RealGM #38

[Fencer reregistered]

I'm going to give up my quest to find the One True Pioneer Jump Shooter. Everybody seems to have gotten it from somewhere else; e.g., Oscar Robertson says he was most influenced by Sihugo Green.

http://hoopshype.com/interviews/robertson_friedman.htm

[therealbig3]

Also, I'm finding Manu to be pretty overrated by some posters. Like, considering him over Carter, and even Pierce? Really?

Yes, Manu does great in the APM studies, good for him. But he's been a 30 mpg bench player for the most part, and he's never had to be the focal point of a defense. He played with a prime Duncan from 03-07, and Duncan was still their best player and the focus of the defense from 08-10. It wasn't until this past season when Duncan was no longer their main offensive option...but Ginobili's numbers really didn't get all that much better, the Spurs just got more balanced scoring. And I'm not even sure if Ginobili is better than Parker, who's also helped lighten the offensive load.

Ginobili has never been in the same situation as Carter or Pierce or AI or any of the other high volume scoring wings, who have had to carry offenses, while facing the brunt of the defense. Ginobili's job has been made a lot easier throughout his career by playing with Duncan and Parker, and it's not like he's logging big minutes either. He's a very rich man's "spark off the bench" imo.

I really don't see how Pierce's 05 and Ginobili's 05 are even close. First of all, Pierce played 8 more games than Ginobili. And his per 36 stats are still better than Ginobili's. And again, I don't think it's a fair comparison in the first place, because Pierce was the clear-cut best player on the Celtics, meaning he was facing the opposition's best defender and the defense gameplanned against Pierce mainly. Ginobili was benefitting off Duncan and, to a lesser extent, Parker being around.

Wanted to chime in on the notions relating to the advantage of 1) playing 30 MPG and 2) playing next to Duncan.

The thing is, we don't really see evidence that these things help a guy with APM. I mean, if a guy is being sat on the bench each game to avoid bad matchups, that obviously skews things, but that wasn't what happened with Ginobili. The Spurs never sat him down because they thought it made their team better, they just decided they had to give him rest.

And of course there's the matter that Ginobili looks unreal by APM metrics where as other guys who play by superstars don't. Parker for example, look pretty much exactly like you'd think he would. No matter how you look at it, Ginobili is the anomaly, again and again in independent studies.

Then you add in as mentioned that Ginobili was a European Player of the Year, and actually led his country to an Olympic Gold Medal over a team full of NBA all-stars. (I know those things aren't directly relevant to the conversation, but they are relevant to understanding his track record of impact)

Now take the +/- out, and consider PER, a stat known to favor volume scorers to a fault. What do you get when you compare Ginobili and Carter? Carter had a PER of 22+ 3 times in his career, Ginobili's done it 6 times.

So you see every per minute thing we look at tells you Ginobil's a better player.

Re: "never had to carry". I think it's fine to bring up that scenario, but wrong to look at it as if it's the end all be all. If I've got a crappy team and I want someone to raise it to mediocre, then I can use a volume scorer with questionable efficiency. Is that more meaningful than someone who can reliable provide huge lift to a contender? I don't think so.

All that said, there is still the matter that you have to factor in how much someone plays, and that hurts Ginobili quite a bit. I don't know if I'd vote for Ginobili above Carter in this project for that reason.

Well, the thing I would say about Carter is that...he's not really that big of a volume scorer either, by volume scorer standards. After 01, he only topped 25+ ppg once, had a few seasons around 24 ppg, and another few seasons where he was closer to 20 ppg. Not like Kobe and AI, who were closer to 30 ppg almost every season, or even Pierce, who was consistently scoring 25+ ppg every year.

Also, I do think the ability to "carry" a team is relevant, because it can separate people who are more capable of being 1st options from people more suited to be 2nd options. 1st options are usually more valuable.

