RealGM Top 100 List #60

[MarJJMar]

Grant Hills peak was just as good as McGrady imo but he was more complete and fit better in a team concept while his peak lasted longer and had more of an impact.
Plus he is still productive and had one of the best college careers while McGrady has not even won a single playoff series and has turned out to be a cancer at times.

I'd definitely take prime Grant Hill over prime TMac on my team at any time. Anyway the difference certainly would NEVER justifiy putting TMac like 30 spots over Grant Hill.

[BattleTested]

James Worthy isn't even nominated yet? One more black mark on this list.

[Doctor MJ]

James Worthy isn't even nominated yet? One more black mark on this list.

Worthy might have the record for most times mentioned in this project as a guy who should be already nominated without anyone seeming to be able to give the slightest argument for why he should get nominated.

[Doctor MJ]

Still not swayed to anyone else so going back to Mutombo as my nom.

[penbeast0]

As I said, could switch from Pau to Manu -- a 3 way tie will do that so am switching vote to Ginobili -- for the rings

VOTING

Pau Gasol -- Dr Mufasa, lukekarts

Marques Johnson – therealbig3, FJS, ElGee

Penny Hardaway – JordansBulls

Manu Ginobili – penbeast0, drza, DavidSern, DoctorMJ

Bernard King – ronnymac2


NOMINATE

Bobby Jones – penbeast0, DavidStern

Vince Carter – therealbig3, Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2

Dolph Schayes – Fencer

James Worthy – FJS, lukekarts

Shawn Kemp – JordansBulls

Dikembe Mutombo – drza, Doctor MJ

Chris Webber – ElGee

[lukekarts]

James Worthy isn't even nominated yet? One more black mark on this list.

Worthy might have the record for most times mentioned in this project as a guy who should be already nominated without anyone seeming to be able to give the slightest argument for why he should get nominated.

On the other hand, why should James Worthy not be nominated? What is the case against him?

[penbeast0]

He wasn't that good? Let's compare him to Terry Cummings who was drafted in the same year and hasn't been mentioned yet . . .

About the same size though Cummings was much more ripped (He used to wear headbands around his biceps instead of wristbands to show them off, lol).

Prime Worthy (86-92) averaged about 20/5/3 on ts% around .575% as a SF/PF. That's pretty miserable rebounding nonetheless and not superstar scoring. He does, however, pick up his scoring about 2ppg without losing much efficiency in the playoffs which is star status and is his rep.

Prime Cummings (83-90 -- could extend to 92 . . . ) averaged about 22/9/2.5 in a longer prime on a ts% around .525. That's overall a bit better than Worthy and his playoff numbers stack up pretty much the same . . . still in Worthy's neighborhood though Worthy's efficiency edge is nice (on the other hand he played with GOAT PG Magic for what it is worth).

Defensively, Cummings played on some terrific defensive teams in SA and was a clearly better PF defender than Worthy; Worthy was better out on the floor with his quickness and the Showtime Lakers played good defense too, though not quite as good.


TC after his injury, though, played another long stretch as a mediocre roleplayer which makes everyone forget how good he was so I don't expect him to go before Worthy; plus Worthy had the big finals but peak Cummings was probably a hair better depending on your needs.

[Doctor MJ]

On the other hand, why should James Worthy not be nominated? What is the case against him?

beast had a good response, but just my take on things:

It's kind of hard to know where to begin here to be honest. I know people probably don't want me to start out with advanced stats, but James Worthy only broke a PER of 20 once in his entire career. PER is a PER minute stat, so the next thing you want to ask is how many MPG he was playing. Well in his peak 20.4 season he played 32.7 MPG. I can't even begin to describe how pedestrian that is, but I've mentioned Byron Scott before.

Scott of course was Worthy's less heralded teammate. How less heralded? While Worthy was named one of the 50 greatest of all time, Scott was never even an all-star. And Scott peaked with a 19+ PER while played for 37.6 MPG resulting in a peak WS for Scott in a season that surpasses anything that Worthy did. And to top it all off, Worthy's got weak longevity. Dude was basically done when he turned 30.

