RealGM Top 100 List #26

[colts18]

Most .200+ WS/48 seasons in NBA history (Min. 1000 MP in that season)

1 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 13
2 John Stockton* 13
3 Karl Malone* 12
4 Wilt Chamberlain* 11
5 Michael Jordan* 11
6 David Robinson* 11
7 Jerry West* 11

20+ PER seasons

1 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 17
2 Tim Duncan 17
3 Karl Malone* 16
4 Shaquille O'Neal 16
5 Hakeem Olajuwon* 16
6 John Stockton* 16

60%+ TS% seasons

1 Reggie Miller* 13
2 Steve Nash 12
3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 11
4 John Stockton* 11
5 Artis Gilmore* 10

John Stockton looks really good by this measure

[penbeast0]

Depends on how much you love efficiency with your volume scoring, Basketballefan. Both are basically scorers, but not terribly efficient even for their day. Baylor gives you good rebounding, Barry excellent passing, Barry also gets points off for me for being one of the worst locker room presences that didn't do drugs in NBA history.

The trouble is, in addition to those two, you still have English, King, Aquirre and Dantley who were EFFICIENT volume scorers, Pippen (and to a lesser extent, guys like James, Worthy, Jamal Wilkes and Bob Dandridge) who are efficient volume scorers who play great defense, Havlicek who is similarly inefficient but brings superstar intangibles and great defense, Nique who isn't as efficient but was the most spectacular of the great scoring SFs, and even guys like Marion or Durant from the modern day or Paul Arizin from the 50s who may be considered better. SF has always been a great superstar scorer position in the NBA; it's hard to show how Rick Barry and Elgin Baylor separate themselves out from the pack in a positive fashion once you take pace effects out of the equation.

Just a comment (and apologies in advance if I'm misunderstanding you here)...

I'm not sure if I buy the pace argument for scoring volume. In general I'm not high on box scores, but just looking at the other counting stats:

rebounds - fewer missed shots, fewer available opportunities
assists - fewer teammate FG, fewer available opportunities
steals - fewer opponent possessions, fewer available opportunities
blocks - fewer opponent shots, fewer available opportunities

The thing about scoring though, is even though fewer shots are taken as a whole, the volume of shots taken by star players seems to have remained relatively constant over time. Now, you're not going to have guys taking 25+ shots in today's league (let alone much more, as was sometimes the case, due in no small part to questionable decisions by coaches), but if say a guy is taking 20-22, does it really make sense to adjust down to 16-18 if he's the best option in a high quality offense? Not saying this is the case with Barry and Baylor, since as you said neither guy had incredible efficiency. Just something I've been thinking about for a few spots now, and why I think adjusting scoring volume might not be a terrific idea.

It is true that star players probably take a larger percentage of the team's shots today (excluding maybe volume scoring Wilt), but when you look at Baylor, you have to take his rebounding with a grain of salt at least. And you should take at least some adjustment for years like 1962 for scoring or for teams that averaged 120+ ppg; but agree that you need to look at the circumstances when making the adjustments. Assists were higher when there were more points but not by much; the rules for granting an assist were much stricter. Steals and Blocks weren't counted until the 80s where there is a bit less of an issue with pace (except in the ABA). And . . . you have to look at efficiency in their era as well.

So, overall, I think you do look at pace but, like with everything, filter it through your knowledge and era equivalencies.

[ceiling raiser]

It is true that star players probably take a larger percentage of the team's shots today (excluding maybe volume scoring Wilt), but when you look at Baylor, you have to take his rebounding with a grain of salt at least. And you should take at least some adjustment for years like 1962 for scoring or for teams that averaged 120+ ppg; but agree that you need to look at the circumstances when making the adjustments. Assists were higher when there were more points but not by much; the rules for granting an assist were much stricter. Steals and Blocks weren't counted until the 80s where there is a bit less of an issue with pace (except in the ABA). And . . . you have to look at efficiency in their era as well.

So, overall, I think you do look at pace but, like with everything, filter it through your knowledge and era equivalencies.

