RealGM Top 100 List #31

[Doctor MJ]

What with Ray Allen? Isn't he better than Reggie?

I don't think Allen rates above Reggie.

I think what confuses people is the time in Seattle where Allen played a different role, much more on ball. Playing on ball gets you bigger volume numbers, which is why I argue that on ball players get underrated generally relative to off ball players unless you're really a distribution wizard who really adding major value as a floor general.

Taking Reggie out of the conversation for a second: I'm most impressed with Allen for his time in Milwaukee and Boston. His ability to let someone else take the stat hogging role and see his advanced stats largely hold steady because of how he can move and shoot is among the greats in history, and it is what makes him truly special.

Okay now consider that Reggie could do the same thing, except that instead of scoring in the low 20s at a 60% TS clip when he did it, Reggie was at more like 63%+. And then remember that while Allen only broke 25 PPG twice in the playoffs, Reggie did it regularly.

And of course there's the Win Share gap again. Reggie's out there at 174 while Allen's at 131.

I think Allen is probably the next best thing as an off ball guy to Reggie, and he's more proven as an on ball player. Once Reggie's in, Allen will be high among my list of contenders, but I can't give him the nod over Reggie.

[therealbig3]

I agree more with Dr. Mufasa with regards to peak vs longevity. Unless there's a massive gap in peak, like MJ vs Allen, then having 6 years of one guy in their prime vs 2 years of a slightly superior player in their prime SHOULD be a tough decision, and for me, I'd lean towards the 6-year guy. Kevin Johnson from 89-92 gives you a pretty awesome 4-year stretch, with numbers that compare to Paul's 08 and 09 seasons. He's injured in 93 and 95, but when he's playing, he's good for 16/8. He's relatively healthy in 94 and 97, and he puts up big numbers. In 96, again he misses a lot of time, but he puts up 19/9 when he plays. And he always scored on high efficiency. And he seemed to consistently "bring it" come playoff time, with a few bad series here and there.

So compare 6 healthy, elite years + 3 good but injury-riddled years for KJ vs 3 healthy, elite years + 2 good but injury-riddled years + 1 very good rookie season for Paul.

Unless you think Paul was far and away the better player during his peak in 08 and 09 vs KJ in his peak (89-92), and I don't see how that's the case, KJ gave you elite production for longer.

And like drza, I too wish there were more Gilmore arguments, because it's between him, T-Mac, Pierce, and Payton for my next vote.

As for now, I'd go with:

Vote: Gary Payton

My nomination is between McAdoo and KJ.

[fatal9]

Vote, I'm leaning towards Drexler, I'll try to make a longer post explaining why.

Nominations I'm thinking of McAdoo, Mourning, Walton and Paul. All are lacking in longevity.

Also, strongly disagree with Reggie before Ray.

[therealbig3]

Just to put this out there...guys on my radar in terms of nomination:

Dominique, KJ, McAdoo, Rodman, Mourning, Miller, and Allen

[ElGee]

Jordan for 2 years vs Ray Allen is obviously an entirely different question than Paul for 2 years vs Ray Allen, and even then, 2 years of Jordan probably means you win less titles than Ray Allen has. If Jordan had knee surgery and was never the same after 88, he would be slightly more well regarded than Bernard King or David Thompson because of having an MVP, but not that much more. Having short primes didn't work out for King or Thompson's teams and it wouldn't have for the Bulls if they just had till 88. And it certainly hasn't for the Hornets. The Hornets, Thompson Nuggets, King Knicks, hypothetical prime done after 88 Jordan all share something in common, they'd have flamed out before their teams even had a chance to contend once, let alone go through the rigours of getting kicks at the can over and over until it works as most do before they win

But your hung up circumstance -- that's exactly what I'm trying to tease out. There are a handful of great, flash-in-the-pan players in NBA history. Walton's the only one with a title. He also, not so coincidentally has the highest peak of all those players. (It has nothing to do with winning MVP.)

The question isn't Ray Allen vs. 2 years of Paul. It's Ray Allen vs. Paul's second year, his two-year peak, his 2010 abbreviated season (yes, there's value there unless you think having Chris Paul on your team in the PS isn't relevant) and his really good, ~top 5 2011 season. Allen is an accouterment, who is a great 2nd/3rd type player, who slightly boosts excellent teams and does decent work with bad teams. Paul is an all-time level PG, a rung below Nash IMO and comparable to Oscar Robertson.

