RealGM Top 100 List #24

[Fencer reregistered]

OK. Your watching of the Knicks series is a lot more recent than my watching of that much post-injury McHale.

On the other hand, it's not long after that season he retired. And he claimed he didn't want to play his last season, but did it so that his son could be a ballboy and watch him.

The obvious theory here is that he had a lot of pain, but was a tough guy and played through it.

In response to your earlier point about McHale losing efficiency when Bird didn't play, and my retort that this could only have happened for a significant number of games post injury, Celtics' PG play, from memory, was on the decline in those years. At their peak, the Celtics had two sound starting combo guards, DJ and Ainge, backed up by a PG having some good years (Sichting). Ainge to Reggie Lewis was a downgrade in ball-handling, however, even if not in scoring. DJ was on the back end of his career. Sichting was gone. Paxson, moving brilliantly without the ball, got a few of the best passes that were made.

You've looked more recently than I have; how were entry passes absent Bird? A post player needs a competent entry passer, because otherwise he can be shut down by somebody who fronts him capably. (One of the many things McHale did in the short video I linked was abuse that kind of defense.)

[lorak]

On the other hand, it's not long after that season he retired. And he claimed he didn't want to play his last season, but did it so that his son could be a ballboy and watch him.

I was talking about series from 1990 so after that he played 3 more seasons.

The obvious theory here is that he had a lot of pain, but was a tough guy and played through it.

Agree.
But my point is - McHale after 1987 was as good player as before 1987. At least until (or when) Bird played.
Of course you are right about Celtics PGs and that for sure also affected McHale.

You've looked more recently than I have; how were entry passes absent Bird?)

Bird played in games I watched

[ElGee]

I don't quite follow what's being said about McHale here. In 1989, without Bird, he averaged 22.0 pts/36 on .608% TS. That, on a balanced team with Parish and Lewis as other key options. Are the players who do that not No. 1 scorers/good? http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _by=ts_pct

There is a similar dropoff in the following years as well for McHale. While it's a noticeable difference -- another testament to Bird, even then -- it doesn't really make McHale look like a bad first option, right?

[Baller 24]

Been pretty busy, major props to Pen for keeping it running.

Vote: Steve Nash

Nominate: Clyde Drexler

[lorak]

I don't quite follow what's being said about McHale here. In 1989, without Bird, he averaged 22.0 pts/36 on .608% TS.

And that's significantly worse results than year before or after, when Bird played. Even bigger drop off is seen in Bird's last season (when he played only 45 games) and after his retirement, but then also other factors (age, injuries) affected McHale.

There is a similar dropoff in the following years as well for McHale. While it's a noticeable difference -- another testament to Bird, even then -- it doesn't really make McHale look like a bad first option, right?

Sure and I'm not arguing with that.
Points I trying to make are:
- foot injury in 1987 didn't affected McHale play during next seasons
- Bird positively affected McHale performance (obvious point)

Overall I'm in McHale's camp, it just seems I think he played on very good level for longer period of time (several years after 1987) than some people think.

BTW ElGee, where do you rate Lanier and Unseld? I personally have Lanier as better than Gilmore, but don't know what to think about Unseld.


vote: Nash
nominate: in previous thread I nominated Cowens, but ElGee's post changed my mind on him, so now I nominate Gervin

[hasslinghoff]

i'm surprised bill walton is not in the discussion yet. despite his extremely short career he managed to achieve more than someone like ewing. peaked high enough to win mvp/fmvp and prob. dpoy ( if the award existed back then ) and was by far the best player on a pretty mediocre championship team.

[Doctor MJ]

The problem with comparing Baylor to West and Oscar is that they were such ridiculous outliers. In Oscar's rookie year, he led the center oriented league in ts% (career .564). The other 1st team All-NBA guard was Bob Cousy (career .446). West (.550) then became the 2nd great 60s guard with the probable consensus 2nd teamers being Hal Greer (.506) and Lenny Wilkens (.511). Baylor was not super efficient, he was around league average; it is just that Robertson and West were incredibly efficient scorers. Kobe on the other hand, has an efg of .488 (B-R doesn't post league wide ts% anymore), below the league average of .498 -- more like Baylor than like Oscar or Jerry.

