RealGM Top 100 List #41
Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
- fatal9
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,341
- And1: 548
- Joined: Sep 13, 2009
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
What's the general opinion on Mark Price here? Steve Nash gets a lot of love (as he should) but Price was very similar in skills, role (more like the role Nash had in Dallas though, he was really restricted like Nash was) and maybe comes close impact wise when I give a quick look at how the Cavs fared with and without him. I wouldn't vote for him to be in the top 50 or anything because he had a lot of injuries and lacked playoff success (due to MJ), but a lot of guys have flaws like that in this range. Also gets underrated because he didn't benefit from inflated stats due to playing in a run and gun system (like KJ in late 80s, early 90s, or Hardaway in early 90s or Isiah earlier in the 80s and so on) or in a system designed to produce stats for him (like a Stockton).
I'll make a post for him later on tonight. Does anyone have any idea how you'd calculate offensive rating for a team over say 10 missed games by a player? The lazy way is to take the average, does that produce drastically different numbers than actually plugging the numbers in? And yes, I know I haven't been part of the discussion for the last week or so.
I'll make a post for him later on tonight. Does anyone have any idea how you'd calculate offensive rating for a team over say 10 missed games by a player? The lazy way is to take the average, does that produce drastically different numbers than actually plugging the numbers in? And yes, I know I haven't been part of the discussion for the last week or so.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,041
- And1: 1,207
- Joined: Mar 08, 2010
- Contact:
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
fatal - you take the total points divided by total possessions (you need the pace for each game), and then adjust for overtime if necessary.
Doc and Beast - going to try to get around to Lanier-McAdoo and Rodman, KJ, etc. today
Doc and Beast - going to try to get around to Lanier-McAdoo and Rodman, KJ, etc. today
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,518
- And1: 1,861
- Joined: May 22, 2001
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
ElGee wrote:And again, this is not to denigrate Squid (who I have right next to Marques, both coming up) but in 1985 he missed 9 games and the Bucks were +7.3 MOV (better without Squid by 0.5 points) and in 1986 they were +9.8 MOV without Squid, again better in his absence by 0.8 points.
In 1987, they took the Celtics to 7 games and with Squid out half the year were a +3.8 MOV team without him (0.3 point boost with Moncrief). Moncrief helped steady the ship in the 4th quarter in wins in Milwaukee according to the G7 broadcast, but seemed almost non-existent in that game. I didn't realize he averaged almost 20 in the 87 PS...it was really a team of Cummings, Pierce, John Lucas and tremendous depth/athleticism (Sikma, Pressey, Hodges' shooting).
This is very interesting info, because it ties into the Squid/Manu discussion I had with Penbeast several threads back. I showed by looking at percentage of team points produced and assist rate that, despite playing fewer minutes, Manu was responsible for just as much of the Spurs' offense over the past 8 years as Squid was for the Bucks during his 5-year peak. Similarly, I showed that, while we'd assume/expect Squid would measure great as a defender (2-time DPoY), Manu actually is very arguably among the top 2 - 3 perimeter defenders in the NBA over the past 8 years according to the 2 long-term APM studies (with Artest and maybe Tony Allen as his only peers over the whole range). Thus, in terms of both offensive and defensive impact, to the extent that we could compare them Manu looked very similar to Moncrief despite the fewer minutes at their peaks...but Manu's period of influence is 8 years and counting vs Moncrief's 5 years.
Penbeast's comeback was, essentially, that I had just proven that Manu was "almost as good as" Squid. I didn't necessarily agree, especially considering Manu's absurdly high (and consistent) APM results...but we didn't have any similar impact measurements for Squid with which to compare. But, if there are multiple years that indicate that maybe Squid's impact WASN'T superhuman the way that Manu's seems to be...to me, that gives some credence that Manu has, in fact, been the higher impact player and for longer.
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
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,448
- And1: 3,037
- Joined: Jan 12, 2006
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
rocopc wrote:Miller over Nique.....???? I dont understand that!!!
Just because I have the book and can thus readily access it, but Elliot Kalb happens to rank Miller over Nique in his book Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball? Just an example to show that it isn't inconceivable for someone to rank Miller over Wilkins.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,317
- And1: 2,237
- Joined: Nov 23, 2009
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
Wow, from zero to hero - that's the Reggie's story here. He was nominated 4 threads ago, and now some posters vote for him as #41. Crazy. (And Kalb's books is silly, his argumentation very weak and naive. Och, and he ranks Shaq as GOAT). It seems I have to take a role of devils advocate, because I always love Reggie, his game resemble my a lot ;] but he wasn't as good as some people claim here.
First, some of your numbers are wrong: Pacers RS ortg relatively to LA in ’94 and ’99 (should be +1.5 and +6.5). But that’s not too important here.
Second, it’s strange what you have done above. You provided some information but at the same time didn’t provide whole picture, you only show data which support your claim. So I’ll show what’s on the other hand…
Pacers playoffs ortg in comparison with Pacers ortg in playoffs in every series during Reggie’s career:
So we see the fact is Pacers offense usually was worse in playoffs and when improved it was usually against weak defensive teams like Magic ’94 and ’95, Celtics ’91 and ‘04 or Bucks ’99.
I also want to add something to “opposing defenses allowed Reggie to score, but stopped rest of the team.
As we know Pacers with Reggie 8 times lost in 1st round. But once it was in 1996, when he was injured and once in 2002, when he was past his prime (played only 29 MPG in playoffs). That leaves us with 6 postseason runs when opposing teams allowed Reggie to score but focused on rest of the team. On the other hand we also have 5 playoffs runs with prime Reggie which lasted more than one round (1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000). So now lets look what happened:
Reggie in first round exits: 25.8 PPG, 65 TS%
Reggie in deep playoff runs: 22.8 PPG, 59 TS%
I think it’s another example of “The Price of Anarchy”, I mean even so great scorer with so great efficiency (26 ppg on 65 TS%) might hurt his team. Maybe because others didn’t get enough touches, maybe because creating so many scoring opportunities for player like Miller takes too much team effort and kills the rest of offense… or maybe both of these reasons and several others.
Everybody have to also keep in mind that Pacers best offensive results were connected with Schrempf and Jackson.
Here’s Pacers offense (ortg relatively to LA) during Reggie’s career:
We see that Pacers had very good offense from 1990 to 1993, in 1996 and from 1998 to 2000. So what happened before and after these seasons?
First, during ’89 season Schrempf was traded from Dallas to Indiana. In 32 games he improved Pacers ortg by +7.0 (!). Relatively to LA that was +3.6 ortg in that 32 games. In next year Schrempf played full season and Pacers maintain that level (+3.4). Equally good offense was during next 3 seasons when suddenly they became much worse in 1994. The reason – Schrempf left and in ’94 he played in Seattle.
Improvement in 1996 is connected with Jackson (full time starter that year), below average offense in 1997 because Jackson was traded to Denver and spend there more than half a season. When he was traded back to Indiana he improved their offense by +5.4 ortg (during that 30 games with Jackson Pacers had +3.6 ortg relatively to LA). His last season as Pacer was 2000 – also the last when Indiana had very good offense during Miller’s career.
So my point is – Reggie is very overrated here. Miller’s offensive impact wasn’t as big as some suggest and is very probable that his high scoring games are example of The Price of Anarchy in basketball.
