RealGM Top 100 List #80

[bastillon]

was TRULY a 2-way big. the debate Brand vs Sheed is about preferences. Brand put up bigger numbers on poor teams

Sheed was a guy who never scored 20 PPG and shot inefficiently, and as his career went on spent more and more time dinking around the outside. (Seriously, a big man shooting 5 3's per game who can't hit 80% of his free throws? Dirk doesn't even take that many). You've got some nerve to say that that qualifies him as a 2-way player, but Brand wasn't good enough on defense to qualify, and that's before we even get into Sheed being a total headcase that made cease to function at all unless there were sounder personalities in the locker room to keep him in line.

you can say all you want about Sheed's inefficiency but empirically his teams were considerably better with him on the floor. in his prime he was a 17-18 ppg big man with outside shot that drew defenders out of the lane. that's extremely valuable for spacing purposes. inefficiency is overblown here anyway. Sheed's ORtg was around 110 usually, because of extremely low turnover rates.

as for Brand, his early years were really ugly it had little to do with his supporting cast. playing alongside young Artest or Chandler that team couldn't have been that bad... and they improved after Brand was gone. went from -9 SRS to -8.5. minor improvement but still shows you that Brand didn't mean that much to this team. on the other hand Clippers improved by 2 SRS when they added Brand...to mediocrity.

meanwhile Sheed's aforementioned skyrocketing of 04 Pistons has to be put here in contrast. Portland meanwhile regressed by 3.6 SRS with Sheed playing half season with obvious trade talks around the league (went from 13th drtg to 22nd). then they went down to -3.5 SRS without Sheed for the whole year.

best posts ever.
I'm interested in Rasheed Wallace 2004 considering he was traded midseason. I know Detroit was amazing after that trade.

Well of course, it's one of the all-time sum-is-greater-than-the-parts examples. Basketball is a game of interaction, not linear addition. Adding Sheed shored up that defense to a level basically unheard of (capable with the rules then) and Detroit's DRtg was somewhere in the 80s the rest of the way (I calculated it recently but don't have the exact number). They gave up 77.3 points in Sheed's 22 games, and 79.0 if we count the PS. Detroit was +12.6 with Wallace down the stretch, and +9.4 if we include the PS (up from +3.4 MOV without him).

His simple number is +11.35 for just the RS, and a more down-to-earth +7.44 if we include the PS. (It should be noted of course that Detroit basically traded no one for Sheed and that he was replacing Memo Okur mostly -- Pistons were +4.5 in Memo's starts and gave up 85.5 ppg. Back in Portland, the Blazers were actually 1.8 points better without Wallace.)

Sheed made BIG impact on his teams. worse boxscore stats but I'm going with the defense he brings.

[Doctor MJ]

-Connie was not a force defensively. that's why I'm opposing to his selection at this point. I'm not a fan of offensive bigs in general, to me bigs are only high impact players on great teams if they can defend well.

Once again bast, you say these things, and it's just so strange.

Last time you talked about you read about his defense once and came to major conclusions about them, and when Stern replied to you with quotes saying the contrary, you ignored it.

This though is particularly strange. Connie Hawkins is primarily known as the precursor to Erving & Jordan. A cursory Google search will tell you that. Go to YouTube, and watch video of him, and what do you see? You see him driving from the outside past a perimeter defender for an acrobatic dunk as he avoids the bigs.

Hell, even b-r has him listed a 6'8" and skinny as a rail.

Yet somehow in your mind, you think the man is supposed to be a big, and harp on him because he didn't rebound like a big and was (according to you) a bad defender.

I just don't understand. Did you simply look at his b-r position "F-C", and assume he was supposed to Tim Duncan? Seems like you did, then read somewhere he was a bad defender, and then used a general of "big man" + "bad defender" to say he's not a player who should be in a Top 100 project.

If you've got more behind your opinion, bring it dude. I never claim to have all the research possible on a player like Connie, but so far as I can tell, you don't really know who he is.

[bastillon]

what's your point ? that Hawk was a perimeter player and even though he's listed everywhere as a BIG doesn't qualify him as a big ? if I could find what I read about I'd bring it. him not making impact defensively is not just an anecdote though. we could see team offense improving a lot upon his arrival and yet defense stayed at the same poor level. DavidStern's quotes didn't really list him as a great defender and they were all about his ABA career which lasted for 1 year. you're talking about his ABA days now and then say you're choosing him bc his longetivity lasted for 7 years. I'm not evaluating his peak here, I'm evaluating his career. Hawk's NBA days were mostly high scoring, poor defense and low impact. the guy was after knee surgeries, it's not particularly shocking he wasn't a good defender at that point.

