RealGM Top100 List #83

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not sure I understand the "I can see favoring a player because you think he'd be easier to build around even if that hasn't actually happened in his career" comment - the Nuggets put the right pieces around Melo for him, and had enough results with him in the lead to get nominated 20 spots ago. The Nuggets peak success was identical to the KG Wolves, Iverson Sixers, Allen Bucks, Kidd Nets, Paul Hornets, Deron Jazz, etc. among recent teams. It seems to me that sentence would be more applicable to Elton Brand who had a team that had no idea how to build around him and had virtually no results, or Bosh similarly

Melo was on a team that was basically a 1st round exit guarantee almost every year. I would take it as a given that there are well over 100 players who can lead a team to such middling levels when they have a team well build around him. If you then add in a supporting cast that for years and years has seemed to do about as well without him as is the case with Melo, it just doesn't seem like there's a whole lot there.

To me if you're talking about Melo as being someone who is easier to build around, and build around in the manner you described with big man defenders, etc, I just kind of assume you mean really building an elite team.

Re: The Nuggets trade. I actually like the Nuggets to be better than the Knicks this year... or almost anyone - but I think the situations for them succeeding with Melo and without him doesn't mean Melo's teammates were the ones making him succesful, y'know.

I don't think Melo's teammates made him successful so much as that there was a high degree of redundancy. What is redundancy in basketball? Multiple paths that similar in effectiveness. Melo to this point hasn't shown the ability to produced drastically more effective offensive paths which would result in team offense being so good WITH him that it would have to be worse without him.

To me last year's post Melo Nuggets were the deepest team in about a decade (going back to the Pippen era Trailblazers) and were also a freakish fastbreak/athleticism team, which is a combination perfect for Denver's altitude HCA and will be even more perfect in a compressed season, they're going to put every team on a back to back or playing their 4th/5th game of the last 7 days in a torture chamber. (though I wouldn't trust them nearly as much in the playoffs as the 09 and 10 w/ Melo Nuggets, you need halfcourt go tos and they won't have it and didn't against the Thunder). Whereas the Knicks have no depth in the season that's the worst for that fact and a coach who may have no idea what the right gameplan for this roster is, IMO pulling a Heat by slowing the pace to 0 and having everyone but Melo and Amare maximize their value by going all out defensively. If D'Antoni tries to run his Phoenix system at full pace without a guard who can pass/run the pick and roll and with no 3pt shooters and having no defensive coaching or system, and oh, plays a 7 man rotation in a compressed season, he's a moron who should lose his job. On that note, Carmelo's reputation will be completley destroyed if the Nuggets played at a 55 W pace and the Knicks were at 35-40, I might be on RealGM Iverson island with this guy by then by saying playing well without a star and with massive roster turnover does NOT diminish previous success

Interesting thoughts. Just moving on that tangent, there are so many teams this year that I have no good way to predict how they'll do. Nuggets are one of them. It's a bit better now that Nene's coming back, but they've still got 3 rotation players from last year trapped overseas this year, and I don't have confidence that I understand how THEY see their backcourt situation. I mean, glad they want Afflalo back, but presumably he's not going to be the one running the show. Who is? And how much confidence will Karl have in him?

[Dr Positivity]

Actually, if the Knicks get Baron Davis and he's motivated that changes their season for me and makes the surefire attempt by D'Antoni to top 3 pace it out plausibly succesful...

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not sure if there's a point to having Bosh even as a number two. He may only be able to act as the number three guy on a title team, not a number two.

Really? Why?

[Doctor MJ]

Actually, if the Knicks get Baron Davis and he's motivated that changes their season for me and makes the surefire attempt by D'Antoni to top 3 pace it out plausibly succesful...

Well with his health issues, it seems to me unlikely that Baron would help the Knicks to a great record this year.

I agree with you though that Baron's an interesting guy to consider. Dude has always shot too much, but other than that, he's got a great skillset. On the Knicks there will be NO great sin than shooting too much when Melo and Amare are waiting for the ball, so on the face of it it would seem Baron's not a good fit. On the other hand, I just kind of get the feeling that if Baron's hit over the head with the right expectations for his role, he might prove a revelation.

