RealGM Top 100 List #30

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Chris Paul

As I stated before, I consider Paul to have the best prime of the candidates, and I don't it's longevity being that much of an issue at this stage of the project.

I can see arguments for guys that have extreme longevity edges over him (Hondo, Gilmore, and others), but anyone whose longevity is in the same ballpark as Paul is basically out of the running for me.

[drza]

Kidd vs Paul

Paul has been getting a lot of traction of late, so I thought I'd it time to do another modern-era PG comparison. Paul has arguably the best advanced box score metrics of any point guard in history, but does that mean that's how good he is? He's certainly the more...expected type of point guard than Kidd is. But as we already saw when comparing Kidd with Nash, Kidd packs a heck of a lot of impact into his unique approach. And of course, one did it for a lot longer than the other. So anyway, let's put them in the same place and see what happens.

Stylistics

Here's how I described Kidd's game in the comparison with Nash:

Spoiler:

Kidd, on the other hand, is seen as more of a misfit than an ideal as point guard. I say this because his J was limited enough that he was known as Ason Kidd as a young player. Thus, Kidd could never be the scoring threat to opponents that Nash (or, frankly, most point guards) could be. And it's not just that his jumper wasn't a strength (after all, as his career progressed he developed his 3-point shot enough to be (I believe) 3rd on the all-time made 3s list)...it's that he couldn't reliably score off the dribble or on the move outside of layups. This did limit his abilities as a half-court point guard, and also limited his ability to have individual take-over games as a scoring PG. But even with that said and that limitation placed front and center, Kidd was still high on the list of best offensive players in the NBA during his run (see the RAPM section below). He was an incredible floor general, also able to maximize the talents of his teammates and to set them up in positions to succeed. I remember reading the USA today back when Kidd was a high school senior, and them deeming him the #1 prospect in the country before he went to Cal because his court vision was ridiculous. He was outstanding at finding teammates off the bounce, and excelled at doing so on the fast break. Of course, even with that vision Kidd didn't have nearly the offensive impact that Nash had in Phoenix...but he DID also have a very strong defensive impact. Kidd was a great on-ball defender (especially against big guards), he was a monster defensive rebounder from the guard position, and he was also very disruptive in team defense. Thus, it is the combination of his offense AND defense that makes his impact comparable to Nash even at Nash's best in Phoenix.

As for Paul, I came across this old blog post that I made back in 2008 when I was talking about the 4-man MVP race between Paul, Kobe, KG and LeBron. While some is specific to 2008, a lot of it can be generalized to his career as a whole:

Spoiler:

Paul is like a master puppeteer on the court. He uses his knowledge of his own skills, his teammates’ strengths/weaknesses, and the weak spots of the opposing defense to control every aspect of the game with the ball in his hands. He has proven time and again that he is willing to take, and make, the big shot at the end of games but perhaps more importantly he is also willing to make the correct pass (as he did Wednesday night in setting up David West for the game winner). Paul is lightening quick with the ball in his hands, and his hands are perhaps even quicker on defense where he leads the NBA in steals. Paul elevates the play of his teammates by putting them in the best positions to succeed, which is why he is widely credited for the improvements of David West, Tyson Chandler, and Peja Stojakovic this season. Ultimately, his MVP candidacy rests upon where the Hornets finish in the Western Conference: if the Hornets are the number one seed out west, Paul could very well win the MVP. http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/Fanta ... BBD213.htm

Because these were current players most of us got to see both of their primes, so we all have our eye-test to work with. Now, let's get into some numbers.

Box score comparison

Regular season, 10 year primes per 100 possessions
Jason Kidd 1998 - 2007: 20.6 pts (50.8% TS), 9.6 reb, 12.9 ast (4.4 TO)
Chris Paul 2008 - 2014: 28.0 pts (58.5% TS), 6.2 reb, 15.1 ast (3.5 TO)

As expected, if we stop at the box scores then we might as well stop the fight early. Paul scored significantly more on way higher scoring efficiency, and also had more assists with fewer turnovers. The only area where Kidd has an advantage in the box scores is in rebounding, and the margins aren't massive in that category. The only thint to note is that Paul's prime only has 7 years to Kidd's 10, but if the difference between their impacts are accurately represented by the difference in these stats then I'd rather have the 7. After all, Paul is the active leader in win shares per 48 minutes (#1 overall, higher than LeBron, Duncan, Dirk, or any other modern player already voted in (in fact, he's 4th in history behind only Jordan, David Robinson and Wilt). So Paul's box score stat production is truly historic.