Well I think the key thing to consider here is first: Where do you rank West/Oscar compared to Kobe? Indeed, they were more efficient compared to league average than Kobe. If you extrapolate from that and end up ranking them well ahead of Kobe, then I would certainly expect you to also have Baylor over Nash.

As I've said, we seem to see a plateau reached by stars by the mid-to-late 60s that just happens to look about the same as stars from later eras. This is not a plateau that applies to all superstars of course, as we saw Kareem being significantly more efficient than that plateau within the West/Oscar era, so those facts make it very difficult for me to "round up" the Wests of the world and assume they'd be breaking 60% TS in the modern game.

What then to make of Baylor? While it's certainly possible that in a later era, his coaches and mentors would have led him to shoot smarter, the fact of the matter is that when he actually played, he was well off from the other superstars on this matter, and unlike a guy like Bob Pettit, didn't seem to be able to adapt. He basically spent his whole career in the same ballpark of efficiency and FGA per minute rates as the league grew more efficient, and as a teammate emerged who should have been the focal point of the teams shooting.

I'm not going to indefinitely slap Baylor down again and again for this in the project. He's still one of the greats. However, when people ask how I can possibly not have voted for Baylor yet when he has 10 All-NBA 1st teams, well the above context knocks him down a bit.

[Doctor MJ]

i'm surprised bill walton is not in the discussion yet. despite his extremely short career he managed to achieve more than someone like ewing. peaked high enough to win mvp/fmvp and prob. dpoy ( if the award existed back then ) and was by far the best player on a pretty mediocre championship team.

Walton is probably the single hardest player to come to consensus on here exactly because of the extreme brevity of his career. It would be fun to do a pure peak GOAT project at some point to see Walton get a chance to really shine.

[colts18]

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.

I think KG was a good player, but it was ridiculous that he was getting play as high as #10 on the list. I see T-Mac kind of like Minnesota KG. Lots of ridiculous stats, 1st round exits, low efficiency, Great peak year, good prime years.

[drza]

Been unexpectedly off the radar for a few days, as I went out of town for a funeral and didn't have the internet access I thought I would. I'm catching up with the last few threads, and am unsure what I will do about a vote. Currently, the players I'd be leaning towards for both the vote (Pippen) and the nomination (Kidd) have absolutely zero traction. Seems like a waste to vote there, though if time permits maybe I'll start putting together their cases for the next threads.

Moving down to my next options that might be more realistic, it seems like I essentially have to choose between Nash and Baylor for the vote. The combination of the efficiency and the questionable impact arguments that the pro-Nash contingent have made on Baylor are pretty convincing. But I do want to give respect to previous generations, and (though I've definitely upgraded him in my mental rolodex since the RPoY project) I'm still not certain that I'm as high on Nash as some are so I'm not sure how I'd feel about voting him this high. So I'm undecided here.

As to the nomination, it appears as though Drexler is in the lead but perhaps not by the types of margins that Nash and Baylor have separated themselves in the vote. I may still go with Kidd for my nomination, though if it's close I think I've been convinced to nominate Gervin soon so he's my back-up choice.

Still wrapping my mind around things before my final vote for tonight.

[colts18]

Vote: Elgin Baylor. He had a longer prime than Nash

I think I'd rather have outside-prime Nash than outside-prime Baylor, especially if you're somehow defining Nash's "prime" to be shorter than Baylor's.

Outside prime Nash wasn't really all that good. He had a few good years from 02-04, but I'd definitely argue that his impact wasn't all that great considering Dallas got better once he left. He had 2 3rd team all-NBA outside of his prime and 2 all-star appearances. Baylor's prime was until 1965. After that he had 3 all-NBA 1st teams, 4 all-star games, a top 3 MVP finish, and top 5 MVP finish.

