RealGM Top 100 List #32

[ronnymac2]

Statistically, though, on offense the three were about a wash in the boxscores. Much of McAdoo's scoring advantage can be attributed to pace and higher scoring teams, as Mourning actually sported a higher usage percentage than Mac with Howard not far behind. Their PER's were 22.3, 22.3 and 22.4 and Howard had the highest O-Rtg (111), followed by Mourning (109) and McAdoo (106). Presumably, Howard and Mourning's shooting efficiency and offensive rebounds were enough to counteract their turnovers in these particular efficiency stats.

I can buy that McAdoo could have still been the more potent offensive performer of the three due to his higher volume on still excellent efficiency and (relatively) better passing, but it seems that on offense their net benefits are at least comparable.

1.)Individual offensive rating wasn't kept until 1978. McAdoo's three peak years are 1974, 1975, and 1976.

That goes for usage as well. McAdoo's usage was presumably greater than most of Dwight's and Zo's seasons, simply because he was creating more for himself and others and scoring at incredible volumes.

2.)Also, how do you know that McAdoo's highest scoring seasons can be attributed to a higher pace? Superstars will get their touches regardless of the pace.

Pace has slowed since the 1970's and offenses have generally gotten better, mainly because of micro-management of each possession used in a game. There is a much greater emphasis on using a star player to get a quality shot, as opposed to the style of the 70's, which still had bits and pieces of the offensive problems that haunted teams a decade earlier; namely, unless the team had a smart ball-handler like West or Robertson, the offensive strategy was incredibly chaotic. The 70's had improved from the 60's, but they weren't as tediously studious of how to yield a positive result from each possession like they are now.

NOTE: I'm not saying modern players or teams are superior to older teams. I'm not biased towards one era or another.

[therealbig3]

drza's post basically puts McAdoo on Howard's or Mourning's level offensively, minus the defense. That just kind of strengthens the KJ case for me.

KJ, as an elite PG, is a considerably better offensive player than any of those big men, imo, and McAdoo probably does have a defensive advantage because of his position...but he's not a defensive anchor, and as such, the big potential advantage that Cs usually have on defense isn't really there with him. And McAdoo was a superstar level player for 7 years, KJ for 6, so there isn't an issue with longevity here.

Maybe I'm overrating KJ...a lot of people say that despite his stats, he wasn't "really" on the level of Kidd or Payton or Stockton or Nash (I see Nash as clearly being in a separate tier though)...but I don't really see the evidence for that. His box score stats are pretty sweet, his with/without and in/out numbers are also really good, and he always led top offensive teams. I think a prime KJ is a lot closer to Nash than a prime Stockton, a prime Kidd, or a prime Payton.

[ronnymac2]

McAdoo was a beastly player.

A season before his rookie year, the team was 22-60 (-9.4 SRS, last). In 1973, Jack Ramsay became the team's coach and McAdoo was a rookie. The team went 21-61 (-8.85 SRS, second to last) as McAdoo scored 18 ppg with 9 rbg. 23-year-old Elmore Smith dropped 18/12 that year.

The next year, in 1974, McAdoo drops 30/15/3/2. He is one of only four players ever to win the field goal percentage title and the scoring title in the same season post-shot era (Others I believe are Arizin, Chamberlain, and Shaq). He also leads the league in Efg% and TS%. Think about that.

Buffalo goes 42-40 (-.19 SRS, ninth in a league of 17) and has the 4th best offense in the league. They lose to the eventual champion Boston Celtics 4-2, with McAdoo contributing 31.7/13.7 with over 2 blocks per game on 47.8 FG% and 52.9 TS%.

Mind you, the team had given away Smith, their 18/12 defensive anchor. McMillian was a very good player as was Randy Smith, but Smith hadn't yet blossomed into a star. McAdoo did a lot of heavy lifting for this team.


In 1975, they get to 49-33 (2.17 SRS, fifth out of 18 teams) and are the 4th best offensive team again (9th in defense). McMillian has a worse year than before while Smith improves (he's almost there). McAdoo drops 34/14/2/2 on just under 57 TS%. That's a scoring title and 4th-ranked True Shooting percentage.

The man drops 37/13 with nearly 3 blocks per game on Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld, who together anchored the number 1 defense in the league.

Again...Bob McAdoo averaged 37.4 ppg on 52.8 TS% (48 FG%) against the best defense in the league. Seriously...

I believe he dropped a 50/20 game during that tough 7-game series loss to the eventual Eastern Conference Finalists, too.