The facts are:
- Pacers usually had worse ortg in playoffs
- When Miller scored a lot rest of the team played worse and in result Pacers lost
- Best Pacers offensive seasons are strongly connected with Schrempf and Jackson
ElGee wrote:
Stern, do you mean this?
We expect to see Reggie's numbers go down more than any star on that list, and they go up more than anyone's. And the team's offensive numbers are quite impressive throughout that time as well (both RS, then in the PS) and coincide with Miller's play.
Pacers RS relative to league, then PS relative avg. opponent DRtg
90 +3.4 +0.0
91 +3.8 +9.7
92 +3.5 +4.0
93 +3.9 +11.2 (Knicks "GOAT" defense)
94 -0.2 +1.7
95 +1.3 +6.9
96 +3.2 -1.0 (Miller plays 1g)
98 +3.4 +7.2
99 +5.2 +8.3
00 +4.4 +8.1
01 -1.0 +1.4
That means save for 1990 (1st PS) and 1996 (played one game), the Pacers offense improved in performance in every single PS Miller played in during his prime.
First, some of your numbers are wrong: Pacers RS ortg relatively to LA in ’94 and ’99 (should be +1.5 and +6.5). But that’s not too important here.
Second, it’s strange what you have done above. You provided some information but at the same time didn’t provide whole picture, you only show data which support your claim. So I’ll show what’s on the other hand…
Pacers playoffs ortg in comparison with Pacers ortg in playoffs in every series during Reggie’s career:
Code: Select all
year diff
2004-DET -15,9
2005-DET -11,6
1990-DET -8
1994-NYK -7,6
2002-NJN -7
1999-NYK -6,5
2003-BOS -3,7
2005-BOS -3
1998-NYK -2,5
1995-NYK -2,4
1994-ATL -2,2
2001-PHI -1,7
2000-MIL -1,3
1993-NYK -1
1999-PHI -0,8
1992-BOS -0,7
2004-MIA -0,6
1998-CAV 0,1
2000-NYK 1
1998-CHI 1,7
2000-PHI 2,8
1994-ORL 3,9
1995-ATL 4,6
1991-BOS 4,7
2000-LAL 6
2004-BOS 7,3
1999-MIL 7,6
1995-ORL 10
So we see the fact is Pacers offense usually was worse in playoffs and when improved it was usually against weak defensive teams like Magic ’94 and ’95, Celtics ’91 and ‘04 or Bucks ’99.
I also want to add something to “opposing defenses allowed Reggie to score, but stopped rest of the team.
As we know Pacers with Reggie 8 times lost in 1st round. But once it was in 1996, when he was injured and once in 2002, when he was past his prime (played only 29 MPG in playoffs). That leaves us with 6 postseason runs when opposing teams allowed Reggie to score but focused on rest of the team. On the other hand we also have 5 playoffs runs with prime Reggie which lasted more than one round (1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000). So now lets look what happened:
Reggie in first round exits: 25.8 PPG, 65 TS%
Reggie in deep playoff runs: 22.8 PPG, 59 TS%
I think it’s another example of “The Price of Anarchy”, I mean even so great scorer with so great efficiency (26 ppg on 65 TS%) might hurt his team. Maybe because others didn’t get enough touches, maybe because creating so many scoring opportunities for player like Miller takes too much team effort and kills the rest of offense… or maybe both of these reasons and several others.
Everybody have to also keep in mind that Pacers best offensive results were connected with Schrempf and Jackson.
Here’s Pacers offense (ortg relatively to LA) during Reggie’s career:
Code: Select all
2005 -0,6
2003 1
2002 -0,4
2001 -1
2000 4,4
1999 6,5
1998 3,4
1997 -0,9
1996 3,2
1995 1,3
1994 1,5
1993 3,9
1992 3,5
1991 3,8
1990 3,4
1989 -1
1988 -1,4
We see that Pacers had very good offense from 1990 to 1993, in 1996 and from 1998 to 2000. So what happened before and after these seasons?
First, during ’89 season Schrempf was traded from Dallas to Indiana. In 32 games he improved Pacers ortg by +7.0 (!). Relatively to LA that was +3.6 ortg in that 32 games. In next year Schrempf played full season and Pacers maintain that level (+3.4). Equally good offense was during next 3 seasons when suddenly they became much worse in 1994. The reason – Schrempf left and in ’94 he played in Seattle.
Improvement in 1996 is connected with Jackson (full time starter that year), below average offense in 1997 because Jackson was traded to Denver and spend there more than half a season. When he was traded back to Indiana he improved their offense by +5.4 ortg (during that 30 games with Jackson Pacers had +3.6 ortg relatively to LA). His last season as Pacer was 2000 – also the last when Indiana had very good offense during Miller’s career.
So my point is – Reggie is very overrated here. Miller’s offensive impact wasn’t as big as some suggest and is very probable that his high scoring games are example of The Price of Anarchy in basketball.
The facts are:
- Pacers usually had worse ortg in playoffs
- When Miller scored a lot rest of the team played worse and in result Pacers lost
- Best Pacers offensive seasons are strongly connected with Schrempf and Jackson
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 60,467
- And1: 5,349
- Joined: Jul 12, 2006
- Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
ThaRegul8r wrote:rocopc wrote:Miller over Nique.....???? I dont understand that!!!
Just because I have the book and can thus readily access it, but Elliot Kalb happens to rank Miller over Nique in his book Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball? Just an example to show that it isn't inconceivable for someone to rank Miller over Wilkins.
He also ranked Shaq over MJ and Russell, so I wouldn't take him too seriously.

"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,317
- And1: 2,237
- Joined: Nov 23, 2009
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
fatal9 wrote:What's the general opinion on Mark Price here? Steve Nash gets a lot of love (as he should) but Price was very similar in skills, role (more like the role Nash had in Dallas though, he was really restricted like Nash was) and maybe comes close impact wise when I give a quick look at how the Cavs fared with and without him.
I agree with you about that Price is similar to Nash.
However his impact is difficult to determine, because these Cavs teams had many injuries and as you said - Price's role was similar to Nash in Dallas. Unfortunately he never had the freedom Nash experienced in Phoenix. So overall Price impact should be lower than Suns-Nash's but similar to Mavs-Nash.
Here's difference in ortg in games with/without and overall net:
Code: Select all
diff ortg net G missed
1990 12 15,9 9 (but Daugherty and Nance also missed a lot of games)
1992 7,8 7,2 10
1989 4,8 2,3 7
1991 3,2 4,9 66
1994 3,1 10,1 6
1995 1,8 1,6 34
1993 0,5 6,4 7
So always positive impact on offense and overall.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
- Snakebites
- Forum Mod - Pistons
- Posts: 51,169
- And1: 18,196
- Joined: Jul 14, 2002
- Location: Looking not-so-happily deranged
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
Same as before.
Vote Dominique Wilkens
Nominate Sidney Moncrief
I love Reggie Miller, but I was surprised to see him nominated so early, and even more surprised to see that he is now in position to leap frog over several players nominated ahead of him. I'm just not seeing it.
I won't throw around words like "inconceivable" or "absurd", I'll simply say that I'm not seeing it.