I mean, there's a lot of people who think we're crazy for including Reggie Miller already at this point. Plenty of lists wouldn't have him in the Top 80, and yet somehow unquestioningly they include Worthy higher up on the list despite the fact he's got weaker peak stats, far weaker longevity, and got to play with incredible talent around him. It just seems pretty clear that Worthy gets ranked where he gets ranked because people have ranked him there in the past. And it all begins with the fact that Worthy was a #1 overall pick and played a helpful role on an iconic team.

Now, people can make arguments that Worthy could have done far more gaudy things on another team and that he simply sacrificed individual glory, and of course his pre-pro prospect status helps with that. However in terms of what he's actually proven from my perspective, it's not really that much.

[Dr Positivity]

On the other hand, why should James Worthy not be nominated? What is the case against him?

beast had a good response, but just my take on things:

It's kind of hard to know where to begin here to be honest. I know people probably don't want me to start out with advanced stats, but James Worthy only broke a PER of 20 once in his entire career. PER is a PER minute stat, so the next thing you want to ask is how many MPG he was playing. Well in his peak 20.4 season he played 32.7 MPG. I can't even begin to describe how pedestrian that is, but I've mentioned Byron Scott before.

Scott of course was Worthy's less heralded teammate. How less heralded? While Worthy was named one of the 50 greatest of all time, Scott was never even an all-star. And Scott peaked with a 19+ PER while played for 37.6 MPG resulting in a peak WS for Scott in a season that surpasses anything that Worthy did. And to top it all off, Worthy's got weak longevity. Dude was basically done when he turned 30.

I mean, there's a lot of people who think we're crazy for including Reggie Miller already at this point. Plenty of lists wouldn't have him in the Top 80, and yet somehow unquestioningly they include Worthy higher up on the list despite the fact he's got weaker peak stats, far weaker longevity, and got to play with incredible talent around him. It just seems pretty clear that Worthy gets ranked where he gets ranked because people have ranked him there in the past. And it all begins with the fact that Worthy was a #1 overall pick and played a helpful role on an iconic team.

Now, people can make arguments that Worthy could have done far more gaudy things on another team and that he simply sacrificed individual glory, and of course his pre-pro prospect status helps with that. However in terms of what he's actually proven from my perspective, it's not really that much.

Well, the Scott vs Worthy question depends on the trust one has in WS and PER.

The Worthy supporter response to the Scott question is Worthy is a significantly better scorer, especially in the context of the 80s where people weren't shooting 3s (thus the only hyperefficient shots used are at the rim). And what ppg/efficiency misses is that Worthy was creating offensive opportunities for his team (for himself and others) with elements in his game like a league best first step among SFs, a great post game and scary fastbreak ability, and Scott was benefiting from them with a mostly one dimensional shooting game. Furthermore, even if one considers "shooting jumpers off the opportunities a star created" to be an essential part of success, it's a much more replaceable part. If there were 50 Dwight Howards in the league, despite Howard being a far greater player than Rajon Rondo at the moment, Rondo would actually become the far more valuable player

And I've said this before, but fastbreak PERs = I do not trust. At all. That's a different debate though. Also, would it be fair to say that the fact that there was SO many high scoring SFs in the mid 80s had an impact on that PER, which tries to adjust to league average? I think Warspite said once that Worthy was the 17th highest scoring SF in the league one of his 20ppg seasons which is pretty crazy

I think Sam Jones' career is a solid comparison for Worthy, he put up good numbers and had playoff numbers and a lot of people thought he could've gone to an entirely different level with his own team. Personally I think that's more true of Worthy than Jones just by looking at their skillsets. Would rather have a fierce scorer at the rim than from 20ft, personally

[penbeast0]

Not sure whether I was arguing against Worthy or asking people to take a look at Terry Cummings who I have argued before was a better player pre-injury than either Worthy or Nique (although it's certainly not a clear cut or easy argument to make) but who never got the love for some reason (less flashy game?).