RealGM Top 100 List #62

[Nove24]

OMG!LIKE RIGHT? TOTALLY!

[Jimmy76]

a horse by any other name

[koolio24]

haters gonna hate.

[Doctor MJ]

Why is it always Kobe?

Well honestly I think of a lot of it has to do with the fact that the players favored by the most simplistic narratives and criticized by other metrics are bound to attract the most immature acolytes. It's basically a given that the worst posters on the board are typically going to be big fans of volume scorers. Adding rings to a volume scorer is essentially a shot of steroids to those tendencies.

Kobe though also has other things like 1) The fact of the flagship franchise of the NBA which also happens to be in one of the most important cities in the world, 2) The whole thing with Shaq, 3) The whole Eagle Colorado thing. Incidentally, the first one is not his fault at all, the second one I don't blame at all, and the third one he's likely no more guilty of that the rest of the players in the NBA.

Truly a perfect storm.

[Doctor MJ]

lol @ GaSoft being in the top 65. lol @ that dude who said he deserved Finals MVP in 09 when Kobe's numbers crushed his.

GaSoft before Godbe:
1 All-Star in 8 seasons
0 MVP votes
0 All-NBA Teams
Swept in the PS three straight years
Not even regarded as a top 15 player/Top 5 PF.

Epic Fail.

Just as an aside to the rational people out there, as a Laker fan it really saddens me when the guys that helped Kobe get a ring are disrespected like this. Are these people even Laker fans?

[Doctor MJ]

Ok Doc, maybe I'll try this way - how do you explain that Gasol is so much better since he joined Lakers? And really 3 and a half all star level seasons are enough to be top 100 all time?

Well I think the key thing about why Gasol was more impressive with the Lakers is that it is REALLY not easy to combined stars and have the results live up to the talent infusion, and in the case of Gasol joining the Lakers the results surpassed the perceived talent infusion. From a player judging perspective then, this then makes me re-calibrate how I see what Gasol is. Thus it's not simply adding 3.5 great years onto his resume, but something that influences matters holistically.

I'll also note that Gasol's place as arguably the Player of the Decade in world basketball relates to this as well. No I'm not using those results directly in this project, but simply in terms of me having a better understanding of what Gasol is, it helps him.

Your point though is leading toward asking essentially "So are you judging him on what could have been then?", which is frankly a great question to ask as I do try to focus on what players actually accomplished.

Thing is though I suppose I just don't see Gasol's improvement as that dramatic.

Volume-wise, he's about the same on both teams.
His best PER was actually in Memphis.
His limited team results in Memphis...were basically in the same ballpark as we've seen much bigger stars do.

And as I've said, in the big +/- study from '03-04 to '08-09, Gasol rates quite well. Yes that includes a year and a half in LA, but it's still primarily in Memphis, and he looks fine.

It's just hard for me to look at his time in Memphis as him doing nothing.

[Doctor MJ]

Look, it's not only RAPM. It's all data we have (even box score) and general recognition - no MVP votes, no All NBA selections, no "top PF in the game" or "all time top65 player" discussions and so on. All that changed when he joined Lakers.

See this is a place where I just feel like the story is that B-listers can have their accolades shifted a good deal by team situation. A guy on my horizon right now is Elton Brand who to me has a ton in common with Memphis Gasol. Brand may have only been an all-star twice, but that doesn't make me hesitate at all in consider him as quite possibly ranked ahead of Amare who has been an all-star lock when healthy for 7 years.

[penbeast0]

Looks like I missed some excitement, lol.

As for Brand . . . I can see rating him ahead of Amare although I don't; But as a non-monster scorer with good defense can you really say he's ahead of Bobby Jones or Larry Nance? Jones was a much better defender, passer, bigger glue guy, and even more efficient, just didn't score as much and Jones was there every day for about 12 years while Brand had some injury issues. Same goes for Larry Nance, and for that matter Shawn Marion . . . better defenders than Brand, equivalent offensively, much more consistent and for a longer period and it's not like Brand has any playoff success to push Marion down. I just can't see Brand coming into play yet.

For that matter, I can't see him ahead of Jerry Lucas who apparently sacrificed some of his game to help produce those great offensive teams in Cinncinnati that people were so enthusiastic about when it was Oscar being talked about. Even Webber has a better case most likely and I'm not much of a Webber fan. Heck, even Adrian Dantley and David Thompson are still out there to say nothing of Chauncey Billups.

I can see a guy like Connie Hawkins who might have played at an MVP level in a short career, but not a second option solid but not spectacular player who also had an injury plagued career, not quite yet.

[lorak]

Thing is though I suppose I just don't see Gasol's improvement as that dramatic.

?!
Huge difference in WS/48, huge difference in RAPM, huge difference in with/without...

And as I've said, in the big +/- study from '03-04 to '08-09, Gasol rates quite well. Yes that includes a year and a half in LA, but it's still primarily in Memphis, and he looks fine.

