RealGM Top 100 List #24

[therealbig3]

Vote: Elgin Baylor. He had a longer prime than Nash
Nominate: Tracy McGrady. Probably the best prime/peak combo left on the board.

For a guy who constantly bashed KG for poor scoring efficiency in the playoffs, you're being awfully kind to McGrady. Outside of 03, when has T-Mac ever had above average efficiency? He was basically Allen Iverson, in terms of scoring. I think his rebounding and passing, and when he tried, his defense greatly compensated for that, but it's a legitimate knock, and you seemed to put a ton of emphasis on scoring efficiency before.

[therealbig3]

Since Drexler vs Pierce seems to be relevant now, I'll repost a couple of older posts I made about it.

BTW, can't you make the case that Pierce>Drexler? Last time I ranked them, I had Drexler like 2-3 spots ahead, but come to think of it, is Drexler better on either side of the ball? He was a better playmaker for sure, but Pierce has a decent edge as a scorer imo. He was stuck on pathetic Celtics teams for a while, and he carried them to mediocrity...and actually advanced past the 1st round multiple times.

He had an underrated peak, he has impressive longevity, and he's one of the best big game performers around. His playoff numbers are great, and he always seems to bring his A-game when his team needs it. Honestly, if I needed a superstar performance in a do-or-die game and I could only pick one current player...and Dirk was already taken...I'd take Pierce, over guys like Kobe, Wade, and LeBron.

Check his numbers in elimination games (haven't accounted for 2011):

24.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 4.0 apg, 1.4 spg, .8 bpg, 3.2 TOpg, .566 TS%

Not saying he should be nominated right now, but I have him ahead of guys like Payton, Kidd, Isiah, and Stockton, and until someone can prove otherwise, I'm probably moving him ahead of Drexler and maybe McHale. I think Pierce is massively underrated.

For comparison's sake, here's Pierce's and Drexler's efficiency compared to league average (TS%):

Pierce
01: +4.5
02: +5.0
03: +1.3
04: +0.1
05: +5.4
06: +4.7
07: +3.0
08: +5.9
09: +3.8
10: +7.0
11: +7.9

He's averaged 21.9 ppg over this stretch (878 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.2%. Pierce's TS% over this time was 57.1%, or +3.9.

Drexler
87: +1.4
88: +2.6
89: +1.8
90: +1.4
91: +2.9
92: +2.9
93: -1.9
94: -1.4
95: +3.4
96: +0.9
97: +1.2
98: +0.7

He averaged 22.1 ppg over this stretch (849 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.5%. Drexler's TS% over this time was 55.1%, or +1.6.

So Pierce scored on pretty much identical volume, with a good advantage in terms of efficiency, while being a comparable rebounder and was more durable.

Lol, I'm kind of ranting about a comparison that isn't even relevant yet, but for the people voting for Drexler, or one of the PGs that have been discussed...why not Pierce?

EDIT: I know that it seems a little weird that I'm using their numbers during years where they're no longer in their prime...but Pierce's highest efficiency seasons have been in the last two years, and he's still an 18-19 ppg scorer, so it seemed to be unfair to exclude those. Similarly, Drexler in 96 and 97 had pretty efficient scoring seasons and was still dropping 18+ ppg. It wasn't until 98 when his efficiency fell, but if we exclude that, and include 86, which some people might feel was his prime...you get identical results.

If we simply exclude Drexler's 98 season altogether (in which he's still dropping 18 ppg, mind you), it just makes Pierce's durability advantage even clearer...he would have played in significantly more games through the same amount of seasons...and Drexler's overall numbers probably don't change much at all.

[therealbig3]

Re: Howard

I think the difference between him and Wade is that Wade has been a "great" player for a little longer, and peak (current) Howard probably isn't as good as peak Wade. Howard is a super-efficient 23/14 big man, and outside of maybe KG, is the best defensive player in the league. But he has a bunch of negatives too. Even with an improved post game last year, he was still kind of limited offensively...not only that, he's not a good passer, and he's TO-prone.

When did Howard become a "dominant" player? I'd say not until 08, and even then, his 2010 season was a down year across the board, outside of TS%. So we're looking at only 3-4 years as an elite player compared to Wade, who has 5 healthy years as an elite player, while also giving you two 51-game seasons during which he was definitely an elite player, and a 61-game rookie year that was a border-line All-Star caliber season.

With that said, I think Howard and Paul will be coming up soon, and I think Deron Williams will be making noise around the top 50 spot.

