RealGM Top 100 List #39

[penbeast0]

Criteria: Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball.

Voting Will End In 2 Days (Monday 9/12) at 10PM EST

Please vote and nominate

Newest addition:

Chris Paul

1x1st Team All-NBA
1x2nd Team All-NBA
1x3rd Team All-NBA
1x1st Team All-Defense
2x2nd Team All-Defense
Rookie of the Year 2006
5xAll-Star


Reggie Miller

3x3rd Team All-NBA
5xAll-Star

Willis Reed

2x NBA Champion
Hall of Fame 1982
MVP (1970)
1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-Def 1st Team
7x All-Star
Rookie of the Year (1965)

Allen Iverson

MVP (2001)
3x All-NBA 1st Team
3x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-NBA 3rd Team
11x All-Star
Rookie of the Year (1996)

Dave Cowens

Hall of Fame 1991
2x NBA Champion
MVP 1973
3x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-Def 1st Team
2x All-Def 2nd Team
Rookie of the Year 1971
7x All-Star


Elvin Hayes

Hall of Fame (1990)
NBA Champion (1978)
3× All-NBA First Team Selection
3× All-NBA Second Team Selection
2x All-Defense Second Team Selections
12× All-Star

Dominique Wilkins

Hall of Fame (2006)
1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x All-NBA 3rd Team
9x All-Star

Kevin McHale

Hall of Fame 1999
3 NBA Championship Teams
1 All NBA 1st Team
3 All-Defense 1st Team
3 All-Defense 2nd Team
2 Sixth Man of the Year Awards

Dwight Howard

4x All-NBA 1st Team
1x All-NBA 3rd Team
3x NBA DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR
3x NBA All-Defensive 1st Team
1x NBA All-Defensive 2nd Team
5x All-Star

[penbeast0]

Voting Candidates

Allen Iverson and Reggie Miller couldn't be more unalike as scorers. Iverson the super high volume, inefficient, undersized, bad practice, streetball superstar with accolades and endorsements everywhere; Miller the superefficient, come off of screens, playoff assassin with only 5 All-Star games in his long career and never better than 3rd team All-NBA. Neither were much defensively. Additionally, you have Chris Paul and Dominique Wilkins. Paul has only 2 top years, 5 in the league total though a terrific short peak as a top PG. Nique is another high scoring, super athletic, slashing scorer who led some good ATL teams to the playoffs though they didn't do much there.

Then you have the bigs. Cowens and Reed were early 70s stars with reasonably short careers and not great stats but who were recognized as MVP's for their leadership and hard nosed play. Elvin Hayes is stronger statistically and also a 70s champion but was known as a whiner rather than a leader. But the two best candidates to me are Kevin McHale and Dwight Howard. Dwight Howard is a damn good candidate here, short career so far but with peak for multiple years as the best big man in NBA once Duncan slowed down. McHale is also strong but is no more efficient than Howard despite playing on a team with two other great scoring bigs and a weak rebounder (also affected by playing next to Parish and Bird) and although he is more versatile, he doesn't have Howard's defensive impact.


VOTE: Dwight Howard

[penbeast0]

For the nomination:

PG -- It is between the great playmaking but inefficient even for his era (especially in playoffs) Bob Cousy, Kevin Johnson who was a very solid player in all respects though often injured, the surprisingly efficient Chauncey Billups, and possibly Lenny Wilkens from the 60s or the purely offensive Nate Archibald or Pete Maravich from the 70s. Cooz has the best accolades of anyone left including an MVP but I lean to KJ for his all around game.

Wings -- On the wings, there are still great scorers left . . . I like Alex English's consistency and Ray Allen's 3 point shooting over the more spectacular but less consistent Bernard King, Mark Aquirre, or David Thompson, or the statistically most efficient Adrian Dantley. Paul Arizin, Sam Jones, and Hal Greer also should come into play reasonably soon -- Defensively, I love Moncrief (and Dumars and Bobby Jones have a shot too but Moncrief was the most dominant at his peak) though the shortness of his peak (5 years then a major falloff) is a big issue.