I've also talked about this "drafting" component of evaluation, and the current players are going to get a boost in that regard, because I'm super-excited to draft Chris Paul 7 years in...despite not having the career value of retired players.

@ronnymac - Tentatively, Walton and McAdoo are next to each other right around No. 50. If anything, I would move Walton up slightly as I think drza has made some logically sound arguments about his whole situation. Basically, Walton was built frail, but maybe it's not really unreasonable to adjust a little for era/not being in Portland and assume he could have a few more healthy years.

@therealbig3 - IMO, based on the idea demonstrated in Jordan vs. Allen on random teams, I'd take Chris Paul's 2008 as about equal as KJ's 2 best seasons. Conceptually, I don't think of a cavernous divide between their peaks...but something very non-linear happens in basketball ITO of chances of winning when you start to get into the levels of Paul's play, something KJ never approached.

[therealbig3]

Nominate: Kevin Johnson

It was actually between KJ and Mourning for me.

These are Kevin Johnson's numbers during his prime:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 02&y1=1997

I'd be interested in the Suns with/without numbers for KJ though, if anyone has them, or knows how to get them.

[ElGee]

I agree with Miller over Allen...have him about 7 spots ahead as I look at my current outline down the road, and might bump Reggie up a touch. I happen to think Reggie was an underrated/misunderstood offensive player, and slightly underrated as a defender. Never really saw him as a bad defender, despite reputation.

And for a crowd that has obsessed over playoff performance, Reggie does something fairly special. He raises his scoring by FOUR points per game in the PS in his prime. What makes this so extraordinary is that he does it against the most difficult group of defenses I've seen from any star I've looked at, a shift from 105.9 in the RS environment to 101.9 in the PS (96.3% expected change.) We'd expect to see the following *if he maintained* the same level of play:

18.8 ppg 59.3% TS 117 ORtg .186 WS/48

Instead, his 1990-2001 PS numbers are:

23.5 ppg 60.6 TS% 122 ORtg .194 WS/48

Consider among the competition (http://www.backpicks.com/2011/08/15/adj ... ger-stars/) Miller increases his scoring more than anyone, has the second best TS%, tied for the best ORtg (with a massive 5 points better than expected) and increases his WS/48 (something only Hakeem does). His PS numbers normalized to the average environment, per the post, are:

Normalized: 24.0 ppg 62.0 TS% 125 ORtg

We expect to see Reggie's numbers go down more than any star on that list, and they go up more than anyone's. And the team's offensive numbers are quite impressive throughout that time as well (both RS, then in the PS) and coincide with Miller's play.

Pacers RS relative to league, then PS relative avg. opponent DRtg
90 +3.4 +0.0
91 +3.8 +9.7
92 +3.5 +4.0
93 +3.9 +11.2 (Knicks "GOAT" defense)
94 -0.2 +1.7
95 +1.3 +6.9
96 +3.2 -1.0 (Miller plays 1g)
98 +3.4 +7.2
99 +5.2 +8.3
00 +4.4 +8.1
01 -1.0 +1.4

That means save for 1990 (1st PS) and 1996 (played one game), the Pacers offense improved in performance in every single PS Miller played in during his prime.

And I also see people talk about longevity...well, unlike John Stockton (8 years, 88-95), Reggie continued to play at a relevant level until about 2001, maybe even 2002. (And what he did in 2005 after the melee could even be construed as still having that ~AS-level play at 39! 18 ppg in 31 mpg post AS-break, +9.0 on/off...)

[Laimbeer]

Reggie Miller? Really fine shooting guard, probably in the Sam Jones or Joe Dumars range, with a touch of Robert Horry. I think the admirable moments of clutch play are being a little too heavily weighed here.

Just for one, how does he begin to compare to a guy like Elvin Hayes? Three first teams, 12 all-stars, led a team to a title, six top 10 MVP finishes, top ten all time in points and rebounds, a dangerous low post threat and excellent defender.

Miller never made even a second team, five all stars, never finished top ten in MVP voting. He wasn't that highly regarded in his own time. He wasn't a dominant player.

[Laimbeer]

Vote: John Stockton
...

The fact that he is the all time leader in steals and assists should earn him a pretty high spot; Stockton also lead the Jazz to dominate the western conference through the mid to late nineties. Seems like an easy choice to me...Payton was a great player and has a ring to his name, but on an individual level wasn't as good for as long. Stockton was a top tier point guard until he retired.

Co-signed. Well overdue.

[therealbig3]

ElGee, Paul didn't play in the 10 playoffs though, or at least, bballreference doesn't say he did.