[Gongxi]

Nash is an easy choice here, no idea how in the world its possible that Wade and Frazier were chosen before him.
Overrating of championships.

You think Nash has been the easy choice for like 18+ positions now, though.

[ronnymac2]

Bird is my favorite player, I don't have a reason to overrate McHale, in fact I should probably bring him down (like most people usually do to teammates of their favorite player), but I can't deny how seriously good he was. McHale would have gotten the recognition he deserved if Celtics won in '85 (if Kareem doesn't pull off an unbelievable performance over the final 5 games). McHale imo would have been the best player in that playoff run for the Celtics and won finals MVP (Bird really struggled after the first round due to injuries). But overall, McHale, based on watching him play, is a guy that could have done a lot more if he was asked, especially as a second banana on a team with less options (higher ppg, rpg, which I guess would get him more respected nowadays), so I hope people keep that in mind.

He was also in the best possible position to score. He was the second option for a GOAT offensive player, Larry Bird. Bird and Ainge were two of the best 3-point shooters of the era, giving McHale spacing. Parish's elite mid-range game opened the floor up as well. The other four Celtics were good, willing passers (two combo guards and a GOAT passer in Bird) who could also score, taking attention away from McHale.

McHale was great, but I'm skeptical of his ability to play as the number one guy.

[ronnymac2]

Re: Howard

I think the difference between him and Wade is that Wade has been a "great" player for a little longer, and peak (current) Howard probably isn't as good as peak Wade. Howard is a super-efficient 23/14 big man, and outside of maybe KG, is the best defensive player in the league. But he has a bunch of negatives too. Even with an improved post game last year, he was still kind of limited offensively...not only that, he's not a good passer, and he's TO-prone.

Dwight isn't limited offensively anymore, at least as far as scoring. He's got an effective low-post game to compliment his athletic ability. I don't think he needs to up his scoring ability anymore.

The passing does indeed need work.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Rick Barry

Nominate: Clyde Drexler

Rick Barry is getting underrated again, as per usual.

[lorak]

I wonder if anyone knows which games Baylor missed during 1962 season?

Was that the year he played weekends only because he was juggling military service?

Yes, but Simmons is wrong with that "he played only on weekends". ElGee already wrote about that, but even as we look at team schedule in 1962 Lakers played only 38 games on weekends and Baylor played 48 games that season.

[lorak]

He was also in the best possible position to score. He was the second option for a GOAT offensive player, Larry Bird. Bird and Ainge were two of the best 3-point shooters of the era, giving McHale spacing. Parish's elite mid-range game opened the floor up as well. The other four Celtics were good, willing passers (two combo guards and a GOAT passer in Bird) who could also score, taking attention away from McHale.

McHale was great, but I'm skeptical of his ability to play as the number one guy.

That's true. For example his scoring efficiency drops off significantly without Bird.

[ronnymac2]

In the RPOY project, I found Dave Cowens to be quite overrated. First, there are the dynamics of the early 70s league, with expansion and then the fracturing of talent in the split leagues. Second, while a great hustle player and rebounder, he wasn't exactly a great offensive player, nor was a great defensive player (very good for being undersized and with his bounding, but not great). Silas was a very good running mate for him.

I've talked to both my uncles and my dad about Cowens, all of whom lived in Boston in the 70s and followed those teams. The reactions ranged from “overrated to very overrated.” With words like “hustler, “”scrapper” and “media darling” being tossed out. Those were balanced teams to the fullest extent (including Hondo), with guys like Charlie Scott scoring, Jo Jo White and Silas anchoring the glass with Cowens. I could double-check this, but I believe his 1973 MVP is the worst MVP season IMO from doing the RPOY. (Can't think of a weaker one off the top of my head.)

Then, there's the giant issue that his (already overrated) peak was ridiculously short...basically spanning 4 years from 73-76. The few peripheral seasons aren't very good IMO either – heck, any sizeable dropoff from a weak peak isn't exactly helping a team a lot anyway.

In 1975, in the heart of those good years, Cowens missed the first 17 games of the season. The Celtics were +2.6 points better with Cowens, jumping from a +3.7 to +6.3 MOV.

In 1977, Cowens shocked the team by taking a leave of absense/remporary retirement 8 games into the season. He was averaging 18 and 15. Then, in January, Cowens just as suddenly returned for the rest of the season (coinciding with a Charlie Scott injury). In those 30 games, the Celtics were a -2.6 MOV team, only a small decrease from their -1.6 the rest of the season (+0.9 net for Cowens). Maybe Charlie Scott was secretly incredibly valuable? Or maybe Cowens just wasn't that good, and he played on a high-profile, really balanced balanced team.