Big Men -- The bigs left all have some issue with their games. Zo had health issues and was always a step behind the best like Shaq/Robinson/Duncan/etc. while Neil Johnston and Mel Daniels played against inferior competition during their primes and were more limited besides. Bob McAdoo while his 5 year peak is spectacular, didn't play big man defense and his teams didn't dominate; Bob Lanier and Walt Bellamy had nice numbers but their teams weren't that much either and Detroit with Lanier sucked defensively for 9 of Lanier's 10 prime years which I consider pretty bad. Finally there is Dikembe Mutombo who was a great shot blocker and consistent player for years. Finally, Bill Walton had one great year (not that much better than Wes Unseld's MVP year) but every other year he broke down and left the Portland and San Diego teams which had built around him destroyed until he made another 1 year comeback as a top reserve. I wouldn't choose a one in eight shot at catching lightning in a bottle at the expense of a virtually guaranteed team crash the other seven over most of the above named players. Of them I lean Unseld.

At PF, Bobby Jones and Dennis Rodman may be the greatest pair of defensive forwards but Jones, while extremely efficient, didn't score or rebound that much while Rodman had no offense and for 1/2 his career, left his man at times to pad his rebounding stats at the team's expense. On the offensive end, Amare Stoudamire and Chris Webber just have too many issues to rank above Jones or Rodman.

Let me explain why I am voting for Sidney Moncrief here. His peak is short, only 5 full years from 82-86 and those years coincided with the peak years of both the Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ Celtics and of the Moses/Erving/Toney/Cheeks Sixers (as well as the Showtime Lakers) so he never made it past the ECF but in those peak years he led Milwaukee, a Don Nelson coached team with no consistent center, to be one of the best defensive and an above average offensive team. Individually he was a consistent 20ppg scorer with excellent passing and rebounding skills who is widely considered the greatest man-up perimeter defender to ever play winning the first two ever awarded DPOY awards in this 5 year stretch.

Milwaukee's leaguewide ratings, even in those years of great dynastic teams, were

82 Moncrief 6.7reb/4.8ast/19.8pts on .601ts% incredible for a guard before wide use of the 3pt shot
9th in offense, 1st! in defense -- Marques Johnson was the second star only scoring 16ppg, center was good offense, mediocre defensive aging Bob Lanier, the other biggest minutes were PG Quinn Buckner (excellent defender) and Brian Winters (offense only pure jump shooter)

93 Moncrief 5.8reb/3.9ast/22.5pts on .602ts% 1st DPOY award (82 was actually better defense)
10th in offense, 6th in defense -- Marques Johnson had a great year, Alton Lister replaced Bob Lanier

94 Moncrief 6.7reb/4.5ast/20.9pts on .591ts% 2nd DPOY award
12th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Lanier came back to split time with Lister and Marques's last year

95 Moncrief 5.4reb/5.2ast/21.7pts on .594ts%
6th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Terry Cummings took over for Marques as the other star, Lister split time with Randy Breuer at center, 3pt specialist Craig Hodges split time with Paul Pressey and Junion Bridgeman

96 Moncrief 4.6reb/4.9ast/20.2pts on .604ts%
4th in offense, 2nd in defense -- Breuer became the starter still splitting time, Pressey as point forward

Moncrief was an incredible two way player. In a slightly weaker era, he might have led his team to one or two championships like a Chauncey Billups or Isiah Thomas but the one year they beat the Celtics (with great performance by Sid), they then ran into the "fo fo fo" Sixer team. But he was the clearly acknowledged leader of Milwaukee teams and led them to terrific defensive performances despite average defensive big men (Cummings doesn't have a good rep but is underrated but before him the starter was journeyman Mickey Johnson though Don Nelson liked to use Marques Johnson as PF and play 3 guards more than using Johnson).


VOTE: Sidney Moncrief

[therealbig3]

This is between Howard and McHale for me. I'll go with McHale for now.

Vote: McHale
Nominate: KJ

Still riding that KJ train.

[Fencer reregistered]

When Cousy retired, words rained down to the effect that he'd been the top player in the league for a multi-year stretch. Even if that was flattery or glowing hindsight, I think we should accept that he was one the very top players in the league for multiple years.