Impact Stats comparison

Top 10 three-year peak normalized RAPM among PGs (1998 - 2012*)

Spoiler:

(*I put the asterisk on 2012 because that is the last year in Doc MJ's spreadsheet, but obviously Paul continues to play through 2014 and is still in his prime. However, Paul's general +/- scores were much better from '08 - '12 (avg on/off +/- = +13) than from '13 or '14 (avg on/off +/- = +7.9) so I think it fair to assume Paul's 3 max years in RAPM are in the seasons covered by the spreadsheet.)

(Nash): +8.2
Paul: +7.9
(Blaylock): +7.9
(Stockton): +7.8
Kidd: +7.2
(Payton): +6.7
(Baron Davis): +6.3
(Tim Hardaway): +6.2
(Tony Parker): +5.2
(Sam Cassell): +5.1

I decided to make this a top-10 instead of just Paul and Kidd so that we could get perspective on the number scale. Paul has the advantage in 3-year peak, but it is a very small advantage. I mean, go back to what we saw with the box scores above, and we'd expect that Paul's impact should be blowing away the other point guards. Instead, he is just behind Nash (only one over 8) and among a group of four PGs (including Kidd) between 7 and 8.

So, let's look at how those numbers break down on offense vs defense.

3-year normalized ORAPM peaks
Paul +6.2
Kidd +4.9

3-year normalized DRAPM peaks
Paul +1.7
Kidd +3.5

Keep in mind that 3-year offensive and defensive peaks might not be in the same years. The trends here somewhat support expectation (e.g. Paul's better on offense, Kidd's better on defense). However, again I would point out scale. The box scores where Paul absolutely dominates the match-up are primarily offensive in nature. And the narrative would also suggest that Paul should be the MUCH better offensive player...Paul can create his own shot, call his own number for highly efficient points, and also create for his teammates with better raw assist numbers AND better assist/turnover ratio than Kidd. According to the boxes, one would expect that Paul should DEFINITELY be moving the scoring margin offensively much more than Kidd. But that's not what we see. Even with his broken jumper and inability to consistently be a scoring threat, Kidd STILL isn't much behind Paul in this respect. Perhaps it's Kidd's quick decision-making, perhaps he's a bit better at reading defenses and/or knowing his teammates' preferences...perhaps he's better at controlling the game pace and that is reflective...for whatever reason, despite what the boxes would suggest, Kidd's offensive impact is lesser but competitive with Paul's.

Then, on defense, Kidd has a clear advantage. Paul has an advantage as a strong defender, and his +1.7 3-year normalized DRAPM peak is very good for a point guard. But Kidd's +3.5 would be outstanding even for a wing, and is one of the bigger non-big man effects on record. So while rebounding might be where Kidd shines in the box scores, that isn't sufficient to reflect just how strong Kidd is on defense.

Playoffs by the box scores and +/- stats

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions
Jason Kidd 1998 - 2007: 20.6 pts (49% TS), 9.9 reb, 11.8 ast (4.3 TO)
Chris Paul 2008 - 2014: 28.5 pts (57.5% TS), 6.7 reb, 13.4 ast (4.1 TO)

Playoffs on/off +/- per 100 possessions since 2001
Kidd (career): +10.2
Paul (career): +6.2

Paul (NOK 08 - 11): +13.9
Kidd (NJ 2002 - 07): +10.2

I didn't put up my usual disclaimer/background on playoff +/- here that I've done several times throughout this project, but as I said you can find it in any number of my posts so far if you're interested. Anyway, I guess my big picture bottom line is that in the playoffs the box score and +/- dichotomy continues. Paul has ridiculous box score numbers that seemingly should blow Kidd out of the water, but when you start looking at how their presence correlates with scoring margin (obviously much less granular/reliable in the postseason than RAPM, but again I've posted the disclaimer a bunch of times) Paul looks to be excellent (but not lapping the field the way his box scores would suggest) while Kidd continues to exhibit as much non-box impact as any PG we've seen despite how unorthodox his game (and relatively underwhelming his box score influence).

Bottom line:

According to the box scores, Chris Paul is very (VERY) arguably the best point guard of all-time. According to the +/- studies Paul is still excellent, but not to the same extent as his box scores would suggest. According to the box scores Kidd should just not measure up, but the +/- scores in both the full season and the postseason say that Kidd over his career had almost as much impact in a given year as any point guard in the last 15 years at their very best, including Nash and Paul. Paul has a slight advantage in their top-3 years there...but it's small. Meanwhile, Kidd has a massive longevity edge. All things being equal I put peak over longevity, but all else ISN'T equal here, yet. Paul has a slight advantage at their peaks...Kidd has a huge longevity advantage with demonstrated major impact at every stop.

I wouldn't be surprised if in three years when we do this again, I have Paul over Kidd. I might even go far enough to say that I'd be surprised if I DON'T have Paul over Kidd in 3 years. But it's not yet the future. I think Kidd still belongs higher on the list than Paul does.