And could you explain why you think Paul's peak play is on a completely different level than KJ's? Because the raw box score stats show comparable numbers, and although Paul does very well in terms of RAPM, we don't have RAPM studies for KJ, so for all we know, he could have had similar impact by that measure. The only way I see to study their impacts is to see how the Hornets did without Paul vs how the Suns did without KJ, and see which team had the bigger drop off.

But I also think that with regards to the Suns, they did have Barkley from 93-96, while Paul didn't have a guy that could carry an offense like that...although that might mean that life was made easier for KJ, it also means that the team wouldn't drop off as much, not because he didn't have a big impact, but because they have another guy that can carry the offense...kind of like LeBron and Wade in Miami.

[ElGee]

Nominate: Kevin Johnson

It was actually between KJ and Mourning for me.

These are Kevin Johnson's numbers during his prime:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 02&y1=1997

I'd be interested in the Suns with/without numbers for KJ though, if anyone has them, or knows how to get them.

First number is net difference, second number is team MOV in lineup
KJ 1996 (26g) 4.0 to 1.6
KJ 1993 (33g) 3.7 to 8.2
KJ 1997 (12g) 12.3 to 2.5
KJ 1994 (15g) 7.5 to 6.2
KJ 1990 (8g) 5.5 to 7.6
KJ 1995 (35g) -1.5 to 3.3

multi-year SIO is posted in statistics forum, all my in/outs are posted on page 9 of the top 100 thread for reference: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1123731&start=120#p28653541

[therealbig3]

Nominate: Kevin Johnson

It was actually between KJ and Mourning for me.

These are Kevin Johnson's numbers during his prime:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 02&y1=1997

I'd be interested in the Suns with/without numbers for KJ though, if anyone has them, or knows how to get them.

First number is net difference, second number is team MOV in lineup
KJ 1996 (26g) 4.0 to 1.6
KJ 1993 (33g) 3.7 to 8.2
KJ 1997 (12g) 12.3 to 2.5
KJ 1994 (15g) 7.5 to 6.2
KJ 1990 (8g) 5.5 to 7.6
KJ 1995 (35g) -1.5 to 3.3

multi-year SIO is posted in statistics forum, all my in/outs are posted on page 9 of the top 100 thread for reference: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1123731&start=120#p28653541

Good stuff...I also checked out the multi-year SIO in the Statistics Forum...so I'm a little confused...KJ looks superior to Paul in all of these...higher year-to-year in/out, higher multi-year SIO, and he put up comparable box score stats to Paul...how exactly is Paul's peak clearly better?

[ElGee]

ElGee, Paul didn't play in the 10 playoffs though, or at least, bballreference doesn't say he did.

And could you explain why you think Paul's peak play is on a completely different level than KJ's? Because the raw box score stats show comparable numbers, and although Paul does very well in terms of RAPM, we don't have RAPM studies for KJ, so for all we know, he could have had similar impact by that measure. The only way I see to study their impacts is to see how the Hornets did without Paul vs how the Suns did without KJ, and see which team had the bigger drop off.

But I also think that with regards to the Suns, they did have Barkley from 93-96, while Paul didn't have a guy that could carry an offense like that...although that might mean that life was made easier for KJ, it also means that the team wouldn't drop off as much, not because he didn't have a big impact, but because they have another guy that can carry the offense...kind of like LeBron and Wade in Miami.

The Hornets didn't make the 2010 PS. Paul came back at the end of the year after his knee injury, and played in spot duty because they had no need to play him hard.

You're asking a good question - hard for me to give you a short answer since I'm usually vehemently depending KJ and he's someone I like a lot and think is underrated drastically. Your point about Barkley being around is excellent, but consider that in 93 Phoenix still moved to a +8.2 team with KJ from a +4.4 team without him (MVP Barkley played all but 2 of the games). I have massive respect for KJ. **Note that in 1994 Barkley misses most of the games KJ misses when referencing the in/out

So why is Paul's peak on another level?

I think Chris Paul is one of the top PnR PG's of all-time. I think he can take a weak offense and make them good...pretty much by himself. I think he can take a good offense and make them elite. IMO, the number of PGs to have that ability are basically Magic, Nash and Oscar. Paul does this by making the right pass and endlessly pressuring defenses around PnR with drives/shooting.

We like to look at ORtg when we see a ball-dominant, QB-style offensive force...When Paul joined the Hornets they had the worst offense in the league. After some slight improvements, they jumped to 5th (111.5, +4.0) in 2008.