I further think we should accept the then-consensus that he's the guy who showed the way for transition offense and PG play in general. I.e., huge impact on the game.

I also stand by my less well-documented point: Race. Cousy was unquestionably a/the leader among players, credited with getting the player's union off the ground in a multi-year battle with the commissioner and owners. He was also unquestionably a leader in making African-Americans feel at home in the league, specifically Russell, even if Cousy himself felt he didn't do enough (and Russell disagreed with that assessment). The Celtics were unquestionably the leaders in bringing African-Americans into the game. So Cousy is, to me, by far and away the most important white player who helped African-Americans enter and eventually take over the game.

As for his actual play -- Cousy led a low-efficiency/strong offensive-rebounding offense, that consistently was the #1 scoring offense in the league, and consistently won championships. He was the top passer in the league -- and it wasn't close -- and had some of the bigger volume scoring numbers.

The revisionism about Cousy's offensive play has in my opinion gone much too far.

Nominate: Bob Cousy

[Fencer reregistered]

Based on the eye test, I believe that any stats purporting to show Howard's equality to McHale as a scorer are misleading. A double-team affects Howard much than it affects McHale. Also, Howard is playing in an era of generally weaker post defense and also greater floor spacing. And of course McHale is the far better FT shooter.

Howard does draw more fouls than McHale, but giving his FT shooting that's a smaller matter than one might think when they're 2-shot fouls.

Howard gets more offensive rebounds too, but on the whole I prefer McHale at the offensive end.

McHale of course has much more longevity to date -- he's played 50% more regular-season minutes than Howard, and 150% more post-season ones.

Longevity aside, WS/48 across those minutes gives a slight edge to Howard. PER gives Howard the edge too. ORtg and DRtg alike are massive advantages for McHale. Advanced stat comparisons look generally similar whether we compare full-career averages or peak.

I'll leave the "Howard is better at the defensive end" argument for somebody else to make.

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way, we have 5 bigs on our list of 10 nominees. Unless you think some other big should go ahead of Howard and McHale, please consider nominating perimeter players right now.

And if you nominate a guy you think shouldn't go into the HOF -- um, why are you doing that?

[ronnymac2]

Dwight's longevity gets slightly underrated; he's been legit now for about four seasons. And for the past two seasons, he's been playing at the level of 2000 Zo and peak Ewing (and by extension, D-Rob, but that's my minority opinion, as I have my doubts as to whether Robinson was clearly better than Ewing...). He's a dominant C.

Vote: Dwight Howard

Nominate: Sidney Moncrief


I'll go with Squid for now. For me, it's McAdoo vs. Moncrief...whoever winds up with more support will get my final nomination.

[ElGee]

I wanted to put something into perspective with Reggie Miller's career. We've used Win Shares has to ballpark career value - it's not bad in that regard IMO, especially for players who have their value fairly reflected by the box. What's interesting is that Reggie Miller is 11th all-time in Win Shares. Who knew? The 10 players ahead of him (and where they were voted):

Top Players by RS WS
Kareem (3rd)
Wilt (5th)
Malone (12th)
Jordan (1st)
Stockton (31st)
Oscar (14th)
Shaq (7th)
Robinson (21st)
Barkley (20th)
Garnett (13th)
Miller (UR)

Now, Miller doesn't stack up with these guys because he lacks the peak. Interestingly, that's also reflected in Win Shares. **But John Stockton doesn't have the peak either and he was voted in 31st.**

Top peak season by WS:
Kareem (1st all-time)
Wilt (2nd)
Malone (56th)
Jordan (9th)
Stockton (85th)
Oscar (13th)
Shaq (23rd)
Robinson (18th)
Barkley (42nd)
Garnett (26th)
Miller (281st)

Stockton was about 3 WS better than Miller's best season (1991). Of course, we know the ballparking starts to breakdown there as 1991 wasn't Miller's peak. And this glance only includes RS, and know Miller has arguably the greatest increase of any player we'll examine in the PS, whereas Stockton declines considerably.