ETA: Vote: Jason Kidd

[Doctor MJ]

Impact Stats comparison

Top 10 three-year peak normalized RAPM among PGs (1998 - 2012*)

Spoiler:

(*I put the asterisk on 2012 because that is the last year in Doc MJ's spreadsheet, but obviously Paul continues to play through 2014 and is still in his prime. However, Paul's general +/- scores were much better from '08 - '12 (avg on/off +/- = +13) than from '13 or '14 (avg on/off +/- = +7.9) so I think it fair to assume Paul's 3 max years in RAPM are in the seasons covered by the spreadsheet.)

(Nash): +8.2
Paul: +7.9
(Blaylock): +7.9
(Stockton): +7.8
Kidd: +7.2
(Payton): +6.7
(Baron Davis): +6.3
(Tim Hardaway): +6.2
(Tony Parker): +5.2
(Sam Cassell): +5.1
.

My issue with the 3 year comparison here is that I think it gives a very wrong impression about prime longevity. The 3 year cutoff makes sense given the 2012 cutoff, and Paul's coming of age, but look at it another way:

Paul has continued to put up big impact numbers in the time since, and he's handicapped the first year due to the way prior hurts a guy wasn't as good the prior year. What that gives us is a 7 year span in which it's reasonable to see him as a lock to be a +7.5 level guy on either of the two teams he played as long as he's healthy.

Kidd by contrast, has only 5 years total that we've seen him break the +6 barrier only 5 times in his career, and 4 of them were his first 4 years in Jersey (the other was one of the late years in Dallas, which is well above the other). Basically outside of that time, he's typically a guy in the +4.5 level range.

So while your snapshot gives the impression that Paul has less than a 10% edge over a 3-year peak, and Kidd takes the rest, what I see is Paul beating Kidd not only in peak but in duration in peak and in ability to sustain the peak across context.

To be clear: None of this means I don't see a case for Kidd regardless. He was a very nice player for a very long time and I take that seriously. But I really don't see the capacities of the two players as that close.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Chris Paul is going to pass Isiah Thomas; peak CP3 is basically peak Thomas with better efficiency.

After 9 seasons, Thomas had 2 NBA titles. Honestly, I can see Paul winning 2 titles in his first 9 seasons if he had had better supporting casts. 2008 and 2014 are the only times Paul has had title-caliber support, and 08 is borderline because the team had a crap bench and a meh shooting guard. 2010 is bad for CP3 though since it's doubtful he'd have been close to 100% come playoff time. That season's value isn't high to me.

Isiah still had a few more All-Star seasons left in him after his 9th season. I can see taking Paul's first 9 over Thomas's, especially because of peak, but I think it's super close, and the extra seasons of Thomas play. Honestly, Paul just needs maybe two more seasons of All-NBA 3rd team level play, or even All-Star play, and he'll cleanly surpass Thomas. It'll probably happen, but it hasn't yet, so Thomas it is.

Durant is really close, too. Might have the best peak left along with Walton, Penny, and T-Mac.

[DQuinn1575]

McHale v. Havlicek

For McHale -- again, efficient scoring. McHale has one of the best set of post moves of all time and was an extremely efficient, high volume scorer for those great Celtic teams of the 80s. To be fair, he probably saw more single coverage than any other great scoring post man in history due to Bird (and Parish) drawing off so much defensive attention but he continued to score well even with Bird injured. Havlicek's inconsistent efficiency is detailed in the English v. Havlicek thread above.

For Havlicek -- versatility and playmaking. McHale offensively was a bit of a one trick pony. He was a post scorer whose teammates (Bird and Ainge basically) called him a black hole, though with his efficiency you want him shooting most of his chances. Havlicek was able to play a lot of roles offensively on ball scorer, off ball scorer, point forward.

Intangibles and defense -- reasonably even. Both accepted a 6th man role without complaint even after they had proven the ability to start and even star in the league. Both played on winning teams -- Havlicek, of course, has a strong advantage in this respect. Both played excellent defense; McHale covered SFs as well as bigs at times to cover for Larry Bird.

Again, it depends on how much you value efficiency in your scoring. I think McHale has a good case against Havlicek as well; people who look only at 70s peak Havlicek tend to overrate his scoring ability.

Havlicek has incredible longevity compared to McHale - Hondo was a top player forever; McHale for not very long at all.

[DQuinn1575]

Vote: Chris Paul

As I stated before, I consider Paul to have the best prime of the candidates, and I don't it's longevity being that much of an issue at this stage of the project.

I can see arguments for guys that have extreme longevity edges over him (Hondo, Gilmore, and others), but anyone whose longevity is in the same ballpark as Paul is basically out of the running for me.

Chris Paul and Durant have been the 2-3 players in the modern game which right now is the least represented. We have the 8th-9th best players in weaker eras, and are missing Durant #2 and Paul #3.