We can look at his team's offense with him on the court at 82games:
2007 109.7 +8.7
2008 116.0 +15.4
2009 113.6 +16.4
2010 110.7 +4.1
2011 110.4 +11.6

Even though it's 08 and 09 people associate with, Paul, including his injury-laden 2010 season, has the 4th-highest APM (Dirk, James, Durant) over the last 2 years using the Rosenbaum model. He's 8th in the Engelmann 6-year run.

Henry Abbot likes to point to Paul's teams as a beacon of success in the clutch. If we're buying that, I'm assuming that's a reflection of Paul's consistency/skill that is fairly indefensible regardless of the scenario or opponent. So his PS numbers shouldn't dip.

In the 08 playoffs, New Orleans had a 113.5 ORtg with Paul (+16.7).
In the 11 playoffs, New Orleans had a 106.7 ORtg with Paul (+22.9).

KJ is down with the mere mortals at PG. He's great, but I don't see any evidence for the same kind of impact. I didn't see it when he played -- he's an excellent scorer and has great aggression. But I don't think you can just surround him with the same set of players and see the same results. He's not going to murder you like Paul off PnR. I don't think his vision is such that he uses his shooters as well.

The 97 Suns did not have Barkley. Without KJ they were garbage for 12 games. With him, +2.5. I haven't checked the pace, but the difference was solely on offense ITO of ppg. For the record, I also see that 97 Suns team as an offensively bent team. Whereas B Scott's Hornets never looked that way to me.

I understand this argument might come across as subtle, since I'm claiming Paul and KJ exist on different planes, but I hope it's clear at least. I don't see the evidence for KJ QBing different rosters like Paul, and I think that's reflected in his style. I consider Paul one of the GOAT PnR players in history...and that he uses it so hard, like Nash, makes him so darn good.

re: In/Out. Small-sampled stuff isn't too compelling. But more importantly, Paul's 2010 stuff is muddled with injuries. They played him in a bunch of games as practice, basically. Not sure what to make of 2007 weighed against his on/off...but it's not a year I love anyway so it doesn't factor in too much.

[Dr Positivity]

Paul didn't play in the 2010 playoffs because the Hornets missed. Still, you don't get the real Chris Paul. You get a Chris Paul averaged 9 points, 8 assists, 2.4 rebounds a game on 40% FG and 44.6 TS% in his 7 games. He made it to the FT line 9 times in 7 games to give an idea of his ability to drive. The guy clearly didn't belong on a basketball court and was only there so Shin could cash in on the ticket sales. 2010 Chris Paul helps you win a title like 1978 Bill Walton helps you win a title, he makes your regular season record better and that's about it, and Paul's season is significantly lesser than Walton's because he plays just 38 Gs at a high level

[SDChargers#1]

Back after a long vacation, and am very surprised by what I see. Tracy McGrady has already been nominated? What kind of ridiculousness is that. It may be the most absurd thing I have seen in the project so far. I know people are weighing peaks heavily, but that is just too far in my opinion.

Vote: Stockton

The very definition of a prototypical point guard. A top 3 passer of all time (yes better than Kidd), a dead eye shooter (a HUGE advantage over Kidd), and a solid to good defender (I do feel Kidd was better).

Nomination: Elvin Hayes

The fact that Tracy McGrady got nominated over him is a joke. I don't feel this really needs an explanation honestly.

[Doctor MJ]

Reggie Miller? Really fine shooting guard, probably in the Sam Jones or Joe Dumars range, with a touch of Robert Horry. I think the admirable moments of clutch play are being a little too heavily weighed here.

Just for one, how does he begin to compare to a guy like Elvin Hayes? Three first teams, 12 all-stars, led a team to a title, six top 10 MVP finishes, top ten all time in points and rebounds, a dangerous low post threat and excellent defender.

Miller never made even a second team, five all stars, never finished top ten in MVP voting. He wasn't that highly regarded in his own time. He wasn't a dominant player.

If you go by accolades, you're certainly going to pick Hayes over Miller.

Getting into Hayes, I'm open to more detailed arguments for him. Remember though, I'm the same guy who knocked Baylor so hard for his weak efficiency. Hayes comes in a decade AFTER Baylor in a more efficient league and managed a weaker career TS%. It just doesn't impress me that much.

[lorak]

To all who voted for Payton - why he over Stockton?