It's just hard for me to look at his time in Memphis as him doing nothing.

Not nothing, but he wasn't so good. Team actually played better WITHOUT him (the same with Spain during 2006 WC).

As for that Ilardi's study, there are actually two of them: one six season average and second with most recent season weighted the most heavily (I think the same is with multi year RAPM). And that's why Gasol looks so bad year by year in Memhis, very good year by year in LAL and good in multi seasons studies - beacuse recent seasons, his best years in LA, are weighted most heavily. But in Ilardi's six seasons average study and RAPM multi seasons Gasol looks worse than Odom, so I repeat my question - why Odom isn't even nominated yet, when multi season APM seems like the only pro Gasol argument? Really, what's the case for Gasol?

[lukekarts]

Honestly it comes back to this: you're overvaluing advanced stats and undervaluing what can be seen on the court.

The fact that Pau Gasol's production has been so consistent suggests the difference in advanced metrics relates more to team situation than individual performance.

Carrying an offensively challenged team to the playoffs, being a dominant big man in an era of declining big men, being a second option on a two time title winning roster, some great offensive and defensive performances in those runs (e.g. vs Dwight Howard).

You don't need WSRAPMOMGOMG's study to see his impact, you just need to watch the games.

[lorak]

I watched many Gasol's games, time in Memhis included, not to mention international competition, when Spain was great WITHOUT Gasol... And APM is independent from team situation, so your point is completely wrong. KG is the best example - years on mediocre Wolves teams, then different role on great Celtics teams but always among best players according to APM. Similar story with with/without - if his teammates in Memhis would be as bad as you suggest they wouldn't do so good without Gasol.

[lukekarts]

There can't ever be a statistic that is independent from team situation, every time a player steps onto the court he's got 4 team-mates. Every piece of on court production is therefore directly impacted by both team-mates and opponents.

[lorak]

And that's why it's called ADJUSTED +/- Team situation's impact is minimized as much as possible. And that's why when someone is truly good, like for example KG he would look good in APM no matter what team he play.

[lukekarts]

Just like Nick Collison, 6th most impactful player in the NBA then.

And as I keep saying, stats are flawed; you're being so dismissive of the most overwhelming evidence of just watching Pau Gasol play in Memphis and looking at the team-mates he dragged to 50 and 49 wins.

Go back and look at his teams. Those teams wouldn't have won 20 games without him (they won 22 in the season he was traded).

[lorak]

Just like Nick Collison, 6th most impactful player in the NBA then.

And as I keep saying, stats are flawed; you're being so dismissive of the most overwhelming evidence of just watching Pau Gasol play in Memphis and looking at the team-mates he dragged to 50 and 49 wins.

Go back and look at his teams. Those teams wouldn't have won 20 games without him (they won 22 in the season he was traded).

We know exactly how those Memhis teams were doing without Gasol:
2005: 50% W-L% with Gasol, 65.4% without Gasol (26 games missed)
2007: 28.8% with, 21.7% without (23)
2008: 25.6% with, 27.9% without (43)

So it's not a fluke, season after season, large sample in every case and Memhis without Gasol was doing as good as with him, so stop telling untrue things.

[lukekarts]

We know exactly how those Memhis teams were doing without Gasol:
2005: 50% W-L% with Gasol, 65.4% without Gasol (26 games missed)
2007: 28.8% with, 21.7% without (23)
2008: 25.6% with, 27.9% without (43)

So it's not a fluke, season after season, large sample in every case and Memhis without Gasol was doing as good as with him, so stop telling untrue things.

I'm not telling untrue things. Are you willing to suggest, that if we extrapolate out that data across a single season - let's take 04-05 for example - that Memphis would win 53 games (65% winning %) with a roster of:

Jason Williams
Mike Miller
Shane Battier
Lorenzen Wright
Stromile Swift

plus Bonzi Wells, Brian Cardinal, Dahntay Jones.

Really?

[lorak]

We know exactly how those Memhis teams were doing without Gasol:
2005: 50% W-L% with Gasol, 65.4% without Gasol (26 games missed)
2007: 28.8% with, 21.7% without (23)
2008: 25.6% with, 27.9% without (43)

So it's not a fluke, season after season, large sample in every case and Memhis without Gasol was doing as good as with him, so stop telling untrue things.

I'm not telling untrue things. Are you willing to suggest, that if we extrapolate out that data across a single season - let's take 04-05 for example - that Memphis would win 53 games (65% winning %)

That's not what I'm saying. We have to adjust for strength of schedule (or coaching changes), so they probably would won around 50% of games - so as much as with Gasol and that's what I'm saying, that Gasol's value for Memhis was very small. And that's not only one season, but every piece of data we have suggest that. The truth is, if you really watched Gasol during his Memhis seasons, you should saw that he was HORRIBLE defensive player. So as much as good he was on offense his defense was very bad and hurt his team and that's why his overall value during Memhis days is so low. Keep in mind that Gasol was called soft not without reason and that was how he looked on the court - his mentality was soft, his defense was soft... And BTW, that's why Memhis in 2005 looked better without Gasol - they played better defense, because Fratello (defensive minded coach) was able to create very good defensive team (players you mentioned aren't spectacular, especially offensively, but they fine or very good on D).

