RealGM Top 100 #48

[JordansBulls]

Is the case for Amare really any worse than the case for Lanier or McAdoo? All were great offense, weak defense players. Lanier played longer but never even made an all-NBA squad where Amare made a number of All-NBA 1st teams; and while McAdoo won an MVP and may have peaked a little higher, Amare has a longer peak and no drug type issues.

McAdoo was good enough to win League MVP. Amare was never that level.

[Snakebites]

I really don't see how you can use All NBA teams to compare someone who is a big man in the modern era to someone who played in the 70s, an era when half the league had HOF quality big men.

It seems like very faulty and superficial reasoning, frankly.

Lets see, I count 6 centers that have been ranked already that Lanier had to compete with.

Compare that to the 2 chosen centers (Shaq, Dwight, and its somewhat generous to include Shaq there because he was post peak by the time Amare was elligable) that he had to compete with.

[ThaRegul8r]

I really think we need a pause button on this project or to slow the threads down or something. 48 hours was OK for arguments about players people were (relatively) highly informed about. But the cone of relevance is widening and with all the options I still think everyone's kind of all over the place.

Herein lies the problem, once you get to a certain point, past the people everyone (should) know, to players people don't really know as much about, and thus no one knows exactly who to vote for.

[Doctor MJ]

I really think we need a pause button on this project or to slow the threads down or something. 48 hours was OK for arguments about players people were (relatively) highly informed about. But the cone of relevance is widening and with all the options I still think everyone's kind of all over the place.

I think slowing the threads down a day is wise. Won't cure all ails but it gives a little more time for sanity to break through.

Totally against an actual pause. I don't think people would actually use their "free" time on research, and even if they did, we'd still end up back in this position in the not too distant future.

[Doctor MJ]

Also, should we just throw Chris Paul out of the project since no one wants to vote for him?

+1

[Snakebites]

Lol....

Crazy how hard it is for some to accept that not everyone shares their view on his career up to this point.

Its not that people are just fighting him getting there specifically. Its that we really do believe those players should be placed ahead of him.

[Doctor MJ]

On the Melo thing

- His PER and WS are hurt by a) the Nuggets fast pace, which I'm convinced did virtually nothing for Melo's production based on the fact that he wasn't the one taking those fastbreak shots and seems like exactly the type of player that'd actually fit more in a slow halfcourt system. A team who uses a lot of fastbreak possessions actually ends up with less halfcourt ones, I'm fairly certain. I did some quick math and found multiplying Melo's WS by 1.2x puts it right where it feels accurate for me, based on other players. For example his best season (2010) goes from 7.9 to 9.5 in 69 Gs, which extrapolated to 82 would've been 11.3 WS - scoring 28ppg on the 3rd best offense in the league should make 11 WS even conservative. It's also right around Nique's better seasons and a whole swack of 10-12 WS tier 2 guys, and it would've put him about 7th in the league that season. x1.2 would also give him some other seasons where he's either top 10 in WS or would've been with 82. Also, b) Having 3 65-69 G seasons. Now it matters if you miss 13-17 Gs, but overall, I'm not *that* concerned since the player will still be there in the PS. If the goal is to win a title, you won't miss the playoffs because of a 15 G absence if you're a contender.

I don't put much into the Nuggets and Knicks play after the trade. The Nuggets depth was just near 00 Blazers type freakish, they basically had a starting lineup coming off the bench. As for the Knicks, that was just a horribly constructed team. No C/rebounding and defense, no 3pt shooting SG, Melo and Amare just don't fit together, and probably most importantly, they had one of the worst benches I've ever seen. I don't blame Melo for that any more than the failed Iverson-Melo experiment. If Melo got traded to the Milwaukee Bucks this summer I think we'd be looking at a borderline contender.

