RealGM Top 100 List #65

[Laimbeer]

Vote: Schayes
Nominate: Lucas

[ElGee]

vote: Penny Hardaway
nominate: David Thompson

People are seriously overlooking David Thompson. Most of the guys on the board were never close to the heights in hit in his prime. He has the best peak of anyone left on the board, and the only one I'd argue is close is Tiny Archibald. (Technically Brand, Durant and Rose all have good peaks too.) Seems absolutely insane to me to suggest someone like Larry Nance -- solid and consistent -- over Thompson. Can someone please make that argument?

[penbeast0]

I liked David Thompson and he's on my short list for the same reasons you mention but let's be honest . . . he had a few years as a great scorer but didn't carry his team that far and threw his career away on cocaine. I'd rather have a great defensive glue guy for 10-12 years of marginal all-star combined with great defense and high efficiency scoring and 5 years of big scoring any day . . . unless one or the other leads to rings and I think Larry Nance/Bobby Jones types have played key roles on a lot more NBA championships than David Thompson types. The great scorer who doesn't play great team ball or great defense packs the stands but how many rings do Gervin, Thompson, Nique, English (and yes, I'm a big English fan), Carmelo, ... have -- how many rings have any wing with no All-Def awards won scoring 25+ ppg v. how many have all-defensive forwards with excellent efficiency. Add in a rep for key pressure defense and you get the Kobe, Jordan group but Thompson doesn't have that rep. Then add in the coke issues which were very real and very disruptive and I'm betting on the BJones/Nance guys winning this one -- a great defender with good efficient scoring and great attitude fits into just about any winning team; a great scorer tends to need a team built around him and without the defense or other great secondary stat, they tend to win only when they scale back their games to be a second option to a true talent that dominates in multiple fashion like Russell in both rebounding and defense.

[ElGee]

I also want to return to Webber, someone who I have been thinking about and seen nothing positive said of. Let's start with his peak, 2002:

This is the year Sac is a whisker from the title. Obviously if they win Webber is like a top-40 player on realgm (or whatever Championship boost is dolled out). I won't get into that ridiculous line of thinking. Just ask yourself how differently you'd view him if you find yourself ranking a lot of "winners" high and "losers" low.

In 02 he misses 28 games, and in that time Sacramento plays +5.9 MOV ball. Clearly they were a good, balanced team. (I thought they had a great bench with Bobby Jackson, Barry and some banging bigs). Pollard replaces him in the lineup for 27 of those games and just about everything else is unchanged (that team had great health 3 through 8 that year). That's a good sample, and assuming we trust the sample, that's good impact from Webber, although not necessarily super-super star level. But again, it's hard to complain about a guy taking an already good team and bringing them to the +8 range.

For comparison, I have 31 players whose teams played 5 MOV ball or better without them. The top net impacts were

Gasol 08 (+6.4)
Kobe 00, (+4.4)
Shaq 98 (+3.5)
Pippen 98 (+3.1)
Rodman 96 (+3.0)
Rodman 97 (+2.8)
Magic 86 (+2.7)
McHale 86 (+2.6)
Webber 86 (+2.6)

So it's not bad company!

Why do we think Webber does this? 25 points, 10 rebounds and 5 assists is a good start. NB: He is remembered perhaps for poor efficiency and too many jumpers, but that was post injury. In 2002 Webber was +2.0% TS with good scoring and fantastic passing. He played the other side of Bibby's pick and roll/pop perfectly, as teams had to honor both his shooting and his passing, while playing high-post hub initiator in Pete Carrill's offense (along with Vlade).

But yes, he still had low post game and a good hook shot...and even went to the line 6.3 times per game (something he has also been criticized for). For comparison, KG went 5.1 times per 36, Webber 5.9, Dirk 6.4 and Duncan 7.6. His rebounding isn' great -- right around average for a PF -- well off of KG and Duncan's work there, but ahead of Dirk.

Now, in the 28 games he missed Sac posted an estimated ORtg of 107 (+2.5) and and an estimated DRtg of 101 (-3.5). (Btw, someone was wondering why these are estimated -- it's because B-R box scores don't include team rebounds.) For the season they were 109 and 101, so we can assume Webber is lifting them into the ~110 range on offense and still playing ~101 defense. Intuitively, it seems about right to say Webber's solid defense is comparable to Scott Pollard's. Taking the offense to nearly +6 -- which would have been second to the all-time level Mavs offense -- is good work for my money.

Btw, Peja missed 11 games and the Kings rolled through the stretch at +11.8 (4.9 better than the other 71g). They played 7 on the road, although an easy schedule (-1.38 SRS) in that stretch.

