RealGM Top 100 List #32

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

lorak
Head Coach
Posts: 6,317
And1: 2,237
Joined: Nov 23, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#61 » by lorak » Thu Sep 1, 2011 6:45 am

re: Dantley

I'm out of my home and I don't have my data with me and I don't remember exact numbers, but during his first three season in Utah, Jazz without him were something like 2-15. Also in '83 he had serious injury and reports from that time says that it could even end his career. So maybe after '83 he never again was the same player?
Also in 1988 Pistons overall were better without him, but offensively (ortg) were better with him. He was replaced by Rodman, so their gain on defensive end was much bigger than lose on offense.

And after all Dantley was part of championship level team. His style of play fit well with such contender as Pistons 1988.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,571
And1: 22,548
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#62 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Sep 1, 2011 7:21 am

Played with some numbers regarding Dantley's team impact on offense, and then decided to get a sense of perspective by looking at really amazing offensive improvements. It's not obvious to me how to put this all in easy to digest data tables, so I'm just going to make some observations.

First off, I'd think most people's prediction would be that a high FG% high FT guy like Dantley would improve his team in those categories, and so if there were major problems they'd probaby be in TO & ORB.

Looking Dantley's teams in the 4 factors when he changes teams. Here's the net impact of Dantley appears to be in each of them:

-eFG% significant positive. The one notable difference is the Lakers who of course acquired Magic the next year and thus improved here. Magic's obviously a very atypical person.

Of particular note, Dantley's highlight here was an improvement of 3.1% relative to mean when he joined Utah. Of the top 10 SRS improvements of all time, 7 had massive ORtg improvement. Only 2 had a bigger improvement in this category ('05 Phoenix at 4.8, and '10 OKC at 3.6).

-FT/FGA is positive quite strongly as well. Only the Lakers are an exception.

-TO & ORB impact appears significantly negative, but not typically as major as the positives change (again Lakers make the exception, ORB gets WAY better when Dantley leaves).

On the whole just about what we'd expect. I'll have to think more about things, but on the whole Dantley seems to have a decent positive impact on offense but just not massive. Would seem like in his prime, all things being equal you could expect him to add maybe 1.5 points per 100 possessions to your offense, and in Utah his addition improved things by 3.1 points.

My feeling is that the additional shoe dropping that should be analyzed is what happens to his teammates' shooting efficiency. I know with Wilt this was a HUGE deal. My guess is that we'll see a typical drop in teammate efficiency with Dantley which doesn't prevent him from helping the team become more efficient at shooting on the whole, but just makes the impact less than you'd thin.

Tangent: The great offensive improvements among the top SRS improvements analysis was interesting. Needs more work to be complete, but some data:

-7 of the top 9 SRS improvements in history after 1970 involved ORtg improvements relative to the mean of 5.8 or greater.

-#2 had an improvement of 6.5. So that's a gap of about 0.7 points per 100 possessions between #2 and #7.

-#1 had an improvement of 9.9, roughly 5 times the gap between them and #2 as the rest of these all-timers. I really hope history doesn't remember "7 seconds or less gang" as some kind of cheap gimmick. They clearly accomplished something for the age.

-As mentioned, best EFG improvement relative to mean that I've seen: '05 Phoenix 0.048

-Best TO improvement? '05 Phoenix 0.013. A lot of teams close though. I'm sure there are other teams who improved more in history. Wouldn't be shocked to see some a lot bigger.

-Best ORB improvement? '74 Nets 0.036. This was Erving's arrival year. Odd though, the Nets were STILL below average in offensive rebounding in '74, they were just insanely bad in '73. Kinda hoping that I can find a bigger leap from a team that actually became elite at rebounding.