The thing with Melo is, I understand the concerns about the ok efficency and occasional ball stopping. But Denver's offense has never had a problem with ball movement overall so how bad can it be? What I know is Melo is FEARED by opposing teams. He clearly has a ton of scoring skill that you have to account for. The key to offense is having dangerous shots and any time Melo has it, it's dangerous. I think Melo has done a lot to help his teammates, as shown by the fact that they've always seemed to find nice shots inside for guys like Nene and nice 3s outside. That doesn't happen in the halfcourt with a double team guy. I know that I can build a good team with Melo based on putting defenders and shooters and a PG around him. I just don't see many guys I'd feel confident I can build something around 50 Ws to contender with as the best player.

I'm fine with Hill, Marques, Pau, Parish, Carter, Manu all going before him though. Understandably I think Deron, Amare, Bosh aren't *that* far away on this list either. I know that I never felt Bosh was having as much impact on his team's as Melo though, the gap in success in just massive between the Nuggets and Raptors while they were there. Bosh's Heat season was underrated though. As for Amare, I think he has a negative defensive impact because he's a big man who's not caring all that much but he also has massive offensive seasons.

Brand, TP, Marion over Melo? I just don't think they put as much pressure on the other team as Melo does, or even close to. And Yao's availability is just brutal

Okay, the first thing that's weird:

You keep talking about how PER, etc undervalue Melo, but they actually rate him FAR higher than APM stats do. If you don't value APM stats are all fine, but to me the whole notion of feeling the need to systematically inflate Melo's numbers there just seems odd given that additional fact.

I also have a hard time following the argument in general when these numbers didn't seem to "hate" Melo compared to his draftmates when they were rookies. They just got better than him over time.

Now clearly, you're coming from a perspective of "Look at those skills, look at that productivity, look at that longevity, we need to be considering him shortly". I get that, but what I'm saying to you is that I'm not sold that Melo has ever had real net impact that approaches his stats. His APM has always been shockingly low. Well and good in general to not hold Denver's continued success without him against him, but when people like me had already been pointing to Melo for years and saying "His ability to never ever have an impressive APM is mindblowing. This team is not going to fall apart without him", I don't think it's reasonable to act as if this is a tiny sample size thing (whereas his inability to help New York after the trade, while rather stunning, is indeed a "jury still out" thing).

Bottom line, to this point, Melo's career is in Denver, and all trends indicate that in Denver he did not lift like even a B-list superstar. I get that you think that in the right situation Melo could really help a team, but if you're not giving a huge amount of weight to the amount Melo actual helped his teams in his career, what exactly are you doing?

Re: "feared by other teams". Because he's a volume scorer on teams that win more than they lose who has been well known and hyped for superstardom since college. Not that he's a bad player, but there's every reason to believe Melo's exactly the type of player that non-stat savvy people ascribe too much power to.

Re: "gap in success between Raptors and Nuggets". The gap between the success between the Nuggets and Raptors was always even bigger when Melo & Bosh weren't playing. This was staggeringly noticable this year.

Re: Amare, negative defense. It's actually fascinating Amare & Melo are teammates now. Their APM split between offense and defense has always told a similar story.

Amare offensive & defensive APM
'03-09 1.9 -.4
'05-11 1.9 -1.7
'01-11 2.6 -1.1

Melo
'03-09 4.5 -3.3
'05-11 3.0 -1.6
'01-11 3.0 -1.6

Can see someone putting Melo over Amare to be honest. I give Amare the nod to this point because he was actually a very nice piece on elite teams volume scoring even though the offense was dictated by someone else, so I seem more proven as someone who can do his thing without taking away from others, but it's not a blowout.

I also put Amare over Marion, so I could see someone putting Melo over him.

Parker? Yeah, could see that too. More a statement about Parker than Melo though. Parker's a critical guy on a team that won 3 titles where another player far better than Parker or Melo was the focus. I don't believe Melo makes those Spurs better, but neither do I believe that Parker could volume score better than Melo.