Agree 100%. Regarding Wilt though, I do think we have to handle 61-62 (contrived PPG, since Wilt, his teammates, McGuire, and possibly the owner, all decided in advance of the season that 50ppg was the best course, for better or worse) differently than we do his other high-scoring seasons (which are high due to attempts, but not freak outliers like 61-62).

But yeah, rebounding is the big thing here (assists mostly cancel out because they were harder to come by, and steals/blocks weren't recorded until pace was much lower).

[penbeast0]

Rodman over Zo and Gilmore? I want to get into that one...

I imagine down the road we will get our chance.

Couple things:

I don''t buy in to the narrative that Rodman was a mere stat-padding rebounder.
I think Rodman was a positive factor on the offensive side of the ball especially in his Bulls years.
I think Rodman was an elite defender whereas I think many around here believe him to be overrated in that regard.

(couple is two, lol)

1. Rodman wasn't a "mere" stat-padding rebounder, but as his career progressed and he realized that his contract negotiations were basing his salary primarily on his rebounding statistically, he became more obsessed with it and started leaving his man early to get rebounding position. He was called out on it both in San Antonio (where they actually benched him for large stretches to try to get through to him -- unsuccessfully) and in Chicago (where Jordan wasn't shy about calling out teammates but was generally more respected by Rodman than Bob Hill in SA). So, he was a stat padding rebounder, but calling a top defender and probably the GOAT rebounder in NBA history a "mere" anything is going to be wrong.

2. Rodman was a positive offensively in much the same way as Jan Vesely (yup, I went there). He was smart enough to know that if he didn't have a shot right away, he would swing the ball away quickly (it's amazing how many bad scorers hold the ball) and set decent picks. He also didn't try to take shots that weren't in his ability. Plus, as the rebounding GOAT, his offensive rebounding was a great bonus even if you pulled out everyone else to defend the break. But, relative to Zo, Gilmore, or any other PF that's going to be in the discussion before #50, Rodman is going to be easily the least valuable offensively unless you really value offensive rebounding very highly.

3. There's no question Rodman was an elite defender, especially in Detroit. I don't think anyone denies that. I think the point where people say he is overrated is when Rodman fans start talking about him as a GOAT defensive player -- he was a good man defender, very good in the post with his ability to quick leap and decent out on the floor; but his value was not the equivalent of a Tim Duncan even if he was sticking with his man and not cheating off for rebounds. So, more comparable to Karl Malone with a higher defensive motor.

The way you were wording your comments made them "truth" (or at least demonstrated truthiness) but tended to set up what I perceive as straw man impressions of what people here say about Rodman.

[Clyde Frazier]

Just a comment (and apologies in advance if I'm misunderstanding you here)...

I'm not sure if I buy the pace argument for scoring volume. In general I'm not high on box scores, but just looking at the other counting stats:

rebounds - fewer missed shots, fewer available opportunities
assists - fewer teammate FG, fewer available opportunities
steals - fewer opponent possessions, fewer available opportunities
blocks - fewer opponent shots, fewer available opportunities

The thing about scoring though, is even though fewer shots are taken as a whole, the volume of shots taken by star players seems to have remained relatively constant over time. Now, you're not going to have guys taking 25+ shots in today's league (let alone much more, as was sometimes the case, due in no small part to questionable decisions by coaches), but if say a guy is taking 20-22, does it really make sense to adjust down to 16-18 if he's the best option in a high quality offense? Not saying this is the case with Barry and Baylor, since as you said neither guy had incredible efficiency. Just something I've been thinking about for a few spots now, and why I think adjusting scoring volume might not be a terrific idea.

It is true that star players probably take a larger percentage of the team's shots today (excluding maybe volume scoring Wilt), but when you look at Baylor, you have to take his rebounding with a grain of salt at least. And you should take at least some adjustment for years like 1962 for scoring or for teams that averaged 120+ ppg; but agree that you need to look at the circumstances when making the adjustments. Assists were higher when there were more points but not by much; the rules for granting an assist were much stricter. Steals and Blocks weren't counted until the 80s where there is a bit less of an issue with pace (except in the ABA). And . . . you have to look at efficiency in their era as well.