[ElGee]

vote: Penny Hardaway
nominate: Chris Webber

So coming back to Webber, I'm actually wondering why he is so disliked. What do people think of his peak in 2002?

Because if you think he was a top-8 player in the league, that means you probably think he has a number of years as a top-15 guy in the league. And that's easily enough for this spot.

In general, he's a great passer. He can score (too much reliance on face-up shooting at times but Elvin Hayes also had that problem), he can rebound and he's a solid, although not excellent defender.

My guess is people are left with a very sour taste in their mouths after the end of his career (hobbling around in Philly after already declining in Sac). Look at his TS% for his career...

[Dr Positivity]

Don't know if people read it in the last thread, but I think Tiny Archibald should be nominated soon

Has a legit top 5-6, if not top 3 in the league season, which almost nobody left on the board has - The 34/11 year (26/9 per 36, noteably playing that many minutes has value though) Maybe most important statistic of that year, I think most of us have images of an Iverson looking at that ball domination, but he actually ranked 6th in the league in TS% and was more efficient than eg. '72 West and 72' Oscar. Not far off from winning MVP (44 1st place votes to Cowens' 67). So basically a 2009 Wade or 2003 Tmac type statistical show of a season on a one man team, but not quite at their level

A few other top 10-15 player seasons - 28/9 with top 10 efficiency in '72, 26/7 with top 15 efficiency in 75 though he shoots 36% in the 75 playoffs, 76 is a 25/8 year with more like league average efficiency. Probably comparable to your average Vince or Melo season when you have some concerns but you're still dealing with a top 10 or 15 superstar

The Boston years he looks meek statistically, especially in the playoffs, but he plays a decent role on some great teams and is accolades are much higher than his stats (makes top 10 MVP in 80 and 81 and the all-star team from 80-82 and 2nd team all-NBA in 81 - I think there was probably a lot of narrative going on there with the way he'd been out of the spotlight and the undersized guard thing, but somewhat evidence that he was still a prominent contributer)

I have some concerns about a guy who dominates the ball that much, but we're dealing in the range here with imperfect superstars - McAdoo, King, Vince, Melo, etc. vs more limited players with perfect intangibles like Dumars, Parish, Unseld, etc. Tiny doesn't seem too out of place with the former group

[therealbig3]

I would like to withdraw my nomination of Marion...I rethought him vs Worthy, and with ElGee's post showing that Worthy actually was a very capable offensive player without Magic, and with Marion having weak longevity and a significant decline in his offense without Nash, I can't rank him ahead of Worthy anymore.

However, I really liked prime Kemp, but Nance and Jones are intriguing as well. But since Mutombo is nominated...when does Ben Wallace come into play? He is one of the best defensive anchors of all time as well, he is much more mobile than Mutombo (his only criticism), and he is an awesome rebounder.

@penbeast0
Marion is not a better defender than Brand, nor has he been more consistent for longer. Marion is better at guarding 1-3's, while Brand is better at guarding 4's and 5's...Marion could guard 4's, and he did, but that didn't mean he was good at it. He got burned when he tried...like when he tried to guard Brand in the 06 playoffs. Marion has 7 All-Star caliber seasons, but his efficiency fluctuates (because of the Nash effect). And 05-07 are his only real elite seasons, because that's when his rebounding and efficiency were at all time highs, and his efficiency was because of Nash. In his 63 game 08 season, Marion ended up with an overall TS% of .570, but he played 47 games with Phoenix with a TS% of .594, and then 16 games with Miami with a TS% of .503. Huge dropoff. Brand came into the league as a 20/10 force, and he maintained that for 8 years...sure he was a little more injury-prone, but it wasn't too bad.

I don't get the Billups love...he's overrated to me. He was never that good of a player, merely just solid. To be honest, everyone praises him for being such a smart player...but has anyone really looked at his shot selection? He takes a lot of dumb shots, and is way to dependent on flopping and drawing cheap fouls. Defensively, he's been very overrated, he was never that great of a defender, and he does poorly in the APM studies. I think his defense actually comes out to a negative in Engelmann's 6-year study.

As for Jones, his main value comes from defense...but since I don't know too much about him...was he a great man defender, or was he an anchor? Because a defensive anchor of Jones' reputation would go ahead of Brand for me...but if he was simply a great man defender, who didn't score or rebound as well as Brand, I don't really see him ahead of Brand.

I can get behind Lucas, Kemp, and Nance ahead of Brand. If I had to pick one,

Nominate: Larry Nance