RealGM Top 100 List #42

[cpower]

Miller ahead of Ray Allen , really????
Ray Allen has the better overall skill-set and stats than Reggie, but Reggie "is" better since he had an EPIC series against MJ? is this how the list works?

[ElGee]

As for all the names being tosser around, I want to discuss the next 4 on my radar outside of Lanier:

Bill Walton - obviously tough to place. For me, I'm giving him a little benefit of the doubt that if I draft him, I can handle his health better than Portland and that modern medicine gives him at least another year or so (even if it isn't peak).

Ray Allen - By extension, think about my comparison earlier between Ray and Reggie when someone (Mufasa?) asked about them. It really just comes down to longevity (don't forget Ray had 07 surgery) and durability. Otherwise they are fairly close - as I said, I don't have the distance between them being too great.

Marques Johnson - The guy has an awesome peak and nice 5-year prime in which he often went toe to toe with the best forwards in the game (Erving, Bird) and hung with them or outplayed them. He's better than Moncrief IMO, and I think he's historically hurt for 2 huge reasons:

(1) the flameout
(2) Milwaukee wasn't good when he arrived. He was the key star for years as they improved...then he left as they really got good and that just let him fade into the distance, but as I've (hopefully) demonstrated there is a huge body of evidence suggesting the Bucks TEAM just got stacked in the mid 80s and it wasn't an issue of Moncrief being a better player.

I do know in 1982, I have 19 games without Marques and Mil was +3.2 without him, +6.2 with him (+3.0 net). Here's my last Marques post for a refresher:

It's time for Marques Johnson. During the RPOY, TrueLA referred to him as “the forgotten star” and I don't think anything could be more accurate. From 1978-1981, Marques was a stud. Then an injured 1982 campaign (still worth of All-Star level play) and a solid 1983 before fading away.

In his rookie year, particularly by the end of the season, Marques was already a top-12 player in the league. He joined a Bucks team that was -3.0 SRS the year before that lost Bobby Dandridge, came in and played both forward spots and averaged 19.5 ppg and 10.6 rpg as a rookie. He was a stellar, versatile defender as well. We don't have splits then, but we do know that he led the team in the postseason with 24 ppg and 12.4 rpg (!) on 60% TS (.280 WS/48). Up from 56% in the RS...and as a ridiculously low TOV player, that produced a 124 Ortg, if that's your thing.

In the playoffs against Phoenix, Johnson scored 15 consecutive 3rd Q points en route to a career-high 33 to close out Phoenix in the mini series.

Then against Denver, down 2-0 after being overwhelmed in Colorado, Johnson exploded for 35, including 10 in a 40-point 3rd quarter for Milwaukee to answer back. This, by the way, being guarded by the venerable Bobby Jones. After a big David Thompson performance (34 points) in G4, the Bucks faced elimination in Denver in G5 and Marques fueled a 4th-quarter rally to stay alive, scoring 34 points 17 rebounds on 13-22 FG to overcome a 10-point deficit in the final period. Johnson grabbed 17 boards in G6 again.

In G7, Thompson scored 37 and helped open a 57-44 lead Milwaukee never overcame. Marques had 22.

In 1979, the Bucks improved even more to +2.1 SRS, but failed to make the PS. Marques led the team in scoring (25.6 pg), shooting (55% FG, 59% TS) and rebounding again (7.6 rpg). Again, a 117 Ortg and .211 WS/48 for those interested...the Bucks jumped from 8th in Ortg to 6th in 79. They still lacked substance in the middle (although I supposed Kent Benson helped) and were outrebounded by 139, almost the exact same deficit they saw in 78.

In 1980, two key members arrived: rookie Moncrief and aging Bob Lanier. Marques led the team in rebounding again, but this time Milwaukee almost broke even on the glass. Johnson, byt this point, was also considered arguably the best all-around player in the game, providing excellent defense and nearly 4 apg.

With the additions of Lanier and Squid, the Bucks jumped to the 8th best defensive team in the league and posted a +3.7 SRS. They lost game 1 to defend champ Seattle when Dennis Johnson hit a 26-footer with 1 second left. Johnson only had 17 and 15 (7-17) in the first two games, split in OT. Then 16 and 10 (7-16, 2-4) in G3 as Mil won.

In G4, Johnson popped off for 32-7-4 (13-22, 5-7). For some perspective on normal rookie contributions, Moncrief had 6 points in the game in 21 minutes. The Seattle guards were merely too strong – combining for 27-41 shooting.