So, overall, I think you do look at pace but, like with everything, filter it through your knowledge and era equivalencies.

Here's a post I made a few threads ago about Baylor's performance and pace:

Baylor had 2 great finals in 62 and 63:

62 FINALS -- 7 GAMES
~41 PPG, 18 RPG, 3.7 APG, 43% FG, 83% FT (14 FTAs per game)
Rough pace adjustment to 2014: ~31 PPG, 13.7 RPG, 2.8 APG (10.7 FTAs per game)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#BOS-LAL

63 FINALS -- 6 GAMES
~34 PPG, 15 RPG, 4.3 APG, 47% FG, 84% FT (10 FTAs per game)
Rough pace adjustment to 2014: ~27 PPG, 12 RPG, 3.4 APG (8 FTAs per game)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#BOS-LAL

There are definitely some blemishes on his career as he gets older, but it's not necessarily a consistent trend.

The overarching thing to me with baylor is that he pioneered the athletic wing position, and he's the guy Dr. J patterned his game after. And he wasn't this rudimentary player who showed some flashes of it, either. He was the blueprint. I'm having trouble convincing myself that he isn't a top 30 player, even with his flaws. I have to do more research, though.

[penbeast0]

Using the RAPM data from 97-03, here is the top 11 in points above the average player:

Player Points above avg
Michael Jordan 907
Karl Malone 836
Tim Hardaway 802
Mookie Blaylock 776
Kevin Garnett 754
Alonzo Mourning 745
Shaquille O'Neal 734
Jeff Hornacek 696
John Stockton 638
Gary Payton 621
Scottie Pippen 601


Stockton makes it to the top 10 despite it being his late prime. Jason Kidd is at #31 despite this being his peak. Stockton was elite as an old player

Wow, look at Timbug and Mookie! I wouldn't have guessed they would be that high.

[Texas Chuck]

The way you were wording your comments made them "truth" (or at least demonstrated truthiness) but tended to set up what I perceive as straw man impressions of what people here say about Rodman.

Fair enough I guess tho the fact that I used "I think" suggests more opinion than truthiness. \And admittedly I could and probably should have made my points without pointing out the usual counter-arguments. I guess I've seen those counter-arguments made so many times in the past during Rodman discussions that I wanted to acknowledge that perspective while mentioning I disagreed with it.


Either way I'm not advocating Rodman this high so I'll save it for down the road. Just was giving a quick note to a guy who asked why I had him higher than some other bigs.

edit -- and I always strive to give something more. So I promised 2 and delivered 3.....

[colts18]

Wow, look at Timbug and Mookie! I wouldn't have guessed they would be that high.

Mookie Blaylock seems like he was very underrated. Plus/Minus stats love him. So does the box score. Great article on him

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=975

[Texas Chuck]

Mookie was a tremendous defensive PG.

[E-Balla]

Mookie was a tremendous defensive PG.

Smitty said he was easily the best backcourt mate he's ever had. Pretty sure he wasn't excluding B Dizzle either.

[ChiTown6rings]

Leaning toward Baylor (who's been somehow dropped from the conversation), followed by Isiah.

It's weird how players get brought up too early, but then at their 'proper' place, there's voter fatigue. I suspect something like that happened to Hakeem too.

What do u mean with the Hakeem Olajuwon example?

[DQuinn1575]

I think this board overrates Gilmore greatly. He was limited offensively has he had poor hands - wasn't a good person to feed in post and couldn't run an offense around him.

Isn't it like you can criticize players like Ewing, Mourning or Howard for the same thing? All of them were mechanical, but very effective. Gilmore was still good enough as a scorer to average more than 20 PPG six times during his career (twice in the NBA) on great efficiency, +55% FG and 60% TS, and averaged almost 19 PPG on over 62% TS for his career, and didn't even decline that much in the playoffs. In the early 80s, as a 30+ year old player, he was putting up historically great scoring seasons, in terms of efficiency, 65% FG and 65-70% TS...And it's not like he was scoring in single digits - he was still averaging about 18 PPG at that point in his career. A lot like Wilt, when he accepted a more limited offensive role on the Lakers (actually Gilmore scored more on similar efficiency, than Lakers Wilt).