In 1976, Smith finally hit his peak and became a star- even made an all-nba team. McAdoo with 31/12/4/2 on 54 TS%, whooping ass as usual. Buffalo does decline as a team, to 46-36 (.85 SRS, fifth out of 18...fifth best offense), but defeats Philly in round 1. They go on to lose to eventual champion Boston 4-2. McAdoo had 28/14/3/2 on roughly 50 TS%.

1977 comes around and McAdoo plays 20 games for Buffalo. Buffalo goes 30-52 (-4.28 SRS, 21st out of 22 teams while having the 18th best offense).

Admittedly, NY saw moderate improvements with McAdoo.

McAdoo had a few more extremely productive years statistically, and later became an outstanding role player for Showtime, winning 2 titles.

In 1982, he averaged 16.7 ppg and 7.8 rpg with over a block on 58.6 TS% in less than 28 minutes per game in the playoffs. He had great chemistry with KAJ as well, as his mid-range jumper complimented Jabbar's low-post game. They passed the ball to each other well, too. Very underrated team btw.


McAdoo had a ridiculous peak. He performed in the playoffs, carried his team in the regular season, and put up great stats that helped his team. He won an MVP and has 3 scoring titles, so he's got accolades. He won titles as a role player. He scored over 18,000 points and grabbed over 8,000 rebounds, so he isn't purely a peak player. He's got 3 more seasons of very good production after his 3 peak years.

This guy deserves nomination.

[therealbig3]

Also, since Paul is being mentioned...where exactly does D-Will rank?

How far apart are Williams and Paul in most people's eyes?

Because personally, I do think Paul's clearly superior peak gives him a considerable edge in terms of all-time ranking, but Williams for the last 3 years has been arguably better. He doesn't take care of the ball like Paul, and he doesn't quite get the volume of assists that Paul does (close though), but he seems to be a more potent scorer, and a better post-up PG. He also seems to have consistently run better offenses. The APM numbers don't really give Williams strong support though.

[ronnymac2]

While I have the attention of an intelligent audience...Randy Smith is an underrated 70's guard. Very athletic, one of the better rebounding smalls of his era, and could score and pass. Played defense, too. His offensive role expanded a bit too much after McAdoo's exit, but he was a very good player. I'm not bringing him up for this slot or anything, just wanted to give him props.

[ronnymac2]

Allen Iverson deserves mention as a possible nominee as well. He put an enormous amount of pressure on a defense and was possibly the most difficult player to stay in front of ever. He got to the free throw line a ton, indicating he was unguardable 1 vs. 1. He was a scoring machine on some of the most horribly constructed offensive teams of the era (poor spacing, no viable secondary threat). When he finally had a great secondary scorer on his team, he was more in line with what people want in terms of efficiency.

As David Stern said, there is evidence that in his MVP season in 2001, he wasn't this bad defender that most people think of him as.

If Mrs. Mcbriddle got nominated, the toughest mother **** of the era should be, too. I hate resorting to narrative-driven reasons to conclude this post, but it's true...

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Gary Payton

Nominate: Bob McAdoo

I sympathize with the Mourning supporters though. Zo's 2000 season was a turning-the-corner season for him, but people forget it and lump it together with his other stellar years, which decreases the value of the peak that we saw. He was a top-3 player that year. That season was comparable to a top-notch Ewing season or Dwight season.

I'm glad ElGee has reinvigorated my love of the Glove's game. Dude was a menace on both sides of the ball.

[Fencer reregistered]

I hate resorting to narrative-driven reasons to conclude this post, but it's true...

There's no shame in a narrative-driven NOMINATION.

[therealbig3]

Allen Iverson deserves mention as a possible nominee as well. He put an enormous amount of pressure on a defense and was possibly the most difficult player to stay in front of ever. He got to the free throw line a ton, indicating he was unguardable 1 vs. 1. He was a scoring machine on some of the most horribly constructed offensive teams of the era (poor spacing, no viable secondary threat). When he finally had a great secondary scorer on his team, he was more in line with what people want in terms of efficiency.

As David Stern said, there is evidence that in his MVP season in 2001, he wasn't this bad defender that most people think of him as.

If Mrs. Mcbriddle got nominated, the toughest mother **** of the era should be, too. I hate resorting to narrative-driven reasons to conclude this post, but it's true...

