RealGM Top 100 List #65

[penbeast0]

Criteria: Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball.

Voting Will End In 2 Days -- Please vote and nominate

Newest addition:

Billy Cunningham

Hall of Fame 1986
ABA MVP 1973
3x All-NBA 1st team
1x All-NBA 2nd team
1x All-ABA 1st team
NBA Champion 1967
5x All-Star

Dolph Schayes

Hall of Fame 1973
6x All-NBA 1st Team
6x All-NBA 2nd Team
NBA Champion 1955
12x All-Star

Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo

1x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x All-NBA 3rd Team
4x Defensive Player of the Year
4x All-Defense 1st Team
3x All-Defense 2nd Team
8x All-Star

Vince Carter

1x All-NBA 2nd team
1x All-NBA 3rd team
8x All-Star
Rookie of Year

Nate Thurmond

Hall of Fame 1985
2x All-Def 1st Team
3x All-Def 2nd Team

Penny Hardaway

2x 1st team All-NBA
1x 3rd team All-NBA
4x All-Star

Robert Parish

Hall of Fame 2003
1x 2nd team All-NBA
1x 3rd team All-NBA
4x NBA Champion (once as deep bench with Bulls)
9x All-Star


Grant Hill

1x 1st Team All-NBA
3x 2nd Team All-NBA
7x All-Star
Rookie of the Year

[penbeast0]

On the wings we have Grant, Penny, and Vince . . . of them, Grant Hill the most dominant although his peak was short, Billy Cunningham the longest peak. Right now I rank them:
1 Billy Cunningham
2 GHill
3 VCarter
4 AHardaway

For the bigs, Parish has the consistency, Schayes the accolades, and Thurmond the best defense -- I'm feeling all four have a shot right now.
1 Parish
2 Thurmond
3 Mutombo
4 Schayes

Vote: Robert Parish

[penbeast0]

Point Guards -- I like Billups's consistency and efficiency, not up for any of the others
Chauncey Billups
Nate Archibald
Tim Hardaway
Mark Price
Dennis Johnson ? Mookie Blaylock?

Shooting Guards -- Not really feeling any of the top guys yet but here's who I'm thinking about
David Thompson
Joe Dumars
Bill Sharman ?
Chris Mullin
Hal Greer

Shooting Forward -- a lot of great candidate left, in no particular order
Adrian Dantley
James Worthy
Shawn Marion
Connie Hawkins
Cliff Hagan

Power Forward -- I really can't see Shawn Kemp with all the outstanding forwards left, he was immature, foul prone, had a low basketball IQ and really wasn't that dominant. Heck, I'd think long and hard about bangers like Paul Silas or Buck Williams before Kemp. Schayes had all sorts of awards but like Cousy, I just don't see the numbers standing up although he was the greatest free throw shooting big ever -- better than Dirk or Bird even. Elton Brand was injured several times and was more a big numbers on weak teams guy but I'd consider him -- but I'd still rather have a consistent two way presence like Bobby Jones, Larry Nance, or Shawn Marion:

Bobby Jones
Jerry Lucas
Larry Nance
Amare Stoudamire
Terry Cummings

Centers: starting to run a little short here
Dikembe Mutombo
Mel Daniels
----------?
Walt Bellamy
Neil Johnston
Yao Ming

NOMINATE BOBBY JONES
-- arguably the most consistent and versatile defender outside of the dominant centers ever . . . 10 1st team All-Defense in his first 10 years is unmatched by anyone, ever and an efficient and heady offensive player with great intangibles

[penbeast0]

With ronnymac2 back and over 5 threads since I got fencer's list which is exhausted except for 1 nomination . . . I am going to just let those posters vote for themselves if they wish. If people want to count Fencer reregistered's nomination -- it was James Wlrthy/

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Penny Hardaway
Nominate: Shawn Kemp

[therealbig3]

Vote: Vince Carter
Nominate: Shawn Kemp

Been thinking about this for a little bit, and I think I'm settled in on a Kemp nomination. He was a pretty dominant player in his prime, and he had some outstanding playoff runs. I've heard many people refer to him as the best player on the court during the 96 Finals.

Overall for those 96 playoffs, Kemp averaged 21/10 on .640 TS%.

Outside of that 94 series against Denver, Kemp actually never really struggled in the playoffs.

For me, his prime was 93-00. He played in the playoffs from 93-98. During that time, Kemp averaged:

Regular season, per 36 (603 games): 20.1 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 2.3 apg, 1.5 bpg, 1.5 spg, 3.6 TOpg, .567 TS%

Playoffs, per 36 (64 games): 19.5 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.4 apg, 1.9 bpg, 1.4 spg, 3.4 TOpg, .596 TS%

So yeah, he was turnover prone, but I think what stands out the most about Kemp was that he was able to maintain his production in the playoffs, while cutting down his turnovers and increasing his efficiency. I think his defense is underrated too, he was a pretty good defender, he had the physical tools to be elite, and his mentality held him back, but he was still a good defensive player.