In the PS Webber posts raws of 24-11-5, with a slight bump in FG%. His TS% drops slightly because his free throws go in the tank. The team ORtg drops to 106.3 (+2.0) while the defense relative to opponents is a huge -5.4. Not sure if there is some left-hand-right-hand stuff there, but it's worth noting.

Webber himself has a few subpar games early, but then plays about 10 pretty good games in a row. He's consistent, which is in theory much better for a hi-level team like Sac than being high-variance. He has a number of big games against Dallas, despite battling some foul trouble. (30-10 on 12-15 shooting in 34 minutes in G4). Against the Lakers in the epic series he averages 24.3-10.9-6.3 on 51.4% TS. That series, in many ways, reflects peak Webber: His defense was solid (checking Shaq adequately at times), his assists were of really good value (typical backdoors and a lot of nice high-post action with Bibby). He shot 51% from the floor, went to the line 6 times, was always there but was never really dominant or want to take over down the stretch...but then again he was the other player in freeing Bibby over and over to make so many big shots. He was really good in G1-G4, until the second half, and then again in G5-G7, until the later stages of the game. (G6 I don't blame him for some of his foul calls.)

C-Webb finished 7th in MVP that year, despite missing 28 games. He was 4th the year before. And I think all told, the evidence (and eye test!) point to a high-impact player. Not quite at an MVP level, but just below one.

So, unless you disagree with that strongly, it's hard not to see Webber *at the least* right in this mix of current players, given that he has at least 3 really good years and a few other notable ones. I think he started quality play around 1996 (only 15 gp) -- his first all-star game was 97, although he was more foul prone then -- and his last relevant season was 2003. And when he joins the Kings in 99, he's fairly clearly the spearhead of an increase in quality of play.

[ronnymac2]

'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...)

Could be. They also played at a snail's pace.

I don't know if I missed it, but I remember you wanted to make an argument in favor of Detlef. I'm interested in hearing that at some point in this project; he put up some crazy numbers on good teams.

[ronnymac2]

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.

He was an above average 1 vs. 1 scorer. His ability to pin people down on his back, catch, and lay the ball up is something I underrated as well; he's mini Shaq-lite ( rookie Shaq is regular-sized Shaq-lite) in that regard.

If Kemp and Webber are getting press, so too should Amar'e Stoudemire. He's one of the greatest pure scoring bigs of the modern era, and he's actually got acceptable longevity.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Vince Carter

Nominate: Nate Archibald

[Doctor MJ]

Parish
Bobby Jones

[penbeast0]

A lot of new names and shifts . . . can we get some discussion on them from the people who are no longer repeating themselves but aren't explaining?

Thanks . . .

VOTE

Parish – penbeast0, Doctor MJ

Penny – JordansBulls, DavidStern, drza, ElGee

Vince Carter – therealbig3, Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2

Grant Hill – Snakebites, lukekarts

Schayes -- Laimbeer


NOMINATE

Bobby Jones – penbeast0, Snakebites, DavidStern, Doctor MJ

Kemp – JordansBulls, therealbig3

Cliff Hagan – Dr Mufasa

Ben Wallace – drza

Worthy – lukekarts

Jerry Lucas – Laimbeer (assuming it’s not Maurice Lucas)

David Thompson – ElGee

Nate Archibald – ronnymac2

[Doctor MJ]

A lot of new names and shifts . . . can we get some discussion on them from the people who are no longer repeating themselves but aren't explaining?

Thanks . . .

Ha, since I've made the same statement and then done what I'm complaining about, I should add some words.

First, I wrote what I did from my phone realizing that I wouldn't be home in time to vote with a nice keyboard.

To my actual vote:

Parish - Dude really was a guy who at his peak was in the Top 5 debate, and who did his thing for a very long time despite not being the one the team based their team around.

Bobby Jones - Call it my Ginobili-type of thought. His MPG was very weak, but I feel like his actual number of minutes played at a very high impact level in his career is not only adequate but quite strong. Given that he played on very successful teams, to me it doesn't make sense to look at it so much as "He cost them titles by not playing more" but rather as "His unique style helped smooth over the rough edge of a team".

[bastillon]

Parish - Dude really was a guy who at his peak was in the Top 5 debate, and who did his thing for a very long time despite not being the one the team based their team around.

could you elaborate ?

[Doctor MJ]

Parish - Dude really was a guy who at his peak was in the Top 5 debate, and who did his thing for a very long time despite not being the one the team based their team around.

could you elaborate ?

Top 5 MVP finish, top 5 PER, at times the lead scorer over Bird. I think people tend to think of him as the #3 guy on those teams, and granted peak-wise he was below McHale, but it's not even clear cut that McHale was more important to the Celtics in the 80s than Parish was.