And for those wondering, there is more a difference in the points allowed than points scored, jibing with Cowens defensive rebounding strength helping the team the most. This was an absurdly dominant rebounding team from 73-76, going +844 (!) +717, +582 and +645 on the glass in that span.

All put together, Cowens overrated peak and short prime put him waaaaay down the list. Certainly well after the glut of big men coming up.

I'd tend to agree with your description of Boston as far as how deep and balanced they were. Silas definitely was a great running mate. I think of Silas as the C on that team, what with all the rebounding and interior work he did.

I'm also with you in that Cowens seems a bit overrated. I think McAdoo should be getting mentions when Cowens starts getting mentions. IIRC, Cowens didn't look so great in my RPOY standings. I think you're a bit harsh though.

I recently compared Dave Cowens to Lamar Odom with '96 Rodman's build, motor, and defensive positioning. Probably had a better jumper than Lamar, too. That's a frigging menace.

What complicates things for people in this: we saw him as his absolute best because based on team construction, Cowens was ultra-valuable, which could confuse people and make them think he was better than he was as a player. So opinions of him can be all over the place.

[Fencer reregistered]

McHale was great, but I'm skeptical of his ability to play as the number one guy.

Unless you think he'd have a stamina problem with a higher workload, I don't know why you would have those doubts. In particular, McHale was awesome at going around or through a double team.

[Fencer reregistered]

I wonder if anyone knows which games Baylor missed during 1962 season?

Was that the year he played weekends only because he was juggling military service?

Yes, but Simmons is wrong with that "he played only on weekends". ElGee already wrote about that, but even as we look at team schedule in 1962 Lakers played only 38 games on weekends and Baylor played 48 games that season.

Does that include Friday nights?

Seriously, I missed ElGee's post on the subject.

[Fencer reregistered]

He was also in the best possible position to score. He was the second option for a GOAT offensive player, Larry Bird. Bird and Ainge were two of the best 3-point shooters of the era, giving McHale spacing. Parish's elite mid-range game opened the floor up as well. The other four Celtics were good, willing passers (two combo guards and a GOAT passer in Bird) who could also score, taking attention away from McHale.

McHale was great, but I'm skeptical of his ability to play as the number one guy.

That's true. For example his scoring efficiency drops off significantly without Bird.

"Significantly" may not be the best choice of word, considering the small sample size.

From entering the league through the 85-86 season, Bird only missed 13 regular season games. He missed 8 games in 86-87, but I don't know whether those were before or after McHale started playing hurt. After 86-87, McHale no longer has the body to routinely get great post position.

[ronnymac2]

McHale was great, but I'm skeptical of his ability to play as the number one guy.

Unless you think he'd have a stamina problem with a higher workload, I don't know why you would have those doubts. In particular, McHale was awesome at going around or through a double team.

The passing worries me. Scoring is great and all, but to be a great offensive anchor, you need to be both willing and able to pass and make plays for others. Efficient volume scoring and raw production is great, but it's not the only facet of an offensive anchor. You run your offense through that anchor; that requires a complete offensive game.

It's the same worry I have with Dwight offensively. The difference between Howard and McHale is that Howard is a dominant all-time level defender. McHale wasn't on THAT level defensively.

And like you brought up, McHale's stamina does become an issue if he needs to carry a greater load in a situation that isn't as favorable for multiple 82-game seasons with playoff runs.

[Fencer reregistered]

The passing worries me. Scoring is great and all, but to be a great offensive anchor, you need to be both willing and able to pass and make plays for others. Efficient volume scoring and raw production is great, but it's not the only facet of an offensive anchor. You run your offense through that anchor; that requires a complete offensive game.

McHale's passes in motion -- typically on the break -- were excellent. I agree that he passed out of the post approximately never, but why would he?

Here's a good, short McHale video. It shows interior passing (after drawing a quadruple-team), entry passing, offensive rebound/putback, post scoring against double teams -- I'm not sure what else you'd want from a #1 scorer.

http://youtu.be/mr7BBeIqB4E

[lorak]

He was also in the best possible position to score. He was the second option for a GOAT offensive player, Larry Bird. Bird and Ainge were two of the best 3-point shooters of the era, giving McHale spacing. Parish's elite mid-range game opened the floor up as well. The other four Celtics were good, willing passers (two combo guards and a GOAT passer in Bird) who could also score, taking attention away from McHale.

