RealGM Top 100 List #29

[Laimbeer]

Consensus Rating of Players Nominated

21 Isiah Thomas PG
23 Rick Barry SF
26 John Stockton PG
36 Jason Kidd PG
38 George Gervin SG
41 Gary Payton PG
42 Clyde Drexler SG
71 Dwight Howard C
72 Artis Gilmore C
73 Paul Pierce SF

[Laimbeer]

Top Consensus Rakings for Players Not Nominated

22 Bob Cousy PG
32 Willis Reed PF/C
33 Elvin Hayes PF/C
34 Kevin McHale PF
35 Dave Cowens PF/C
37 Allen Iverson G
40 Dolph Schayes PF
44 Tiny Archibald PG
45 Dominique Wilkins SF
46 Wes Unseld PF/C

[Laimbeer]

This is down to Stockton and Isiah for me, I think they're a notch above anyone else remaining and are getting underrated. I'd hate to see either fall out of the top 30. In the end, I'll play homer and vote Isiah for the titles and intangibles over Stockton's remarkable longevity and all-time steal and assist records.

I'd also like the tempertaure of the room on Cousy - do we feel he's so era impacted that he's not around for another dozen choices? Is he even top 50?


Vote: Isiah Thomas
Nominate: Bob Cousy

[Fencer reregistered]

At the risk of incurring Laimbeer's ire -- why would one pick Isiah Thomas over Paul Pierce? Thomas certainly has the all-NBA accolades, but otherwise they look pretty similar: A strong individual-producer youth, some championship run on a superb team when older, and annual all-star selections all the way through.

Perhaps it's which stats you value, and how good a defender you think they each were.

I just don't think it's Pierce's time yet, because I never felt he was an elite player in the league, that anyone would call him a superstar. That's pretty subjective, but I think guys get reputations among fans, teammates, opponents, and media for a reason.

Some here will will disagree, but it's pretty clear to me Isiah was the most important player on those Piston teams, both strategically and emotionally. We've entertained significant evidence on behalf of guys like Russell that's basically narrative based, and I see no reason not to with Isiah.

Fair enough, but I'll say this: When one of the current-era Celtics says to himself "OK, I'm stepping up my game NOW, because my team needs me to", that guy is usually Pierce, at either end of the court.

I was going to be even more absolute about it than that, but when Allen is running free behind the 3-pt line and Rondo is hitting him with the perfect pass, three possessions in a row, I presume it's more than luck or the tiredness of the other team; somebody (Allen, Rondo, a screen-setter, whoever) dug a little deeper than before.

And pretty much the same was true earlier in Pierce career, although there were always a few cases such as Eric Williams being bad at shooting, but only for the first 46 minutes of the game.

[drza]

Fair enough, but I'll say this: When one of the current-era Celtics says to himself "OK, I'm stepping up my game NOW, because my team needs me to", that guy is usually Pierce, at either end of the court.

I was going to be even more absolute about it than that, but when Allen is running free behind the 3-pt line and Rondo is hitting him with the perfect pass, three possessions in a row, I presume it's more than luck or the tiredness of the other team; somebody (Allen, Rondo, a screen-setter, whoever) dug a little deeper than before.

And pretty much the same was true earlier in Pierce career, although there were always a few cases such as Eric Williams being bad at shooting, but only for the first 46 minutes of the game.

I don't think that's at all true. In the '08 playoffs, more times than not it was Garnett that stepped up his game in the big moments. In the '09 playoffs I'd say it was Rondo more than anyone. In '10 I'd say they all essentially took turns. And in '11 the team in general seemed to have difficulty finding that next gear, but I'd say if anything it was another group effort.

Now, earlier in his career I could see that. But in the "Big Three era" I don't see how Pierce has really separated himself at all from his teammates in a "step up" category.

[drza]

from another thread: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1001777

Penbeast0, I can tell you rank Payton very high. what do you think about his playoff struggles ? he had two postseasons with >52% TS (I'm not considering 04-07 period, where he struggled epically anyway). aside from that ?

Code: Select all

year    TS%
 91    .430
 92    .482
 93    .466
 94    .511
 95    .491
 97    .506
 00    .518
 02    .467
 03    .459

Payton's scoring was non-existent pretty much his entire playoff career.

also, what about epic meltdowns in '94 and '95 ? why does Payton get away with this ? how about Payton's playoff career after Kemp left ? where was Payton's better offense than Kidd's ?

his offense in the playoffs was just poor, never at the all-star level aside from '96 and '98.