-Best FT/FGA improvement? '89 Phoenix 0.047. This is the year that Fitzsimmons becomes coach, Chambers joins the team, and KJ becomes the star of the team. What amazing about this stat though is that the team lost their 2 guys who had gotten 6 FTA/G the previous year, and Chambers & KJ topped the team with 7.4 and 7.1 FTA/G apiece. Clearly this improvement in FTs didn't come from one of two guys insanely good at getting free throws. Bears more research.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
SDChargers#1
Starter
Posts: 2,372
And1: 104
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#63 » by SDChargers#1 » Thu Sep 1, 2011 9:15 am

Doctor MJ wrote: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.


Personally, I feel that the TMac nomination is easily the most undeserved nomination so far (at least a good 10 or so spots too early (I honestly, don't know if I have him in my top 50)). I feel people get distracted by his absurd one year peak, and forget that he was one of the biggest "losers" in NBA history (for a star player that is).

His longevity is also quite horrible. 7 All NBA years (of which he was constantly injured), 1 other good season, 1 decent season in Toronto, and then nothing. If that is enough to get him into the top 40, I am absolutely baffled.

Iverson certainly deserves to be nominated above him. Though he doesn't have the peak, he has almost double the longevity. However, I feel it is too early for him as well. There are quite a few people who deserve to be nominated above both of them.

Vote: Clyde Drexler

Behind only Jordan, Kobe, and Wade in terms of all time great SGs. Was well rounded, and deserves more credit than he gets for the 2nd Rockets championship.

Nominate: Elvin Hayes
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,544
And1: 16,106
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#64 » by therealbig3 » Thu Sep 1, 2011 9:42 am

SDChargers#1 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote: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.


Personally, I feel that the TMac nomination is easily the most undeserved nomination so far (at least a good 10 or so spots too early (I honestly, don't know if I have him in my top 50)). I feel people get distracted by his absurd one year peak, and forget that he was one of the biggest "losers" in NBA history (for a star player that is).

His longevity is also quite horrible. 7 All NBA years (of which he was constantly injured), 1 other good season, 1 decent season in Toronto, and then nothing. If that is enough to get him into the top 40, I am absolutely baffled.

Iverson certainly deserves to be nominated above him. Though he doesn't have the peak, he has almost double the longevity. However, I feel it is too early for him as well. There are quite a few people who deserve to be nominated above both of them.

Vote: Clyde Drexler

Behind only Jordan, Kobe, and Wade in terms of all time great SGs. Was well rounded, and deserves more credit than he gets for the 2nd Rockets championship.

Nominate: Elvin Hayes


I actually think that people get distracted by his one-year peak to the point that they underrate all his other years and unfairly drop him in their personal rankings. Namely, I think people scrutinize his TS% too much. I made a post where I tried to account for how little T-Mac turns the ball over into his efficiency, and it makes a big difference. So yeah, his TS% may leave a little to be desired, but his ability to take care of the basketball when compared to other high volume scorers is great, and it adds to his value. Then you have his rebounding, defense, and playmaking, all of which were at least above average.

And as for Iverson, how is 10 seasons vs 7 seasons almost twice the longevity? I think those 3 extra years make a difference, but was there anything that Iverson was better at than T-Mac? I don't think so. At least with Pierce's 10 seasons vs T-Mac's 7 seasons, Pierce was a vastly more efficient scorer, and a slightly better rebounder, and at least comparable defensively.

I do factor in longevity, but T-Mac during his prime was a flat-out better player than a lot of guys that I feel you have ahead of him. In fact, his lack of longevity is the only reason he isn't a top 25 player all time.
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,008
And1: 5,077
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#65 » by ronnymac2 » Thu Sep 1, 2011 10:13 am

therealbig3 wrote:AI's game is dependent on him being the only true offensive star. Pierce clearly showed that he could fit in with other superstars, T-Mac was very good in 05 and 07 in Houston before the injuries hit him hard, and Carter with NJ played with Kidd and Jefferson, and Harris and Lopez, and he did quite well there too. He actually had a pretty big impact.


No, his game was not dependent on being the only true offensive star. That's just wrong.