His numbers declined when he entered the NBA, but for example the same can be said about Dr. J. Gilmore was still an excellent defender and rebounder in the NBA, even if not as good as he was in the ABA.

Another thing - he had a very long career, in fact played like an All-Star (or superstar, in the ABA) for 15 seasons (played 48 in 1979-80 and 64 in 1983-84, but other than that, basically never missed any games, and averaged 37.4 minutes per game during between 1972 and 1986, averaging 20 points and 13 rebounds). That has to count for something.

He was a bad passer, and turned the ball over a ton. Also wasn't necessarily a good fit as your first option, but finished at rim extremely well.

I don't see how he's overrated, actually I'd argue the opposite.

Ewing, who I'm not no means a fan of personally, was much much better in receiving the ball in the post over Gilmore.
And I'm a lifelong Chicagoan who hates about 95% of things New York.

NBA - Usage/TS%

Ewing 28.0/55.3
Mourning 25.6/58.3
Howard 23.4/57.9
Gilmore 19.7/64.3


He's 7-2 playing the low post, and but can't get him the ball enough to dominate. It's hard for me to take a not of first option guy as the #30 player of all-time.

Team had no success in Chicago. was good role player in SA.

[ChiTown6rings]

So what are some opinions/analysis on Scottie Pippen?

[Texas Chuck]

So what are some opinions/analysis on Scottie Pippen?

He's awesome?

Was a top 5 player for multiple years and was one of the first players Daly and Co wanted on the original Dream Team.

IMO the best perimeter defender of all-time. Could guard 1-4 as a man defender and was also a great help defender. He has a few peers as a man defender and maybe 1 or 2 as a wing help defender, but no one who was as elite at both ends.

A tremendous facilitator. Never a great passing forward like Bird or probably even Lebron, but very effective.

Not a great scorer, tho a good one. And of course spent his prime being overshadowed by Mike.

Amazing in transition as the ball-handler, creator, or finisher.

[E-Balla]

So what are some opinions/analysis on Scottie Pippen?

He's very good but I'm not thinking about him yet. He's not even the second SF I have in consideration though (maybe not top 3). Baylor and Pierce are clearly over him IMO and Hondo is arguably.

[SactoKingsFan]

My top candidates for this spot are Stockton and Pippen. I consider them the best two-way players remaining. Pippen still hasn’t gained any significant traction, but I still see him as a legit top 20-25 candidate since he was arguably the GOAT perimeter defender, an extremely versatile defender (could guard 1-4) and was an underrated offensive player. While making my top 50 pre-list I had Pippen ranked higher than Stockton, however, I’ve recently come to the conclusion that Stockton has the more impressive career due to his longer and more productive prime and all-time great durability/longevity (7-8 more high quality seasons than Pippen).

Longevity/Durability
Stockton: 16 high quality seasons | Pippen: 8-9 high quality seasons

10 Year Prime Stockton (88-97): 813 GS, 29543 MP
16 Star/High Quality Seasons (88-03): 1255 GS, 42481 MP

Prime Pippen (91-97): 555 GS, 20994 MP
10 Year Prime Pippen (91-00): 731 GP, 27406 MP
16 Healthiest Pippen Seasons (88-03): 1047 GS, 40657 MP

Career
Stockton: 1300 GS, 47764 MP | Pippen: 1053 GS, 41069 MP

Prime Regular Season
88-97 Stockton RS per 100: 21.8 PTS, 4.1 TRB, 17.9 AST, 3.9 STL+BLK, 4.7 TOV
88-97 Stockton RS: 22.7 PER, .619 TS%, .418 Ftr, 122 ORtg, 104 DRtg, .221 WS/48

91-98 Pippen RS Per 100: 27.5 PTS, 10.0 TRB, 8.2 AST, 4.4 STL+BLK, 4.1 TOV
91-98 Pippen RS: 21.2 PER, .546 TS%, .286 FTr, 112 ORtg, 102 DRtg, .185 WS/48