And I'd argue that Ginobili coming in and having a big per-minute impact is part of his job. Because he's coming off the bench, and he's in for only 30 mpg, it's his job to come in and explode for a bunch of points, play with reckless abandon, and create for his teammates. It's the way Barea and Terry played when they got in the game for the Mavs these past playoffs. Not saying they're as good as Ginobili, but I think that was closer to Ginobili's role than Carter's role was, and I don't think Ginobili is capable of fulfilling the role of a Carter or a Pierce or an AI. Anyway, could even MJ fulfill GInobili's role? Come in for 30 mpg and play that style of play? Ginobili is a very unique player and I don't want to take that away from him, but his role is what allows him to give such huge lift to a contender imo. I don't think it's because he's a better player than other stars that are suited for being 1st options.

Ginobili has big APM numbers, and I respect that, and I don't think it's ridiculous to mention him...but it's weird to me that he's being compared to guys that have had to shoulder huge loads for bad teams, and then made a big impact after they joined good teams too (but even then, they were asked to generate a ton of offense)...Ginobili has never been in that situation.

[lorak]

2004 Olympics, when Argentina defeated USA, or 2002 WC when Argentina also defeated USA (with Pierce). I know, that's not NBA, but Ginobili for decade proves time and time again that teams build around him are winning teams - from Italian league, to Euroleague to international competition when Argentina with Ginobili as leader defeated USA teams.

And in 30 mpg he's doing more than any other player left or several players already voted in.
And in terms of skillset he is better than Pierce in almost every aspect of the game. And that's what we are supposed to judge here: who is better at playing basketball.

Put those European teams in the NBA, with NBA rules and actual NBA teams, with NBA players that take the competition 100% seriously...and those European teams led by Ginobili would get floored.

Argentina is not European team
And I strongly disagree with your statement. Teams like Argentina or Spain would be very good in the NBA. They are much more fundamentally sound than most NBA teams, imagine Pistons with Larry Brown or Spurs with Pop and... Manu.

And regarding his NBA play...has he ever had to carry a team offensively? Has he ever had to be the main guy that the opposing defense focused on? Or has he been more of a spark off the bench, who gets a lot of good looks because of a very balanced offense, that traditionally ran through Duncan in the low post?

Spurs offense run more through Manu than through Duncan, at least during several last seasons.
And keep in mind that Ginobili almost always plays in 4th quarters, so when opposing defenses are focused the most, and he still is one of the best 4th Q players of this generation.

In 30 mpg, he does not do more than what Vince Carter or Paul Pierce do in 35 mpg. And anyway, like I said, the per 36 minute stats for Pierce vs Ginobili in 05 favor Pierce.

What?!

WS/48 (so the best box score per minute stat available):
Carter 0.146
Pierce 0.167
Many 0.214

And that's mainly offense, so overall Manu's advantage would be even bigger when we include defense, where he is better than PP and Vince (and that's what APM shows).

In terms of skillset, I don't think anyone matches Kobe all time, except for MJ. Is Kobe the 2nd GOAT?

Kobe isn't second all time in terms of skillset.

And regarding KJ vs Price, yeah I think KJ was a better player.

Why?

[therealbig3]

DavidStern, I'm pretty beat and am going to bed soon, but just to respond to a couple of points:

What makes WS/48 the best per minute box score stat? IDK, why not per 36? Doesn't that show us what each player would produce in 36 minutes?

And KJ vs Price: Price looks comparable statistically, but he wasn't a guy who could carry a team and shoulder a big load like KJ could, which is what I was saying when I was talking about Ginobili vs Carter/Pierce.

And it even looks like KJ was a higher volume scorer and facilitator than Price.

[Doctor MJ]

Also, I do think the ability to "carry" a team is relevant, because it can separate people who are more capable of being 1st options from people more suited to be 2nd options. 1st options are usually more valuable.

I certainly won't say it's irrelevant, I just object to the tendency of people to try to reduce the conversation to essentially 1-on-1 basketball. We see this with point guards with "yeah, but without <guy who scores open baskets off of great passes> he wouldn't have any assists" and I think it's absurd.