Tangent, not at anybody in particular:

Allen Iverson was not this ball-pounder who dribbled for 20 seconds before making a killa crossova and taking an inefficient shot. He may have shot the ball too much, and he may have been somewhat limited in what types of passes he could make because of his height...but he wasn't a selfish chucker, he didn't have a low bball iq, and he could certainly work within a structured offense.

Look at who averaged the most assists for the Sixers in 2001. How the hell do Snow and Mckey get the assist averages they do with Iverson commandeering Larry Brown's offense every possession?

Iverson's off-ball game gets way too underrated- like, to the point where people think it didn't exist. He was constantly running through screens and making backdoor cuts. He was super dangerous cutting baseline without the ball. This guy was a freak athlete with a mind for the game.

When he finally got to play with another good offensive player who could relieve pressure off of him and score efficiently and explosively, he toned down his game and allowed his teammate to continue scoring at a high rate- this despite the team having bad point guards and no outside shooting aside from Iverson and Melo. He played co-star when he needed to.


He's not better than peak McGrady. But at his own peak, he's right there with peak Pierce and peak Carter. And with his longevity advantage, he's not far from McGrady overall.

I don't know how, but with the passage of time, it's like everybody just sort of forgot how Iverson played. He's got this stigma about him, like every play he just took the ball away from his teammates and did his best Hot Sauce impression for half the possession before flinging shots up in isolation. People are locked into this perception. It's **** weird, because that isn't how he played. At least, not to that extent.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,008
And1: 5,077
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#66 » by ronnymac2 » Thu Sep 1, 2011 10:20 am

DavidStern wrote:And after all Dantley was part of championship level team. His style of play fit well with such contender as Pistons 1988.


Thank you. I brought this up a few threads ago and got no answer.

I'm not even arguing for Dantley or anything. I just want to know what people make of his stellar play in 1988 as the second best offensive player on a team that almost won a title.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,544
And1: 16,106
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#67 » by therealbig3 » Thu Sep 1, 2011 10:28 am

To add to my last post, I actually am starting to agree with Dr. Mufasa with regards to the usefulness of ORating, in comparison to TS%...the point of offense is to produce the most amount of points in the fewest possessions possible...ORating is a measure of how many points a player produces in 100 possessions...this takes points, assists, and TOs into account.

And using this metric, we can see that T-Mac wasn't inefficient at all...he peaked at 116 (in 03), and he averaged 109 in his prime (7 years).

For comparison's sake, Iverson peaked at 115 (in 08, not a year usually associated with his peak), and he averaged 106 in his prime (9 years).

Kobe peaked at 115 (from 07-09), and he averaged 113 in his prime (10 years).

Pierce also peaked at 116 (last year), and he averaged 110 in his prime (10 years).

Carter peaked at 114 (in 01), and he averaged 109 in his prime (9 years).

When using ORating, T-Mac matches up fine compared to contemporary wings, and he holds advantages in defense and rebounding over all of them (except Kobe, who is the only guy I clearly rank ahead of him...I have T-Mac and Pierce almost dead even, and AI and Carter behind T-Mac). The only thing missing is longevity.

However, ORating is kind of like per 36 minutes, in that even though a player might have a reduced role (like Pierce in 2011), it extrapolates his production so that it looks like it's better than it really was...Pierce in 2011 was clearly inferior to Pierce in 2006 (or at least, he didn't do as much), so you have to take ORating with a grain of salt.
SDChargers#1
Starter
Posts: 2,372
And1: 104
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#68 » by SDChargers#1 » Thu Sep 1, 2011 11:15 am

therealbig3 wrote:
SDChargers#1 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote: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.


Personally, I feel that the TMac nomination is easily the most undeserved nomination so far (at least a good 10 or so spots too early (I honestly, don't know if I have him in my top 50)). I feel people get distracted by his absurd one year peak, and forget that he was one of the biggest "losers" in NBA history (for a star player that is).