Vote Dominique Wilkens
Nominate Sidney Moncrief
I love Reggie Miller, but I was surprised to see him nominated so early, and even more surprised to see that he is now in position to leap frog over several players nominated ahead of him. I'm just not seeing it.
I won't throw around words like "inconceivable" or "absurd", I'll simply say that I'm not seeing it.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,317
- And1: 2,237
- Joined: Nov 23, 2009
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
vote: Wilkins
nominate: Manu
nominate: Manu
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
- ronnymac2
- RealGM
- Posts: 11,008
- And1: 5,077
- Joined: Apr 11, 2008
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
Nice post on Miller, David Stern. I don't think "Price of Anarchy" applies to Reggie, but still good information.
I posted about Price in an earlier thread...he was more of an off-ball scorer than Nash or Stockton ever were. He came off screens. He looked to drive in order to score more (sturdily built, good body control). He had great balance when shooting off the dribble.
He didn't have the handles or PG skills or creativity of Steve Nash though. That's independent of situation. Price was a good pure point, but Nash (and Stockton) were superior. And despite Price having more of a head for scoring than Nash, Nash was the superior scorer anyway.
Price is definitely a legit candidate somewhat soon though. Very nice player.
I posted about Price in an earlier thread...he was more of an off-ball scorer than Nash or Stockton ever were. He came off screens. He looked to drive in order to score more (sturdily built, good body control). He had great balance when shooting off the dribble.
He didn't have the handles or PG skills or creativity of Steve Nash though. That's independent of situation. Price was a good pure point, but Nash (and Stockton) were superior. And despite Price having more of a head for scoring than Nash, Nash was the superior scorer anyway.
Price is definitely a legit candidate somewhat soon though. Very nice player.
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
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
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
- fatal9
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,341
- And1: 548
- Joined: Sep 13, 2009
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
'88 Price is a rookie on a team with basically the worst offense in the league, a 31 win team, next year Price becomes starter, Cavs become playoff team, see a rise across the board every where (also should be noted Daugherty naturally improved, they made the trade for Nance but their record was the same before the trade), he’s not quite “Mark Price” yet.
Now move forward to ’89, Price improves, becomes an all-star, he is the best player on the #1 SRS team in the league, a top 10 offense (top 6 in games Price played)…which would have been even higher were they not the second worst offensive rebounding team in the league (rebounding was the achilles heel of that team).
The playoffs were disappointing, but Price was injured in them (strained leg and groin). He didn’t play in the last week of the season and missed the first game of the playoffs against the Bulls (a game which the Bulls won and Cavs had their third lowest scoring game of the entire season), and when he did play his mobility clearly wasn’t there. It’s a shame because that Cavs team was serious…they didn’t just win games that season, they made teams look like they didn't belong on the same court as them.
Doug Collins, "when you have an injured Price and Ehlo, this isn't the same team."
"Mark Price is our main guy," said Cavaliers coach Lenny Wilkens. "How do you think Chicago would be doing without their main guy, Michael Jordan?"
Then in ’90, injuries hit the team. They are 41-32 with him, 1-8 without him. They got blown out in basically all the losses but it isn’t fair to do a with/without SRS analysis because Daugherty/Nance also missed many of those games (though when Price played without them, he managed to make the team still respectable).
’91…Cavs start season 9-7 then Price goes down with season ending knee injury. This year Daugherty and Nance are actually healthy (miss 8 games combined, compared to 63 in the previous season). But the result after Price's injury? Cavs go 24-42 rest of the way, become a lottery team and one of the worst offensive teams in the league.
’92…Price comes back, rest of the team is about as healthy as the previous year, same coach, the only real addition is Brandon as backup PG and Hot Rod playing more games…and Cavs go from lottery team to a 57 win team that made it to ECF, and in the games Price played they had an offensive rating of 114.6. That is good enough to be top 5 rating for a team in all of the 90s decade (they were second in ’92 only to the Bulls who were a powerhouse offensively). Keep in mind where this team was the previous year without Price.
He missed 10 games in which they went 5-5 with a SRS of -.6 (as opposed to +6.17 in games he played). Big difference in offensive rating of the team when he played/didn't play as well, basically the difference between the league average when he missed games to one of the best offenses of the decade when he played.
Overall from ’92-’94, he missed 23 games, Cavs were 9-14 without him and their SRS in that span was +5.74 when he played to -1.17 when he missed games (net difference = +6.91), and keep in mind they had a legit point guard in Brandon backing him up too (I combined all the games from '92-'94 because the teams were very similar record/roster wise, and there was a consistent shift of 6-8 points each year with him out). The most impressive thing about this is that the Cavs actually were a really talented team, which makes his impact all the more impressive.
The impact is there, but now look at his game. His skill-set was basically eerily similar to Nash. Really would have liked to see him have more freedom in the offense, on a team that ran a bit more, or a team where he didn't have to feed the post or defer and spectate for most of the game. He was one of the best pick and roll players ever (amazing at splitting them and double teams), great and crafty passer, obviously one of the best shooters in history who could create his shot whenever asked (don't mistake him for just a spot up shooter), like Nash just had the perfect offensive skillset you'd want in your PG.
As for what else he accomplished in his prime? Top 10 in MVP voting four times (more than KJ and Stockton for example). Was good enough to be first team all NBA alongside Jordan in his prime. Made three other all-NBA third teams, and he easily would have gotten rated even higher during his prime if he played on the types of teams that other PGs did, and made more all-star games than someone like KJ.
We are now basically in the range of players where all of them have flaws, some don't have longevity/durability, some don't have peak play, some don't have playoff success and etc etc, so I think it's time to give Price a serious look (I personally value prime/peak more than everything else, like to consider the best 5 or so prime years, for which I am willing to overlook longevity).
Players I think should be considered for nomination (who haven't received a vote ITT yet): Thurmond, Rodman, McAdoo (surprised he hasn't been voted in, seems like he was getting more love 10 threads ago), Parish, Gasol
Now move forward to ’89, Price improves, becomes an all-star, he is the best player on the #1 SRS team in the league, a top 10 offense (top 6 in games Price played)…which would have been even higher were they not the second worst offensive rebounding team in the league (rebounding was the achilles heel of that team).
The playoffs were disappointing, but Price was injured in them (strained leg and groin). He didn’t play in the last week of the season and missed the first game of the playoffs against the Bulls (a game which the Bulls won and Cavs had their third lowest scoring game of the entire season), and when he did play his mobility clearly wasn’t there. It’s a shame because that Cavs team was serious…they didn’t just win games that season, they made teams look like they didn't belong on the same court as them.
Doug Collins, "when you have an injured Price and Ehlo, this isn't the same team."
"Mark Price is our main guy," said Cavaliers coach Lenny Wilkens. "How do you think Chicago would be doing without their main guy, Michael Jordan?"
Then in ’90, injuries hit the team. They are 41-32 with him, 1-8 without him. They got blown out in basically all the losses but it isn’t fair to do a with/without SRS analysis because Daugherty/Nance also missed many of those games (though when Price played without them, he managed to make the team still respectable).
’91…Cavs start season 9-7 then Price goes down with season ending knee injury. This year Daugherty and Nance are actually healthy (miss 8 games combined, compared to 63 in the previous season). But the result after Price's injury? Cavs go 24-42 rest of the way, become a lottery team and one of the worst offensive teams in the league.