Also we must make the distinction between 1st option on great team vs 1st option on a bad one, right? I don't think it makes sense to look at someone with an incredible knack for lifting a team that already has great talent and say "Yeah, but could he get me to 35 wins if the team sucked? If he can't, then I'm not impressed."

And I'd argue that Ginobili coming in and having a big per-minute impact is part of his job. Because he's coming off the bench, and he's in for only 30 mpg, it's his job to come in and explode for a bunch of points, play with reckless abandon, and create for his teammates. It's the way Barea and Terry played when they got in the game for the Mavs these past playoffs. Not saying they're as good as Ginobili, but I think that was closer to Ginobili's role than Carter's role was, and I don't think Ginobili is capable of fulfilling the role of a Carter or a Pierce or an AI.

I don't have a problem at all with holding his lack of minutes against him.

Re: Similar to Terry. Yes, except we have tons of players similar to Terry, and none of them are APM or PER monsters except Ginobili right? Just like we have lots of players who played starting volume scorer, but most don't do it like Wade, and lots of players who play point guard but they don't do it like Nash.

Ginobili's 6th man role gets properly devalued automatically if you factor in minutes played, I don't think it makes sense to penalize him further merely because other 6th men exist that we aren't impressed with.

[ronnymac2]

Ginobili is an impressive player. Bobby Jackson, Vinnie Johnson, Darrel Armstrong, and J.R. Smith are sparkplugs; Manu Ginobili is generally a top 5ish perimeter player in the league.

I don't put too much stock into plus/minus, but I find Ginobili's strong plus/minus numbers to be a major point in his favor for two reasons:

1. He doesn't play on a crappy team, so he's lifting a good team and making them really good when he's on the floor. The counter I'd use against that is Manu comes in when Duncan and/or Parker come out, meaning Manu is stuck creating everything in a mundane offense that is centered around him. However, I would then counter that argument by saying Manu still plays enough minutes to overlap with Parker and Duncan, and also that Ginobili's role as a creator when TD and TP are out is tough- there aren't many people able to do what he does. So his lift is legit.

2. If a team has a certain concentration of talent in one area- say, overwhelming frontcourt talent- then it makes sense that a star perimeter guy would provide big lift, especially offensively. However, the Spurs have had an all-star talent in Parker throughout Manu's career.

It should be noted that Manu has also played between 32.8 minutes and 35.2 minutes per game in the playoffs five times. So he isn't some 30 minutes-or-less player.

I'm not advocating Manu over Vince or anything, but Manu's a force.


KJ is better than Price. Both KJ and Price were point guards who had more of of a head for scoring than Chris Paul or Steve Nash. Their impact was more based on their ability to score. Despite that, neither were the scorers that Paul and Nash are, and neither had the impact of a Paul or a Nash either. The genius of Paul and Nash (and Deron Williams) is how they are elite passers/playmakers- better than Price and Johnson- while being able to effectively straddle the line between playmaking/passing and scoring- which, again, they do better than Johnson or Price anyway.

I've been watching some Price lately. Tempting as it is to compare Price to Nash and Stockton because they're white and skilled and efficient and of similar height, I reject it. I reject it all. Price isn't anything like Nash and Stockton (except as a pure shooter).

Price had a build that resembles Jimmer Fredette (whom I might nominate when we get past 50 btw). Price was a strong guy. Lots of body control, lots of balance. He came off screens more than I've even seen Stockton or Nash do. He had much more of an off-ball scorer mentality. When he handled the rock, he played point and did it well, but lacked the vision and creativity of Stockton/Nash/Paul. He's not in their league as a pure point guard. He's above Stockton as a scorer though imo, because he can create off the dribble better, especially when launching into a jumper.

That's a good player. Really good player. He can't accomplish the role that the others did, however. He also has little longevity and only a few good playoffs.