His longevity is also quite horrible. 7 All NBA years (of which he was constantly injured), 1 other good season, 1 decent season in Toronto, and then nothing. If that is enough to get him into the top 40, I am absolutely baffled.

Iverson certainly deserves to be nominated above him. Though he doesn't have the peak, he has almost double the longevity. However, I feel it is too early for him as well. There are quite a few people who deserve to be nominated above both of them.

Vote: Clyde Drexler

Behind only Jordan, Kobe, and Wade in terms of all time great SGs. Was well rounded, and deserves more credit than he gets for the 2nd Rockets championship.

Nominate: Elvin Hayes


I actually think that people get distracted by his one-year peak to the point that they underrate all his other years and unfairly drop him in their personal rankings. Namely, I think people scrutinize his TS% too much. I made a post where I tried to account for how little T-Mac turns the ball over into his efficiency, and it makes a big difference. So yeah, his TS% may leave a little to be desired, but his ability to take care of the basketball when compared to other high volume scorers is great, and it adds to his value. Then you have his rebounding, defense, and playmaking, all of which were at least above average.

And as for Iverson, how is 10 seasons vs 7 seasons almost twice the longevity? I think those 3 extra years make a difference, but was there anything that Iverson was better at than T-Mac? I don't think so. At least with Pierce's 10 seasons vs T-Mac's 7 seasons, Pierce was a vastly more efficient scorer, and a slightly better rebounder, and at least comparable defensively.

I do factor in longevity, but T-Mac during his prime was a flat-out better player than a lot of guys that I feel you have ahead of him. In fact, his lack of longevity is the only reason he isn't a top 25 player all time.


Iverson has 12 seasons that can be considered elite. From his rookie season to '08.

Trust me I know how good T-Mac was for a span. A top 3 player for a year or two and top 5 for maybe a year or two after that.

But you are overrating his other years.

His one peak season is head and shoulders above his rest. His other All NBA seasons were definitely very good, but nothing amazing.

And it isn't just that he has below average longevity. He has HORRIBLE longevity. It took him until his 4th year in the league to become elite, and was washed up by the time he was 29. Iverson was the best player on his team for 10 years, and one of the best second options in the NBA for another 2 years with Melo.

This of course doesn't even factor in the fact that he never made it out of the first round of the playoffs, and is one of the biggest losers ever. I know people are trying to not focus too much on team accomplishments in this project, but I just can't fathom putting a guy who never got out the first round in the top 40 players of all time. It is just mind boggling to me.
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,861
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#69 » by drza » Thu Sep 1, 2011 11:45 am

Re: Iverson

As I've read the Iverson discussion on the last couple of pages, two points have been rattling around in my head. The problem is, I've never really tried to articulate the first one so I'm not really sure how to make it. But, here goes:

1) As far as I know, there's no stat for "put pressure on opposing defenses", but if there was Iverson has to rank as one of the best of all-time at it. And it's a somewhat subtle concept, but...I remember after game 6 of this year's Finals, there were several detractors that pointed out that the Mavs were still winning even though Nowitzki was having an awful shooting night. But others pointed out that, even though Dirk was off, the Heat were always aware of where he was and focusing the defense around him which opened up easy looks for his teammates. In other words, Dirk was keeping the pressure on the Heat's defense to the point that, even though his shot was off, he was still an offensive positive that was keeping the Heat on their heels.

Obviously the styles were different, but in a sense I feel like Iverson was like that all the time. Maybe he shot too much, maybe he didn't make those shots as efficiently as I'd like, but he kept the pressure ON a defense. With the ball he was a blur that was constantly probing, constantly having to be accounted for, but as someone just pointed out, OFF the ball he was also a terror...doing his mini Reggie Miller sprint around and off screens routine. Whether he had the ball or not, whether he was making his shots or not, Iverson constantly kept opponents back on their heels in a very unique way.