Due to longevity, I am taking Paul over Durant -who will be my next pick.

Vote for CHRIS PAUL

[Warspite]

I dont think Cousy will be a top 50 player because he doesnt have the stats that voters here value. i do value MVPs and playoff success and I must admit I am very impressed by the 60s Celtics and there ability to keep climbing the mountain yr after yr and not settling or rationalising or mailing it in. The Heat very well should have won the title but didnt because of mental fatigue. The Celtics never had dropped a series due to mental fatigue.

likewise Im impressed with Baylor for his continued success and playing in so many Finals.

Vote Hondo

I just believe that Hondo has the most success and achievements of anyone left. He should have 3 Finals MVPs and very well could have an MVP if it wasnt a Center only award.


Im the biggest fan of Isiah Thomas on RealGm but if I have to politic for him then that means he is not as great as I believe he is. After Bird and MJ Isiah Thomas is the most clutch player I have ever seen. I guess if his stats were better his teams would have won 70 games or he would have won a title in 87 and 88 but if he did would that mean you would vote him at #30 or would he be in the top10?

We want to say that CP3 was a better player because he has better stats but yet he cant reach the WCF and if Isiah had CP3 stats he would have beaten the 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 90 Bulls and dominated Magic, Bird and MJ winning as many as 6 titles and multiple MVPs.

So is CP3 better than Magic, Bird and MJ but is a 30ish player because????

The logic behind Isiah Thomas escapes me. He was the best player on the court who played for the best team. When he was outplaying MJ, Bird and Magic nobody told him that he still needed to play better because some kid in 20 yrs under totally different rules vs vastly inferior players was going to put up those stats. If those stats are so much more impressive am I to conclude that its much tougher to beat Steph Curry than Magic or Bird?

"When the 50 greatest players were honored I looked around and I noticed that every player who won a ring had at least 1 teammate with him who was also a 50 greatest. That is everyone but me and thats my legacy compared to the all time greats." Isiah Thomas

[Texas Chuck]

drza's posts on Kidd are really strong, and I have long felt the same way about him. Nothing is impressive box score wise really. Sure he rebounds well and piled up assists, but its still kinda whatever. But everywhere he goes that team wins in ways they never did before. Even in joining a team like Dallas that had been winning 50+ for 7-8 years already he helps them to the title and then his one year in NYK they get better. And every team he leaves gets worse including Dallas and NYK at the very end of his career.

tsherkin wrote about some other factors and some of them are legit but others are a stretch and he mostly ignores the talent that went out from the team to acquire Kidd focusing mostly on the other additions. But its pretty much impossible to have that consistent and massive a result in team success without Kidd playing a part.

And having gotten to watch him every night past his prime in Dallas, I get it. The guy is a basketball genius. He just is so far ahead of everyone else on the court all the time and its at both ends. We have some offensive geniuses including a guy getting traction here--Chris Paul. And we have some defensive ones. But we have only a handful of guys who seem so far ahead of the game at both ends and Kidd is one of those guys.

He started the trend of refusing to step out of bounds on throw-in's so that his team doesnt have to burn a time-out to set up a play or to buy time to set one up when they have none left.

Knew his scoring game was flawed and worked to make himself a good 3-pt shooter.

Rich Carlisle, one of the best X and O coaches in the game, turned the offensive over to Jason Kidd realizing that just having flow and Kidd orchestrating and setting the tone in terms of the extra pass led to Dallas having a top offense on the shoulders of Dirk and a little JET and a bunch of defenders and they won a title based on ball movement rarely seen out of the current Spurs.

Had tremendous hands defensively and was so strong for a PG. Towards the end he could no longer stay in front of PG's--tho with the current rules no one really can, but he added value by often guarding top wings including guarding Lebron at moments in the Finals so Marion could slow down the more effective Wade.

Already documented the running into Mike Woodson moment.

Sometimes you have to just ignore what B_R says and go with what you know. And now that we have lots of +/- and RAPM stuff that supports that "eye test" knowledge there is no reason to penalize him because he does it differently.

Vote: Jason Kidd (sorry Hondo, but drza's data swayed me)

[trex_8063]

The Lakers in ‘58 were 19-53 with an SRS of -5.78. And then they obtained rookie Elgin Baylor.
In ‘59--with Baylor being the only relevant player acquisition--they improved by 14 games to 33-39, SRS of -1.42 (+4.36 improvement); also made it to the finals (defeating the 2.89 SRS defending champion Hawks 4-2 along the way). That strikes me as indication of fairly significant impact.

The big criticism on Baylor has been his offensive efficiency (relative to his astronomical shooting volume, particularly when teamed with West), and whether he was really “helping” the offense.