[ElGee]

Just way too much love in this project for role players like Jones and Rodman. Makes no sense to me. And I'm using the term love literally. I think thoughtful posters who like them as players -- I sure as hell do -- for what they add to the team are valuing those contributions ahead of overall value and Grade B superstars. At least there is some consistency about though...but c'mon, Bobby Jones over some of the guys left on the board? Why did he rarely start and play ~28 mpg? His peak couldn't touch David Thompson's IMO.

[Doctor MJ]

Just way too much love in this project for role players like Jones and Rodman. Makes no sense to me. And I'm using the term love literally. I think thoughtful posters who like them as players -- I sure as hell do -- for what they add to the team are valuing those contributions ahead of overall value and Grade B superstars. At least there is some consistency about though...but c'mon, Bobby Jones over some of the guys left on the board? Why did he rarely start and play ~28 mpg? His peak couldn't touch David Thompson's IMO.

To be honest, I was hoping to push for an all-Nuggets conversation before nominating anyone from the group. Nom'ed Bobby because I needed to pick someone, and he has been on my mind.

Nuggets have Jones, Thompson, and Issel as a trio, and I think it really warrants conversation.

I think it makes sense to go chronologically.

'73-74. None of the players are on the team. The team is weak, SRS of -0.49.

'74-75. The great leap forward. The team's SRS jumps to +6.62, and now the team's record is +6.62. So what happened?

Well, major changes:

1. Mack Calvin joins the team appears to be the anointed star. Makes 1st team All-ABA.

2. Rookie Bobby Jones. He plays 2700+ minutes, which is 2nd on the team and more than any other new player. He also leads the team in Win Shares.

3. Larry Brown becomes the coach. This was certainly a factor in the success, but how big of a factor, and how much should that count against the players?

'75-76: Another great year, but the SRS and team record dip a bit. Noteworthy changes:

1. Mack Calvin's gone. btw, Calvin changed teams 9 times in his 12 year career. Pretty hard to fathom that a player a guy capable of spearheading a 6+ SRS improvement wouldn't also be worth keeping on your team.

2. Dan Issel joins and leads the team in PER and WS.

3. Rookie David Thompson joins and leads the team in scoring.

Incidentally, Thompson plays about 3100 minutes, while Issel and Jones play about 2800.

Denver joins the NBA and remains elite before descending toward mediocrity. When did that descent begin in earnest? Debatable. The first big SRS drop came in '77-78 (-4.15), but the team record didn't see a serious decline until ('79-80) when we see a second big SRS drop.

If you don't care about SRS, the narrative is straight forward:

1. Thompson missing time and regressing.

2. Also, Larry Brown quit late in '78-79 and his brain was missed. Incidentally, Brown quit and went back to college to coach UCLA because of George McGinnis. McGinnis was just such an awful follower of instruction that Brown demanded he be traded, but management refused. McGinnis was acquired by trading Bobby Jones away.

If you don't want to ignore the first SRS drop it becomes tougher though.

The big symptom of '77-78 is that the defense fell off dramatically. They were #1 in the league on defense in their first year in the NBA, but fell to 15th of 22 the next year. Looking at the 4 factors, the big thing that stands out is that their ability to force turnovers went from elite to mediocre. Worth noting that in '76-77 led the league in steals by a wide margin. They had 941 steals, the league average was 768, and only one other team was within a 100 steals from them.

By contrast, in '77-78, they only had 824 steals. Big dropoff, and there were a variety of factors there but has to be noted:

1. Jones leads the team in steals both times. First time with 186, second time with 137. So big dropoff from Jones again correlates clearly with team success.

2. Thompson & Issel combine for 205 steals the first year, and 192 the next. Not a big difference there.

Okay so dropoff in steals - maybe the team had to do that because they couldn't gamble as much? Makes me want to look at blocks. Incidentally, team blocks. What happened there? Well, they also went down, from 471 to 422, which took the team down from very strong to mediocre. Perhaps that relates to something that forced a change in strategy.

Incidentally, who led the team in blocks in '76-77? Jones with 162.
Okay, and who led the team in blocks in '77-78? Jones with 126.

So the team blocks 49 less shots than the previous year, and 36 of those less blocks are caused by Jones blocking less.

Every where we look it seems, we see Jones correlated with team success in Denver.

And then he gets traded to Philly for a much bigger name, and Philly ends up very happy they made the trade, just as Larry Brown bangs his head against the wall in Denver.

I just have a very hard time looking at Jones as a mere role player. His low minutes is a problem, but I do think it's appropriate to look at him as someone who at his best was having pretty huge impact on a per minute basis.