’92…Price comes back, rest of the team is about as healthy as the previous year, same coach, the only real addition is Brandon as backup PG and Hot Rod playing more games…and Cavs go from lottery team to a 57 win team that made it to ECF, and in the games Price played they had an offensive rating of 114.6. That is good enough to be top 5 rating for a team in all of the 90s decade (they were second in ’92 only to the Bulls who were a powerhouse offensively). Keep in mind where this team was the previous year without Price.
He missed 10 games in which they went 5-5 with a SRS of -.6 (as opposed to +6.17 in games he played). Big difference in offensive rating of the team when he played/didn't play as well, basically the difference between the league average when he missed games to one of the best offenses of the decade when he played.
Overall from ’92-’94, he missed 23 games, Cavs were 9-14 without him and their SRS in that span was +5.74 when he played to -1.17 when he missed games (net difference = +6.91), and keep in mind they had a legit point guard in Brandon backing him up too (I combined all the games from '92-'94 because the teams were very similar record/roster wise, and there was a consistent shift of 6-8 points each year with him out). The most impressive thing about this is that the Cavs actually were a really talented team, which makes his impact all the more impressive.
The impact is there, but now look at his game. His skill-set was basically eerily similar to Nash. Really would have liked to see him have more freedom in the offense, on a team that ran a bit more, or a team where he didn't have to feed the post or defer and spectate for most of the game. He was one of the best pick and roll players ever (amazing at splitting them and double teams), great and crafty passer, obviously one of the best shooters in history who could create his shot whenever asked (don't mistake him for just a spot up shooter), like Nash just had the perfect offensive skillset you'd want in your PG.
As for what else he accomplished in his prime? Top 10 in MVP voting four times (more than KJ and Stockton for example). Was good enough to be first team all NBA alongside Jordan in his prime. Made three other all-NBA third teams, and he easily would have gotten rated even higher during his prime if he played on the types of teams that other PGs did, and made more all-star games than someone like KJ.
We are now basically in the range of players where all of them have flaws, some don't have longevity/durability, some don't have peak play, some don't have playoff success and etc etc, so I think it's time to give Price a serious look (I personally value prime/peak more than everything else, like to consider the best 5 or so prime years, for which I am willing to overlook longevity).
Players I think should be considered for nomination (who haven't received a vote ITT yet): Thurmond, Rodman, McAdoo (surprised he hasn't been voted in, seems like he was getting more love 10 threads ago), Parish, Gasol
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,041
- And1: 1,207
- Joined: Mar 08, 2010
- Contact:
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
David Stern wrote:Second, it’s strange what you have done above. You provided some information but at the same time didn’t provide whole picture, you only show data which support your claim. So I’ll show what’s on the other hand…
It's strange for you to say I only show data which supports my claim when I shortchanged Miller's teams twice as an honest mistake. What exactly am I leaving out? You go on to talk about some "other hand," but I can't tell if you even believe this or if you are just attempting to play devil's advocate.
You list every playoff series the Pacers play in, but I don't even understand the numbers. Where did they come from? For one thing, the 1992 series against Boston they were +4.0 (111 ORtg vs. 107 DRtg) yet you have the series listed as "-0.7." 1991 is the same. So I have no idea what that list is.
Furthermore, you can list the individual series all you want but is it going to change the overall averages and trends? Indiana usually played top defenses, and they usually outperformed those defenses. Correct?
Reggie in first round exits: 25.8 PPG, 65 TS%
Reggie in deep playoff runs: 22.8 PPG, 59 TS%
OK, let's look at those 5 seasons, the rel DRtg of the opponents and Miller's change from RS to PS:
94 v -1.3, -6.3, -9.8 Drtg: +3.3 ppg -6% TS
95 v -3.1, -4.5, -0.5 Drtg: +5.9 ppg +1% TS
98 v -5.9, -4.8, -5.2 Drtg: +0.4 ppg -2% TS
99 v +0.8, -4.6, -4.7 Drtg: +1.8 ppg -6% TS
00 v +3.8, -4.1, -3.2, -5.9 Drtg: +5.9 ppg +1% TS
Your numbers are a reflection of Miller's different RS stats in the given seasons. He has more balanced RS stats on the better teams, as we would expect. I see no such claims at all for "Price of Anarchy" nor do I even see a trend suggesting he didn't raise his game against good defenses. Look at the freaking list of defenses they played (!), and note that his two seasons of -6% TS his TS% was 58% and 56%, respectively...still well above league average.
Again, when we look at Miller's career in the PS, he vastly outperforms what we'd expect, especially compared to every single contemporary we've looked at. I don't see a way around these numbers - he's not cherry picking against bad Ds nor is there some issue in which he's hurting the team...he expands his role and the team performs better!
You keep harping on Jackson and Schrempf as reasons for why Miller is overrated. That makes no sense to me either. Schrempf is an awesome (and underrated) offensive player and Jackson is a good PG. Obviously they both help the offense! Miller isn't the sole single driving force behind the Indiana offense, or else he'd have been voted in the top-20 with his longevity. It's like listing the Bulls with and without Pippen or Rodman (usually much better on both accounts) and saying "Jordan is overrated because the final apex was reached with the impact of other stars." I just don't see how discussing another excellent player like Schrempf is a blackmark to Miller when the Pacers weren't exactly a loaded offensive team at pretty much any point during Reggie Miller's career.
And yet, as I noted last time, from 1990-2000 Indiana was +3.73 in RS+PS ORtg and +6.58 in the playoffs (weighted by Miller's minutes). No one's calling them an offensive dynasty, but I think people never realized how consistently good - even "excellent" - the Pacers offense was in Reggie Miller's prime.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,041
- And1: 1,207
- Joined: Mar 08, 2010
- Contact:
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
Beast: Walton v Unseld. MVP seasons
Normalized Stats to 75 pos
Walton 77 17.8 pts 13.8 reb 3.6 ast +5.2% rel TS
Walton 78 19.6 pts 13.7 reb 5.2 ast +3.9% TS
Unseld 69 11.2 pts 14.7 reb 2.1 ast +2.4% TS
Unfortunately, we don't have rebounding differential numbers for Wes or I could examine those (probably an area in which he had good impact). But not the key difference IMO from those statlines: Walton was a massively integral part of the offense. True, both are two of the GOAT outlet passers (and perhaps screeners), but Walton's activity, shooting and high-post passing pretty much drove that team in the halfcourt. Unseld was highly complementary on offense, and that's reflected above.
Seasonal Shifts and In/Out Runs
The biggest thing is that I now have 196 in/out runs in my library and Bill Walton still looks like a freakish outlier ITO of impact over a 41 game sample from 1977-1978. It's fairly astounding that in 41 games Walton's Blazers were -4.3 without him and then +9.3 with him.
As I pointed out, the seasonal shift with Unseld in his rookie year is from a roughly 0.0 team to +4. Or, another way to view it might be in the absence of Gus Johnson (a key cog in my not-so-detailed opinion). In 69 without Gus they were about +1, but in 1968 they were -5.6 without Gus (+1.1 with him). So the Gus-less Bullets went from -5.6 to ~+1 the next year. Again, I don't see how to separate the improvement of Monroe and Marin, along with crediting Unseld. But it sort of pails in comparison to what Bill Walton did, which was take a team comparable to the Gus-less Bullets and have them reach the 11th best MOV in history (if it held for a full year).