I'd like to see this addressed. The three guys tend to have pretty comparable regular seasons stats, but come playoff time Payton's clearly got worse than the other two. There's also the issue that Payton's Sonics tended to get upset in the playoffs in his prime.

Interestingly also, Isiah's stats are the ones that tended to go up in the playoffs, and he's also the one with a team tendency to overachieve in the playoffs.

My first instinct is:

1. Isiah
2. Kidd
3. Payton

I agree with this order.

[lorak]

Some here will will disagree, but it's pretty clear to me Isiah was the most important player on those Piston teams, both strategically and emotionally. We've entertained significant evidence on behalf of guys like Russell that's basically narrative based, and I see no reason not to with Isiah.

There's clear connection between Russell's impact and Celtics defensive dominance. On the other hand there's no such connection between Isiah's impact and Pistons defensive dominance.
Well, maybe Bill Laimbeer was more valuable to Bad Boys than Thomas?

[drza]

Some here will will disagree, but it's pretty clear to me Isiah was the most important player on those Piston teams, both strategically and emotionally. We've entertained significant evidence on behalf of guys like Russell that's basically narrative based, and I see no reason not to with Isiah.

There's clear connection between Russell's impact and Celtics defensive dominance. On the other hand there's no such connection between Isiah's impact and Pistons defensive dominance.
Well, maybe Bill Laimbeer was more valuable to Bad Boys than Thomas?

I know you were being somewhat flippant with your last sentence, but after really taking them to the lab more last night the pattern of those Pistons really seems clearer to me. And one thing that I noticed was that Laimbeer was NOT the lynchpin for that defense. Essentially, it seems to me that the 2 units for the Pistons developed in opposite ways: The offense was more unipolar early then grew to more ensemble later, while the defense was more ensemble early and grew to unipolar later. And in both cases, when there was a more unipolar period, the main figure was pretty clear: Zeke on offense, and Rodman on defense.

I go back to those ORtg and DRtg lists that you posted at the top of pg 2 of this thread as evidence. Offensively, you don't show 1981 (year before Zeke), but the first huge jump for the Pistons was from 1981 to 1982 when Zeke (and Tripucka) were the primary new additions. The next big jump was from '83 to '84, when Daly came in as coach and Zeke/Tripucka were still the main 2 options. You mentioned in that post that "With Dantley and Augirre Pistons had two of three best offenses during Isiah career", but let's be more specific and check out the Pistons' top 6 offenses in that period:

1) 1984 - Main options Isiah, Tripucka (+3.9)
2) 1989 - Main options Isiah, the Dantley/Aguirre combo, Dumars (+3.0)
3) 1988 - Main options Isiah, Dantley (+2.5)
4) 1986 - Main options Isiah, Tripucka, Laimbeer (+1.8)
5) 1990 - Main options Isiah, Dumars (+1.8)
6) 1985 - Main options Isiah, Laimbeer, Tripucka (injured a lot) (+1.7)

See, "In/out" is only one way to do rough "impact" measurement when we don't have access to +/-. Another way to estimate impact over time is through "common thread" analysis. The Pistons team offense was extremely consistent from 1984 - 1990 (O-Rtg around 110 every year), but over that time period all of the moving parts changed...except Zeke. By the late 80s the Pistons offense had become much more ensemble, and another guard in Dumars was stepping forward to take more responsibility. But the common thread in all of those offenses was still Zeke, and when Zeke started fading was when the Pistons' offenses started sliding.

A similar trend, but in reverse, happens on the defense. I won't go into as much detail, but it certainly appears that Laimbeer was NOT the factor. He was there for 4 years from '83 - 86 while the team defense was average or slightly below. In fact, to my memory, in those early days Laimbeer was more of an offense guy than a defender. In '86 Mahorn joined him in the rotation, but the defense was still slightly below average. It wasn't until '87, when Sidney Green, Salley and Rodman joined the mix, that we see the Pistons defense ratings/rankings/relative-to-average-marks really improve. In '87 it was an ensemble (Laimbeer, Green, Salley, Mahorn and Rodman all saw minutes in the big man rotation) but by '90 Green and Mahorn were gone and Rodman had clearly become the defensive leader (that was his first DPoY season). The defense, converse to the offense, went from ensemble to unipoloar...but the common thread in all of those elite defenses was Rodman.