And as I've presented before, Miller just smokes Stockton (and many others voted in and currently nominated) with PS stats normalized to defensive environment: http://www.backpicks.com/2011/08/15/adj ... ger-stars/

Notables normalized to defensive environment during prime:
Iverson 31.2 ppg 50.0% TS 107 ORtg
McGrady 29.4 ppg 51.8% TS 108 ORtg
Wilkins 27.4 ppg 49.8% TS 105 ORtg
Miller 24.0 ppg 62.0% TS 125 ORtg
Drexler 22.9 ppg 52.5% TS 112 ORtg
Pierce 21.7 ppg 52.1% TS 107 ORtg
Stockton 16.4 ppg 55.9% TS 116 Ortg

[therealbig3]

After thinking about it, I'll change my vote:

Vote: Dwight Howard

But I do have a question about McHale...why were PGs like Kidd, Stockton, and Thomas ranked ahead of him? McHale is a legitimate 2-way PF...great defender, and one of the greatest low post games ever. The knocks on him are his passing and his rebounding...but he played next to two great rebounders. The passing is the only legitimate knock on him imo.

It would seem to me though, that an elite two-way big man is a more impactful, and thus better, player than the aforementioned PGs.

[Fencer reregistered]

I don't think there's a character/personality/leadership intangibles story to separate Howard and McHale. Both were everything you could want personally. (Howard's whining about Orlando is minor by modern standards.) Neither happened to show any ability to inspire others; McHale never got the chance, and Howard didn't always keep his team from quitting around him.

[Doctor MJ]

As for his actual play -- Cousy led a low-efficiency/strong offensive-rebounding offense, that consistently was the #1 scoring offense in the league,

Fencer, every time I see this from you I'm exasperated. Do you not understand what pace is? Do you not understand that a team that shoots like crap is not an offense that is great at scoring?

I understand that technically you're just saying "the team that scored the most points", but there's zero doubt in my mind that anyone not familiar with the situation would interpret your words to mean that Boston has an offense that succeeded in scoring in a possession at a better rate than other teams, i.e. the #1 offense in the league, and this is really dangerous considering they were typically the least effective offense in the league.

[drza]

Vote: Dwight Howard
Nominate: Alonzo Mourning

(Didn't get back to vote in the last thread, so wanted to make sure I got my vote on record this time).

[Fencer reregistered]

As for his actual play -- Cousy led a low-efficiency/strong offensive-rebounding offense, that consistently was the #1 scoring offense in the league,

Fencer, every time I see this from you I'm exasperated. Do you not understand what pace is? Do you not understand that a team that shoots like crap is not an offense that is great at scoring?

I understand that technically you're just saying "the team that scored the most points", but there's zero doubt in my mind that anyone not familiar with the situation would interpret your words to mean that Boston has an offense that succeeded in scoring in a possession at a better rate than other teams, i.e. the #1 offense in the league, and this is really dangerous considering they were typically the least effective offense in the league.

I'm calling "insufficient data" on your conclusions, for reasons I've laid out repeatedly before (designed offensive rebounding schemes, fatigue, etc.) I'm further raising "most points scored" as a plausibility argument that your conclusion is not just unproven (which is all "insufficient data" can establish), but actually inaccurate.

[penbeast0]

There is no reason why a fast break offense should get more offensive rebounds, particularly if your bigs throw the outlet pass so that they aren't all the way up when the shot goes up. It should be efficient in terms of pts/possession because the defense hasn't set up -- if not, you shouldn't run it. As for fatigue, if you are wearing the other team out, it should show in increased efficiency also as they quit hustling defensively.

Basically, not sure what argument you are trying for here Fencer.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Dominique Wilkins
Nominate: Bob Cousy

[Fencer reregistered]

There is no reason why a fast break offense should get more offensive rebounds, particularly if your bigs throw the outlet pass so that they aren't all the way up when the shot goes up. It should be efficient in terms of pts/possession because the defense hasn't set up -- if not, you shouldn't run it. As for fatigue, if you are wearing the other team out, it should show in increased efficiency also as they quit hustling defensively.

Basically, not sure what argument you are trying for here Fencer.

I agree that the same guy is unlikely to throw the outlet pass and trail on the same play. But that's one guy in five, and it doesn't obviate having a trailer to clean the glass.