(One more final note on Johnson, which is that it's hard for me to believe Unseld could have an impact approaching Walton's league on defense when I keep seeing Johnson's name noted in papers as guarding anyone from PG's like Oscar Robertson to banging with centers. IMO the eye test confirms this too.)
Rodman, Arizin
Arizin I'll provide from 56-62 (my pace estimations ended in 56 from RPOY):
56 21.1 pts 6.5 reb 2.3 ast +6.8% rel TS
57 21.5 pts 6.6 reb 1.8 ast +6.6% rel TS
58 17.7 pts 6.3 reb 1.7 ast +3.0% rel TS
59 19.6 pts 6.8 reb 1.3 ast +6.2% rel TS
60 16.3 pts 6.3 reb 1.7 ast +2.9% rel TS
61 16.9 pts 6.3 reb 1.7 ast +3.7% rel TS
62 16.6 pts 5.2 reb 2.0 ast +0.7% rel TS
I'm looking forward to hearing more about Arizin myself. I'm comfortable with the idea of him from highlight films, but in the absence of watching a player for at least a few hundred game possessions, I'm going to need good documentation of his team/game before being comfortable with him.
Rodman has 2 statistical arguments IMO.
(1) In/Out
In 93, 95, 96 and 97 Rodman missed 100 games for 3 different teams.
Rodman 1993 (20g) 8.7 to 0.7
Rodman 1996 (18g) 3.0 to 12.9
Rodman 1997 (27g) 2.8 to 11.7
Rodman 1995 (33g) 1.2 to 6.5
His SIO – the average total net adjusted for team strength – was +5.8. Which conceptually means he lifted a .500 team to +5.8 (57-win expectation). What's so interesting about Worm to me there is that the 93 Pistons were terrible in 22 games with out him. The 95 Spurs were average without him. And the 96-97 Bulls were elite without him. He had comparable impact in all 3 situations. Again, I think this speaks to a non-redundant skill set.
I think we have to think a good deal about what that means. To me, Rodman still needs scorers/offensive players around him. Now, everyone does to a degree to be a good team, but in his case he isn't one of those scorers, so he essentially needs an extra all-star level scoring player. I think that's the biggest knock on him...otherwise he seems to pretty much always be a positive impact basketball player (not going to get into the nitty gritty of defense vs. offense here due to time).
(2) Rebounding Rate/Impact Rebounding
So TRB% reflects Rodman's dominance on the boards, and that's easily comparable. For comparison, Rodman's ~26% seasons he was grabbing around 18 boards per 75 possessions played. That's astounding.
It doesn't always mean the same thing though, speaking to what TrueLA calls “impact rebounding.” I've been trying to come up with a good way to gauge this for about a year – it's very difficult – and it's possible to look at a whole lineup, estimate by position and try and infer who is the missing link if the numbers don't add up. In lieu of that for a decade of Dennis Rodman, just note the differentials:
87 Det +412 (15 mpg player at that point)
88 Det +243 (26 mpg player)
89 Det +381 Jumps to 20% TRB%
90 Det +322
91 Det +378 jumps to 34 mpg wins first TRB% crown at 21%
92 Det +261 hits 26% land – maintains similar level till 98
In the 20 games Rodman missed in 92 Detroit was outrebounded by 1.9 boards per game. In the other 62 games with Rodman, they were +1.7 on the glass. (+3.6 rpg net, or nearly 300 boards per year, an excellent differential for a team.)
94 Det -434 **No Rodman
Rodman goes to San Antonio instead, and they go from
93 SAS -9 **No Rodman
94 SAS +544 **Rodman joins team
In 1995, Rodman missed 33 games. Without Dennis, SAS is +1.5 rpg on the glass. With Rodman, +6.6 rpg (+4.1 net, similarly to what we saw in 93 in Detroit).
Then he goes to the Bulls.
95 Bulls +80 **No Rodman
96 Bulls +541 **Rodman joins team (Michael Jordan too)
97 Bulls +403
98 Bulls +426
And one more time, in 96, we see the same trend. In 18 games without Rodman, the Bulls are +2.9 rpg without Rodman and +5.8 rpg (+2.9 net) with him.
What else can I say? He's the GOAT rebounder. And rebounding matters, especially on defense (just don't call me Dave Berri).
Normalized Stats to 75 pos
Walton 77 17.8 pts 13.8 reb 3.6 ast +5.2% rel TS
Walton 78 19.6 pts 13.7 reb 5.2 ast +3.9% TS
Unseld 69 11.2 pts 14.7 reb 2.1 ast +2.4% TS
Unfortunately, we don't have rebounding differential numbers for Wes or I could examine those (probably an area in which he had good impact). But not the key difference IMO from those statlines: Walton was a massively integral part of the offense. True, both are two of the GOAT outlet passers (and perhaps screeners), but Walton's activity, shooting and high-post passing pretty much drove that team in the halfcourt. Unseld was highly complementary on offense, and that's reflected above.
Seasonal Shifts and In/Out Runs
The biggest thing is that I now have 196 in/out runs in my library and Bill Walton still looks like a freakish outlier ITO of impact over a 41 game sample from 1977-1978. It's fairly astounding that in 41 games Walton's Blazers were -4.3 without him and then +9.3 with him.
As I pointed out, the seasonal shift with Unseld in his rookie year is from a roughly 0.0 team to +4. Or, another way to view it might be in the absence of Gus Johnson (a key cog in my not-so-detailed opinion). In 69 without Gus they were about +1, but in 1968 they were -5.6 without Gus (+1.1 with him). So the Gus-less Bullets went from -5.6 to ~+1 the next year. Again, I don't see how to separate the improvement of Monroe and Marin, along with crediting Unseld. But it sort of pails in comparison to what Bill Walton did, which was take a team comparable to the Gus-less Bullets and have them reach the 11th best MOV in history (if it held for a full year).
(One more final note on Johnson, which is that it's hard for me to believe Unseld could have an impact approaching Walton's league on defense when I keep seeing Johnson's name noted in papers as guarding anyone from PG's like Oscar Robertson to banging with centers. IMO the eye test confirms this too.)
Rodman, Arizin
Arizin I'll provide from 56-62 (my pace estimations ended in 56 from RPOY):
56 21.1 pts 6.5 reb 2.3 ast +6.8% rel TS
57 21.5 pts 6.6 reb 1.8 ast +6.6% rel TS
58 17.7 pts 6.3 reb 1.7 ast +3.0% rel TS
59 19.6 pts 6.8 reb 1.3 ast +6.2% rel TS
60 16.3 pts 6.3 reb 1.7 ast +2.9% rel TS
61 16.9 pts 6.3 reb 1.7 ast +3.7% rel TS
62 16.6 pts 5.2 reb 2.0 ast +0.7% rel TS
I'm looking forward to hearing more about Arizin myself. I'm comfortable with the idea of him from highlight films, but in the absence of watching a player for at least a few hundred game possessions, I'm going to need good documentation of his team/game before being comfortable with him.