Personally, I don't have much love for AI...he gets this reputation for being all-heart, and tough, but in your post, you call T-Mac "Mrs. McBriddle" (I think that's who you're referring to)...just because he didn't scream as much as AI doesn't mean he didn't have the same heart (AI famously didn't want to practice, that doesn't sound like having a lot of heart), and T-Mac's career was cut short because of injuries (pretty serious, can't really knock him for that), and I talked before about how back spasms are pretty serious, and T-Mac was lucky to even walk off the court when he got them. Even so, from 01-08 (T-Mac's prime), he missed a total of 99 games, or ~12 games per season.

From 99-08 (AI's prime), he missed a total of 115 games per season, or ~12 games a season (rounded up).

AI seems just as soft and injury-prone as T-Mac.

So in addition to having an undeserved (imo) reputation as a guy who's all-heart and tough-as-nails, I also don't like his game at all. Doesn't create for his teammates that well (the assists numbers overrate his willingness to do so), scores at incredibly high volume...on incredibly low efficiency. T-Mac, Carter, Pierce, Kobe...guys who AI has been compared to throughout his career...they also didn't have 2nd stars on their teams at times, and had poorly constructed offenses at times, and they had no problem generally scoring the ball on much higher efficiency. And DavidStern showed that AI wasn't a negative on defense, in one season. That doesn't mean he was good on defense. It's more likely a liability than it was a strength.

So what is it that AI brings to the table, compared to contemporary wings like T-Mac, Pierce, and Carter?

Great scoring? I guess, but I'd take T-Mac's, Pierce's, and even Carter's scoring over AI's.

Great passing? Pretty good, but he also was a ball-stopper as well, and I'd take T-Mac's passing for sure over AI's, probably Carter's, and maybe even Pierce's.

Great defense? No, and T-Mac and Pierce did bring that to the table, while Carter was underrated on that end and was better than AI.

Great rebounding? No, and T-Mac, Pierce, and Carter brought that to the table.

Intangibles? Don't know, but none of T-Mac, Carter, and AI are renowned for this, while Pierce is considered to have pretty good intangibles.

For me, I rank AI below Vince Carter, who I have clearly below T-Mac and Pierce.

[Sedale Threatt]

The thing with McAdoo, he has those three or four spectacular years, then he starts missing games and getting shuffled around the league like he's got the bubonic plague. I know everybody's going to have warts at this point, but he seems comparable like Walton to me, except at least Bill had a good reason for falling off.

[Laimbeer]

I wonder if Wilkins or Carter would have been mentioned as early or as prominently if not for their dunking prowess- Carter especially.

[colts18]

Here is a comparison between Gasol and McHale:

% of team points scored:
Gasol 19.1% (18.8 PPG)
McHale 16.1% (17.9 PPG)


TS%:
Gasol .579 TS% (+4.6%)
McHale .605 TS% (+7.8%)

TRB%:
Gasol: 14.5 (9.1 Reb/game)
McHale: 13.2 (7.3 Reb/game)

AST:
Gasol: 15.9% (3.2 AST)
McHale: 8.1% (1.7 AST)

BLK:
Gasol 3.5%
McHale 3.2%

PER:
Gasol 22.1
McHale 20

WS/148:
Gasol: .179
McHale: .180

Gasol was brilliant in the 09 and 10 title runs. In a combined 46 games, he averaged 19-11-3 with 2 Blks. He had a .610 TS%. He lead the NBA in playoff win shares in 2010. In 09 to 10, he also lead the NBA in playoff WS. He was 2nd behind LeBron in O rtg-D rtg differential. The guy made a huge impact in those 2 title runs (arguably more than Kobe).

[penbeast0]

I'd like to propose one comparable player that HAS to be in before AI as they share many of the same negatives.

Adrian Dantley

Both incredible scorers, both have a rep for not being team first guys, both more effective without great second scorers though both did work as second bananas late in their careers, both have a finals appearance, neither played good defense, both were undersized guys willing to sacrifice their body on the floor.

One difference . . . Adrian Dantley is one of the MOST efficient super scorers in history, Iverson is one of the least. For all the crap Dantley gets, he belongs here before Iverson.

[Dr Positivity]

McAdoo vs Howard vs Mourning

After DocMJ's post earlier (aside: Doc, you're 6-9? Really?) I wanted to take a closer look at Howard vs McAdoo. Then, after some consideration, I added Mourning to the mix as well. And it breaks down pretty evenly longevity-wise, with Howard having 7 seasons in the league, 'Doo' falling off after his 7th season, and Mourning running into his kidney ailment after his 8th season. As a quick stats back-drop, here's a link to a B-R comp of Howard and McAdoo's first 7 seasons and Mourning's first 8:

I also think Grant Hill and Willis Reed should be in the same group as Mourning and McAdoo as high peak, non extended primes.