In the pivotal G5, Marques had 16-8-3 (6-16, 4-6) but the Bucks lost Dave Meyers (knee) and Junior Bridgeman (back). Harvey Catchings was already out with bone spurs, which left 8 Mil players in uniform.

In G6, shorthanded, Johnson had 22-6-3 (7-16, 8-8) to lead Milwaukee, who lost 86-85. G7 Johnson led Mil again with 22-5-5 (9-25, 4-5) but no one could stop Gus Williams and his 33 points (13-20 shooting).

In 1981, with a mature Moncrief, Mil posted a 7.1 SRS. Marques finished 6th in MVP voting (behind Gervin, Moses, Kareem, Bird and Doctor J). He averaged 20-7-5 on 58% TS and in November SI implied he is generally conceded to be the best all-around player in the game.

In 1981, five months after that SI feature, Marques arguably outplayed MVP Julius Erving in their seven game playoff battle. In game 4, he started 7-7, and finished with 35 points and seven offensive rebounds. In game 5 he was saddled with back spasms, but recovered by game 7 to pour in 36 while playing the entire game. He averaged 25-9-5 on 58% TS for the series.

In 1982, Marques held out at the start of the year. The Bucks played +2.8 MOV basketball before Marques joined, then +6.2 MOV the rest of the way (I can only find 1 of Johnson's 4 remaining DNPs). And that was with Marques having a down year statistically.

In 1983, Lanier missed more than half the year and again Milwaukee's D regressed a bit probably due to rebounding (-74 differential). Marques averaged 21-7-5 on 54% TS, second to leading scorer Moncrief.

In the PS he was prominent in overwhelming the Celtics in a first round sweep. His athleticism, along with Sidney Moncrief, created serious problems for Boston and even Larry Bird. As Moncrief said after Johnson popped off for 33 points 9 rebounds and 6 assists in the closing game, “it was Marques and Marques tonight.” In the next round against the champion 76ers, Marques again outplayed Erving and was arguably the best player in a series involving MVP Moses Malone. Johnson averaged 28-7-3 on 60.9% TS in the first two games and had 19-10-8 in the lone series win.

For the statistically inclined, Marques was 6th in Win Shares in that 78-83 stretch:
Kareem 77
Moses 76
Julius 68
Gilmore 65
Gervin 65
Marques 63

Finally, Sam Jones. This is one of the 60s players I'm very high on and have always felt he was CLEARLY the second-best Celtic of that period. He was critical to the offense and just about their only non-gunning scorer of the period. Old reports constantly talk about (a) how the team suffered without him and (b) how big/clutch he was in critical periods of offense.

After Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, Pettit and Baylor I'm not sure who was better from the 60s. Never a super-high peak player, but 5th in my RPOY ballot in 65, 66 and 6th in 67. I would actually like to hear an anti-Jones argument from someone, because I've never really heard one. And if we look at Jones prime (62-68) using our old Win Shares method as a ballpark, he was 7th (ahead of Greer).

[lorak]

Seems like Reggie will win easily this time, so for now I will only nominate: Rodman.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm debating Lanier vs Pau. I suppose Lanier's stats a bit better and he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but I'm wary of his consistently mediocore teams and very poor DRTGs. While Pau's impact looks high to me in both Memphis and LA

Anybody who saw Lanier consistently want to tell me how he compares to Pau as a player?

[lorak]

Hope that's clear.

Yes ;] My bad, I understood it wrong when you posted your numbers, but now all is clear and you are right - Reggie's teams almost always improved offensively in playoffs.

[ronnymac2]

Ray Allen led a team of screen-setters, offensive rebounders, and Rashard Lewis to over 50 wins and a tough confrontation with the champion Spurs. I think you'd need to put a better team around Rodman (not just differently constructed...I mean a better team, too.).

We start getting into circular logic territory. The strength of that Sonic team was it's offensive rebounding, not it's ability to actually shoot the ball into the hole, and if you dismiss that as relatively easy to come by in a comparison with someone known for things like offensive rebounding then it's pretty hard to see how the offensive rebounder is going to win in your comparison.

No, we're not. And no, that wasn't THE strength of the team. And no, because Rodman's super-strength was not offensive rebounding. It was defense.


Seattle was a top-5 eFG% in the league in 2005, so while their offensive rebounding was terrific, that wasn't the only thing that caused them to be the second best offense in the league.