I'll take KJ because he has more good playoff years, similar longevity, and I like his scoring style over Price's. Johnson was an elite slasher, and I personally prefer that style over the more perimeter-oriented player. Johnson was also a better defender.

Price can be plugged onto any NBA and make them better. He's the better third-best player type guy. Price to me is Stockton with better perimeter-based scoring and lesser point guard play/playmaking and defense. KJ is more valuable than that by a little bit.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Dwight Howard

Nominate: Chris Paul

Howard is the best peak player here imo.

Paul's peak is sick.

Reggie Miller is getting overrated just a tiny bit here. I actually defend Reggie a lot, and have defended him in this project, but seeing him get nominated when Ray Allen isn't really getting mention (I know he's on some radars, but there hasn't been a push for him) is odd to me. I've seen the argument for Reggie, and I don't actually disagree with the arguments themselves, but I'm not getting how his play- great as it was- should be valued more highly than some other players who haven't been nominated yet.

If McAdoo or Zo get a push, I'll definitely change my Paul nomination to them.

[lukekarts]

Vote: Willis Reed

penbeast / ronnymac - on what basis do you justify Dwight Howard over Willis Reed?

[pancakes3]

What makes WS/48 the best per minute box score stat? IDK, why not per 36? Doesn't that show us what each player would produce in 36 minutes?

Does it matter?

[drza]

Vote: Willis Reed

penbeast / ronnymac - on what basis do you justify Dwight Howard over Willis Reed?

I'm not penbeast or ronnymac, but my argument for Howard over Reed would be that Howard has all of Reed's strengths but does them better. Reed had at least an argument for being the top player in the league at his peak, but so does Dwight. Reed was a very good scorer, rebounder and defender as a center. But, relative to era, Howard is a better scorer, a better rebounder, and a much better defender. Stylistically, Howard's type of defense (ultra elite help, dominant rebounder) makes a larger impact than Reed's style (more 1-on-1 post defender), which argues that Howard likely had a larger non-boxscore impact than Reed. And for the longevity buffs, Howard's 7 years actually match up very well with Reed's 7 years before major injury.

I'd reverse it the question...what is your case for Reed over Howard?

[RoyceDa59]

Vote: Paul Pierce
Nominate: Chris Paul

[JordansBulls]

When was Iverson a top 5 player in the NBA?

99-Duncan, Malone, Shaq, KG, Hill, Payton
00-Duncan, Malone, Shaq, KG, Hill, Payton
01-Duncan, Malone, Shaq, KG, Kobe, Dirk, T-Mac
02-Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, T-Mac
03-Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, T-Mac
04-Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk, T-Mac
05-Duncan, Shaq, Wade, LeBron, Kobe, KG, Dirk, T-Mac, Nash
06-Duncan, Wade, LeBron, Kobe, KG, Dirk, Nash
07-Duncan, LeBron, Kobe, KG, Dirk, Nash, T-Mac
08-Duncan, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk, KG, Nash, Paul

And I'd include Pierce, Kidd, and maybe even Webber for a few of those years.

In what sense was Tmac better than Iverson in 2001 or even Dirk?

[lukekarts]

I'd reverse it the question...what is your case for Reed over Howard?

A few reasons:

- Higher peak (1970 Finals) - see last section of this post
- Higher accolades at peak of career (MVP / FMVP / 1st / Def 1st / AS - 1 season)
- Better leadership / mentality / aggression / assertion
- 'Big game player'
- More proven against exceptionally tough Centers (Chamberlain, KAJ, Unseld, Cowens etc)
- Fewer weaknesses (jump shot, free throw) leading to fewer liabilities.
- Proven in the Finals
- Advantage in Win-Shares (defensive and offensive)

We do have an interesting comparison here, in the sense that Reed played 7 years (Dwight to-date has 7 years) before succumbing to injury. It is worth pointing out, that nobody expected Reed to become crippled at that time either. He had missed a total of 23 regular season games in his career at that point, with 8 of those in his 7th season. Could happen to Dwight...