[Laimbeer]

Do we have a vote count?

[Gongxi]

Nothing has changed my mind from last thread: Nash/Cowens.

[Rapcity_11]

Moving down to my next options that might be more realistic, it seems like I essentially have to choose between Nash and Baylor for the vote. The combination of the efficiency and the questionable impact arguments that the pro-Nash contingent have made on Baylor are pretty convincing. But I do want to give respect to previous generations, and (though I've definitely upgraded him in my mental rolodex since the RPoY project) I'm still not certain that I'm as high on Nash as some are so I'm not sure how I'd feel about voting him this high. So I'm undecided here.

Hey drza, I'm interested to know what you don't value Nash as high as other guys (Elgee, mystic, Doc etc). As a huge KG supporter it would seem as though you would be high on Nash as well. (Huge +/- numbers, impact beyond the box score, leadership, lack of ultimate team success, etc.) It seems as though anyone who views KG as highly as you do would see Nash similarly, I would think. Basically I'm curious as to why you aren't that impressed with Nash.

[ElGee]

I don't quite follow what's being said about McHale here. In 1989, without Bird, he averaged 22.0 pts/36 on .608% TS.

And that's significantly worse results than year before or after, when Bird played. Even bigger drop off is seen in Bird's last season (when he played only 45 games) and after his retirement, but then also other factors (age, injuries) affected McHale.

There is a similar dropoff in the following years as well for McHale. While it's a noticeable difference -- another testament to Bird, even then -- it doesn't really make McHale look like a bad first option, right?

Sure and I'm not arguing with that.
Points I trying to make are:
- foot injury in 1987 didn't affected McHale play during next seasons
- Bird positively affected McHale performance (obvious point)

Overall I'm in McHale's camp, it just seems I think he played on very good level for longer period of time (several years after 1987) than some people think.

BTW ElGee, where do you rate Lanier and Unseld? I personally have Lanier as better than Gilmore, but don't know what to think about Unseld.


vote: Nash
nominate: in previous thread I nominated Cowens, but ElGee's post changed my mind on him, so now I nominate Gervin

I have Lanier quite high (I gather). I have him in the group of bigs coming up and probably close to the top of it. I will try and make a detailed case as to why, but the short of is I view him as a really good offensive center and decent defensive one. And he had a good solid prime. Yes, I have him over Gilmore too.

Wes Unseld I find to be overrated by many - a glorified role player. Not that that's bad -- he may still have a vote from somewhere in this project, but I instantly renege what I said about Cowens earlier as my least favorite MVP ever. It's Wes Unseld's whacky 1969 MVP. Gus Johnson had great impact on that team too -- the voting and narrative was just all messed up. He's a really good player, but he's not a star player...

[penbeast0]

As long as you can explain away Detroit's decade of miserable defense with Lanier and how they improved with guys like Otto Moore (Zaid Aziz) and Kent Benson maybe you can convince me that Lanier's a decent defensive center and I'll support you.

As for 1969, Unseld took a last place in the East team and made it the best team in the league with his rebounding, defense, and passing . . . while Gus Johnson missed HALF THE SEASON with injury and there were no other really significant additions. Thats better than Wilt/Baylor/West Lakers, better than Oscar/Lucas Royals, better than the Bellamy/Reed/Frazier Knicks . . . there are guys who had statistically fancier seasons (mainly Elvin Hayes) but Unseld did exactly what Nash did when Amare was injured -- took a team everyone counted out and with his leadership made it a winner (only to an even bigger extent) despite not scoring a lot.

The Bullets didn't continue to overachieve in the playoffs where Russell wrote the story we all remember of that season but MVP is a regular season award and Unseld was not just the consensus choice but the right one. Look at the other candidates team impact, look at what the Bullets did compared to 68, then tell me it's ridiculous.

He may have been a glorified role player but so is Steve Nash and he's going on our list this round.

