RealGM Top 100 List #19

[Doctor MJ]

How about the fact that Isiah took a franchise that never won anything and turned it into a winning organization. That has to account for a lot.

JB, I don't think any one here but you thinks that's even relevant. We simply see that as circumstance, and the idea that I'd give Isiah the conceivable tiebreaker because long retired Ft. Worth players couldn't beat George Mikan is about as far from the mark as you can get.

Now, if you want to dive into the intangible impact of a good leader, that's fine, but that's synonymous with that particular factoid you're bringing up.

[Laimbeer]

And yet Pippen scored more (and led Chicago in assists on the Bulls title teams) than Isiah did on the Pistons team despite the faster pace of the Pistons teams . . . 1st banana/2nd banana doesn't really seem to apply as much when the "2nd banana" plays as or more important a role in the offense than the "1st banana."

Magic Johnson rarely led the Lakers in scoring.

[mysticbb]

How about the fact that Isiah took a franchise that never won anything and turned it into a winning organization.

Do you honestly think that Thomas had anything to do with aquiring talented players like Rodman, Dumars, Laimbeer, Dantley, Johnson or Aguirre? Do you honestly believe that the same guy who couldn't improve the Pacers or the Knicks as a coach or was a complete fail as GM has anything to do with "building a winning organization"?

His leadership abilities had no influence in 1991 or 1994, he didn't make a difference to their team performance.

So, what exactly did Thomas do to turn the Pistons into a "winning organization". And why did it not work in other seasons than 1989 and 1990? Why did Thomas didn't turn the 1986 Pistons into a championship team? Why did the Pistons had to add Dennis Rodman and Dantley (for Tripucka) in order to get better? Isn't it more likely that the Pistons just added better players as a result of the GM? Isn't it more likely that McCloskey did a really good job at drafting the right talent and making the right trades? Or how about Chuck Daly being a really good coach?
Why do you want to give credit to a player who showed that he was that great of a difference?

Anyway, I screwed up my nomination, no idea what ran through my head at this time, but anyway.

Nomination: Scottie Pippen

[JordansBulls]

How about the fact that Isiah took a franchise that never won anything and turned it into a winning organization.

Do you honestly think that Thomas had anything to do with aquiring talented players like Rodman, Dumars, Laimbeer, Dantley, Johnson or Aguirre? Do you honestly believe that the same guy who couldn't improve the Pacers or the Knicks as a coach or was a complete fail as GM has anything to do with "building a winning organization"?

His leadership abilities had no influence in 1991 or 1994, he didn't make a difference to their team performance.

So, what exactly did Thomas do to turn the Pistons into a "winning organization". And why did it not work in other seasons than 1989 and 1990? Why did Thomas didn't turn the 1986 Pistons into a championship team? Why did the Pistons had to add Dennis Rodman and Dantley (for Tripucka) in order to get better? Isn't it more likely that the Pistons just added better players as a result of the GM? Isn't it more likely that McCloskey did a really good job at drafting the right talent and making the right trades? Or how about Chuck Daly being a really good coach?
Why do you want to give credit to a player who showed that he was that great of a difference?

Anyway, I screwed up my nomination, no idea what ran through my head at this time, but anyway.

Nomination: Scottie Pippen

It wasn't like Rodman was projected to be that good. He was the 27th pick in the draft and his impact wasn't seen till 2 years later.

As far as Pistons GM, it was more that the players learned a bit from Isiah. And to get better in the 80's you had to have draft picks because teams were stacked. Hell even the Lakers got #1 pick Magic with Kareem in his prime already and then #1 pick Worthy two years later. Also I'm not saying Isiah's impact was seen instantly, but you gotta give him credit for winning with a team that was not known for it. Can you say the same for Stockton who played with Malone or how good Scottie would have been had he not been helped along the way by his teammate?

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Charles Barkley

Nominate: Isiah Thomas



Barkley vs. Wade is close, but I think Charles was close enough at his peak that his longevity can push him ahead. Very tough.

I've been clear about why I think Isiah deserves to be here. It has nothing to do with intangibles or leadership, which are things that I can't accurately evaluate (though, for the record, I do indeed value highly). It has to do with what he is as a player on the court. I can go to the well with him in the playoffs, as shown from 1984-1988.

[therealbig3]

I believe Barkley and Pettit are tied in the voting, if I'm not mistaken.

[Sedale Threatt]

I mean, if you think he'd be up at Barkley's level, I have no idea why you haven't been voting for Pettit for weeks. You're saying that he'd have been an unparalleled volume/efficiency guy with great rebounding and intangibles, then to me you should be very reluctant to vote Malone over him.

Where did I say that?

I simply think Pettit would be better -- maybe three our four percentage points -- and the gap in Barkley's advantage would be less.

I don't think that's a huge stretch, especially considering the era clearly and obviously had a massive impact on the efficiencies of the day.

[Doctor MJ]

I mean, if you think he'd be up at Barkley's level, I have no idea why you haven't been voting for Pettit for weeks. You're saying that he'd have been an unparalleled volume/efficiency guy with great rebounding and intangibles, then to me you should be very reluctant to vote Malone over him.

Where did I say that?

I simply think Pettit would be better -- maybe three our four percentage points -- and the gap in Barkley's advantage would be less.