Brand is interesting. Melo's a lock for all-star this year, Brand only made it twice...because he played on the Clippers who sucked all but two of his year. Clearly, this is about how people decided all-star accolades. If you go by PER, Brand has the edge. If you go by WS, Brand has the edge despite being on teams with less wins. If you go by APM Brand has the edge. If you go by intangibles reputation, Brand has the edge. And though Brand's career hasn't had the longevity we thought it would because of injuries, he's still ahead of Melo on that front.

I think with Brand, it's important to remember Gasol before he went to the Lakers. He only made one all-star game, because his number just weren't big enough to justify all-star status for voters when his team wasn't good enough...just like Brand.

It's also important to remember Jermaine O'Neal, who zoomed up to #3 in the MVP voting one year for basically doing Elton Brand numbers except for being hideously inefficient just because his team was that good.

Team record is a big deal. That and hype are why Melo has the accolade edge over Brand, not actual impact.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Chris Paul

Nominate: Bernard King

At the very least, his name needs to be in the conversation now. This is the best peak player left not nominated certainly, and despite his short peak, he's actually got comparable WS to someone like Marques Johnson. People should be considering King and actively dismissing him before selecting someone else.

[therealbig3]

My count:

Vote:

Paul-3 (therealbig3, ElGee, Doctor MJ)

KJ-3 (JordansBulls, Dr Mufasa, Snakebites)

Mourning-3 (drza, ronnymac2, Fencer reregistered)

Moncrief-1 (penbeast0)



Nominate:

Hill-3 (Snakebites, therealbig3, ronnymac2)

Marques-2 (ElGee, Fencer reregistered)

Rodman-2 (drza, penbeast0)

Penny-1 (JordansBulls)

Worthy-1 (lukekarts)

Gasol-1 (Dr Mufasa)

King-1 (Doctor MJ)

[Fencer reregistered]

I'll switch my nomination strategically to Rodman.

I stick by my vote for Zo.

[therealbig3]

JordansBulls and lukekarts, can you guys give some arguments for Worthy and Penny?

Because nobody else has even mentioned them yet, and I haven't actually seen an argument for them. As of right now, I have a hard time seeing their case against Hill and Johnson, who are the two main candidates for me.

[Fencer reregistered]

Worthy to my eye test was one of the truly great mid-range iso scorers; while he had a limited array of moves, what he had seemed unstoppable.

He also was a great finisher on the break, although I'm not sure he was ahead of (say) Kerry Kittles in that regard.

He also was an all-around competent player.

However, one can wonder how much of Worthy's scoring greatness would have held up against double teams and so on.

[colts18]

vote- KJ
vote- Gasol

[Snakebites]

JordansBulls and lukekarts, can you guys give some arguments for Worthy and Penny?

Because nobody else has even mentioned them yet, and I haven't actually seen an argument for them. As of right now, I have a hard time seeing their case against Hill and Johnson, who are the two main candidates for me.

Hill and Penny are similar in that they have relatively short peaks, were known for great skill and athleticism, and had "all round" games involving scoring, playmaking, rebounding, etc.

I really don't see how Hill doesn't surpass his similar counterpart by essentially every meaningful metric available. His peak was both higher and longer.

[therealbig3]

JordansBulls and lukekarts, can you guys give some arguments for Worthy and Penny?

Because nobody else has even mentioned them yet, and I haven't actually seen an argument for them. As of right now, I have a hard time seeing their case against Hill and Johnson, who are the two main candidates for me.

Hill and Penny are similar in that they have relatively short peaks, were known for great skill and athleticism, and had "all round" games involving scoring, playmaking, rebounding, etc.

I really don't see how Hill doesn't surpass his similar counterpart by essentially every meaningful metric available. His peak was both higher and longer.

Well just looking at the statistics, Penny looks like a more efficient scorer, and although his volume was similar in the regular season to Hill, it looks like he was more explosive, because in the playoffs, he averaged 20+ ppg 3 times, including a 31 ppg outburst in the 97 playoffs. Hill only averaged over 20 ppg in the playoffs once, at 23.6 ppg.