Willis Reed

Average = 20 points (47.7%) / 13.75 rebounds over 551 games
Peak = 21.7 points (50.7%) / 13.9 rebounds

Dwight Howard - 7 year stats

Average = 18.3 points (57.5%), 12.9 rebounds over 567 games
Peak = 22.9 points (59.3%), 14.1 rebounds

Statistics show Dwight to be more efficient, although the 40 year difference in eras can explain a lot of that. At his peak it suggests Dwight to be the better rebounder, but I'd put forward the case that Reed was next to DeBusschere who also averaged 10 rebounds per game.

Reed's Peak was higher

1970 NBA Finals:

Game 1 - Willis Reed - 37 pts / Wilt Chamberlain 17 pts (Frazier DNP)
Game 2 - Willis Reed - 29 pts / Wilt Chamberlain 19 pts
Game 3 - Willis Reed - 38 pts / Wilt Chamberlain 21 pts
Game 4 - Willis Reed - 23 pts / Wilt Chamberlain 18 pts
Game 5 - Injured - Torn thigh muscle / Wilt leads LAL in scoring (23 pts)
Game 6 - Injured - Torn thigh muscle / Wilt LAL in scoring (45 pts)
Game 7 - Reed hobbles back onto the court, Wilt no longer leads LAL in scoring (18pts)

I put forward this question - would Dwight Howard have stacked up so well vs. Wilt Chamberlain? He hasn't done something comparable in his 7 years, so I don't see how we can give him the nod right now.

There's a debate on the general board as to whether Dwight would be inducted into the Hall of Fame if he retired today. Reed was inducted back in 1982, for reference.

And for what it's worth, Dwight is my second favourite player.

[drza]

Also, I'm finding Manu to be pretty overrated by some posters. Like, considering him over Carter, and even Pierce? Really?

Yes, Manu does great in the APM studies, good for him. But he's been a 30 mpg bench player for the most part, and he's never had to be the focal point of a defense. He played with a prime Duncan from 03-07, and Duncan was still their best player and the focus of the defense from 08-10. It wasn't until this past season when Duncan was no longer their main offensive option...but Ginobili's numbers really didn't get all that much better, the Spurs just got more balanced scoring. And I'm not even sure if Ginobili is better than Parker, who's also helped lighten the offensive load.

Ginobili has never been in the same situation as Carter or Pierce or AI or any of the other high volume scoring wings, who have had to carry offenses, while facing the brunt of the defense. Ginobili's job has been made a lot easier throughout his career by playing with Duncan and Parker, and it's not like he's logging big minutes either. He's a very rich man's "spark off the bench" imo.

I really don't see how Pierce's 05 and Ginobili's 05 are even close. First of all, Pierce played 8 more games than Ginobili. And his per 36 stats are still better than Ginobili's. And again, I don't think it's a fair comparison in the first place, because Pierce was the clear-cut best player on the Celtics, meaning he was facing the opposition's best defender and the defense gameplanned against Pierce mainly. Ginobili was benefitting off Duncan and, to a lesser extent, Parker being around.

Wanted to chime in on the notions relating to the advantage of 1) playing 30 MPG and 2) playing next to Duncan.

The thing is, we don't really see evidence that these things help a guy with APM. I mean, if a guy is being sat on the bench each game to avoid bad matchups, that obviously skews things, but that wasn't what happened with Ginobili. The Spurs never sat him down because they thought it made their team better, they just decided they had to give him rest.

And of course there's the matter that Ginobili looks unreal by APM metrics where as other guys who play by superstars don't. Parker for example, look pretty much exactly like you'd think he would. No matter how you look at it, Ginobili is the anomaly, again and again in independent studies.