[pancakes3]

i feel like i should literally take out a coin and flip it for barry or stockton.

[lorak]

drza,
what is your stance on:

1. Pistons without Thomas in 1986 (small sample) and 1991 (big sample and most games Isiah played before injury, so he still was in his prime, several months after he won finals MVP) had better offense than with him.

2. Pistons were champions because of defense, it's clear they became very good, when they started to play very good defense ('87). So why Thomas is seen as the most valuable part of this team and not for example Rodman?

BTW,
re: to your list of Pistons main offensive options
from 1984 (first year listed) to 1990 (last year) the highest ortg and OWS among Pistons players who played in every of these season, belongs to... Bill Laimbeer.

PS
Yes, Pistons improved offensively a lot in Thomas rookie year, but it's more Tripucka's impact than Thomas. Kelly played ~500 minutes more than Isiah and was MUCH MORE efficient (and of course that also was first Laimbeer's season as Piston, but he played only 30 games)

[Laimbeer]

2. Pistons were champions because of defense, it's clear they became very good, when they started to play very good defense ('87). So why Thomas is seen as the most valuable part of this team and not for example Rodman?

Because your team relies more on defense than offense doesn't mean your most valuable player has to be contributing significantly to the defense. You still have to play both ends.

Take the Bulls and Rose. They depend more on their defense, and Rose is not a crucial part of that, but he's clearly their most valuable player.

[lorak]

2. Pistons were champions because of defense, it's clear they became very good, when they started to play very good defense ('87). So why Thomas is seen as the most valuable part of this team and not for example Rodman?

Because your team relies more on defense than offense doesn't mean your most valuable player has to be contributing significantly to the defense. You still have to play both ends.

Take the Bulls and Rose. They depend more on their defense, and Rose is not a crucial part of that, but he's clearly their most valuable player.

No, he isn't. Deng was as valuable for Bulls as Rose: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking11

But as usually - scoring is overrated by both: media experts and fans.

[drza]

drza,
obviously I would not argue that Laimbeer was more important, but what is your stance on:

1. Pistons without Thomas in 1986 (small sample) and 1991 (big sample and most games Isiah played before injury, so he still was in his prime, several months after he won finals MVP) had better offense than with him.

2. Pistons were champions because of defense, it's clear they became very good, when they started to play very good defense ('87). So why Thomas is seen as the most valuable part of this team and not for example Rodman?

PS
Yes, Pistons improved offensively a lot in Thomas rookie year, but it's more Tripucka's impact than Thomas. Kelly played ~500 minutes more than Isiah and was MUCH MORE efficient.

1) I'd say the 1986 sample is just way too small. 5 games does nothing for me in this instance. I hesitate to put much even into 10 game absences, so in 5 games unless the difference is monstrous I don't even consider it.

The 1991 is a much larger sample, I agree. I look at it several ways:
* As I pointed out, for 7 straight years from 1984 - 1990 the Pistons O-Rtg was rock solid around 110 with Zeke playing about 3000 minutes/year. From '88 - '90 when the Pistons were Finals teams, the ORtg was 110.4 and the DRtg was 104.5 with Zeke averaging 2948 minutes.

* In 1991 not only did Isiah miss a lot of games, but he also played the fewest minutes per game (34.2) that he had since his rookie year. And with Zeke playing 1657 minutes total the DRtg was rock steady (104.6) but the ORtg dropped to 108.2.

*Now, that' s not a huge drop on offense, but it is a lower mark than any the Pistons had had during their run of elite play and it certainly seemed to have an impact on their records (average 59 wins/year from '88 - '90, 50 wins in '91).

2) The Bad Boy Pistons were a defense-first team. But as the previous paragraphs illustrate, the defense couldn't make them contenders alone. The defense in '91 (DRtg 104.6) was every bit as strong as it was during the '88 - '90 Finals runs (avg DRtg 104.5). But the team record dropped by 9 wins in '91 as the offense wasn't as strong. Yes, the defense was the dominant unit on the title teams, but the defense alone wasn't enough. The offense, which was Isiah's purview, had to be there as well. And without Zeke in the games and at full speed, it wasn't.

Conclusion I see a healthy Isiah being the difference between the Pistons having an offense strong enough to dominate the season/win titles vs being a still strong team based on their defense but more of an also-ran. That's not a trivial difference.