TMac, Pierce and Carter were comparable volume scorers, but in this aspect I'm not sure even '03 TMac was keeping the pressure on defenses the way that Iverson did. He's the only one of the crew that had a volume scoring year as high as several of Iverson's best but at better efficiency, but he still wasn't individually attacking a defense with the relentlessness and regularity of what Iverson did. And again, I'm not sure that there is a stat to show this. But at the same time, I feel confident that this was a real effect.

2) You can't really compare Iverson going to play next to Melo, TMac going to play next to Yao, and Pierce playing next to Garnett as though they're all the same thing. Outside of the obvious difference in caliber, the thing that I note is the obvious difference in styles that was much more conducive for Pierce's game and much less conducive for Iverson's (with TMac's in between). All three of Iverson, Pierce and TMac were primarily scorers, so it's important to note that Melo was ALSO primarily a scorer. There was no way for both Iverson and Melo to be maximized at the same time...in function, the best that they could hope for was a 1A/1B type of thing on offense where both scaled back but became more efficient. And they could only have their max impact on one side of the ball.

In Boston, on the other hand, Pierce was playing off of a player who a) could dominate a game in areas that don't require the ball and b) allowed him to slot into a role that could maximize his contributions in all areas of the game to, along with the increased efficiency, make a larger impact. There has been talk about how Pierce's defense or shooting efficiency allowed him to fit next to another great player, but I'm not convinced that those qualities were unique to Pierce among this group of peers. TMac, to my eyes, has shown over his career that he could have played the exact role that Pierce played for those Celtics with the same positives and quite possibly fewer on-court negatives. Iverson was a different style player, so he wouldn't have exactly replicated Pierce. But I think he could absolutely have fit on that team just as well...swap '08 Pierce and Rondo for '01 Iverson and Mckie, and I think you see Iverson playing Rondo's disruptor defensive slot to a T while actually improving on Pierce's ability to play the lead perimeter offense initiator.

So, again, somewhat subtle and not easily quantifiable (which I hate). But though I give Pierce credit for what he has accomplished with the "Big Three era" Celtics, I just don't think that can be used as a reason for why he was better than some of his peers who just didn't get the opportunity to show it when, based off my observations of their careers, they absolutely had the games to do so. Again, if this project is supposed to be more about "who's the best player" and not "who accomplished the most", then this is a significant point to me.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
User avatar
Laimbeer
RealGM
Posts: 43,072
And1: 15,154
Joined: Aug 12, 2009
Location: Cabin Creek
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#70 » by Laimbeer » Thu Sep 1, 2011 12:12 pm

ronnymac2 wrote:Look at who averaged the most assists for the Sixers in 2001. How the hell do Snow and Mckey get the assist averages they do with Iverson commandeering Larry Brown's offense every possession?



Wait, what? You're going to use the fact his teammates had more assists than him as evidence he's unselfish?
Comments to rationalize bad contracts -
1) It's less than the MLE
2) He can be traded later
3) It's only __% of the cap
4) The cap is going up
5) It's only __ years
6) He's a good mentor/locker room guy
User avatar
cpower
RealGM
Posts: 20,861
And1: 8,683
Joined: Mar 03, 2011
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#71 » by cpower » Thu Sep 1, 2011 3:52 pm

As much as I hate AI, the guy was amazing in the playoff runs, he should definitely go before Tmac or Pierce in this list.

Raw abilities:
AI >= Tmac > Carter = Pierce

Longevity:
AI > Carter >= Pierce > Tmac

Accolades:
AI > Pierce = Tmac > Carter
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,571
And1: 22,548
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#72 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Sep 1, 2011 4:06 pm

Laimbeer wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:Look at who averaged the most assists for the Sixers in 2001. How the hell do Snow and Mckey get the assist averages they do with Iverson commandeering Larry Brown's offense every possession?



Wait, what? You're going to use the fact his teammates had more assists than him as evidence he's unselfish?