Seattle had Danny Fortson, Reggie Evans, and Nick Collison vacuuming the offensive glass. While excellent offensive rebounders, they were not Dennis Rodman in this regard as far as being a singular high o-board percentage player in truly significant minutes- not to mention while doing something special on the other side of the court. None of them were the singular offensive rebounding force that Rodman was. Rodman didn't need a Collison and an Evans to take the team he was on to a high place on the offensive glass.


But beyond that...I don't see how what I said leads you to believe I'm not going to be open to choosing Worm. Allen was the offensive anchor- the clear one- on a team with no defensive anchor and no defense. Rodman would not be the offensive anchor of a #2 ranked defense, because you'd build around him as your best player differently than you would Allen. To build around Worm as your base, you aren't going to bring in three elite offensive rebounders. You're going to build your team around Rodman's defense and a bevy of versatile scoring threats (going by your Denver example).

My point about Allen was this: Using Ray Allen as its base component/overall anchor/bball transcendental signifier, the 2005 Sonics built that 2005 Sonics teams, and they reached a certain level of success. Offensive rebounding was integral to the team, but Ray-Ray was the base.

Rodman could be the base- the defensive-oriented one- of a team with similar success I think.

All I'm trying to do is visualize teams with equal talent, with Rodman and Ray as their respective overall anchors, and see which team would end up better overall.

[FJS]

Vote: Iverson
Nomination: Worthy

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Willis Reed

Nominate: Bob McAdoo


McAdoo should be in. This guy was an elite offensive anchor. You could win a title with this guy's offense.

[Snakebites]

^Yeah, I was voting for him a few rounds ago but I was the only one.

If someone else is prepared to nominate him I'm down.

Vote: Willis Reed

Nominate: Bob Mcadoo

[penbeast0]

Lanier v. Pau . . . a non-statistical eyeball matchup:

Lanier was a dominant center in the age of centers. In Detroit, not a real hardworking guy on defense nor a real floor-burn guy but with terrific touch in the post who you had to design your defense around. By Milwaukee he was like Shaq in Boston (only he actually played regularly) in that you would still see flashes of that talent but it was not longer enough to dominate . . . but he didn't need to and could at least hold even with other centers which is what they needed.

Pau is an excellent complementary big in an age of outstanding power forwards. He doesn't physically dominate, if fact his own coach has called him out for being soft on several occasions (thank you Zen Master) but he's an excellent secondary scorer and smart player who can hold his own at C or PF. Even in Memphis he never seemed as dominant as Lanier but he was the second star on two championship teams and actually has more accolades. Depends on how highly you value Pau's role on those championship teams plus any statistical analysis any of our sabermetricians care to provide.

[penbeast0]

I wish we had been able to see more of prime McAdoo as a PF, he wasn't able to cope defensively as a 5 against any of the better centers although he had an offensive mismatch against those who chose to play him (often they switched the center onto Gar Heard) . . . he did play for a stretch with Elmore Smith who is a classic 7' shotblocker but not sure it was any more impressive than his years with Heard as his sidekick.

[drza]

Was willing to go with Reed, Hayes or Iverson here. Reed seems to have the best chance at some traction, so I'll vote him.

Vote: Willis Reed
Nomination: Dennis Rodman

[Doctor MJ]

No, we're not. And no, that wasn't THE strength of the team. And no, because Rodman's super-strength was not offensive rebounding. It was defense.


Seattle was a top-5 eFG% in the league in 2005, so while their offensive rebounding was terrific, that wasn't the only thing that caused them to be the second best offense in the league.

Seattle had Danny Fortson, Reggie Evans, and Nick Collison vacuuming the offensive glass. While excellent offensive rebounders, they were not Dennis Rodman in this regard as far as being a singular high o-board percentage player in truly significant minutes- not to mention while doing something special on the other side of the court. None of them were the singular offensive rebounding force that Rodman was. Rodman didn't need a Collison and an Evans to take the team he was on to a high place on the offensive glass.


But beyond that...I don't see how what I said leads you to believe I'm not going to be open to choosing Worm. Allen was the offensive anchor- the clear one- on a team with no defensive anchor and no defense. Rodman would not be the offensive anchor of a #2 ranked defense, because you'd build around him as your best player differently than you would Allen. To build around Worm as your base, you aren't going to bring in three elite offensive rebounders. You're going to build your team around Rodman's defense and a bevy of versatile scoring threats (going by your Denver example).

My point about Allen was this: Using Ray Allen as its base component/overall anchor/bball transcendental signifier, the 2005 Sonics built that 2005 Sonics teams, and they reached a certain level of success. Offensive rebounding was integral to the team, but Ray-Ray was the base.

Rodman could be the base- the defensive-oriented one- of a team with similar success I think.