[penbeast0]

VOTE

Steve Nash – Jerky Way, mysticbb, Doctor MJ, Fencer reregistered, Dr Mufasa, therealbig3, ElGee, fatal9, TMACFORMVP, Baller24, David Stern, Gongxi

Elgin Baylor – FJS, JordansBulls, penbeast0, shawngoat23, colts18

Rick Barry – ronnymac2


NOMINATION


Clyde Drexler – Jerky Way, JordansBulls, ElGee, TMACFORMVP, ronnymac2, Clyde Drexler

George Gervin – Doctor MJ, shawngoat23, David Stern

Paul Pierce – Fencer reregistered, therealbig3

Dave Cowens – Dr Mufasa, Gongxi

Jason Kidd – mystic bb

Kevin McHale – fatal9

Tracy McGrady – colts18

[Laimbeer]

Ugh. I'll go Baylor but looks like a Nash WTF vote, and he really doesn't belong at this level.

For the nomination, how does Clyde rate over Gervin? Gervin was the far more dominant player. He was the best player on some pretty bad Spurs teams that made some playoff noise. An all-star 12 straight years, first team all-NBA 5 years in a row, led league in scoring four of five years, more efficient, more MVP love.

Gervin over Drexler really isn't close.

Vote: Baylor
Nominate: Gervin

[therealbig3]

Ugh. I'll go Baylor but looks like a Nash WTF vote, and he really doesn't belong at this level.

For the nomination, how does Clyde rate over Gervin? Gervin was the far more dominant player. He was the best player on some pretty bad Spurs teams that made some playoff noise. An all-star 12 straight years, first team all-NBA 5 years in a row, led league in scoring four of five years, more efficient, more MVP love.

Gervin over Drexler really isn't close.

Vote: Baylor
Nominate: Gervin

Well, Drexler wasn't on his level as a scorer, but he was a much better rebounder, defender, and playmaker. Basically, Gervin seems to have a love/hate relationship with fans. Either you love his ridiculous scoring, and you rate him very high, or you hate his one-dimensional game, and you rate him lower. I lean towards the latter group, behind guys like Pierce and Drexler.

[drza]

Moving down to my next options that might be more realistic, it seems like I essentially have to choose between Nash and Baylor for the vote. The combination of the efficiency and the questionable impact arguments that the pro-Nash contingent have made on Baylor are pretty convincing. But I do want to give respect to previous generations, and (though I've definitely upgraded him in my mental rolodex since the RPoY project) I'm still not certain that I'm as high on Nash as some are so I'm not sure how I'd feel about voting him this high. So I'm undecided here.

Hey drza, I'm interested to know what you don't value Nash as high as other guys (Elgee, mystic, Doc etc). As a huge KG supporter it would seem as though you would be high on Nash as well. (Huge +/- numbers, impact beyond the box score, leadership, lack of ultimate team success, etc.) It seems as though anyone who views KG as highly as you do would see Nash similarly, I would think. Basically I'm curious as to why you aren't that impressed with Nash.

I wouldn't say I'm not that impressed with Nash...at least, not anymore. I've come a long way from last season, when I had trouble even giving him a top-5 ranking in any of the RPoY threads. And it's precisely because of the +/- numbers and impact that he's moved up in my estimation...DocMJ and crew have done a good job of changing my mind a bit as I started with major questions about his late leap when transitioning to the Suns.

That said, even the +/- numbers don't say that he is an outlier like Garnett. Nash's APM numbers are very good, but in Ilardi's 04 - 09 study Nash is 11th and in Englemann's "decade" study he is 8th, in both cases in a cluster that includes both players that have already been voted in as well as some guys yet to be voted in. As such, that in itself isn't enough that I feel like he should be a shoe-in vote at 24th of all-time. Plus, as many have pointed out, +/- isn't gospel as a standalone measure. That said, I could justify a vote for him that high, and if I'd have remembered that the cut-off is now 10 pm instead of midnight I may even have voted for him...but I don't think he's a definite yet. Which is what I meant in the previous post of mine that you quoted.