:lol:

Laimbeer, we typically disagree, but you've got a real nose for comedic insight.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,571
And1: 22,548
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#73 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Sep 1, 2011 4:13 pm

Vote: Payton

Switching my vote this thread to Payton, and it is a statement about Payton not Gilmore. The reality is that I don't like Payton, but the more I look at him, the more I can't justify having him where I did. At this point, I'd rank him above Stockton and Isiah which unless I'm forgetting someone means he's my #5 point guard in history until Paul passes him up in a couple years.

Not going to officially nominate anyone now, but I'm basically going to nominate whoever is getting more support between Paul and Miller. Been thinking more about how I see Wade so differently than Howard and Paul, and the truth is that while Wade clearly deserves to be ahead of those two, he doesn't actually have huge peak or longevity edges over them. Will want to think about that more before I decide who I give my vote vote between these guys, but I'm not going to stand in Paul's way of getting nominated.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,864
And1: 16,408
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#74 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Sep 1, 2011 5:00 pm

Wade has 4 08, 09 Paul caliber seasons (06, 09, 10, 11) to Paul's 2 and 5 superstar seasons overall, and I think Wade is better than prime Paul anyways - and he has an MJ caliber playoff performance in 06 to beat 2 superior teams. That's a fairly significant difference to me
Liberate The Zoomers
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,861
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#75 » by drza » Thu Sep 1, 2011 5:22 pm

Dr Mufasa wrote:Wade has 4 08, 09 Paul caliber seasons (06, 09, 10, 11) to Paul's 2 and 5 superstar seasons overall, and I think Wade is better than prime Paul anyways - and he has an MJ caliber playoff performance in 06 to beat 2 superior teams. That's a fairly significant difference to me


On the other hand, you also have to look at placement. Wade was voted in 10 slots ago, and if Paul were nominated any time soon the expectation would be that he'd get in in about 10 more slots. For players where the peak is arguably similar in magnitude but one is just shorter in time length, a 20 slot gap in placement could be argued to BE fairly significant.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,864
And1: 16,408
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#76 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Sep 1, 2011 5:40 pm

Well ftr. At least in my books, the gaps between these players started to get really small as soon as we got to the 20s. Here is my top 100 in progress:

21. Bob Pettit
22. David Robinson
23. Patrick Ewing
24. John Havlicek
25. Scottie Pippen
26. Dwyane Wade
27. Walt Frazier
28. Elgin Baylor
29. Isiah Thomas
30. Rick Barry
31. Paul Pierce
32. Clyde Drexler

Estimated tiers (My philosophy: Everyone within a tier can be reasonably ranked above or below one another, they are grouped together because the difference is not obvious by my criteria. Once the difference between players becomes big enough for me to feel there is a clearly identifiable gap by my criteria, the lower player(s) get placed into the next tier.)

Tier 1 - Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Tier 2 - Tim Duncan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal
Tier 3 - Wilt Chamberlain, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jerry West, Julius Erving, Oscar Robertson
Tier 4 - Karl Malone, Dirk Nowitzki
Tier 5 - Lebron James, Charles Barkley, Moses Malone, Steve Nash
Tier 6 - Bob Pettit, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, John Havlicek, Scottie Pippen, Dwyane Wade, Walt Frazier, Elgin Baylor, Isiah Thomas, Rick Barry, Paul Pierce, Clyde Drexler


When I sat down and looked at it, I didn't feel like the guys at the bottom of Tier 6 deserved to be called outright below the guys at the top of it. I'm not sure if Barry, Pierce and Drexler below Robinson, Ewing, or Havlicek was a no brainer (and Pettit for me, though some are higher on him than I am) and if it's not a no brainer I have them on the same tier. And I'll be putting Payton in tier 6 too. Stockton I'll have to think about.