I don't think that's a huge stretch, especially considering the era clearly and obviously had a massive impact on the efficiencies of the day.

If you're just giving Pettit a partial bump, but not going the full monty and assuming he'd be Barkley's efficiency equal, I've no issue.

[ElGee]

@Stern - you can't average the individual games. You need total points/total pos.

[penbeast0]

To me, the weaker efficiency of older players has more to do with the era than the players themselves. Coaches hadn't learned to value possessions the way they do now. Indeed, the offensive strategy of the most successful team of the era was to jack up as many shots as humanly possible.

It's not unlike QBs in the NFL. In comparison to modern guys, the stats for players like Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw look atrocious. That's because the emphasis was on big plays and risky downfield passing. Enter Bill Walsh, and 30-40 years later it's all about completion % and minimizing turnovers, aided by more sophisticated systems.

I don't see a huge difference in the way basketball has developed. As such, I don't hold consider that's a huge detriment for Pettit.

See, I feel like people aren't looking at this in enough detail. Let me try it like this, here are the career TS% for the power forwards we've already voted in, plus Pettit & Barkley:

Barkley 61.2
Nowitzki 58.3
Malone 57.7
Duncan 55.2
Garnett 54.9
Pettit 51.1

When I say that I take era in to account and hence don't penalize Pettit for his weak efficiency, what that means is that I think that later on he could have been right up there in the thick of those other guys.

That's a far cry from simply assuming he'd be up at Barkley's level. I mean, if you think he'd be up at Barkley's level, I have no idea why you haven't been voting for Pettit for weeks. You're saying that he'd have been an unparalleled volume/efficiency guy with great rebounding and intangibles, then to me you should be very reluctant to vote Malone over him.

Really though the crux is what I've said before: There was an efficiency improvement plateau. Guys like West & Oscar, they got to a certain point and their efficiency held steady at a right there with the top players from today. I don't think it makes any sense to take that and give them the nod over the Kobe's of the world based on an efficiency edge that only exists in theory.

I give old-timers some benefit of the doubt when it comes to efficiency, but that doesn't means I swear to never give any modern players the edge on that front. Barkley was an offensive force of nature who at his peak scored at an efficiency no volume scorer in history could touch. To assume others who weren't even the most efficient of their own era would be able to match that just seems crazy to me.

I don't think you have to have Pettit at 60+% efficiency to have him above Barkley, even having him in the 55 range, he is the greater scorer, rebounder, has the legendary title performance, and was a much better defender, classier locker room guy, and team player from everything we know. He's Karl Malone with a few less years and a title narrative (and of course medical technology is another thing that has seen great advances since 1965).

[drza]

Family tragedy today, have been offline. I would have been debating Robinson vs Barkley, perhaps even leaning Robinson, but I think Barkley's the only one that has a chance here. So:

Vote: Charles Barkley
Nominate: Scottie Pippen

[penbeast0]

Looks like Pettit and Isiah

VOTE

11- Pettit – penbeast0, JerkyWay, Laimbeer, Jay from LA, JordansBulls, pancakes3, An Unbiased Fan, cpower, Fencer reregistered, mysticbb, Sedale Threatt
9-Barkley – FJS, Dr Mufasa, ElGee, therealbig3, fatal9, shawngoat23, Doctor MJ, ronnymac2, drza
DRob – David Stern, Gongxi
Wade – Baller24
DRob -- Snakebites

NOMINATION

10-Isiah – Jerky Way, Laimbeer, Jay from LA, JordansBulls, pancakes3, cpower, Fencer reregistered, Dr Mufasa, shawngoat23, ronnymac2
9-Pippen – ElGee, David Stern, therealbig3, fatal9, Baller24, Snakebites, Sedale Threatt, mysticbb, drza
Gilmore –penbeast0, Gongxi, Doctor MJ
Stockton – FJS, An Unbiased Fan

[penbeast0]

Unless someone objects, I will end the next voting and voting thereafter at 10PM EST of the second day after posting -- school is restarting and I am going to have to start getting to sleep earlier.

[lorak]

@Stern - you can't average the individual games. You need total points/total pos.

That's what I'm doing. Total possessions using formula from b-r. What formula are you using? Because different formulas (the one from b-r is more complicated than more popular one which you maybe using?) could be reason why our results are different. Or maybe you have different data source than b-r?

[mysticbb]

That's what I'm doing. Total possessions using formula from b-r. What formula are you using? Because different formulas (the one from b-r is more complicated than more popular one which you maybe using?) could be reason why our results are different. Or maybe you have different data source than b-r?

I guess there are some issues with the gamelogs. I checked the stuff for Stockton and indeed, if we calculate the pace via gamelogs, it ends up 88.6 instead of 89.2. There are 36 turnovers missing and as far as I can tell the missing turnovers occur during those 64 games rather than the first 18. I checked the 18 gamelogs and they seem fine. I now checked the turnover rate for the Jazz in 1997 and 1999 in order to have a better impression and somehow in both seasons combined the turnover rate was higher than during the 64 games with Stockton while Stockton's personal turnover rate in 1998 was around his usual career average. I suspect that those 36 missing turnovers came during the 64 games with Stockton, at least it makes the most sense to me.

[lorak]

mysticbb,

is there other way to calculate possessions for some part of the games in one season than using team game log?