[bastillon]

btw, Sheed vs Brand http://bkref.com/tiny/59ajM
I don't see efficiency being a big issue here. Sheed's 13-year average is 108 ORtg and 54% TS. Brand's at 112 ORtg and 55.8% TS.

if you take a closer look at Sheed's career you'll notice a big drop in efficiency after coming to Detroit and him shooting more 3s and jumpshots in general. that's because Sheed was asked to change his role offensively. Detroit needed Sheed to take opposing bigs out of the paint to free up the space. Ben Wallace being a big liability on that team didn't help. before Detroit, Sheed was actually efficient with over 56% TS.

[therealbig3]

btw, Sheed vs Brand http://bkref.com/tiny/59ajM
I don't see efficiency being a big issue here. Sheed's 13-year average is 108 ORtg and 54% TS. Brand's at 112 ORtg and 55.8% TS.

if you take a closer look at Sheed's career you'll notice a big drop in efficiency after coming to Detroit and him shooting more 3s and jumpshots in general. that's because Sheed was asked to change his role offensively. Detroit needed Sheed to take opposing bigs out of the paint to free up the space. Ben Wallace being a big liability on that team didn't help. before Detroit, Sheed was actually efficient with over 56% TS.

Why are you using individual ORating? You're the same one who said before that it's pretty useless.

And regardless, every offensive measurement says Brand is better on that end, and he's a better rebounder. And he's a good defensive player, not Sheed level, but overall, it's hard to see Sheed having more value here.

[bastillon]

you're right ORtg might influenced by team rating so that's irrelevant. I wanted to point out that Sheed's a low tov guy so that makes up for his shooting inefficiency a bit and he's still over league average in his prime so I can't see it as a major concern.

defensively I don't think you're giving Sheed enough credit. he's one of the best defenders of his generation, not just very good. I've never seen a study with Brand making major impact defensively. the difference offensively isn't as big bc prime Sheed put up 17-18 ppg himself and was a legit scoring threat from the post. it's not as if he was a non factor offensively. also, you're still ignoring my points about the spacing and it's one of the reasons why I value him so highly bc that makes him extremely flexible offensively. he can play with guys who would use him as a post-up threat, but he can camp outside clearing the space inside as well.

[bastillon]

also as for rebounding: once I played ATL on another board. bottomline he had Sheed and I was arguing that he couldn't get enough rebounds. he made a very convincing case that Sheed's great at boxing out and actually has positive impact on team rebounding. that guy didn't really have a weakness, but so many of the things he did was intangible. screens, spacing, team defense, man defense, boxing out, you name it, that's where Sheed excelled. I don't think I can convince you here guys, but I hope you'll look at him in a different light. to me he was a very valuable two-way big and those ridiculous high scores on decade APMs are there for a reason.

[Rapcity_11]

bast, what APM scores are you talking about? You've said that Sheed kills Brand in APM but where are you seeing this? And then you say Sheed has ridiculous decade APM scores. Where?

03-09
Brand +4.59
Sheed +4.49

Engelmann's 10 year:
Brand +2.6
Sheed +2.8

[Dr Positivity]

Ok w/ no Price I vote for Ben Wallace, still Deron for nomination

[bastillon]

bast, what APM scores are you talking about? You've said that Sheed kills Brand in APM but where are you seeing this? And then you say Sheed has ridiculous decade APM scores. Where?

03-09
Brand +4.59
Sheed +4.49

Engelmann's 10 year:
Brand +2.6
Sheed +2.8

Winston's APM, also I've seen older APM scores and Sheed was on top of the league too.

I'm now watching game 7 of 00s WCFs JB posted on YouTube. horribly officiated first quarter with 4 phantom fouls for Portland bigs. Shaq doesn't even touch the ball the most possessions because that's how good Portland is defensively. Shaq scored 1 point after 1st Q. Sheed was incredibly athletic back in the day and damn Pippen played some great D.

[Doctor MJ]

what's your point ? that Hawk was a perimeter player and even though he's listed everywhere as a BIG doesn't qualify him as a big ?

Essentially yes. If you're trying to get an understanding of what he played like, he was far more like a wingman than a big in today's game.

And look, I'm one of the guys around here who's big on being primarily defense-first. Do you understand why that is? It's not just that they can do good things on defense, it's also that their inability to handle the ball on the perimeter makes them dependent on other players to get them the ball in their sweet spot to really do their thing on offense, which means that an offense based on the big volume scoring tends to get stagnant and predictable.

Connie was a guy who took the ball in from the perimeter himself, driving past defenders, making the kind of agile in the air plays bigs just don't make, also dishing the ball. This was a run the fast break, draw defenders, behind the back pass to an open teammate for an easy score, kind of guy who simply happened to be tall enough, long enough, and agile enough to block shots (though he was more of a ballhawk).

[bastillon]

Doc I see your point but that's not why I'm against Connie. he played as a big on defense and that's what matters.

[lorak]

Doc I see your point but that's not why I'm against Connie. he played as a big on defense

That's not true. For example look at minutes played in 1970 Suns: Fox (C) and Silas (PF) played as bigs on defense.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc I see your point but that's not why I'm against Connie. he played as a big on defense and that's what matters.

