therealbig3 wrote:It looks like you basically just proved that English was a good scorer, who had a big impact on his team, and a guy who could step up and carry an offense when other guys went down (despite you saying he couldn't). That 4-game and 11-game sample shows that without the 2nd best player, English was able to maintain his play, or actually improve it.
And regarding his volume scoring...he was typically around 24-25% then. Then you compare him to Kobe (10th on our list), Malone (12th on our list), Pierce (38th on our list), Nique (41st on our list), and Miller (42nd on our list). Iverson was nominated a long time ago. Basically, yes, he wasn't as good of a scorer as these guys, and it shows. They were all voted in a while ago (except for Iverson). English just now got nominated. It doesn't make much sense to compare English to Kobe or Malone or freaking MJ, who are all consensus top 15 players ever (MJ is almost the consensus GOAT)...nobody's comparing English to those guys.
And I don't recall anyone ever saying that English was some sort of beacon of efficiency. But he does have pretty good scoring efficiency over his career, certainly better than guys like Iverson and Nique, even though they scored a relatively higher volume of points.
And scoring is just one aspect of the game. English was a very well-rounded player, good at passing, rebounding, and defense.
In the 84 playoffs, when he averaged 29.0 ppg, he also averaged 8.0 rpg and 5.6 apg.
In the 85 playoffs, when he averaged 30.2 ppg, he also averaged 6.6 rpg and 4.5 apg.
In fact, English was usually around 4.0+ apg in the playoffs, and he had several playoffs in the 5-6 apg range. This wasn't simply a guy who could only score.
And his TRB% in the playoffs peaked at 11.2%. That would be tied with Nique's 2nd best result in the playoffs during his time in Atlanta (he had one playoffs at 12.6%). And their TRB% year by year in the playoffs are pretty similar actually.
I come to the same conclusion as you do, that English was a good player, nothing spectacular...but I'd say that at this point, nobody "spectacular" was left for nomination...everyone at this point has serious holes in their career, or were simply not THAT good...English actually doesn't have any holes to his game, he just wasn't uber-spectacular at any one thing...but he was either good or very good at everything.
therealbig3
Sixth Man
Posts: 1988
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:03 pm
Hmm. Let me clarify as I gather people are taking in lots of new information.
I want people to see all the evidence, including 2 small samples without Lever. I agree English is a good scorer, but I'm still not seeing how he's better than someone like Glen Rice in that regard. Is peak English better than peak Rice? I can buy that, but by a small amount (on the basis on English being a better passer, rebounder and defender - but let's not act like he's stellar in these areas of the game).
I don't buy the 3-point line argument for efficiency, as we've seen a number of players put up huge scoring/TS% numbers without use of it.
We know how much his teams scored and focused on offense. That's really what I'm seeing when I watch them on film. Which means when the guy averages 4 apg I don't really care at all. He's actually a smart passer, but he's not creating a lot - it's just in the flow of the offense (or wide-open rush of the offense, to continue the aquatic analogy). So...
Good
-He is the best offensive player on the team, evidenced statistically and by eye-test (not by a huge amount IMO)
-He probably had it in him to raise his game a little
Bad
-5 of his 8 PS appearances aren't positive relative TS%. That's not good.
-All the offensive numbers are inflated at the expense of defense
The conclusion to me is what I see when I watch him -- a good player, in the same way Glen Rice was a good player. I don't think he's capable of matching what Wilkins does or Pierce or Iverson. I believe him to be a level below that, and think someone like Bobby Dandridge at his best was better. The idea that English was never going to "take over" (even outside of scoring) resonates with me because I don't see a huge impact player when I watch him.
And finally, I'm not trying to equate him to Kobe, MJ, etc. I'm saying simply as a scorer (since his numbers are there) we are actually talking about a different animal, even from someone like Paul Pierce. The difference between No. 50 and No. 70 now isn't that great, and since this is theoretically the 55 spot (nominees) I do think it's a disservice to be nodding this guy in while people seem to act like Bob Lanier never played.
(Btw, I have 192 games from 76-81 that Lanier missed and his SIO in that stretch was 3.6...which sandwiches him in between Barkley and Kobe.)