Rodman has 2 statistical arguments IMO.
(1) In/Out
In 93, 95, 96 and 97 Rodman missed 100 games for 3 different teams.
Rodman 1993 (20g) 8.7 to 0.7
Rodman 1996 (18g) 3.0 to 12.9
Rodman 1997 (27g) 2.8 to 11.7
Rodman 1995 (33g) 1.2 to 6.5
His SIO – the average total net adjusted for team strength – was +5.8. Which conceptually means he lifted a .500 team to +5.8 (57-win expectation). What's so interesting about Worm to me there is that the 93 Pistons were terrible in 22 games with out him. The 95 Spurs were average without him. And the 96-97 Bulls were elite without him. He had comparable impact in all 3 situations. Again, I think this speaks to a non-redundant skill set.
I think we have to think a good deal about what that means. To me, Rodman still needs scorers/offensive players around him. Now, everyone does to a degree to be a good team, but in his case he isn't one of those scorers, so he essentially needs an extra all-star level scoring player. I think that's the biggest knock on him...otherwise he seems to pretty much always be a positive impact basketball player (not going to get into the nitty gritty of defense vs. offense here due to time).
(2) Rebounding Rate/Impact Rebounding
So TRB% reflects Rodman's dominance on the boards, and that's easily comparable. For comparison, Rodman's ~26% seasons he was grabbing around 18 boards per 75 possessions played. That's astounding.
It doesn't always mean the same thing though, speaking to what TrueLA calls “impact rebounding.” I've been trying to come up with a good way to gauge this for about a year – it's very difficult – and it's possible to look at a whole lineup, estimate by position and try and infer who is the missing link if the numbers don't add up. In lieu of that for a decade of Dennis Rodman, just note the differentials:
87 Det +412 (15 mpg player at that point)
88 Det +243 (26 mpg player)
89 Det +381 Jumps to 20% TRB%
90 Det +322
91 Det +378 jumps to 34 mpg wins first TRB% crown at 21%
92 Det +261 hits 26% land – maintains similar level till 98
In the 20 games Rodman missed in 92 Detroit was outrebounded by 1.9 boards per game. In the other 62 games with Rodman, they were +1.7 on the glass. (+3.6 rpg net, or nearly 300 boards per year, an excellent differential for a team.)
94 Det -434 **No Rodman
Rodman goes to San Antonio instead, and they go from
93 SAS -9 **No Rodman
94 SAS +544 **Rodman joins team
In 1995, Rodman missed 33 games. Without Dennis, SAS is +1.5 rpg on the glass. With Rodman, +6.6 rpg (+4.1 net, similarly to what we saw in 93 in Detroit).
Then he goes to the Bulls.
95 Bulls +80 **No Rodman
96 Bulls +541 **Rodman joins team (Michael Jordan too)
97 Bulls +403
98 Bulls +426
And one more time, in 96, we see the same trend. In 18 games without Rodman, the Bulls are +2.9 rpg without Rodman and +5.8 rpg (+2.9 net) with him.
What else can I say? He's the GOAT rebounder. And rebounding matters, especially on defense (just don't call me Dave Berri).
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,041
- And1: 1,207
- Joined: Mar 08, 2010
- Contact:
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
Beast - not sure what you want ITO of KJ since I've posted a lot about him. I can give you his normalized line if you want later.
Doc - Lanier vs. Mac is mostly about longevity. But it's also about who I'd draft.
Now, I like Bob McAdoo's peak a little more than Lanier's. They are both offensively oriented bigs, but I'll give McAdoo credit for being better/more explosive. He gave team fits. But I also think there is some offense/defense tradeoff being worked there by Dr. Jack, as I wrote about this year with Amare Stoudemire: http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/18/ama ... -position/
Overall, Mac still provided a great net impact, but ITO of drafting I have to consider where he'd fit on a number of high-quality teams. Isn't he really more of a true PF? Or even a pre-protypical "Tall" forward. He did so much damage with his first step and pulling guys away and facing up/outside shooting that I wonder what the impact would be at the forward slot (instead of center) against different defenders. And while he was athletic enough to block some shots, it's still roughly the same defensive presence either way.
Not sure if that makes sense, but that's probably the biggest thing preventing Mac from being in my top-50 (and probably getting the nomination here).
Doc - Lanier vs. Mac is mostly about longevity. But it's also about who I'd draft.
Now, I like Bob McAdoo's peak a little more than Lanier's. They are both offensively oriented bigs, but I'll give McAdoo credit for being better/more explosive. He gave team fits. But I also think there is some offense/defense tradeoff being worked there by Dr. Jack, as I wrote about this year with Amare Stoudemire: http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/18/ama ... -position/
Overall, Mac still provided a great net impact, but ITO of drafting I have to consider where he'd fit on a number of high-quality teams. Isn't he really more of a true PF? Or even a pre-protypical "Tall" forward. He did so much damage with his first step and pulling guys away and facing up/outside shooting that I wonder what the impact would be at the forward slot (instead of center) against different defenders. And while he was athletic enough to block some shots, it's still roughly the same defensive presence either way.
Not sure if that makes sense, but that's probably the biggest thing preventing Mac from being in my top-50 (and probably getting the nomination here).
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
- fatal9
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,341
- And1: 548
- Joined: Sep 13, 2009
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
Re: Thurmond
- I think people in the RPOY looked at games he missed (and there are lots of them) and he usually had a huge impact on his teams.
- Offensively, he was mainly a jump shooting C from what I've seen, which explains his low FG%. Not sure what to make of him offensively, but he could definitely be a contributor but not sure how many shots you'd want to give him.
- Was rated highly during his prime. Finished as high as #2 for MVP (lost to Wilt in '67, no shame in that), 7X all-star teams, several all-defensive selections (possibly more if they existed for his entire career).
- Great team defender, one of the best of all-time. As a rebounder was right there with Wilt/Russell in many years.
- Now the thing that impresses me most. I truly believe he might be the best low post defender of all-time if we are to consider what he did to Kareem and Wilt. No one had this sort of success against them, this consistently.
I believe these are his head to head stats with Wilt (like usual Nate shot a low percentage), but look at how far below he holds Wilt in his averages.
1967 NBA Finals (6 games):
Wilt Chamberlain - 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg 56 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 14.2 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg 34,3 % FG (injured himself in game 1 iirc)
1969 NBA playoffs (6 games)
Wilt Chamberlain - 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 3.0 apg 50 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg 39,2 % FG
^^ Warriors went up 2-0 on the Lakers (both road wins) before Mullins (their leading scorer) got injured. They had a great chance to pull off the upset.
1973 NBA playoffs (5 games)
Wilt Chamberlain - 8.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.0 apg 55 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 15.8 ppg, 17.2pg, 4.2 apg 39,8 % FG
Nate didn't quite face Wilt in his volume scoring years but there's a lot of regular season matchups to suggest he could lock him down.
In '68, Thurmond held him to a one point game, which I'm guessing is Wilt's lowest output for all of the 60s (Wilt apparently took one shot that entire game and it was blocked by Nate). Then in the next game Nate held him to 12 pts on 3/11 shooting. Overall Wilt averaged just 13.2 ppg in the games against him that season on clearly well below his shooting percentages (Wilt averaged 24 ppg that season on 60%).