I've also argued that the Celtics' halfcourt play design seems to have taken rebounding carefully in account (Tommy Heinsohn has said as much). That can cut efficiency and still be beneficial, quite apart from any questions as to whether the legendary Red Auerbach was all that good at Xs and Os.

(More later; call started.)

[Dr Positivity]

Vote: Dwight Howard

I've voted Pierce for forever, so time to get on the criteria box again...

Paul - Definitely below Dwight Howard and I hate the fact that he got above Kevin Johnson. Just repeating a short form of my argument from last thread, Kevin Johnson in his 2 best seasons puts up 22 and 10-11 on about same shooting % as Paul's 08 and 09 (slightly higher TOV%), and leads both a better team ORTG and overall team. Regardless of whether you prefer Paul's 2 best seasons to KJ's 2 (I personally do), how can you possibly say it's by anything but a small margin - and you'd need a huge margin in those 2 top seasons to make up for the gap between KJ's 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 and Paul's 06, 07, 10, 11. The gap between peak KJ and Paul is being clouded by Paul's PER and WS advantage, which are being hugely effected by the Suns being one of the fastest paced teams and the Hornets being one of the slowest - that's where PER and WS get screwed up on PGs the most, in my opinion. That's how you get bizarre stuff like 06 Billups having a higher PER and WS than 85 Magic or any Stockton season, or Nash having less win shares than Stephen Marbury in 05 and not having top 5 OWS in either of his MVP years. If you don't like KJ's PER and WS compared to Paul's because of his fast pace, then you also don't like showtime Magic, Stockton or Nash's because they're all in the same boat as KJ's. Paul is the outlier compared to superstar PGs and I feel very confident saying *his* numbers are where the wrong is

Allen Iverson - Too many holes in his resume to get consideration yet. Had some years where it feels like his impact was as high as the best ones here, but puts up inconsistent impact in general. I can justify .52 TS%, but once you start putting up .48, .49 seasons, it's hard for me to buy that it's helping his team's offense. I'm torn on him vs Miller, will decide later

Hayes - Would be willing to hear an argument for him over Cowens and Reed based on how much healthier he was. But dude got called the most despicable person in sports by his coach and has an epic choker rep. Can't help but feel Hayes helped the Wiz by anchoring an epic defensive frontline with Unseld, but offensively they succeeded in spite of him, not because of him. That's just my impression, I can be convinced otherwise since despite his reputation, the guy did win a lot.

Miller - Below Dominique for now. Nique is obviously less efficient but puts more pressure on the defense and I think is the more dominant player on the court overall. If you like individual ORTG, Nique efficiency starts to look pretty damn good for such a high volume player, especially in the late 80s. On that note. I don't know why the people who nominated Miller wouldn't nominate Allen directly after them. I see no gap between them personally.

Reed vs Cowens - Both have injury and longevity issues, both rely on believing in the MVP votes at the time stating just how valuable they were. I believe in those accolades and the huge results they brought on. Reed seems like the better halfcourt offensive scorer, while Cowens brings a lot of fastbreak team value. I will go with Willis Reed here because I like halfcourt play in comparison to fastbreak play, to have the latter you need a more specific lineup

McHale vs Howard - Their first 7 years look very similar, taking 3 build up years until a 4th year breakout, and they both peak in their 7th year statistically, albeit a lot of people think McHale was better in 86 and I personally think Howard was better in 2010. I think Howard is clearly the better player up to their 7th year. Howard has a case for THE most valuable player in the league the last 4 years and the 3 years before that was still someone you really wanted at C. He has proven he can lead a Finals team and 6 SRS+ team with just shooters. I will go with the better player in Howard over the better longevity in McHale.