[rocopc]

Mitch Richmond, Baron Davis, Ron fr.... Harper even Deron Williams (already in) and no mention of Tim Hardaway c-mon guys

[Dr Positivity]

I'm not sure I understand the "I can see favoring a player because you think he'd be easier to build around even if that hasn't actually happened in his career" comment - the Nuggets put the right pieces around Melo for him, and had enough results with him in the lead to get nominated 20 spots ago. The Nuggets peak success was identical to the KG Wolves, Iverson Sixers, Allen Bucks, Kidd Nets, Paul Hornets, Deron Jazz, etc. among recent teams. It seems to me that sentence would be more applicable to Elton Brand who had a team that had no idea how to build around him and had virtually no results, or Bosh similarly

Melo was on a team that was basically a 1st round exit guarantee almost every year. I would take it as a given that there are well over 100 players who can lead a team to such middling levels when they have a team well build around him. If you then add in a supporting cast that for years and years has seemed to do about as well without him as is the case with Melo, it just doesn't seem like there's a whole lot there.

To me if you're talking about Melo as being someone who is easier to build around, and build around in the manner you described with big man defenders, etc, I just kind of assume you mean really building an elite team.

I'm not sure I get this, the Nuggets made the #2 seed/WCF/were legitimately the "number 2" in terms of winning the title in their big year, and had 54, 53 and 50 W seasons. That's as high a peak as the KG Wolves, Paul Hornets, Iverson Sixers, Oscar Royals, etc. in raw success. The ones with Billups were great teams, it's not the best of the best, but we're no longer dealing with players who should be expected to do more than that with pretty good but findable players. I believe there are less than 50 NBA players who's teams did as well as the 2009/2010 Nuggets while they were the best guy, let alone clearly better (which might be a number like 20)

There's an argument against Melo but it's not to do with his success, considering the complete lack of success of guys like Brand and Richmond it's clear that the people not voting Melo are doing so for an argument that goes against judging a player by how far he took a team - which is a perfectly understandable position, after all we did recently see Joe Johnson's team win 53 Gs because his bigs were that good and from a style of play that was never going to break through in the PS

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not sure I get this, the Nuggets made the #2 seed/WCF/were legitimately the "number 2" in terms of winning the title in their big year, and had 54, 53 and 50 W seasons. That's as high a peak as the KG Wolves, Paul Hornets, Iverson Sixers, Oscar Royals, etc. in raw success. The ones with Billups were great teams, it's not the best of the best, but we're no longer dealing with players who should be expected to do more than that with pretty good but findable players. I believe there are less than 50 NBA players who's teams did as well as the 2009/2010 Nuggets while they were the best guy, let alone clearly better (which might be a number like 20)

There's an argument against Melo but it's not to do with his success, considering the complete lack of success of guys like Brand and Richmond it's clear that the people not voting Melo are doing so for an argument that goes against judging a player by how far he took a team - which is a perfectly understandable position, after all we did recently see Joe Johnson's team win 53 Gs because his bigs were that good and from a style of play that was never going to break through in the PS

When Denver was a 2 seed, they had an SRS of +3.13, about the same it was in other years. That's not the level of a team you expect to be a #2 seed. Bottom line is that one year the conference was weak enough that the Nuggets benefitted. They were never, in any year, a contender.

Re: "As high a peak as...". It's that team peak that people use AGAINST someone like Garnett y'know? I don't rate KG so highly because he led teams to 50 wins, there's a lot more to it than that.

Re: "I believe there are less than 50 NBA players who's teams did as well as the 2009/2010 Nuggets while they were the best guy". Dude, we've had ensemble cast do better than those Nuggets like...the '10-11 Nuggets. If you can do it with an ensemble cast, then that record alone is not enough for me to carried away with the team's official star.

Re: "There's an argument against Melo but it's not to do with his success." Okay, well perhaps we went down an unproductive path.

You talked about ease of building around a player as a reason to favor Melo, and my response was that I'd expect really anyone we're talking about could have the level of success Melo's with a solid support cast, let alone one that appears to be able to achieve said level of success without Melo entirely. So to me this isn't about me holding his team success against him, but about you elevating Melo based on his team success which really isn't that noteworthy.

[ronnymac2]

I'm not sure if there's a point to having Bosh even as a number two. He may only be able to act as the number three guy on a title team, not a number two.