And it's the same story every season I look at their head to heads, Nate hold him well below his normal output. In '67 he averaged 20.8 ppg in the 6 matchups, on what seems like well below his normal efficiency (hard to get shooting figures). There was one game where Nate blocked 8 of his shots, and another game where recaps indicate he shot poorly.
In '66 Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg on Thurmond (25.7 ppg in games Nate fully played), compared to his league leading 33.5 ppg. In one of the games Thurmond DIDN'T play when the Warriors faced the Sixers, Wilt ended up scoring 62 points. This was the year Wilt had his only 40+ pt game against Thurmond (according to what I have, though there are two games missing from the '65 season), but it should be noted Nate was in foul trouble that game and did in fact foul out so it's questionable how many points Wilt actually ended up scoring on him. And this is when Nate is still young mind you (looks noticeably bigger/stronger in later years).
Kareem also didn't fare any better:
1971 playoffs (5 games)
Kareem - 27.8 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 0.4 apg, 49%FG
Thurmond - 17.6 ppg, 10.2rpg, 3 apg, 37 %FG, 38.4 min
^^ This might be the best scoring season anyone has ever put on Thurmond and it's not even that impressive.
1972 playoffs (5 games)
Kareem - 22.8 ppg, 18.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 41%FG
Thurmond - 25.4 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 43 %FG
1973 playoffs (6 games):
Kareem - 22.8 ppg, 16.2 rpg, 2.8 apg, 43 %FG
Thurmond - 13.5 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 3.2 apg, 40 %FG
^^ Warriors upset Bucks, clearly behind Nate's defense.
Thurmond also held Kareem well below his scoring averages in regular season:
In '70: 28.8 ppg to 22 ppg
In '71: 31.7 ppg to 30 ppg (in the three games I have, I expect his actual average against Thurmond was lower)
In '72: 34.8 ppg to 25.5 ppg (on below normal shooting as in two of the games where I have his shooting numbers he shot 7/14 and 10/24)
In '73: 30.2 ppg to 25.3 ppg (missing two games, and again seems to be on below his normal shooting)
In '74: 27 ppg to 23.5 ppg (on good shooting in the games I have full boxscore for)
He was no doubt Kareem's toughest competitor, though I do think late 70s/early 80s Kareem (stronger, heavier) would have fared much better against him. And to my knowledge, KAJ never managed to drop 40 in all their matchups. This is the same guy who has scored 50 on Wilt, 50 on Walton, 46 on Hakeem, 40 on Ewing, given it to basically every center he faced but he could never truly solve Thurmond.
He consistently contained (and shut down) the two most uncontainable players of their era.
- I think people in the RPOY looked at games he missed (and there are lots of them) and he usually had a huge impact on his teams.
- Offensively, he was mainly a jump shooting C from what I've seen, which explains his low FG%. Not sure what to make of him offensively, but he could definitely be a contributor but not sure how many shots you'd want to give him.
- Was rated highly during his prime. Finished as high as #2 for MVP (lost to Wilt in '67, no shame in that), 7X all-star teams, several all-defensive selections (possibly more if they existed for his entire career).
- Great team defender, one of the best of all-time. As a rebounder was right there with Wilt/Russell in many years.
- Now the thing that impresses me most. I truly believe he might be the best low post defender of all-time if we are to consider what he did to Kareem and Wilt. No one had this sort of success against them, this consistently.
I believe these are his head to head stats with Wilt (like usual Nate shot a low percentage), but look at how far below he holds Wilt in his averages.
1967 NBA Finals (6 games):
Wilt Chamberlain - 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg 56 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 14.2 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg 34,3 % FG (injured himself in game 1 iirc)
1969 NBA playoffs (6 games)
Wilt Chamberlain - 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 3.0 apg 50 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg 39,2 % FG
^^ Warriors went up 2-0 on the Lakers (both road wins) before Mullins (their leading scorer) got injured. They had a great chance to pull off the upset.
1973 NBA playoffs (5 games)
Wilt Chamberlain - 8.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.0 apg 55 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 15.8 ppg, 17.2pg, 4.2 apg 39,8 % FG
Nate didn't quite face Wilt in his volume scoring years but there's a lot of regular season matchups to suggest he could lock him down.
In '68, Thurmond held him to a one point game, which I'm guessing is Wilt's lowest output for all of the 60s (Wilt apparently took one shot that entire game and it was blocked by Nate). Then in the next game Nate held him to 12 pts on 3/11 shooting. Overall Wilt averaged just 13.2 ppg in the games against him that season on clearly well below his shooting percentages (Wilt averaged 24 ppg that season on 60%).
And it's the same story every season I look at their head to heads, Nate hold him well below his normal output. In '67 he averaged 20.8 ppg in the 6 matchups, on what seems like well below his normal efficiency (hard to get shooting figures). There was one game where Nate blocked 8 of his shots, and another game where recaps indicate he shot poorly.
In '66 Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg on Thurmond (25.7 ppg in games Nate fully played), compared to his league leading 33.5 ppg. In one of the games Thurmond DIDN'T play when the Warriors faced the Sixers, Wilt ended up scoring 62 points. This was the year Wilt had his only 40+ pt game against Thurmond (according to what I have, though there are two games missing from the '65 season), but it should be noted Nate was in foul trouble that game and did in fact foul out so it's questionable how many points Wilt actually ended up scoring on him. And this is when Nate is still young mind you (looks noticeably bigger/stronger in later years).
Kareem also didn't fare any better:
1971 playoffs (5 games)
Kareem - 27.8 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 0.4 apg, 49%FG
Thurmond - 17.6 ppg, 10.2rpg, 3 apg, 37 %FG, 38.4 min
^^ This might be the best scoring season anyone has ever put on Thurmond and it's not even that impressive.
1972 playoffs (5 games)
Kareem - 22.8 ppg, 18.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 41%FG
Thurmond - 25.4 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 43 %FG
1973 playoffs (6 games):
Kareem - 22.8 ppg, 16.2 rpg, 2.8 apg, 43 %FG
Thurmond - 13.5 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 3.2 apg, 40 %FG
^^ Warriors upset Bucks, clearly behind Nate's defense.
Thurmond also held Kareem well below his scoring averages in regular season:
In '70: 28.8 ppg to 22 ppg
In '71: 31.7 ppg to 30 ppg (in the three games I have, I expect his actual average against Thurmond was lower)
In '72: 34.8 ppg to 25.5 ppg (on below normal shooting as in two of the games where I have his shooting numbers he shot 7/14 and 10/24)
In '73: 30.2 ppg to 25.3 ppg (missing two games, and again seems to be on below his normal shooting)
In '74: 27 ppg to 23.5 ppg (on good shooting in the games I have full boxscore for)
He was no doubt Kareem's toughest competitor, though I do think late 70s/early 80s Kareem (stronger, heavier) would have fared much better against him. And to my knowledge, KAJ never managed to drop 40 in all their matchups. This is the same guy who has scored 50 on Wilt, 50 on Walton, 46 on Hakeem, 40 on Ewing, given it to basically every center he faced but he could never truly solve Thurmond.