But even though Penny was a better scorer, Hill looks similar in terms of playmaking volume, a better defender, and a better rebounder. Hill has 5-6 (depends if you count his rookie season as prime) prime seasons, compared to 3 for Penny. Hardaway did have a bounceback 97 season, but so did Hill in 05.

So yeah, I don't see the argument for Penny either, but it does look like he was clearly a better scorer.

[ElGee]

Lol....

Crazy how hard it is for some to accept that not everyone shares their view on his career up to this point.

Its not that people are just fighting him getting there specifically. Its that we really do believe those players should be placed ahead of him.

No that's not really it. I brought this up with LeBron James near the beginning of the project, but I think active players who aren't at the end of the careers are basically funny to rank right now since they re in flux. So I'd rather either (a) get Paul over with or (b) throw out all these guys.

You can posture as if people hold radically different views of him, but I've never heard that. Mufasa doesn't like his 2010 because he thinks he was useless at the end of the year -- he's the only one I've seen voice that. That and the Kevin Johnson ambivalence. Otherwise, why on earth would Dwight Howard be voted in so effortlessly when arguing his peak was as good as Paul's seems like a stretch.

WIn Shares ballpark
Paul: 10-8-18-18-7-14
Howard: 7-8-10-13-14-13-14

Howard has one extra year on him in the league as a 12-10 rookie...and I'm not sure when exactly people think Howard became a better player than Paul. I assume 2010 is the answer...when Paul was injured.

MVP ballpark
Howard has gone distant 5th, 4th, 4th and 2nd the last 4 years.
Paul has gone 2nd in 08, 5th in 09, distant 13th this year.

+/-
Consider they came into the league at basically the same time. In ILardi's 03-09 multi-year:
Paul +5.9 (6th)
Howard +4.2 (13th)

In Englemann's multi-year RAPM from 06-11 (chopping Dwight's rookie year)
Paul +6.0 (8th)
Howard +5.7 (9th)

2-year APM from basketballvalue:
Paul +10.4 (4th)
Howard +8.1 (10th)

See, and I haven't mentioned a thing about how they play basketball. Haven't gotten into influence on offensive/defensive system, trends, Opportunities Created, versatility, etc. It's just really hard to understand how anyone views these players that differently from each other, and Mufasa is the single voter who has explained his reasoning (and IMO he's overrated bigs and underrating Paul's 07, 10 and particularly 08, 09 and 11 seasons).

In short, I think peak Chris Paul is the 4th-best PG in NBA history. And he's had 3 excellent years and 2 borderline All-Star years...which isn't really anything different than Dwight Howard...who was voted in 39th.

So it's not about disagreeing with how we see players, but instead what appears to be just a consistent desire to keep overlooking Paul for not-so-cear reasons. Which makes me think people just don't want to vote for him. It's like they'd rather have an established name (Reed, Cousy, Cowens) in the top half of the list instead of that new guy with a knee brace. Once enough names are out of the way, then he can probably go in...and that's just silly to me.

[mysticbb]

Ok, back from the dark ages since yesterday and I tried to read through the threads to get a good understanding about the thought process regarding some players so far.

From all nominated players Chris Paul should be the guy getting in, if we are basing that off his prime/peak level play. He is basically on par with Wade in terms of impact, production and efficiency and has given me 4 seasons of being able to compete. Even in his rookie season he posted a +10 APM, which is highly unusual for rookies. Overall he has in average +9.5 APM (which is the value Wade also has). Wade gives me 1 season more than Paul so far, but at this point it becomes marginally, because he is not competing against Wade.

For the nomination I go with Dennis Rodman. After that I would like to see guys like Manu Ginobili or Rasheed Wallace to get some votes.

Vote: Chris Paul
Nomination: Dennis Rodman

[Snakebites]

I count ties on both votes.

Why is this unstickied?

[JordansBulls]

I'll switch my vote from Penny to Grant Hill if we are tied.