[ElGee]

One thing I've noticed about this project, and career retrospection in general, is that way too much emphasis can be placed on a single negative.

For example, Elvin Hayes was a malcontent with bad shot selection. Or Shawn Kemp is a bonehead. Or Nate Thurmond's offense is suspect. Or whatever.

That one thing isn't everything -- it's just a part of the whole that prevents that player from being even better. And I get the impression that the human mind doesn't instinctively treat it that way. It's the same reason why Randy Moss kept falling in the 98 Draft. Instead of seeing the talent of Jerry Rice (or more) and weighing it against the attitude risk, people just became hung up on the attitude.

So I think in general people need to think more about that -- Chris Webber is a good example -- and I'm on board with Kemp. Not going to nominate him yet, but I have him coming up and I'm glad to see someone appreciate his positive impact on the game. Definitely a top-10 player for a number of years there in the 90s.

[therealbig3]

But I disagree with Webber...he didn't just have one negative. He had a few, and overall, I'm not seeing where he made a major contribution. His scoring wasn't that impressive to me, he was always pretty inefficient. He had some decent scoring years, but he was barely above league average in those years too. I understand efficient scoring isn't everything, so let's go beyond that...rebounding. He was alright, generally around 14-15% TRB, which is decent, but nothing amazing. He was a below average defender imo, and I haven't seen much evidence for him having a big impact. And in addition to that, he had weak durability, and he did have an attitude problem.

I think with Webber, and I could be thinking this because I haven't really seen any sort of argument for him yet, people are focusing on one good thing that he does (passing) and ignoring the other faults in his game.

[Snakebites]

Vote: Hill

Nominate: Bobby Jones

[lorak]

vote: Penny
nominate: Bobby Jones

[rocopc]

penbeast got his Bobby Jones push, take and run because I just dont think you have another chance like this!!!! With all respect but Bobby Jones before Worthy its just wrong, but it is what it is and I just love this proyect with all this.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote Vince

Nominate Cliff Hagan

Want to throw his name out there. Remember, aside from being a star player, the feather in Hagan's cap is a BEAST playoff performance on the way to that title, basically better than Pettit than year - and he kept that production up in the first round the next year too. He is a player who's playoff performance should raise his stock (which was still not that far off from this post production wise too)

[drza]

I like the Hagan talk. Webber is stagnant right now and I unfortunately am not ready to try to push the wagon, so I'll jump in a different direction for my nomination:

Vote: Penny Hardaway
Nominate: Ben Wallace

[ronnymac2]

The nomination is tough. I like Archibald, Hagan, Billups, and Dantley as my candidates. Greer, Ben Wallace, and Tim Hardaway, too. Maybe even Webber and Kemp. Don't even know who I'm leaning towards at this point.

I love Kemp's dunk, but I'm not enamored with him as a player. He plays less minutes than most stars because he's prone to fouling more than most foul-prone players. This was a real problem for him. I always attack how posters say Shaquille O'Neal was such a greater defensive force in his rookie season than in other pre-2000 seasons. He also led the league in fouls. Kemp was up with foul leaders routinely. This isn't a case like Ginobili where it's a coach using a player strategically; Kemp plays less minutes because of something negative he's doing on the court.

Then there's the turnovers, which are killer to me. This is a guy who scores at decent (not high) volume and doesn't create for others, so why are their so many turnovers (in less than minutes than most!)?? I'm OK with turnovers from my star offensive player because stars need to take chances and create opportunities; I'm perfectly fine with Magic and Nash turning the ball over 3.5 times per game because of the good their passes do for their offenses.

What exactly is Kemp's excuse though? At least Barkley turned the ball over a lot but actually created for others and was a hybrid big man/small man post player and ball-handler. Kemp handled the ball into traffic and got himself trapped all the time. 20 points and 2 assists and average PF ball-handling isn't enough offense to warrant those turnovers. That's really bad.

Also...check out what happens when Kemp leaves Seattle. I know the coke and fat issues make it difficult to pinpoint what happened, but I do think it's odd that he leaves Seattle, which had GP creating opportunities and alley-oops and shooters providing very good spacing and shooting, and his efficiency sinks in 1998.

Seattle didn't seem to miss Kemp offensively either.

I really question this guy's effectiveness and impact. I don't even consider him a great offensive sidekick considering the mistakes he makes. All those needless turnovers basically voids out his outstanding efficiency. And is his defensive value really that high when he can't stay on the court as much as other stars because of fouls?