Then you add in as mentioned that Ginobili was a European Player of the Year, and actually led his country to an Olympic Gold Medal over a team full of NBA all-stars. (I know those things aren't directly relevant to the conversation, but they are relevant to understanding his track record of impact)

Now take the +/- out, and consider PER, a stat known to favor volume scorers to a fault. What do you get when you compare Ginobili and Carter? Carter had a PER of 22+ 3 times in his career, Ginobili's done it 6 times.

So you see every per minute thing we look at tells you Ginobil's a better player.

Re: "never had to carry". I think it's fine to bring up that scenario, but wrong to look at it as if it's the end all be all. If I've got a crappy team and I want someone to raise it to mediocre, then I can use a volume scorer with questionable efficiency. Is that more meaningful than someone who can reliable provide huge lift to a contender? I don't think so.

All that said, there is still the matter that you have to factor in how much someone plays, and that hurts Ginobili quite a bit. I don't know if I'd vote for Ginobili above Carter in this project for that reason.

Ginobili's minutes vs his impact

I've been taking it as a bit of a given that, because Manu plays fewer minutes, he should and will be downgraded for that when compared to some of his contemporaries. But upon further reflection...should he be? Let me ramble a bit on this...

There are a couple of major criticisms for lower minute players that need to be addressed when comparing them with higher minute players:

1) A player just can't have the mass of impact in fewer minutes that a bigger minute guy could
2) Would the per-minute impact translate to playing more minutes?

The thing is, with Ginobili, I'm not sure that these criticisms really fit. If you completely ignore the minutes played and just go by the box scores, the bigger minute wings do produce a higher volume of stats...but not by a lot. As I showed when comparing Ginobili to Moncrief a few threads back ( viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1130900&start=15 ), Manu was scoring almost as high of a percentage of the Spurs' points as Squid was for the Bucks during his 5-year peak, and that Manu also had a higher assist rate. So in Ginobili, we're talking a player that offensively was producing a very similar volume overall to peak Sidney Moncrief, again, with no adjustment at all made for minutes played.

But while even this level of offensive production might be slightly less than what you get from the Pierce and Carters of the world, Ginobili's on-game impact is huge. And note, I said on-game and not per-minute. The Ilardi 6-year APM study indicates that Ginobili's APM was +8.18/100 possessions from '04 - '09, and the Englemann '06-11 6-year study has Ginobili at +7.6 per 100 possessions. Both of those marks are in the top-5 for each study, but are per-possession stats. Ginobili, on average, plays about 75% of the minutes/game that Pierce does over this time period, so for him let's say a game is 75 possessions while Pierce/Carter play 100 possessions/game. With that correction, Ginobili would be worth about +6.3 per game in the Ilardi study and +5.8 per game in the Englemann study. For reference, in the Ilardi study Pierce was at +6.5 per 100 possessions and in the Englemann Pierce was at +4.9. So while Pierce's volume of box score production might be slightly higher than Ginobili's, in terms of per-game impact Ginobili has been having an impact as large or larger than Pierce's for the last 8 years even in 25% fewer minutes.

So criticism (1) above isn't really valid...Ginobili's per-minute impact is so huge that even in fewer minutes he has produced a similar if not larger impact than Pierce in the regular season. But what about criticism (2), that Ginobili's production and impact would suffer with more minutes? This is of specific importance in the postseason, where Ginobili's minutes creep up as high as 35.2 mpg, and on the whole he has played about 85% of the per-game minutes of Pierce.

Well, in the postseason Ginobili's PER is higher than Pierce's (20.6 vs 18.5), his win shares/48 min are higher than Pierce's (.181 vs .143), and his on-court/off-court +/- is much higher than Pierce's (unfortunately I don't have my data with me at the moment, but I'll go back and edit this post when I get to it with the actual numbers). At the very least, it seems that both the per-minute and impact trends for Manu's performance vs Pierce from the regular season continue into the postseason...except now, Manu's playing more minutes. Which means that his per-game impact in the postseason is correspondingly even larger.