New Vote: Alonzo Mourning (Zo, KJ and CP3 are all tied, I voted KJ, so to break the tie I'll take Zo)
New Nomination: Grant Hill (voted Penny, but if I had to take someone else to break the tie it would be him)

[Dr Positivity]

I'll change my vote to Alonzo Mourning as well, as I said I have him and KJ as close as any two players on my personal list

Re: 2010 Paul. It's not just that he's "not ready to play basketball" caliber by the end of the season when the titles are won, it's that he plays 38 Gs at a high level, which is a REALLY low number. And in this case it's 10 Gs of 08/09 Paul and 28 of basically 2011 Paul, so you're not even getting half a season of a superhuman player

For example, 2007 Dwyane Wade is clearly >> 2010 Chris Paul in value. Wade played the first 46 Gs of the season at like 30 PER (his overall PER was 28.9 with 5 crappy regular season games at the end of the year dragging it down), so essentially MVP caliber - a tier above 28 of those 38 Paul games coming back from injury - Then he was clearly more respectable in his late season RS comeback statistically and was still an above average player in the PS - he was turning the ball over and shooting poorly, but was still enough to face the most defensive attention, more or less - he averages 23/6/5 on bad percentages. But overall, nobody really cared about 07 Wade. He wasn't in his prime, he played half the season in the RS. When people talked Wade, it was 5 seasons and his rookie year. A season like 07 Wade and 2010 Paul really doesn't matter because you're not getting them in the playoffs in their prime and the RS is going to take a massive hit, so it's really not a big deal. Probably much less valuable even than the 2011 Tim Duncan or 2010 Shaq type season or like Dwight's rookie season, where they're still contributing and can help you win a title more than an out or sorts Wade or Paul - but once again, we never took those years into much consideration. I did mention Duncan deserves some boost for accepting his role as a supporting player easier than Shaq and everyone virtually agreed meh, we should be ranking them on their primes

Dwight vs Paul. I've made this argument about 5 times but there *is* a clear difference in longevity here.

2010, 2011 Dwight - 2008, 2009 Paul
2008 Dwight - 2011 Paul - Personally I'd use 2007 Dwight here but I'll throw 2011 Paul a bone
2005, 2006 Dwight - 2006, 2007 Paul - Paul is slightly better but injured his second year

Those parts of their careers can pretty much be considered equal. What's left then is

2007 Dwight, 2009 Dwight - 2010 Paul

So Dwight has an MVP caliber, carried a mediocore team to 59 Ws and the Finals season where Paul has his 38 G year, AND another star season where he puts up 17/12/2/60% and is a 3rd year player which usually passes the impact test. When you're talking about Chris Paul who has 2 MVP seasons and roughly 3 All-NBA seasons total, the gap between that and 3 MVP seasons and 5 All-NBA seasons total *is* substantial on a list where what seperates players is very little (ie Miller and Allen being 10 spots apart). That means Howard's longevity value is pretty much 33% higher, which is a lot. Extrapolated to a normal size career, it's the difference of 12 MVP caliber seasons and 15 All-NBA ones instead of 8 and 10 respectively

Now from my perspective, 2007 Dwight and 2011 Paul should actually be the ones cancelling out. Both make 3rd team All-NBA, both carry their team to similar SRS ranks compared to the league, the drop from 20/14 to 17/12 looks about the same as 20/10 to 16/9, and so forth. If that was accepted, now you've got Dwight with an extra MVP season and an extra 1st team All-NBA complete superstar season, which makes the gap even bigger

And frankly doing the same exercise with Zo produces even stingier results. Arguing for Paul over Zo is saying the gap between 08 and 09 Paul and 99 and 00 Zo (where he was a statistical superstar and more recognized in both the MVP and RPOY voting) is bigger than the gap between 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 02, 06, 07 Zo vs 06, 07, 10, 11 Paul. Unless Paul is in the Walton zone I'm not seeing that *at all*