He consistently contained (and shut down) the two most uncontainable players of their era.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
- fatal9
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,341
- And1: 548
- Joined: Sep 13, 2009
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
ElGee wrote:The biggest thing is that I now have 196 in/out runs in my library and Bill Walton still looks like a freakish outlier ITO of impact over a 41 game sample from 1977-1978. It's fairly astounding that in 41 games Walton's Blazers were -4.3 without him and then +9.3 with him.
I believe Blazers were dealing with injuries to other players in many of the games he missed in '78 (Lucas IIRC was injured during March of '78, along with one or two other guys). Google archive got taken down so I can't really check up and get specifics. Regardless the numbers would still be huge but injuries to other players needs to be looked at imo. I consider Walton to have a top 10 peak, just don't know what to make of him on an all-time list.
Nice post on Rodman. I have him just inside my top 50.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,415
- And1: 9,942
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
Thanks, (and yeah, KJ was in there for completeness because he's on my short list if Sidney gets in). The problem I have with Nate isn't defense, he's clearly one of the great defenders, but his offense. Was it as historically awful as I remember? He shot way too much, made way too little, and was a poor passer with lots of mistakes from the post in the games I saw (of course, that was late era Thurmond since I basically became a fan in 69 after having watched a few games in a casual fashion before that).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
- fatal9
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,341
- And1: 548
- Joined: Sep 13, 2009
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
Reggie raises his game in the playoffs. Impressive. Good for him. But it's not beyond what Ray did or could do.
Prime Ray in the playoffs '99-'05 (37 games):
24.9 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.8 apg on 60.2 TS%, PER 23.6
Ray's Buck teams had some of the best offenses in the league (top 1-3) but were near the bottom defensively...which tends to happen when you have guys like Glenn Robinson on your team and no interior defenders to speak of (unlike the Davis brothers, Derrick McKey who usually made the Pacers a top 10 team in terms of defense and brought toughness/intimidation come playoff time). I mean old Mutombo when he was averaging like 10 ppg had games of 15/18, 18/20, 21/13, 23/17...in the same playoff series against the Bucks. Same thing happened in Seattle, Ray gets traded, Seattle becomes a top 5 offense in the league year in year out but also bottom 5 defensively (again due to lack of good defenders on the team, unless you think Ray is single handedly causing his teams to be that bad defensively). His teams not having more success has more to do with how they were constructed than any failing of his own.
Reggie...
'90-'96 (best statistical stretch) (49 games):
24.7 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.6 apg on 62.8 TS%, PER 21.6
'90-'00 (entire prime) (100 games):
23.2 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 2.5 apg on 60.6 TS%, PER 20.8
When Ray got to play in the post-season, he played just as well or better than Reggie. Regular seasons? Ray has an advantage there. Had seasons of 22/5/5, 24/4/4, 25/4/4 on top 3 offensive teams in the league (on much slower teams than Reggie played on in early 90s), made twice as many all-star games, made a second team all-NBA (over Kobe/Arenas) something which Reggie never did, and is matching Reggie longevity wise so far at age 35.
Numbers aside (and team success aside which varies situation to situation)...just evaluate them as players...
Ray can shoot just as well, play off the ball just as well, both are two of the best clutch shooters of their generation, both good man defenders when they want to be, but Ray can do more...he can score more by putting the ball on the floor, break down the defense better, better playmaker (played PG type role at times), rebound better and if I can't get a screen and need to let one of them create a shot for themselves, it's going to be Ray. He's a better all-around player and had more versatility/variety with his scoring. Reggie shot as well as him but did nothing else as good and I really don't see how it can be argued to be otherwise if you've seen enough of both.
But one thing I'll add. Always knew Reggie was a great playoff performer, but looking more in depth has made me think a bit more highly of him, so all the Reggie posts were at least a bit convincing to me. I still can't get myself to ever put him above Ray when he simply wasn't a better player.
Prime Ray in the playoffs '99-'05 (37 games):
24.9 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.8 apg on 60.2 TS%, PER 23.6
Ray's Buck teams had some of the best offenses in the league (top 1-3) but were near the bottom defensively...which tends to happen when you have guys like Glenn Robinson on your team and no interior defenders to speak of (unlike the Davis brothers, Derrick McKey who usually made the Pacers a top 10 team in terms of defense and brought toughness/intimidation come playoff time). I mean old Mutombo when he was averaging like 10 ppg had games of 15/18, 18/20, 21/13, 23/17...in the same playoff series against the Bucks. Same thing happened in Seattle, Ray gets traded, Seattle becomes a top 5 offense in the league year in year out but also bottom 5 defensively (again due to lack of good defenders on the team, unless you think Ray is single handedly causing his teams to be that bad defensively). His teams not having more success has more to do with how they were constructed than any failing of his own.
Reggie...
'90-'96 (best statistical stretch) (49 games):
24.7 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.6 apg on 62.8 TS%, PER 21.6
'90-'00 (entire prime) (100 games):
23.2 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 2.5 apg on 60.6 TS%, PER 20.8
When Ray got to play in the post-season, he played just as well or better than Reggie. Regular seasons? Ray has an advantage there. Had seasons of 22/5/5, 24/4/4, 25/4/4 on top 3 offensive teams in the league (on much slower teams than Reggie played on in early 90s), made twice as many all-star games, made a second team all-NBA (over Kobe/Arenas) something which Reggie never did, and is matching Reggie longevity wise so far at age 35.
Numbers aside (and team success aside which varies situation to situation)...just evaluate them as players...
Ray can shoot just as well, play off the ball just as well, both are two of the best clutch shooters of their generation, both good man defenders when they want to be, but Ray can do more...he can score more by putting the ball on the floor, break down the defense better, better playmaker (played PG type role at times), rebound better and if I can't get a screen and need to let one of them create a shot for themselves, it's going to be Ray. He's a better all-around player and had more versatility/variety with his scoring. Reggie shot as well as him but did nothing else as good and I really don't see how it can be argued to be otherwise if you've seen enough of both.
But one thing I'll add. Always knew Reggie was a great playoff performer, but looking more in depth has made me think a bit more highly of him, so all the Reggie posts were at least a bit convincing to me. I still can't get myself to ever put him above Ray when he simply wasn't a better player.
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 41,049
- And1: 27,921
- Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
What gets me about Ray Allen's PG skills is that they've been pathetic in Boston. He can still put the ball on the floor and score at times, but otherwise when he dribbles bad things tend to happen. He actually throws a pretty good outlet pass, but that's a situation that arises rarely, and otherwise when he passes bad things tend to happen.
His defense since coming to the Celtics has been a pleasant surprise, but his PG skills have been a disappointment.
His defense since coming to the Celtics has been a pleasant surprise, but his PG skills have been a disappointment.
Banned temporarily for, among other sins, being "Extremely Deviant".
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
- rocopc
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 877
- And1: 72
- Joined: Jul 17, 2006
- Location: Buenos Aires
-
Re: RealGM Top 100 List #41
If you named Mark Price.... Tim Hardaway I think is a more complete and better overall player than him, good shotter (Price was better) great running the court, Timis the better passer I Think Mark is more of a flashier passes, and more leader than Mark and more intangibles bringing to the court with Tim, neither was a great defender, but Mark is way better, overall I pick Tim over Mark, but is only my opinion, and Tim deserves recognition
"No dejes que tus pensamientos escapen de tu control"