Really? Why?

OK, let me try to figure out why I said this.

Well, he doesn't do anything special.

I honestly question whether Chris Bosh is a better number two guy than Horace Grant. Bosh is clearly a better scorer- better as in more capable of delivering a higher volume of points- but he isn't a game breaker offensively.

Bosh as a number three is very nice because he's a big who spreads the floor with an elite catch-and-shoot mid-range jump shot and he's a useful defensive piece. His offensive inadequacies- the inability to create effectively for himself or others in a playoff setting- are offset perfectly on a Miami team that has two players better at offense than Chris. He's not just the third-best player- he's the third scoring option.

The only other role we've seen a prime Bosh in- damn the Carter situation for robbing us of a Carter/Bosh pairing- is as a first option scorer and best player, where he has loads of shooting around him and an unaggressive, solid pick-n-pop point guard in Calderon. He put up very nice scoring numbers, efficiently putting in 22-24 ppg.

So he's been in the slightly more extreme situations, but has escaped both the "second-option, second-best player" scenario and the "first-option offensive player, second-best overall player" scenario. It becomes an exercise in imagination at this point.

(Full disclosure: I'm disregarding 2004 Detroit-type situations, and basing my post on a traditional team-building schemata.)

I personally think Bosh as a first-option offensive player who is the number two guy overall is iffy. Honestly, only a Russell/Bosh combination would be a contender in my mind. Melo, and to a lesser extent Amar'e, are better offensive player when it comes to taking on scoring load and/or creating offense.

Amar'e's game lends itself to helping other offensive players because his game is predicated on moving without the ball. Bosh is at his productive best when he's the center of the universe and iso'ing, but he's not good enough as an iso scorer to do that in the playoffs as a first option. He's got a flawed skill set. He's a lower-middle-class version D-Rob an an offensive player.

Second-best offensive option and second-best player- Admittedly, I should have rephrased what I previously stated; I meant to question Bosh's ability to play in this role, not outright reject it.

My reluctance to boost Bosh over Amar'e or Melo in this particular situation comes from being unconvinced that Bosh's medium between his third-option Miami role and his first-option Toronto role (with all the spacing advantages he had and being unproven in the playoffs in this role) would amount to being an effective second-option and peripheral player to a dominant offensive anchor.

Is there a point to putting Bosh on a squad with Magic or Nash or Kobe or MJ? I legitimately ask this question, because I don't know. It could be that if he were on a team with these guys, he'd be a slightly higher-volume Pau Gasol without the passing and with worse defense. Bosh's game isn't predicated on moving without the ball, so does he reap the full advantages of playing with Magic or Nash or Paul?

I mean, last year Amar'e went through the season as the best offensive player on his team and had a better individual offensive season than anything Bosh has come up with. We know Amar'e is a 25 ppg player with elite efficiency if he plays with an elite playmaker- it makes sense with his elite of-ball game. Does Bosh have that type of game? I'm not sure.

Would it be better to pair Magic and Paul and LeBron and Nash with Horace Grant instead of Chris Bosh? Horace gives me better passing, rebounding, and defense. Bosh, with his flawed skill set on offense, can be slowed offensively in the playoffs, to the point where his advantage in volume scoring might be minimized.

Do I want a superior volume scorer with a flawed skill set as my number two?

I can see Nash and Amar'e winning titles. I can see Melo and D-Rob or Ewing or Dwight winning titles, let alone Melo and Hakeem.

Bosh is a question mark in a lot of scenarios to me.

[penbeast0]

What is it about Melo that makes him more worthy than the much greater team success, much greater defense, and even roughly equal overall peak numbers than Shawn Marion? (using PER as a shorthand, trading off scoring for rebounding basically, Marion has the highest season PER and 6 seasons over 20 to Carmelo's 7)

And are you the same people that supported Magic over Wilt? Inquiring minds want to know.

VOTE

Billups – penbeast0,

Daugherty – JordansBulls

JLucas – Laimbeer

Sharman – ElGee, therealbig3

Deron – Dr Mufasa


NOMINATE

Daniels – penbeast0, Laimbeer

Richmond – JordansBulls

Carmelo – Dr Mufasa

RHarper – drza

THardaway – therealbig3

[ronnymac2]

For the record, NY shouldn't gamble on Davis. FIrst off, he's an injury concern.