Well Stern responded to this, but I suppose in general there is a point worth meditation.

Here's the thing: The reason it's damning for a big to not be great on defense is VORP. As in, if you're taking a slot which means I can't get someone else to do my defensive big work, then you not being able to be a full on defensive big is a problem.

I mention this with Magic Johnson and rebounding. I love Magic, he's my offensive GOAT, but people using his rebounding to boost him over other point guards drives me up the wall. Magic, you're 6'9", and taking the spot of another guy your size (because now I have to find someone else to actually guard lightning-fast guards), so you damn well better be rebounding.

At Connie's size, with his agility, he's not taking up a big's space. If you want, you can choose to play him as a big (because he was that versatile), but there's no reason that having him on the court ever meant you couldn't have a beefy 4/5 combo out there with him. So to me if makes no sense to compare him to the Tim Duncan's of the world, and damn him for not being able to pull off that skillset. He's his own player, and you have to figure out what that entails, and if you're going to knock him for something you think he's supposed to be doing, you better really think through whether a coach would be bothered by that, or whether a coach would say "So? Why do I need him to do that?".

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Connie Hawkins

Nominate: Deron Williams

[lorak]

vote: Connie
nominate: Daugherty

[lukekarts]

Sorry for missing a couple. Been away for a few days again.

VOTE: Chauncey
Nominate: Daugherty

[lorak]

I watched one Hawkins game from NBA and 1968 ABA finals recap:
- during ABA finals he played center on defense, but he was defending 6-8, 190 player who from what I have seen, likes to shot from outside; however on some possessions Hawk even defended Larry Brown and stayed in front of him
- on offense he was guarded by Doug Moe, SG/SF player with good defensive reputation
- in G4, won by Pipers by 1 point after overtime, Hawkins scored 47 pts (17/34 FG)
- however he was injured in that G4 (knee) and missed G5 - Pipers lost and New Orleans takes 3-2 lead.
- Hawk is back in G6, played all 48 minutes and scored 41 pts on bad knee; G7 in Pittsburg is basically a blowout.
- in NBA Hawkins and Hudson (it was game against Hawks) were guarding each other, so in NBA he was definitely SF on both ends of the floor.
- overall he was excellent offensive player, as a passer better than LeBron IMHO.
- and I think his rebounding is underrated. His DRB% isn't bad as for SF (not much worse than Magic's, for example) and he usually played with some good rebounders, so that affected his overall rebounds numbers.

[bastillon]

SF/PF: I'm finding it hard to believe he was playing as a SF on defense consistently being listed everywhere as a PF. after DocMJ's post last night I googled "Connie Hawkins small forward" and there were responses only listing him as a POWER forward.

....Connie Hawkins. | Power forward/Center | | Hall of Fame member...
....and the fact that Pittsburgh had just signed Connie Hawkins at power forward....
....Which player would be the power forward on your All-Time Suns team? Connie Hawkins. Tom Chambers....
....The first and only Hawkeyes player to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, power forward Connie Hawkins is the....

essentially it's unthinkable to consider him a full time SF when just literally every other source points in another direction. I'll be conservative and say he played majority of time at PF defensively and until there's no evidence suggesting otherwise I don't see why I would back off of this notion.

defensive impact: Doc I find your argument about putting him at SF pretty interesting for ideal perspectives but as I'm trying to evaluate what he did in his career I can't really do that because I'm trying to get the gist of what actually happened on the court, what his impact was like in the NBA and not what it COULD'VE been. Hawk did play PF and as a PF he did NOT make significant defensive impact. and even if he played some SF at time and you could "hide him" defensively, he's still NOT making defensive impact and Shawn Kemp WAS a legit co-anchor (top1 Cavs defense in '98 and that's after years of co-anchoring the Sonics). Kemp was great on both ends of the court, Hawk wasn't. this isn't even up for a debate whether Kemp was a much more impactful defensive player.

because of defense, longetivity, playoff play I have to take Kemp here. Hawk doesn't have advantages of this magnitude. for example he's obviously a great offensive player, but Kemp was no slouch either, basically a 20/11 machine in the playoffs on extremely high efficiency. Hawk had an amazing peak, but so did Kemp. what's the reason for Hawk ahead of Kemp ?

[penbeast0]

The Hawk was a PF/C at Iowa and in the ABA. When he had his knee injury, he became more of a jump shooter and came into the NBA with Phoenix playing SF/PF. Then, later, when he had lost much of his mobility, he was back playing PF/C again.

Similar positional arc to fellow dunk master Gus Johnson actually.

Oh and I know the Sonics had some terrific defenses but having watched Kemp play, it's hard to believe that he was responsible for it. He was athletic as all heck, but consistently missed rotations, left his feet for blocks and fakes, and gambled for steals. If I was convinced he was really a top defensive big, I'd have voted him in by now, attitude and all.