All I'm trying to do is visualize teams with equal talent, with Rodman and Ray as their respective overall anchors, and see which team would end up better overall.

Okay so a couple things:

1) While Seattle was 5th in eFG, but this isn't actually as impressive as you might think compared to the offensive rebounding.

For one, while they were 5th in eFG, they were only .013 above league average. Phoenix at the #1 spot was .039 above Seattle. So the gap between mediocre and Seattle there is only 1/4th as big as the gap Phoenix opened up over the league average. Bottom line is that no one should be using that to think Seattle was mopping the floor with opponents because of their eFG.

By contrast, Seattle was #2 in offensive rebounding and were .037 above the norm. The #1 team was only .001 further ahead. This was absolutely a killer offensive rebounding team.

2) You're saying that none of the Seattle rebounders was a Rodman, which is of course true. I feel though that your implication is that we should get carried away with how hard it is to get rebounding as good as Seattle got it. Problem with that is it's not like Seattle was pulling this off every year on their way to 50+ wins. Allen played 4 full seasons in Seattle, and only had 1 winning season.

Now take a look at the offensive rebounding rating relative to the league average in that 4 year span:

'04 -.014
'05 +.037
'06 +.031
'07 +.007

Note that Seattle's ORtg was north of 111 in the two good offensive rebounding years, and below 108 the other years. So basically we have an offense very much rising and falling with the ability to assemble a great rebounding core.

So this is why I object to simply labeling "Ray Allen, offensive anchor on great offensive team". Not that he's not a great player, but giving a scorer too much credit for an offense thriving primarily off of rebounding is every bit as dangerous as giving an offensive player too much credit for a team thriving primarily off of defense.

Last, my apologies if I was irritating with the circular logic statement. Know that it's not that I'm saying you're actually emotionally biased, just that when you emphasize a scorer's team impact without mentioning the team's rebounding, in a comparison against a player who is arguably the GOAT rebounder, it just doesn't seem like rebounding is prominent enough on your mind for me to think Rodman deserves to be this high up.

[Doctor MJ]

Miller ahead of Ray Allen , really????
Ray Allen has the better overall skill-set and stats than Reggie, but Reggie "is" better since he had an EPIC series against MJ? is this how the list works?

There have been pages and pages of detailed analysis of the players in question. You coming in here and assuming that we're using the most superficial of arguments is honestly annoying as hell. If you're going to criticize, put sometime in first to understand what's going on.

[ElGee]

Let's call peak Rodman 1992. (That's what I have it as.) Would we rather have Rodman or John Stockton that year? Mark Price? What about versus say, 2010 Gasol or Carmelo?

To me, those are questions that must be clear in the judgers mind before someone can figure out what to do with him here. I haven't entirely seen that answered, and I'm thinking about it a bit more myself. So far, my answer to all is "no," and even with that peak I still have in my top 70.

I also asked about drafting him over the bunch of other bigs I listed, and that's a challenging (and related) question.

Rodman v 06 Allen has a little too much focus on the Seattle roster for my taste. Obviously that would be a different roster. I think the question is can we find the weakest Rodman team and see how they did with him (in theory, what it might be like to build around him as best player). Some food for thought:

In 1990, Dumars missed 9 games. The Pistons were Zeke-Microwave-Rodman (SF) Laimbeer and Buddha Edwards...they were break even over those 9 games.

In 1991, Isiah missed 34 games. Detroit was +2.5 in those games with (mostly) Dumars-Microwave-Rodman (SF) Laimbeer and Buddha Edwards

In 1993 in the 62 games Worm played, Det (mostly) started Zeke-Dumars/Robertson-Woolridge-Worm-Laimbeer/Mills...Detroit was +0.7.

The other viable thing to consider, is even if a guy couldn't be a No. 1 at this point in our list, if ALL the players aren't really good enough to be No. 1's on title-level teams, then shouldn't we avoid being hung up on that and value Rodman as an awesome second (or third) piece? I do find it hard to believe I can really build around Rodman. I'm not even sure he could mentally handle that pressure.

Thinking out loud here...Dennis is really a fascinating and unique player and I always thought he helped pretty much whatever team he played on.

PS - I'm a big fan of the POM (Player of the Month) when gauging what people thought at the time. It can be a little off, as in a scoring burst or something will receive the honors, but that's part of what I like about it. It's a short chunk of time to see "hey, people thought that guy was the best baller for a month" and they usually can't be TOO far off. I mention this because I forgot Dennis Rodman won the award in 1992...pretty impressive, and he averaged 11 pts and 21 reb for that month.