[therealbig3]

ronnymac2, good point on Kemp's fouling, that's definitely a drawback...but he was able to play 36.6 mpg in the playoffs during his prime, so it didn't really hold him back too much.

And although it is a small sample, he averaged 26 ppg on .573 TS% in the first round against the Pacers. And during the 99 season, he almost played the whole season and had a .578 TS%...I think there's definitely more to it than simply he no longer had Payton around and he couldn't create for himself...he could, and he showed that he could, but yeah, obviously when a guy played with a superstar his whole career, and then he doesn't, his efficiency should be expected to dip.

Kemp has two major drawbacks, his turnovers and his fouls. And you pointed out why it's acceptable for guys like Barkley, Magic, and Nash to turn the ball over, since they're making plays for others. But we're not talking top 20-25 for Kemp here (or top 5 in Magic's case)...we're talking ~75 for Kemp, which is totally fair imo. Everyone has major flaws in their game at this point, and I think Kemp was good enough in other areas to compensate for his fouls and turnovers.

[lorak]

'98 Cavs = 4 rookies in starting five - I think that affected Kemp's efficiency more than lack of Payton (BTW, I think Schrempf was more important to Kemp's offense - look how Shawn's efficiency changed when Detlef joined Sonics...)

[penbeast0]

While Bobby Jones is a player I grew up thinking was nearly the perfect player, a better comp for Kemp is Larry Nance.

Nance shares Kemp's strengths -- spectacular dunks (Nance was the NBA's first slam dunk champion over Julius Erving among others), efficient scoring (Nance was both a higher volume and a higher efficiency scorer over his career), help defense (Nance is the NBA's greatest shotblocker who didn't play center)

He doesn't have the negatives -- high IQ player, not particularly foul prone, more assists with less turnovers, classy guy who never had any team issues

Kemp's only real advantage was his frame, Nance was a skinny guy, they played him as a 3 next to no-defense Tom Chambers early on and he never got that muscular so he could be moved in the post and his rebounding is not as good as Kemp's. Kemp always had more potential but his mental issues got in the way; Nance didn't tease you with what he might do, he lived up to his abilities and gave you more night in and night out than Kemp without the immaturity and outside issues.

I'd certainly vote Nance before Shawn Kemp

[therealbig3]

In 99, against average offenses of 103.0, the Cavs had a DRating of 106.8 (+3.8) in the 8 games that Kemp missed. For the season, they had a DRating of 101.6, against a league average ORating of 102.2 (-0.6).

Also in 99, against average defenses of 101.6, the Cavs had an ORating of 94.1 (-7.5) in the 8 games that Kemp missed. For the season, they had an ORating of 99.6, against a league average DRating of 102.2 (-2.6).

Kemp didn't really miss much time in his prime, so adding up the total amount of missed games he had from 93-96 (just straight up forgot to take 97 into account), he missed a total of 10 games with the Sonics. In those games, against average offenses of 107.2, the Sonics had a DRating of 103.9 (-3.3). In 93, 94, and 96 overall (Kemp didn't miss any time in 95, so I didn't use any data from that season), the Sonics had an average DRating of 102.8 against a league average ORating of 107.3 (-4.5).

Also in those 10 games, against average defenses of 107.2, the Sonics had an ORating of 113.2 (+6.0). In 93, 94, and 96 overall, the Sonics had an average ORating of 111.2 against a league average DRating of 107.3 (+3.9).

So overall, it doesn't look that great for Kemp offensively, as the Sonics did very well without him on offense over those 10 games, but defensively, it looks like he had a solid impact, as the Sonics did worse without him over those 10 games, although they were still a strong defensive team.

But Kemp has a pretty big impact all-around in that 99 season, when he misses time.

Overall, I think the evidence shows that Kemp was a solid defensive player with a good impact, and there's mixed evidence for his offense, but I think overall, he was a good offensive player. Overall, I'd put more weight in the numbers from the 99 season than I would the 93-96 numbers, because the latter are more like random 3-4 game samples from different seasons, and it could have easily been a coincidence that the Sonics did great offensively or poor defensively in the games Kemp missed. In the 99 season, you have a consistent stretch of 8 games from one season, so I think that would be more indicative of Kemp's impact as a key player.

[therealbig3]

I was thinking Nance over Kemp too, but looking at their playoff numbers, it kind of showed me that Kemp was able to step up his game and carry a large offensive load...Nance never did that, which is why I switched to Kemp. There's not much of a difference in their production in the regular season in their primes, but Kemp looks to clearly be the better playoff performer.

[lukekarts]

VOTE: Grant Hill
Nominate: James Worthy