The Laker team offensive rating improved with rookie Baylor by 2.8 (by 1.4 even if measuring relative to league average) in ‘59. I won’t claim that Baylor always “helped the offense optimally” to the best of his abilities; but I do think he helped it. Obviously other metrics of offensive production/efficiency suggest Baylor was a “big deal” (more on that below)......but what I’m beginning to wonder about is whether or not Baylor had a defensive impact that hasn't been properly appreciated.

Maybe his capability as a rebounder eliminated a lot of second-chance points for opponents????

idk, but something I noted is that the Laker team DRtg changed -1.4 (minus is a good thing for DRtg) in ‘59 with rookie Baylor. Relative to league average, DRtg improved by -2.8 (that’s a pretty big jump):
In ‘58, they were 8th of 8 defensively, DRtg +4.5 over league avg and +2.5 over the next worse team.
In ‘59, improved to only +1.7 over league avg (6th of 8).
They would continue to improve defensively over the next couple of seasons with acquisitions of Jerry West and aging Ray Felix. And then interestingly their defense appears to suffer slightly in ‘62 when Baylor misses significant games:
In ‘61, the Laker DRtg is -1.3 to league average (again: minus is good), 4th of 8.
In ‘62 Baylor misses 32 games and the Laker DRtg falls a little: just -0.3 vs league average (though still 4th of 9).
In ‘63: no more big Ray Felix playing significant minutes in the middle and Jerry West misses 25 games (things you’d expect to hurt the team defense); they otherwise obtain guard Dick Barnett (not sure that really helps the D significantly), and the only other change from the previous year is that Baylor is healthy (doesn’t miss a game)…….and the team DRtg improves to -1.2 vs league average (3rd of 9).
And then beginning in ‘64 (perhaps non-coincidentally just as Baylor begins to be significantly hampered by knee injuries, which causes his overall effectiveness to suffer, as seen by sudden drop in PER and other metrics), the Laker team DRtg takes a sudden dip (drops to significantly below average)……...And it would never recovery to a better than average team defense (even with big bodies like Darrall Imhoff and Mel Counts) until ‘69 when they obtained Wilt Chamberlain.

So I’m starting to wonder if Baylor had a bigger impact defensively than he’s previously been given credit for.


Anyway.......Otherwise, I promised some tidbits regarding his overall production and efficiency during his prime years…..

In ‘59 and rookie Elgin Baylor had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only a peak Bob Pettit.
In ‘60 he had the 2nd-highest PER in the league behind only Wilt Chamberlain.
In ‘61: he had the highest PER (even ahead of Wilt, not to mention Pettit and rookie Oscar Robertson).
‘62 and ‘63: 2nd-best PER in the league both years, behind only Wilt Chamberlain (even ahead of triple-double season Robertson, as well as Pettit and Walt Bellamy’s insane rookie season).

That’s a super-impressive 5-year span, imo. Yes, he drops off quite a bit after, but it’s not as though he faded into obscurity or ineffectiveness in subsequent years. He was a relevant player until ‘70. So.....

My vote: Elgin Baylor.

[drza]

Spoiler:

Impact Stats comparison

Top 10 three-year peak normalized RAPM among PGs (1998 - 2012*)
[spoiler](*I put the asterisk on 2012 because that is the last year in Doc MJ's spreadsheet, but obviously Paul continues to play through 2014 and is still in his prime. However, Paul's general +/- scores were much better from '08 - '12 (avg on/off +/- = +13) than from '13 or '14 (avg on/off +/- = +7.9) so I think it fair to assume Paul's 3 max years in RAPM are in the seasons covered by the spreadsheet.)
(Nash): +8.2
Paul: +7.9
(Blaylock): +7.9
(Stockton): +7.8
Kidd: +7.2
(Payton): +6.7
(Baron Davis): +6.3
(Tim Hardaway): +6.2
(Tony Parker): +5.2
(Sam Cassell): +5.1

My issue with the 3 year comparison here is that I think it gives a very wrong impression about prime longevity. The 3 year cutoff makes sense given the 2012 cutoff, and Paul's coming of age, but look at it another way:

Paul has continued to put up big impact numbers in the time since, and he's handicapped the first year due to the way prior hurts a guy wasn't as good the prior year. What that gives us is a 7 year span in which it's reasonable to see him as a lock to be a +7.5 level guy on either of the two teams he played as long as he's healthy.

Kidd by contrast, has only 5 years total that we've seen him break the +6 barrier only 5 times in his career, and 4 of them were his first 4 years in Jersey (the other was one of the late years in Dallas, which is well above the other). Basically outside of that time, he's typically a guy in the +4.5 level range.

So while your snapshot gives the impression that Paul has less than a 10% edge over a 3-year peak, and Kidd takes the rest, what I see is Paul beating Kidd not only in peak but in duration in peak and in ability to sustain the peak across context.