So while the gap between 20s and 40s seems big, from my perspective I think it's very reasonable to say Wade having 4 MVP caliber seasons to Paul's 2 is a significant enough difference to make that gap. 4 + a 5th superstar season gives you a nice, healthy window to build a team to win a title. 2 and however one feels about Paul's 2011 as a 3rd wheel (I'm not high on it) provides much more skepticism to me, especially when you're comparing it not to Wade, but guys like Miller, Allen, English who have 10 star years. Or Grant Hill with 5. How much better is prime Paul than prime Hill? Because prime Hill is pretty incredible with shades of Lebron and Erving in him. Is Paul's prime advantage over Hill's prime advantage enough to take 2 over 5? Not for me.
Liberate The Zoomers
User avatar
Laimbeer
RealGM
Posts: 43,072
And1: 15,154
Joined: Aug 12, 2009
Location: Cabin Creek
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#77 » by Laimbeer » Thu Sep 1, 2011 9:29 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Not going to officially nominate anyone now, but I'm basically going to nominate whoever is getting more support between Paul and Miller. Been thinking more about how I see Wade so differently than Howard and Paul, and the truth is that while Wade clearly deserves to be ahead of those two, he doesn't actually have huge peak or longevity edges over them. Will want to think about that more before I decide who I give my vote vote between these guys, but I'm not going to stand in Paul's way of getting nominated.


Wade has a bit of longevity over Howard, but I think Howard's sum impact over the years has been at least as great. He's a more dominant player and I'm pretty sure I take him to start a team. Wade gets a lot of mileage from his title run, which is legit, I just am not sure how it puts him so far over Dwight.
Comments to rationalize bad contracts -
1) It's less than the MLE
2) He can be traded later
3) It's only __% of the cap
4) The cap is going up
5) It's only __ years
6) He's a good mentor/locker room guy
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,571
And1: 22,548
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#78 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Sep 1, 2011 9:57 pm

Dr Mufasa wrote:Wade has 4 08, 09 Paul caliber seasons (06, 09, 10, 11) to Paul's 2 and 5 superstar seasons overall, and I think Wade is better than prime Paul anyways - and he has an MJ caliber playoff performance in 06 to beat 2 superior teams. That's a fairly significant difference to me


Well 2 things:

1) "significant difference"? I don't disagree with that. There's zero debate about who should be higher, and at this point we're expecting Wade to be 20 spots above Paul.

2) Just some perspective though. By career Win Shares:

LeBron 119
Wade 83
Howard 80
Paul 76

I know I keep bringing up WS. Believe me it's not my holy grail, but it gives us a rapid ability to tally up career impact for a rough estimate, and the issue here isn't that Wade sucks at WS. He's just missed so much time that his longevity really looks more like Howard & Paul than LeBron. And if that longevity for Wade doesn't bother me a ridiculous amount, on what grounds do I hold it severely against Howard & Paul?

(Also, in all honesty, seeing it from this perspective, does indeed make me wonder if I have Wade a tad too high on my list)
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,423
And1: 9,952
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#79 » by penbeast0 » Thu Sep 1, 2011 10:06 pm

As of now, I have . . .

Vote :

Artis Gilmore - penbeast0, mysticbb, drza

Clyde Drexler – JordansBulls, fatal9, FJS, SDChargers#1

Gary Payton – DavidStern, therealbig3, Fencer, ronnymac2, ELGee, Doctor MJ

Paul Pierce – Dr Mufasa




Nominate:

Sidney Moncrief – penbeast0

Bob Cousy – JordansBulls, Fencer

Chris Paul – DavidStern, ElGee

Kevin Johnson – therealbig3

Reggie Miller – mysticbb

Bob McAdoo –ronnymac2

Alonzo Mourning – fatal9, drza

Elvin Hayes – FJS. SD Cjargers#1

Grant Hill – Dr Mufasa
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,571
And1: 22,548
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #32 

Post#80 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Sep 1, 2011 10:48 pm

Okay,

Nomination: Chris Paul
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!

Return to Player Comparisons