The difference between Frazier and Reed's longevity and Frazier and Reed in general, has been very overstated IMO. I'd vote Reed before Mourning too

As for Hill, he had his rookie season and then 5 All-NBA seasons in his prime, which isn't that bad - more KJ than Penny. Then he had another 20 PER season in Orlando and 4 excellent role player seasons in Phx. I'd probably vote Hill before Tmac

[FJS]

Vote: Clyde Drexler
Nomination: Hayes

[ElGee]

vote: Gary Payton
nominate: Chris Paul

Coin flip right now between Paul and Reggie Miller for me. Going to default to my pattern of siding with peak...and I'd probably have CP3 higher up a draft board (with the benefit of the doubt going to him that at year 7 he won't shut down). I've made 3 fairly long, detailed post on Miller, so I just want to sum up why I think so highly of him, despite a borderline all-nba peak:

(1) Tremendous longevity and consistency. He's giving you potentially 13 seasons (!) in that peak play range.
(2) Offensively, he makes the game easier for his teammates (namely, bigs and other shooters) by the angles on his screens and attention subtly drawn to him off the ball bc of his shooting. This is highly efficient offense, and indeed he consistently played on excellent offensive teams.
(3) Do we judge him more on his PS play? I think so, in the sense that there was something about his game/style that allowed for consistently excellent postseason results on offense, which are reflected in his team's playoff performances over and over and over...
(4) Just like with Ray Allen, he's very valuable and easy to build around because (a) he doesn't need the ball and (b) is so deadly as a shooter. I love teams with guys like this, even in supporting roles.
(5) Turns out his raw offensive numbers, despite the aforementioned notes about his non-statistical, team effect, are still excellent as a scorer.

--

I'm also fascinated at this point in the project by how diverse the opinions are. (Wish we had a different voting method now more than ever.) People are mentioning guys I have in the 60s or lower. I get really confused when basically no one has mentioned Bob Lanier, but Wes Unseld is being discussed. It's like the bizarro universe in here.

Dantley and Iverson
And I can't disagree more with the AI vs. Dantley comment by Penbeast. Dantley was arguably a negative because there's no stat for "ball-holding that kills an offensive possession." I'm still looking into Dantley's career in detail, but I've defended Iverson in the past because people have become obsessed with efficiency in a vacuum and have overlooked context:
http://www.backpicks.com/2011/05/23/mor ... ive-teams/
http://www.backpicks.com/2011/02/12/var ... s-part-ii/

Note that in a season like 2005, Philly's offense was 106.1 with AI and just 97.4 without him. The following year, one of AI's best arguably, they were 109.8 with him and 99.1 without him. This supports Iverson's Law -- that despite looking like a chucker, he was actually helping that team because they literally had no other players to generate offense. Without AI, they had to generate offense off turnovers, OREB or in the team offensive sets...none of which are atrocious at an NBA level, but they weren't cracking a point per pos either (bad). It doesn't make Iverson Steve Nash, but it certainly makes him a positive offensive force.

(People give AI a bad rap then for not fitting as well in a mutlipolar setting...but in his defense, again, he played one full year in Denver, his efficiency saw an expected increase and the team's offense went to elite with him on the court -- from 104.5 to 112.5.)

McAdoo/Mourning/Howard
Weighing in on McAdoo (who I do have next to Walton right now), I liken him to Amare. http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/18/ama ... -position/ You are losing something defensively by basically playing him out of position, which is what happened in Buffalo. But his offense *was* awesome and impacting by all accounts...and his scoring rate, I believe, was the highest in NBA history before the merger (like 26.7 pts/75 in 1975).

But Howard and Mourning are coming up for me and a great debate right now. Actually, Howard, Lanier, Hayes and Mourning are all jammed together for me. All this negative talk about Hayes is a little nonsensical...his biggest flaw was shot selection; He was prone to taking a bad 18-footer once or twice a game, which hurt his efficiency. But do those shots, and subsequent small dent to the offense, nullify all the good he does (scoring, rebounding, good help defense)? No way. He was a top-10 player for many years, was he not?

On topic, I like Howard's offense more than Zo's. I'm not really that smitten by Zo's offense -- it's like a worse version of Ewing's laboring post game. Then again, Zo's an amazing defender, and I've really come around on him lately. I'll take Howard's peak, but after that it's close. I'd love a good statistical argument for Mourning...