*PS. All of this discussion focuses on Isiah, but as I'm sure you've noted, we are in agreement on Rodman's importance. He did develop into the force behind the defense for the Pistons, and he eventually did it again in Chicago. I remember during the Pippen vote you asked how to explain the Bulls defense not falling off in '98 with Pippen missing so much time, and after looking at it last night I think the difference is all Rodman. He stepped up in a major way when Pippen was out. In '97 when the Bulls had the 4th rated defense Pippen played 3095 minutes while Rodman played only 1947. In '98, when Pippen was hobbled and could only manage 1652 minutes, it was Rodman who stepped up to 2856 minutes played and held the defense steady at 3rd in the NBA.

If I don't nominate Rodman this thread, I will be VERY soon.

[Fencer reregistered]

Fair enough, but I'll say this: When one of the current-era Celtics says to himself "OK, I'm stepping up my game NOW, because my team needs me to", that guy is usually Pierce, at either end of the court.

I was going to be even more absolute about it than that, but when Allen is running free behind the 3-pt line and Rondo is hitting him with the perfect pass, three possessions in a row, I presume it's more than luck or the tiredness of the other team; somebody (Allen, Rondo, a screen-setter, whoever) dug a little deeper than before.

And pretty much the same was true earlier in Pierce career, although there were always a few cases such as Eric Williams being bad at shooting, but only for the first 46 minutes of the game.

I don't think that's at all true. In the '08 playoffs, more times than not it was Garnett that stepped up his game in the big moments. In the '09 playoffs I'd say it was Rondo more than anyone. In '10 I'd say they all essentially took turns. And in '11 the team in general seemed to have difficulty finding that next gear, but I'd say if anything it was another group effort.

Now, earlier in his career I could see that. But in the "Big Three era" I don't see how Pierce has really separated himself at all from his teammates in a "step up" category.

I'm thinking of a lot of third quarters, in particular, but also some 4th quarter comebacks.

Yes, Rondo had a good Chicago series in 2009, but he's not exactly consistent or consistently reliable. Ray Allen had a great offensive performance in that same series, but to the extent Ben Gordon did too, we can question Ray's defense.

KG -- some big hoops or steals, yes.

[lorak]

The 1991 is a much larger sample, I agree. I look at it several ways:
* As I pointed out, for 7 straight years from 1984 - 1990 the Pistons O-Rtg was rock solid around 110 with Zeke playing about 3000 minutes/year. From '88 - '90 when the Pistons were Finals teams, the ORtg was 110.4 and the DRtg was 104.5 with Zeke averaging 2948 minutes.

And in terms of OWS and ortg the best offensive Pistons player during that stretch was Bill Laimbeer.

* In 1991 not only did Isiah miss a lot of games, but he also played the fewest minutes per game (34.2) that he had since his rookie year. And with Zeke playing 1657 minutes total the DRtg was rock steady (104.6) but the ORtg dropped to 108.2.

*Now, that' s not a huge drop on offense, but it is a lower mark than any the Pistons had had during their run of elite play and it certainly seemed to have an impact on their records (average 59 wins/year from '88 - '90, 50 wins in '91).

That explanation would be sound if we would compare results on year to year basis. But that's not the case here. Pistons 1991 with Thomas were worse offensively than with him the same year. And for most of the games that was still prime, pre injury, Isiah.

Yes, the defense was the dominant unit on the title teams, but the defense alone wasn't enough.

C'monn, offense/defense alone never is enough. The same way you could defend Allen's impact on Celtics and try to lower KG's impact.

I remember during the Pippen vote you asked how to explain the Bulls defense not falling off in '98 with Pippen missing so much time, and after looking at it last night I think the difference is all Rodman. He stepped up in a major way when Pippen was out. In '97 when the Bulls had the 4th rated defense Pippen played 3095 minutes while Rodman played only 1947. In '98, when Pippen was hobbled and could only manage 1652 minutes, it was Rodman who stepped up to 2856 minutes played and held the defense steady at 3rd in the NBA.

The same as with Isiah - that explanation would make sense if we would compare on year to year basis. So we still don't know why Pippen had so big offensive impact that year but also so negative on defense - unless you believe Rodman played worse since Pippen joined Bulls during 1998 season.

[colts18]

2. Pistons were champions because of defense, it's clear they became very good, when they started to play very good defense ('87). So why Thomas is seen as the most valuable part of this team and not for example Rodman?

Because your team relies more on defense than offense doesn't mean your most valuable player has to be contributing significantly to the defense. You still have to play both ends.