And ElGee, based on what you think that Reggie's longevity was so long and Stockton only until '95?

nominate: CP

[Fencer reregistered]

Vote: Stockton

As for nomination, all of Cowens, Unseld, and Cousy seem interesting, for obvious reasons of resume, and because each had at least good intangibles. (I won't say "On top of that", because the intangibles may have been part of the reason they were voted MVP.)

Cousy has a strong intangibles case, because innovating modern transition offense is a pretty major accomplishment, because of the "offensive PG/defensive C" team halo, and because I'm convinced that his racial barrier-crossing was really important to success of the Celtics, and I'm further convinced that the success of the integrated Celtics was really important to the successful blackening of the NBA, and because I'm yet further convinced that the popularity of the blacks-led NBA has been very important to racial progress in the US and the world.

Unseld has an excellent intangibles case too, of course, but of the more traditional kind -- do stuff that doesn't show up on the box score, and win a championship with a jerk as a key teammate.

Even though in actual play Cousy was a poor man's (albeit probably more consistent) Rajon Rondo, there's a huge era disparity, and hence:

Nominate: Cousy

[ElGee]

To all who voted for Payton - why he over Stockton?

And ElGee, based on what you think that Reggie's longevity was so long and Stockton only until '95?

nominate: CP

Well, it was based on what you suggested, actually. Either 1996 Stockton is healthy and was just epically owned by Gary Payton, or he really was banged up so much in the PS to be that bad. So that's kind of a useless year then...

In 1997, he still is 35 mpg player...so I should amend that to add another year.

But by 1998, he's a sub 30 mpg guy. He averages 11-8 in the 98 playoffs...hard to watch the 98 PS and consider Stockton still an AS-level player. Good, no doubt, but I'm not interested in someone who might be the 30th best player in the league and an excellent role player. Really, in the last 13 PS games in 98, Stockton, he of the assist, has 3 double-figure ast games and 4 double-figure scoring games.

People may look at 99 then and say "he made all-nba!" That's a bit absurd to me. The top guards in MVP voting were: Iverson, Kidd, Payton, Armstrong, Penny, M. Jackson, S. Smith.

Kidd and Iverson were 1st team
Payton and Tim Hardaway were 2nd team
Stock was voted 3rd team with Kobe

Which means he beat out Armstrong, Penny, M. Jackson, S. Smith and Miller.

Penny was probably slotted as a forward. Armstrong was totally new to the party (and had a good year). Carter was a rookie and maybe treated as a 3. S. Smith played 72% of the year, which probably soured his vote...but Smitty took Atlanta from -1.4 to +4.6. Dude was a star, almost in the mold of Reggie, and pretty clear to me he's way better than Stock.

And Miller, well, see the last post I had on him. His classic off-ball spacing, hyper-efficient offensive role (coupled with some nice decision-making from Jackson) helped Indiana to a +5.2 offense in the RS and a +8.3 PS offense. Reggie's still giving you 18 ppg on high efficiency - no doubt he's way better than Stockton.

So, that 1999 all-nba nod has always been a joke/reputation nod to me. (It's possible voters selected "true PG's.") No way was Stockton a top-15 player. That's basically Stock for the next few years...people who look to WS/48 might tend to overrate him because he's playing a hyper-efficient game himself, but that, in many ways, was always Stockton's weakness.

Just compare them 10 years into the prime -- 98 Stock vs. 00 Miller. One is a low-minute, low-production cog/decision-maker, the other is the driving offensive star of a championship-level team. Miller averaged 24 ppg on 60% TS in the PS for goodness sakes, including back-to-back 40 pointers in the PS, 34 to close the Knicks, and after his G1 Finals disaster, 27.8 ppg on 65.5% TS for that series. Dude's playing at like peak levels at 34.
---
As for Stockton vs. Payton, I feel like I've discussed that ad nausea in the last few threads. Payton has a better peak and a comparable number of good years. He fits well on a lot of teams. Hard for me to accept Stockton ahead of him.

[ElGee]

A final note on Miller, which is to note how relatively large his scoring volume actually was in the PS. He has great value in spacing, sucking up other defenders and opening up options/angles and a lack of doubles for his teammates. Yet he's scoring a lot too. Here are the % of his team's points scored in some of his better scoring playoffs:

92 25.1%
93 30.6%
94 25.7%
95 25.9%
00 24.5%
01 35.9%
02 25.8%

For comparison,
Kobe is between 28.9-29.5% from 08-10.
K. Malone 27.1-29.6% from 94-98.