Beyond that, the Knicks need to make sure they build a methodical team, otherwise the Chandler acquisition will be wasted. They won't have defense, and they'll have a poorly functioning offense that has random explosions of points because of their home run hitters. Plus, Chandler likely gets injured if the pace increases.

Methodical is the way to go. That maximizes what they can do.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Adrian Dantley

Nominate: Gus Williams

Williams was a very good playoff performer. Tim is good, too, but more hit-or-miss. RIchmond, unfortunately, is a bit unproven. Melo is getting closer and closer.

[lorak]

vote: Dantley
nominate: Laimbeer

[Doctor MJ]

For the record, NY shouldn't gamble on Davis. FIrst off, he's an injury concern.

Beyond that, the Knicks need to make sure they build a methodical team, otherwise the Chandler acquisition will be wasted. They won't have defense, and they'll have a poorly functioning offense that has random explosions of points because of their home run hitters. Plus, Chandler likely gets injured if the pace increases.

Methodical is the way to go. That maximizes what they can do.

Boy I tell you. More than anything else, the reason I see Isiah as the worst GM in modern basketball, is this "grab talent to make you immediately good...even if they aren't talented enough to make you good" philosophy. His mantra of "you can't rebuild in New York" looks so comical 8 and half years later with the Knicks only now looking like they may be going somewhere. When "not rebuilding" takes about 3 times as long as rebuilding, you have a problem.

[Doctor MJ]

We'll go with...

Vote: Billups

Nominate: Chris Mullin

Seems high time this guy got some serious conversation.

btw, I still think highly of Sikma (my last nominee), but he doesn't seem to really be in play here, and it's not clear to me he should get the edge over Mullin anyway.

[penbeast0]

Just out of curiousity, for people who voted for Connie Hawkins -- why is Mel Daniels who had 2 MVPs and was a defensive anchor as well not on your radar?

VOTE

Billups – penbeast0, Doctor MJ, bastillon, Dr Mufasa

Daugherty – JordansBulls

JLucas – Laimbeer

Sharman – ElGee, therealbig3, DavidStern

Dantley – ronnymac2


NOMINATE

Daniels – penbeast0, Laimbeer

Richmond – JordansBulls

Carmelo – Dr Mufasa

RHarper – drza

THardaway – therealbig3

GWilliams – ronnymac2

Laimbeer -- DavidStern, bastillon

Mullin – Doctor MJ

Up to DavidStern's next post . . .

[bastillon]

Im back on time
I'm voting for Billups and nominating Laimbeer.

[lorak]

I'm changing my vote: Sharman

[Dr Positivity]

I'll change my vote to Billups

[therealbig3]

Really not getting the love for Chauncey Billups. He's a decent scorer, but that's about it. He's pretty one-dimensional imo, and his defense is really overblown; he was never a great defender, and the APM studies all say he was a negative on defense. His basketball IQ isn't that great either, imo, he makes a lot of dumb plays and TOs. Why should Billups go ahead of Parker (who also doesn't make my top 100)?

[Doctor MJ]

Really not getting the love for Chauncey Billups. He's a decent scorer, but that's about it. He's pretty one-dimensional imo, and his defense is really overblown; he was never a great defender, and the APM studies all say he was a negative on defense. His basketball IQ isn't that great either, imo, he makes a lot of dumb plays and TOs. Why should Billups go ahead of Parker (who also doesn't make my top 100)?

Well to me the debate I really wanted to see was Piston vs Piston, because to me Billups was the most important part of those teams from '04-05 on. People tend to forget that the team's offense actually became quite good and I've never seen how you could look at Billups not being the star of that offense, while playing his part on the great defense.

You mention APM on defense, which to me begs mention of overall APM, which in all the multi-year studies Billups beats Parker. Looking at other advanced stats, Billups looks more impressive on PER, and much more impressive in WS, and in particular offensive WS. Of course this all relates to the fact that Billups was an individual ORtg machine, which I'm not going to claim is perfect by any means.

I suppose though it really comes back to me seeing Parker as extremely fortunate to play with two incredible all around players, while Billups really never got to play with a player more complete than himself from the time he hit his stride onward.