Conclusion: I'm not necessarily saying I'd take Ginobili over Pierce...there is value in playing big minutes that I didn't address above, for instance, fewer minutes required from back-ups. And quantitative analysis is only part of the equation, so there's room for discussion about the responsibilities of leading a team or intangibles. Plus, stats aren't everything...there's everyone's eye test and of course the accolades, which are also worthy of consideration. But my point is, it is NOT a slam dunk that Pierce was just automatically having a larger impact on games just because he was playing more minutes. It is worthy of debate. Ginobili is an outlier when it comes to impact, with per-minute rates so ridiculously high that he quantitatively has major-minutes starter impact in less time. And while Ginobili's international successes wouldn't go on his NBA resume, I thought the whole point of this project was to IGNORE the resumes except to the extent that they speak to the caliber of the player. And to that extent, Ginobili's international exploits (including his dominance against the US in the Olympics) DO speak to his caliber as a player...in fact, they offer further confirmation to the exact things that the per-minute stats tell us as well, that Ginobili is in fact one of the best wings of his generation. And, like Pippen and Mchale in the generations before, his team role shouldn't be held against him here. In terms of "playing the game of basketball", Ginobili is as good as any perimeter player that is still on the board.

[ElGee]

I would not, as a blanket statement, say Willis Reed's peak was higher than Dwight Howard's 2011 season. More importantly though, there seems to just be a lot of ignorance around Reed's longevity (I don't know what else to call it at this point).

But, Reed has a serious longevity issue. He *played* 10 years. Reggie Miller played like an all-star in 2004 at 39...Reed had been retired for 8 seasons at that point in time (age 39). But wait, he MISSED 2 years almost entirely. That doesn't give him 8 prime years...it gives him 8 years in the NBA.

And in 1973, I don't even see what evidence there is to suggest he was an all-star level player (or top-20 player). In 1971 he struggled with a knee injury (and then shoulder injury on the eve of the playoffs) and was a 16 pt/41% scorer in the PS...down from 21/46% in the RS, which I find fairly significant because if you get a hobbled Reed in the PS he's not giving you the same value. Maybe others don't find this relevant?

That leaves 1969 and 1970 as a 2-year MVP-level peak. (Clearly some good years before in 68 and 67, and maybe 65 and 66 as AS-level stuff depending on how you feel about his first two campaigns...or how much you even know about them. )

You get rookie Willis, second year Willis, 1967 "prime" Willis to 1968, then his 2-year peak. Then the hobbled 1971 season, in which he warriored his way through the season taking injections on his leg regularly. In RPOY standings:

1970 4th
1969 3rd

That's it. And that was it for a reason.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote Paul Pierce. I really want to start giving Dwight Howard support, but Pierce keeps losing these votes to inferior players, I can't do it yet

Nominate Kevin Johnson

I'm ready to start considering Paul, but not until KJ gets in. I don't consider Paul vs KJ much of a question on an ATL. I consider Paul to be maybe 5 or 10% better than KJ, Johnson puts up a 22/11 118-120 ORTG+ prime, and if he needs evidence for Paul like impact, he anchors better teams and better ORTGs than Paul ever has, without Charles Barkley yet. And he gives you twice as much longevity. So while I would say Paul is slightly better for 2 seasons, I'd much rather have a player who's 95% as valuable if I get WAY more longevity. Measuring their seasons:

08 Paul > 90 KJ
09 Paul > 91 KJ
89 KJ > 2011 Paul
92 KJ > 2007 Paul
94 KJ >>> 2006 Paul (rookies have very little impact historically)
97 KJ >>>>>>>> 2010 Paul
93 KJ, 95 KJ, 96 KJ, injury years but an all-star in the playoffs if you make it + 88, 98 it's better than nothing KJ >>>>>>>> /// Paul

Just how much better is 08 and 09 Paul to give him the advantage? Again, prime KJ is a 22/11, one of the best efficiencies in the league player, anchoring a top 3 offense and 6-7 SRS team as the best guy.