To be clear: None of this means I don't see a case for Kidd regardless. He was a very nice player for a very long time and I take that seriously. But I really don't see the capacities of the two players as that close.

I see your point, but I think you actually went too far the other way. Paul only has three of those +7 seasons in your spreadsheet...2010 was down in the 4s. You mentioned that 2008 may have been lower because of it being a transition year, but 2002 was a transition year for Kidd too so I'm not sure why Paul should get an extra bonus for that. In all, even if we give Paul +7 seasons for both '13 and '14, you're only talking five years in that range...the same 5 year span that we see from Kidd.

Point is, I don't think the length of peak really moves the needle much. They both hit that mark a handful of times in their career, a similar number of times and a similar magnitude. Maybe small advantage Paul, as I said. But outside of that, Kidd has a ginormous longevity edge. And I don't see enough difference in their peaks for Paul to overcome that this year. 3 years from now, probably. Now, not for me.

[Owly]

Pierce being mentioned this early is laughable at best.

I don't think he has any case whatsoever over Hondo, Baylor, Drexler or Thomas. Then you got guys that are likely better but not definitive like Gervin, Kidd Iverson KD etc.

It's funny because if KG and Allen never came to Boston, Pierce would in no way be viewed as a top 50 player.

Why with the constant, "your opinions are laughable" posts. It's rude and you then don't offer any substance to back up your points.

If he didn't have the team success (that he did have), why are we to take it he'd be a considered a much lesser player. Did that team success hide his low statistical output (14 seasons of 17.9 PER or more the following have more season

Spoiler:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Karl Malone
Shaquille O'Neal
Kevin Garnett
John Stockton
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kobe Bryant
Moses Malone
Charles Barkley

Drexler's tied on 14
He's also 28th in career win shares, 62nd in WS/48 - where his longevity hurts him

Was he a lousy defender?

I mean I don't mind whether Pierce is here or not (there are legit cases against him but they would hardly be unique at this point) but make a nuanced, supported argument.

Is your spoiler about Pierce? It says Drexler but the post seems to be about Pierce. Beastie is confused.

The ten players have more such seasons, then Drexler is tied with Pierce in having 14 seasons over that borderline. Obviously the borderline is arbitrary. It's not one chosen just for Pierce (it was highest PER with over 2000 player seasons, with a certain minutes requisite, when I calculated it, last season I think) but making it higher would hurt Pierce.

Edited to correct typo.

[lukekarts]

Again, it depends on how much you value efficiency in your scoring. I think McHale has a good case against Havlicek as well; people who look only at 70s peak Havlicek tend to overrate his scoring ability.

I don't think Havlicek is here because of his scoring; but in his defence - he was an above average efficiency scorer for a substantial part of his career, and lead scoring option on the Celtics a few times (not least in the 69 and 74 title winning runs). When you can lead a championship winning team in scoring on above average efficiency (two times) it's not such a bad thing.

That said, his best abilities were his defence and facilitating - he was the Pippen of his day.

[lukekarts]

Anyhow, nobody has swayed me towards Paul, and with Baylor IMO next on the list, this time my vote goes to John Havlicek

[E-Balla]

Impact Stats comparison

Top 10 three-year peak normalized RAPM among PGs (1998 - 2012*)

Spoiler:

(*I put the asterisk on 2012 because that is the last year in Doc MJ's spreadsheet, but obviously Paul continues to play through 2014 and is still in his prime. However, Paul's general +/- scores were much better from '08 - '12 (avg on/off +/- = +13) than from '13 or '14 (avg on/off +/- = +7.9) so I think it fair to assume Paul's 3 max years in RAPM are in the seasons covered by the spreadsheet.)

(Nash): +8.2
Paul: +7.9
(Blaylock): +7.9
(Stockton): +7.8
Kidd: +7.2
(Payton): +6.7
(Baron Davis): +6.3
(Tim Hardaway): +6.2
(Tony Parker): +5.2
(Sam Cassell): +5.1
.

My issue with the 3 year comparison here is that I think it gives a very wrong impression about prime longevity. The 3 year cutoff makes sense given the 2012 cutoff, and Paul's coming of age, but look at it another way:

Paul has continued to put up big impact numbers in the time since, and he's handicapped the first year due to the way prior hurts a guy wasn't as good the prior year. What that gives us is a 7 year span in which it's reasonable to see him as a lock to be a +7.5 level guy on either of the two teams he played as long as he's healthy.

Kidd by contrast, has only 5 years total that we've seen him break the +6 barrier only 5 times in his career, and 4 of them were his first 4 years in Jersey (the other was one of the late years in Dallas, which is well above the other). Basically outside of that time, he's typically a guy in the +4.5 level range.

So while your snapshot gives the impression that Paul has less than a 10% edge over a 3-year peak, and Kidd takes the rest, what I see is Paul beating Kidd not only in peak but in duration in peak and in ability to sustain the peak across context.

