone. He also made pretty quick decisions once he was in the post, and even when he was facing up. Later in his career in Detroit, a little different perhaps, but in his hey day, people think he held the ball like Melo but that wasn't really the case.

Dantley has his limitations, though. Like Miller, he wasn't a playmaker. He didn't create for others to any meaningful degree. Unlike Miller, he didn't move his defender around THAT much, since he primarily jockeyed for position in the post. He'd cut, he'd screen, and he could receive at the elbow or on the wing and initiate from there. Unlike Miller again, he wasn't a spacer. Reggie could capably move above the arc and drag his defender with him to open up the interior for, say, Dale/Antonio Davis, or Mark Jackson's crappy postups (conceptually more valuable than in practice, heh). Dantley couldn't do that. So you could tactically deploy Reggie as a decoy a lot more effectively.

Ultimately, I think we learned from Wilt and from Dantley and from many that you need more than one guy who is scoring a ton, even at hyper-efficiency, to facilitate high-end offense. That's why Wilt's best offenses came when he gave up the ball more, moved it around and focused on that rather than volume scoring. It's part of why, lockout season notwithstanding, you don't see Indiana rocking crazy offenses with Reggie. Or Utah with Dantley, etc. You can be a top 5 offense with someone like Reggie if you have a good spread, but there is a limit to what you can do because that guy's impact goes only so far. That's where some of my hesitation with Reggie comes, because he was exceedingly good at what he did, but that impacted others only so much and that puts a cap on his offensive value.