That leaves Reed vs Howard. Longevity is not an issue here at all. So comes down to who's the better player. And I think that's pretty cleanly Dwight Howard. I'll say Reed is slightly better offensively, but not enough to make up for Dwight's epic defense/rebounding impact. If he can create a top 3 defense with defenders who are slow, soft and don't really care, he can do it with just about anyone. That's a rare trait to have indeed. The give an idea of how valuable Dwight is, I truly believe the 09-11 teams had 20-25 W talent at best without him. So we're looking at something like 30 to 35 Ws added. That is in the prime Lebron, KG, Duncan, etc. zone of "holy crap" impact

Vote Dwight Howard

Nominate Kevin Johnson

[ElGee]

As for his actual play -- Cousy led a low-efficiency/strong offensive-rebounding offense, that consistently was the #1 scoring offense in the league,

Fencer, every time I see this from you I'm exasperated. Do you not understand what pace is? Do you not understand that a team that shoots like crap is not an offense that is great at scoring?

I understand that technically you're just saying "the team that scored the most points", but there's zero doubt in my mind that anyone not familiar with the situation would interpret your words to mean that Boston has an offense that succeeded in scoring in a possession at a better rate than other teams, i.e. the #1 offense in the league, and this is really dangerous considering they were typically the least effective offense in the league.

I'm calling "insufficient data" on your conclusions, for reasons I've laid out repeatedly before (designed offensive rebounding schemes, fatigue, etc.) I'm further raising "most points scored" as a plausibility argument that your conclusion is not just unproven (which is all "insufficient data" can establish), but actually inaccurate.

Time for some math...

Higher offensive rebounds will lead to an overestimation in pace using the simple method. But let's get some perspective here:

(1) You are assuming the team had more OREB just from...well...really pure speculation.
(2) In 1974, the Celtics -- implementing Tommy Heinsohn's push-the-pace-tire-them-out philosophy -- easily led the league in OREB (Cowens and Silas). Their turnovers -- the other unknown factor for the 60s Celtics -- were right around average.

The simple method overestimates their pace by 1.4 possessions. (Keep in mind "pace" itself is an estimate with a small margin of error.) That means 0.7 pts/100 are shifted from their offense to their defense.

And they were easily the best OREB team in the league.

Even if the pace were off by 5 possessions -- and the largest discrepancy using the method in 1974 was 2.6 pos -- the most imbalanced Cousy team, the 61 Celtcs, would still be 5.4 points better than league average on defense and over a point below league on offense. In other words, they still weren't very good offensively!

So which is more likely - that the 60s Celtics were a defensive dynasty that began when someone regarded as the GOAT almost strictly for his defense arrived, and ended when he left...or that Boston was year-in-and-year-out the greatest outlying offensive rebounding team of all time, which began in 1957 and ended in 1970? A pattern they somehow continued despite changing coaches, players and slowing way down in pace/style toward the end of the decade (eg they ran the offense through Russell from the high post).

I just don't see any evidence for what you are suggesting.

[Lever2Beaver]

As for his actual play -- Cousy led a low-efficiency/strong offensive-rebounding offense, that consistently was the #1 scoring offense in the league

Fencer, every time I see this from you I'm exasperated. Do you not understand what pace is? Do you not understand that a team that shoots like crap is not an offense that is great at scoring?

That's pretty rude if you ask me
after he's the one talking sensibly
Does he understand pace?, Do you understand numbers?
Based on your conclusions I'm beginning to wonder
He said top scoring, that matters for something
You wear the other team out when you make them do all that running
And the Celtics were far above average in the years before Russell
And Cousy made them go before Bill provided the Muscle
And even after that, it's a three=four percent differential
like three more missed shots per game makes the outcome fundamental
Put your stats away and pick up a book
or at least be considerate when some provides a more logical look


Celtics offense pre-Russell

1956 - 1st in scoring (by 3 ppg), 2nd in FG%
1955 - 1st in scoring (by 6 ppg), 2nd in FG%
1954 - 1st in scoring (by 4 ppg), 1st in FG% (by nearly 3 percent, less than 1% variance between teams 2-8)
1953 - 1st in scoring, 1st in FG%
1952 - 1st in scoring (by 5 ppg), 2nd in FG% (by .002)
1951 - 4th in scoring, 4th in FG%

That's not the best offense of his day
Let me guess Luciano Pavarotti wasn't gay
I feel like that'd be your conclusion if that was your agenda
take that in the spirit it's intended, don't mean to offend ya'

I have no problem with a dissenting opinion
But it bothers me that the truth is ignored when given