McHale was great, but I'm skeptical of his ability to play as the number one guy.

That's true. For example his scoring efficiency drops off significantly without Bird.

"Significantly" may not be the best choice of word, considering the small sample size.

From entering the league through the 85-86 season, Bird only missed 13 regular season games. He missed 8 games in 86-87, but I don't know whether those were before or after McHale started playing hurt. After 86-87, McHale no longer has the body to routinely get great post position.

Why? His foot was a problem during playoffs, not after. And his TS% with Bird after 1987 is as good as before. But without Bird difference is significant.

[Fencer reregistered]

Why? His foot was a problem during playoffs, not after. And his TS% with Bird after 1987 is as good as before. But without Bird difference is significant.

McHale never healed fully. Accordingly, he became less of a post player. Toward the end, he even took some 3s.

I agree the numbers don't seem to show that, and I think to a large extent he was playing through pain rather than through a true decline ability. But the narrative about him never being the same again -- coming not least from him -- is so consistent that I accept it as true.

What confuses discussions like this is that "permanent" or "lingering" injuries often actually are recurring than truly ongoing. And we sometimes forget that in basketball because injuries that cause you to lose some hops often do have steady, permanent effect.

[lorak]

McHale never healed fully. Accordingly, he became less of a post player. Toward the end, he even took some 3s.

I agree the numbers don't seem to show that, and I think to a large extent he was playing through pain rather than through a true decline ability. But the narrative about him never being the same again -- coming not least from him -- is so consistent that I accept it as true.

So here we don't agree. I guess this narrative is another "like Bill Simonns", so often not true. And that's the case here.

[Fencer reregistered]

McHale never healed fully. Accordingly, he became less of a post player. Toward the end, he even took some 3s.

I agree the numbers don't seem to show that, and I think to a large extent he was playing through pain rather than through a true decline ability. But the narrative about him never being the same again -- coming not least from him -- is so consistent that I accept it as true.

So here we don't agree. I guess this narrative is another "like Bill Simonns", so often not true. And that's the case here.

Let's put it this way -- when I saw Kevin McHale launch a 3, and when the announcers further said that this had become a standard part of his arsenal, that was NOT the Kevin McHale I was used to watching. I think of McHale's offensive game as being almost purely post, transition, and putbacks; when he moved away from the basket, that wasn't him.

But hey -- maybe your reading of the stats outweighs what I saw with my eyes.

[lorak]

McHale never healed fully. Accordingly, he became less of a post player. Toward the end, he even took some 3s.

I agree the numbers don't seem to show that, and I think to a large extent he was playing through pain rather than through a true decline ability. But the narrative about him never being the same again -- coming not least from him -- is so consistent that I accept it as true.

So here we don't agree. I guess this narrative is another "like Bill Simonns", so often not true. And that's the case here.

Let's put it this way -- when I saw Kevin McHale launch a 3, and when the announcers further said that this had become a standard part of his arsenal, that was NOT the Kevin McHale I was used to watching.

If your theory is true we should see many threes from McHale. The facts are different.
In first season after injury he had 0 3PA! Zero in 64 games. Then we had only two seasons when he had 69 and 37 3PA. Very little, maybe he was trying something new, because he want to be better (not because he have to because of injury) like Magic, who started to shooting threes about the same time? *

And we could also see at FGA/FTA ratio. If his game became more perimeter oriented we should see lower ratio. But again - that's not what we observe. In his two seasons, when he shoot threes he had FGA/FTA ratio higher (2.7 and 3.3) than during 1987 (2.6; and before 1987 he had even lower numbers for severla years: 2.3, 2.3, 2.4)

Or overall looking at his career, since '81 to '87 he had 2.7 FGA/FTA ratio. After injury, so from '88 to the end of his career ('93) also 2.7!

So again, no proof that his game changed dramatically, no proof 1987 injury affected his game at all.

But hey -- maybe your reading of the stats outweighs what I saw with my eyes.

Several months ago I closely watched 1990 series vs NYK. McHale was still very good, even on defense his mobility was AMAZING, sometimes he covered whole floor, just like KG. And of course his post play still was GREAT and he had ~ 67 TS% in that series against frontline of prime Ewing and Oakley.

*
During that time league as a whole started shooting more threes (1989 on average league attempted x2 more threes than in 1987!). It seems coaches finally started realize how deadly weapon it is and in McHale's case maybe it was simply "stop shooting ineffective long 2 points jumpers, when you could take one step back and shot three". McHale always had range and likes shot long jumpers, so that scenario is very probable.