[Dr Positivity]

I've alluded to this before, but I just don't see the argument for Manu over Pau. Who would actually take Manu on their team over Pau? Gasol has been simply dominant as a 2nd option in a way I haven't seen Manu approeach, proved he could be a 45-50 W caliber 1st option, and isn't even a worse per 36/PER/WS48 player while playing regular minutes and having more star seasons overall.

I would put Pau level with Pierce if he had the health and longevity. Manu is clearly below them IMO

[Laimbeer]

KJ played in 3 all-star games.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote: Paul Pierce

Nomination: Chris Paul

As I've said, go look at the Win Share leaders list on b-r. You'll find Wade barely ahead of Howard who is barely ahead of Paul, because they all really have about the same longevity. Picking Wade & Howard over Paul is fine, but I see zero basis for having a significant gap between Howard & Paul.

Question: Other than the legendary Bill Walton, is there anyone left with a higher peak than Paul?

The WS thing is pretty clouded in my opinion for these reasons

1. I give Paul next to 0 value for 2010. Not only is 38 healthy games incredibly low, but he was a complete scrub for the last 7 Gs of the season when he came back, we're talking some 9 and 7 on .45 TS% and less than 1 FTA a game type ability. I'm in the "treat seasons like you're drafting them" camp and in my books, 2010 Paul doesn't help you win a title at all because he's not even an average value player if you can somehow make the playoffs. The only thing he does is make you 7 Gs better in the regular season, according to both WS and my calculations that he was a 15 W player for 38 Gs

2. I'm extremely dubious of 14 WS in 2011 for Paul. He was putting pressure on the defense about half as much as he used to and was straight from the Jose Calderon school of 'how to 9apg+ by passing it around the perimeter'. He completley disappeared in 2nd halfs and 4th quarters a lot, obviously when he was feeling his injury. The Hornets also ranked 19th in ORTG and 25th in 3PA, despite having a lot of 3pt shooters on their team. I just don't think he was creating shots. 7 to 9 WS makes sense for Paul in 2011, IMO.

Then there's the fact that he has 8 more WS in his 2 best seasons than Dwight in his 2 and I just can't buy that. I have Dwight at literally something like 35 Ws added in the regular season the last 3 seasons. I think it makes complete sense that the Magic had 24, 24, and 18 W talent level without him the last 3. His impact on that team has been Lebron like. So I just can't buy Paul was anything but equal to Dwight in WS value the last 3 years. I think it's being very very generous to even put him equal with Dwight's impact on those Magic teams, it's a compliment in fact because I think Dwight winning 59 with that talent level is something very very few can do. What happened is I think Paul's 08 and 09 WS numbers are fine but Dwight's the last 3 years are too low. He has been a 18-20 WS player to me, at least in the regular season

If you subtract all that, you get a gap closer to 24 total WS between Dwight and Paul, or 2 of Dwight's best WS seasons, which I think is about right

For me it's a pretty clear comparison

2007 Dwight <=> 2011 Paul. Both 3rd team All-NBA, teams perform almost identically if you go by PW (43 to 44) and the Magic rank 11th in SRS to Paul's 13th, albeit the Hornets in reality win 46 to the Magic' 40

So if that's true and you don't consider their first 2 years a big gap (Paul is better but injured his second year, plus rooks and sophs real impact is dubious to me with a few exceptions), what's left is the last 4 years of Dwight vs 08 and 09 Paul. And yes, I consider that a rather large difference. If Paul had been completley healthy the last 4 years I'd have voted him in already easily

[Snakebites]

I'm conflicted.

I've been supporting a Mcadoo nomination for the last couple of rounds, but seeing Reggie Miller up there (when I believe there are 2 better shooting guards that haven't been nominated yet) makes me want to throw my support behind Moncrief.

Ultimately I suppose I have to go Mcadoo for now.

Vote: Dave Cowens
Nominate: Bob Mcadoo