Take the Bulls and Rose. They depend more on their defense, and Rose is not a crucial part of that, but he's clearly their most valuable player.

No, he isn't. Deng was as valuable for Bulls as Rose: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking11

But as usually - scoring is overrated by both: media experts and fans.

Do you think that Nick Collison was more valuable than LeBron, Durant, Dwight, and CP3 last year?

[fatal9]

2. Pistons were champions because of defense, it's clear they became very good, when they started to play very good defense ('87). So why Thomas is seen as the most valuable part of this team and not for example Rodman?

On top of their defense, they were also one of the best rebounding teams from '87-'90.

[ElGee]

from another thread: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1001777

Penbeast0, I can tell you rank Payton very high. what do you think about his playoff struggles ? he had two postseasons with >52% TS (I'm not considering 04-07 period, where he struggled epically anyway). aside from that ?

Code: Select all

year    TS%
 91    .430
 92    .482
 93    .466
 94    .511
 95    .491
 97    .506
 00    .518
 02    .467
 03    .459

Payton's scoring was non-existent pretty much his entire playoff career.

also, what about epic meltdowns in '94 and '95 ? why does Payton get away with this ? how about Payton's playoff career after Kemp left ? where was Payton's better offense than Kidd's ?

his offense in the playoffs was just poor, never at the all-star level aside from '96 and '98.

I'd like to see this addressed. The three guys tend to have pretty comparable regular seasons stats, but come playoff time Payton's clearly got worse than the other two. There's also the issue that Payton's Sonics tended to get upset in the playoffs in his prime.

Interestingly also, Isiah's stats are the ones that tended to go up in the playoffs, and he's also the one with a team tendency to overachieve in the playoffs.

My first instinct is:

1. Isiah
2. Kidd
3. Payton

But that's not accurate. Payton improves his scoring pretty sharply with ZERO expected drop in TS%. HIs individual ORtg drops just 1 point, not the expected 2 points we'd see adjusting for the defensive quality he faces. He averages 7 assists per instead of 7.8...which is a little more than 0.5 assists lower than what we might expect adjusting for defense...which to me is utterly negligible. (Assists aren't even a very good stat IMO.)

On the team level, I've outlined what he did in both multipolar and unipolar settings. In 96, the Sonics were 110.3 ORtg (+2.7) in the RS and 105.7 in the PS...so there is an overall decline in 96. But then again, 96 is right on the edge of John Stockton's prime (2nd team all-NBA) and Payton owned him in the WCF

G1 Stock 4 pts 19.2% TS 7 ast -- Payton 21 pts 56.1% TS 7 ast
G2 Stock 11 pts 65.2% TS 7 ast 7 TOV -- Payton 18 pts 50.7% TS 8 ast 4 TOV
G3 Stock 7 pts 28.0% TS 6 ast -- Payton 25 pts 59.5% TS 3 ast
G4 Stock 7 pts 38.9% TS 8 ast 4 TOV -- Payton 19 pts 49.5% TS 6 ast
G5 Stock 4 pts 29.1% TS 6 ast -- Payton 31 pts 75.5% TS 6 ast 5 TOV
G6 Stock 14 pts 54.9% TS 12 ast -- Payton 10 pts 57.1% TS 7 ast 5 TOV
G7 Stock 22 pts 67.4% TS 7 ast 3 TOV -- Payton 21 pts 53.5% TS 5 ast 5 TOV

Note, that for those who feel like he shot too much, he took 15.8 FGA's per game in 96...right around that magic number of 15 PGs. In 98, which I've outlined in great detail (and can repost) Payton took 15.6 shots a game (8.3 ast). That offense -- with Vin Baker, not Kemp -- was 3rd in the league at 111.6 (+6.6). The ORtg was 111.4 in the PS (+6.0). Payton finished 3rd in MVP.

What was John Stockton's best season? It's hard to pinpoint because he has so many similar seasons without a very impressive peak. Was it 1988? 1992? 1995? Pick a year, and I don't think it holds up well at all to Payton's 98 or 00.

[Sedale Threatt]

Where does Stockton's longevity factor in? That was pretty much the only reason I saw for Malone getting voted in as high as he did. So wouldn't that be a big feather in John's cap as well?

[lorak]

Do you think that Nick Collison was more valuable than LeBron, Durant, Dwight, and CP3 last year?

No.
You have to compare players with similar roles - role players to role player, stars to stars.