PPS - On the other side of the coin, what the hell happened in the 92 series against New York? It looks like Rodman wasn't even used that frequently.

[therealbig3]

My count:

Vote:

Miller-6 (therealbig3, Doctor MJ, JordansBulls, Fencer reregistered, Dr Mufasa, ElGee)

Reed-3 (ronnymac2, Snakebites, drza)

Moncrief-1 (penbeast0)

Iverson-1 (FJS)



Nominate:

Rodman-4 (penbeast0, Fencer reregistered, DavidStern, drza)

KJ-3 (therealbig3, Dr Mufasa, ElGee)

McAdoo-2 (ronnymac2, Snakebites)

Penny-1 (JordansBulls)

Worthy-1 (FJS)

[Doctor MJ]

Thanks for the chart realbig.

Going to have to stick with my previous nom:

Nomination: Kevin Johnson

As intrigued by Rodman as I am, I think back to the fact that KJ was so unstoppable that he was sometimes the clear go to guy over Barkley, and that he was on a string of absolutely stellar offenses for years before Barkley arrived.

I do think of him as a superstar point, and while he gets knocked for longevity, Rodman doesn't really have an edge there on him.

In terms of raw impact, I think you can make a case for Rodman over KJ but it's highly debatable. However I do keep thinking about mental instability in leadership. It's all well and good to say that Rodman can be your best player in the role he plays (absolutely true), but we're dealing with a very damaged individual vs a mayor.

[Snakebites]

Given the lack of support for Mcadoo, I would like to change my nomination to KJ.

I love Rodman, but the guy was generally not even the second best player on a team. He was great at what he did but I can't justify him being this high.

Also a little disappointed Reggie is going so early, but it doesn't look like theres much that can be done about that.

[TMACFORMVP]

Vote: Willis Reed
Nominate: Kevin Johnson

[Dr Positivity]

Yeah, as I said, with Rodman it's useful to compare him in each role compared to KJ, Lanier, Pau, Parish, etc.

As 1st player/team leader - Takes a big strike compared to the others here, in both pure game and leadership. I agree that with most of the players on the board you're not getting past 50 W pretender type team if they're your best guy like Lanier, Pau, KJ's best teams... but I don't think Rodman gets that far. 92 I suppose was the closest we saw to that with Rodman being the best statistical player on a 48 W-er, but the it was still the Isiah and Dumars backcourt defining the team, especially mentally

As 2nd best player - Very feasible he can be #2 on a contender/title team. But I'd feel even more confident if KJ, Pau, etc. are my 2nd best player. With Rodman your best fit is a great guard I would assume... Kobe seems as good a fit as any. Would anyone really rather have Kobe and Rodman over Kobe and Pau? I wouldn't. Harder to cross compare KJ's superstar partner Barkley because you obviously don't want him playing with Rodman, but we can sub in Jerry West or Steve Nash who are close to Barkley in impact - Would you take West and Rodman/Nash and Rodman over KJ and Barkley? Over say, Wade and Parish? I definitely, would not. When I look at the situations, the 20/10 big man like Pau, Parish, etc. always looks even better beside a star guard like a Kobe, Wade, Isiah, etc. than Rodman does. And Rodman doesn't have more value beside a star SF, PF, or C than they do, I wouldn't think - We saw him with DRob and while it led to fine results, obviously you'd prefer Kevin Johnson or Ray Allen playing beside Robinson that year if you could have them

As 3rd best player - This is where I really feel comfortable with Rodman being one of the highest impact players of the guys left. I'd rather have him beside Jordan/Pippen or Kobe/Pau than these other players on the board. But I'm not giving a ton of points to being an elite 3rd player at this stage... it's too rare that you'd have the luxury of having Rodman in that position, most of the time you have to be looking at 1 or 2 for these players. And frankly if KJ, Pau, Parish, etc. are your 3rd option, if you're any worse off than you are with Rodman, it can't be by a large margin - you still have an incredible team in all liklihood, a la Parish on the 80s Celtics, Allen on the 08+ Celtics, or if the Lakers somehow got Dwight Howard while keeping Kobe and Pau. On those 3 pairs Rodman wouldn't even be a better fit than Parish/Allen/Pau, so maybe he simply bridges the gap to "equal impact, depends on the rest of your team" there. In any case his value as a 3rd option type on a loaded team not enough to make up for the fact that by my estimations, Rodman's combined value as a #1 and #2 is clearly lower than the other players. I'll probably be nominating him within 10 spots though