To be clear: None of this means I don't see a case for Kidd regardless. He was a very nice player for a very long time and I take that seriously. But I really don't see the capacities of the two players as that close.

Wait a second here you lost me. Kidd has played many roles on many teams (outside of Mashburn getting hurt he was basically in the Rubio role in Dallas the first time, in Phoenix he usually played with other great PGs and shared distributing responsibilities, in Jersey he was the man, and his second time in Dallas he was purely a complimentary piece) but Paul has always played the exact same role (ball dominant point) on the same type of team (super slow paced outside of last year). He never had to sustain impact across context just in the same context with different teams.

The way I see it is that Paul and Kidd in the regular season are close enough impact wise for Kidd's way superior longevity to win this comparison for him.

As for my vote I was going to go with Elgin Baylor but I will instead put my vote towards Jason Kidd. The arguments for Kidd have been amazing and it makes it obvious that Kidd was amazing as a jack of all trades who was able to be the best player on a team in different roles. That's something we did not see from Elgin Baylor.

[Moonbeam]

English v. Havlicek:

Both super durable players with long careers.

For English -- Efficient scoring. Alex English is one of the most efficient SFs on great scoring volume. For a decade he had excellent scoring numbers, outscoring any other player in the 80s including Bird and Magic. Havlicek was an inefficient scorer at least through 65, then average, finally becoming a decent go to guy in his peak in the 70s. Always shot a lot, didn't always make a lot.

For Havlicek -- Defense and team success. English was a willing defender, probably above average for his position in an era where scorers frequently didn't play great defense. Havlicek was a perennial all-defense selection. Havlicek was also blessed to play with 2 of the top 10 centers of all time in GOAT Bill Russell and Dave Cowens (between the two, his teams . . . well . . . sucked). English played with out of position PF Dan Issel (who wasn't a good defender at either spot), Danny Schayes, and Wayne Cooper plus a variety of mediocre to truly horrifically bad (hi Kiki) PFs. Those Denver teams still made a lot of playoffs by just outscoring people, like the Nash Suns, but few players approach Havlicek's career success.

Intangibles and rebounding -- pretty even once you take era and role differences into account. Both acknowledged as among the classiest guys to ever play. Both willingly accepted a variety of roles -- on ball scorer, off ball scorer, defensive stopper (who else would you use among English or Vandeweghe), even some point forward.

If you look at scoring as their main function/claim to fame, English wins this easily. Add in defense and intangibles and it's a lot closer but I don't see a slam dunk for Hondo unless you are strongly swayed by accolades (English was beaten out for a lot of All-Pro teams by flashier but less effective players like Dominique Wilkins, Mark Aquirre, etc. and played in the greatest era for SFs ever -- Bird, Worthy, NIque, Aquirre, Dantley, B. King, Marques Johnson, etc.).

You could make virtually the same argument about Drexler that I did about English only with stronger team support and more team success. I used English because people are less familiar with his greatness.

Love the English mention! I go back and forth comparing him to Dantley, Wilkins and King, but I can see good arguments for him above them.

[Moonbeam]

Comes down to Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul, and Kevin Durant for me, but there are about 10 other players who are super close, too.

I feel like the knocks against Paul and Durant have been made clear and are definitely reasonable: longevity. What's the legitimate knock on Thomas though? I know this will sound hilarious coming from a Knicks fan, but what's not to like about Isiah Thomas?

He had 4 straight years of 20/10 production for good (some very good) Detroit teams. He averaged 24/10 overall in the 33 playoff games he played across those 4 years, including some of the most epic playoff performances ever.

Then from 1988-1990, his raw stats decreased, but he remained the best player on a legitimate title contender, putting up more epic playoff performances when called upon to do so.

The whole "Detroit won with defense and rebounding" argument doesn't resonate with me as far as being a legitimate knock on IT. They did not win with defense and rebounding. The won by having more points than the other team because of the combined prowess of their offense and defense — just like every other champion.

1988 — 110.5 ORTG (+2.5, 6th)
1989 — 110.8 ORTG (+3, 7th)
1990 — 109.9 ORTG (+1.8, 11th)

Detroit had an effective offense, and Isiah was certainly the man driving that offense.

What do we (yourself or other Isiah advocates) mean by driving the offense? Was he the man their O lived and died with? The guy you'd want taking the most shots? The efficient scorer? Playoff performance beyond the capacities of other pgs? What was so special about Isiah in this span?

I don't want to go point for point yet (though I would argue them being good primarily in areas where he didn't excel means I'd want strong evidence before claiming he's in the ballpark of (normal/geniune) championship centerpieces and those raw numbers without pace or turnovers are a touch misleading).

I don't know if I'm voting for Isiah yet, so not sure if that was my argument for him, but that is my opinion of much of his career value.