PS I wish we'd really never mention PER for the duration of this project as anything more referential than ppg.

[Dr Positivity]

Eh screw it - I'll change my nomination to Grant Hill after looking at it. The other guys on my board are McAdoo, Reed, Cowens, Mourning and Hill's longevity isn't much of a weakness there. So I'll choose whom I think is the best player and after pouring it over, I'll go with Hill.

[Doctor MJ]

Coin flip right now between Paul and Reggie Miller for me. Going to default to my pattern of siding with peak...and I'd probably have CP3 higher up a draft board (with the benefit of the doubt going to him that at year 7 he won't shut down)

I don't understand what you mean by this. When I talk about thinking about things from a draft perspective here, I'm talking about assuming no future play. I certainly expect Paul to play and make any comparison with Miller silly, but that's for a future ranking.

Dantley and Iverson
And I can't disagree more with the AI vs. Dantley comment by Penbeast. Dantley was arguably a negative because there's no stat for "ball-holding that kills an offensive possession." I'm still looking into Dantley's career in detail, but I've defended Iverson in the past because people have become obsessed with efficiency in a vacuum and have overlooked context:
http://www.backpicks.com/2011/05/23/mor ... ive-teams/
http://www.backpicks.com/2011/02/12/var ... s-part-ii/

Note that in a season like 2005, Philly's offense was 106.1 with AI and just 97.4 without him. The following year, one of AI's best arguably, they were 109.8 with him and 99.1 without him. This supports Iverson's Law -- that despite looking like a chucker, he was actually helping that team because they literally had no other players to generate offense. Without AI, they had to generate offense off turnovers, OREB or in the team offensive sets...none of which are atrocious at an NBA level, but they weren't cracking a point per pos either (bad). It doesn't make Iverson Steve Nash, but it certainly makes him a positive offensive force.

(People give AI a bad rap then for not fitting as well in a mutlipolar setting...but in his defense, again, he played one full year in Denver, his efficiency saw an expected increase and the team's offense went to elite with him on the court -- from 104.5 to 112.5.)

Yeah I was going to say something along these lines.

I realize sometimes people think I put a crazy amount of weight into efficiency, and it's true that as a default it's pretty major for me. However, to me it's just part of telling the full story. When I was writing my "Chamberlain Theory" I almost named it "Dantley Theory" because really Dantley is the best example of a high volume/efficiency guy killing most of his impact with things not shown in the stats not Wilt. Thing is though, you can give people epiphanies by showing how Wilt became incredibly impactful when he changed his ways, but Dantley really never showed any signs of helping any team significantly.

Iverson on the other hand really is telling the story of the pros and cons of a high volume low efficiency guard. When Larry Brown had his defensive oriented team in place, truly Iverson had pretty huge impact. The problem with Iverson though is that's the only way he can really function as a star. He can't make use of other offensive talent, and so the actual number of years he had a star's impact is small. Like Bob McAdoo small.

I'll still have to think more about Dantley vs Iverson. My opinion is not set in stone, but I can't use the "all things being equal, go with the efficiency guy" tiebreaker because all things aren't at all equal.

[Doctor MJ]

Oh, one thing I will say though is it seems weird to me that TMac is already nominated and Iverson isn't. I'll take TMac's peak over Iverson any day, but that was basically one year. Their average efficiency is basically the same, both showed signs of struggling to make use of talent around them, both had issues with being a good leader, and Iverson played a lot more.

[Doctor MJ]

Also, since Paul is being mentioned...where exactly does D-Will rank?

How far apart are Williams and Paul in most people's eyes?

Because personally, I do think Paul's clearly superior peak gives him a considerable edge in terms of all-time ranking, but Williams for the last 3 years has been arguably better. He doesn't take care of the ball like Paul, and he doesn't quite get the volume of assists that Paul does (close though), but he seems to be a more potent scorer, and a better post-up PG. He also seems to have consistently run better offenses. The APM numbers don't really give Williams strong support though.

Pretty far apart. And I say this as someone who think Deron's evolved into a legit superstar over the last couple years. It's just at this point I have him as having no Top 5 seasons, and only one Top 10 season to go along with his short career. Where Paul has 2 top 5 seasons and another Top 10 season and an established peak that let's us have the peak vs longevity debate, Deron hasn't earned that right yet. So guys like Kevin Johnson or Tiny Archibald are clearly easily ahead of Deron and he's not on my radar right now.