Prime Postseason
88-97 Stockton PS Per 100: 21.4 PTS, 4.8 TRB, 16.2 AST, 3.3 STL+BLK, 4.5 TOV
88-97 Stockton PS: 20.4 PER, .574 TS%, .403 FTr, 117 ORtg, 108 DRtg, .163 WS/48

91-98 Pippen PS per 100: 26.1 PTS, 10.8 TRB, 7.5 AST, 4.1 STL+BLK, 4.1 TOV
91-98 Pippen PS: 19.5 PER, .521 TS%, .370 FTr, 109 ORtg, 101 DRtg, .157 WS/48

Career Stats

Spoiler:

Stockton Career RS per 100: 21.0 PTS, 4.3 TRB, 16.8 AST, 3.8 STL+BLK, 4.5 TOV
Stockton Career RS: 21.8 PER, .608 TS%, .424 FTr, 121 ORtg, 104 DRtg, .209 WS/48

Pippen Career RS per 100: 24.0 PTS, 9.5 TRB, 7.8 AST, 4.1 STL+BLK, 4.1 TOV
Pippen Career RS: 18.6 PER, .536 TS%, .283 FTr, 108 ORtg, 102 DRtg, .146 WS/48

Stockton Career PS per 100: 20.4 PTS, 5.1 TRB, 15.4 AST, 3.2 STL+BLK, 4.3 TOV
Stockton Career PS: 19.8 PER, .568 TS%, .420 Ftr, 116 ORTg, 109 DRTg, .160 WS/48

Pippen Career PS per 100: 24.5 PTS, 10.6 TRB, 7.0 AST, 3.9 STL+BLK, 4.0 TOV
Pippen Career PS: 18.4 PER, .524 TS%, .355 FTr, 108 ORtg, 102 DRtg, .140 WS/48

Pippen clearly ends up looking like the less impressive candidate. His rebounding edge, defensive versatility, GOAT level perimeter defense and scoring just aren’t enough to overcome Stockton’s consistent two-way play, efficient scoring, passing, all-time great longevity/durability and impressive 10 year prime. Ultimately, I think Stockton’s prime and career production are more valuable than what Pippen brought to the table during his career.


Vote: John Stockton

[Basketballefan]

Just wondering, who do you think the best 5 bigs still on the board are?

Deke
Cowens
Rodman
McHale
Howard

and of course Walton who I wouldn't rank ahead of any of the above probably because of the big longevity issue, but who was obviously the best player of them all at his best.

What is your argument for rodman over dwight? Dwight grabs just as many rebounds with probably better defense while being a much better scorer. Im not sure i see the argument.

[Notanoob]

My candidates are Drexler, Pierce, Pippen, Frazier, Baylor, Kidd, Stockton and Barry

Very tough to decide.

Vote for the Truth man.

Seriously though, I'm pretty shocked to see his name being mentioned so early. I would think he'll start getting traction around #35, but to mention him as a possible top 30 candidate is IMO too high.

I like Pierce, but even top 40 sounds high to me. I mean, I know he's got a great reputation as a postseason performer, but he's a scoring SF at heart-his passing, defense and rebounding aren't that special at his position. What really separates him from other volume scoring SFs, like Hondo, Barry, Nique, or one of the 80's post-up guys like King or Dantley?

[Texas Chuck]

What is your argument for rodman over dwight? Dwight grabs just as many rebounds with probably better defense while being a much better scorer. Im not sure i see the argument.

By any metric Rodman is clearly a superior rebounder so I'm not sure where that is coming from.

Don't really see a need to get into Rodman here tho as he's not worthy of this spot. I know I rank him higher than most and am pretty okay with it.

[magicmerl]

Leaning toward Baylor (who's been somehow dropped from the conversation), followed by Isiah.

It's weird how players get brought up too early, but then at their 'proper' place, there's voter fatigue. I suspect something like that happened to Hakeem too.

What do u mean with the Hakeem Olajuwon example?

Some posters made a strong push for him at about the #4 slot, and when he didn't get in then, just spammed the same (long) posts in every thread until he got in.

For me it got so my eyes just glazed over every Hakeem post I saw.