When I say drove the offense, I mean:

1988 REG SEA: 2nd in PPG, 1st in APG, 1st in MPG, 2nd in USG% (To Vinnie Johnson, who played a thousand less minutes)
1988 PO: 1st in PPG, APG, MPG, USG%

1989 REG SEA: 1st in MPG, APG; 2nd in PPG (To Dantley, who played 42 games before the trade) and USG% (To Microwave again, who played roughly 900 less minutes)
1989 PO: 1st in PPG, APG, and MPG; 2nd in USG% to Vinnie, who played 15 MPG less in the playoffs)

1990 REG SEA: 1st in MPG, PPG, APG, and USG%
1990 PO: 1st in MPG, PPG, APG, and USG%

So statistically, he was the guy taking on the most offensive responsibility on these Detroit teams. From my eye test, he was also the best and most-used ball-handler on the team.

He also appeared to have the highest big-game potential, able to go into high-gear and spearhead the offense for a quarter or a game in a way none of his teammate could. This ability of course came with its share of letdowns where Thomas should have stopped shooting. Pros and cons of his style, no doubt.

I'm glad to see some praise for those Piston offenses. As a fan from 1986-89, they were a blast to watch! That said, I think that entire team was well-balanced on both sides of the ball. Dantley was huge for Detroit on offense before the trade (particularly in the playoffs) and Dumars rightly deserved FMVP in 1989, in my opinion. Isiah was the engine, though.

[trex_8063]

The whole "Detroit won with defense and rebounding" argument doesn't resonate with me as far as being a legitimate knock on IT. They did not win with defense and rebounding. The won by having more points than the other team because of the combined prowess of their offense and defense — just like every other champion.

1988 — 110.5 ORTG (+2.5, 6th)
1989 — 110.8 ORTG (+3, 7th)
1990 — 109.9 ORTG (+1.8, 11th)

Detroit had an effective offense, and Isiah was certainly the man driving that offense.

If this is the argument to push for Isiah Thomas at this point in the project, I hope you're very soon willing to lend your support to Allen Iverson......because similar arguments can be made for him.

To recap the Piston years you've cited to include size of the league:
'88--->110.5 ORtg (+2.5 over league avg, 6th of 23: top 26.1% of league)
'89--->110.8 ORtg (+3 over league avg, 7th of 25: top 28% of league)
'90--->109.9 ORtg (+1.8, 11th of 27: top 40.7% of league)

Some note-worthy Iverson teams:
'01 Sixers--->103.6 ORtg (+0.6 over league average, 13th of 29: top 44.8% of league)
'03 Sixers--->105.0 ORtg (+1.4 over league average, 11th of 29: top 37.9% of league)
'08 Nuggets--->110.0 ORtg (+2.5 over league average, 11th of 30: top 36.7% of league)

Granted he had some good help in Denver, but where those Sixer squads are concerned, I don't think it can be reasonably argued that Joe Dumars isn't a better 2nd option than Aaron McKie or Keith Van Horn; or that Mark Aguirre isn't a better 3rd option than Eric Snow, aging Mutombo, or Kenny Thomas.

And so on and so on (we can go thru 4th and 5th options, which will likewise probably favor those Piston squads). Point being that Thomas clearly had significantly more help on offense, and nonetheless there were a couple years in Philly where the team offense wasn't too far behind some of those contender years in Detroit.......and they did that with Iverson shouldering WAY more of the load and putting up way more volume than Thomas ever did, because those Sixer teams simply had no offensive depth whatsoever.

Disclaimer: before someone tries to twist my words and say I'm trying to push a top 30 agenda for Allen Iverson--->NO, that is NOT what I'm saying. What I'm saying by drawing this comparison is that I don't think Isiah Thomas belongs near the top 30 either.

And where Iverson will get crucified for his efficiency (or lack thereof) while putting up such huge volume, I would ask two questions: 1) What else were those Sixer teams going to do? Who else were they going to turn to? Do you really want to be getting more than ~12 ppg/4-5 apg from Aaron McKie (does he strike you as the kind of guy who SHOULD be averaging more?)? Do you want to ask more than 12 ppg from 34-year-old Mutombo? Or from Theo Ratliff? Or Eric Snow? And 2) Why isn't Thomas being crucified for his efficiency? His individual efficiency is worse than Iverson's. When Thomas is putting up less volume on lower usage (and presumably less attention from opposing defenses), seems if anything his efficiency should be better.

In another thread I brought up a little comparison I'd done for a group of scorers from the modern/semi-modern era (mostly perimeter players and/or isolation scorers), comparing offensive volume, usage, and various measures of offensive efficiency.
I compared the following 26 players: Isiah Thomas, Allen Iverson, Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, Adrian Dantley, Larry Bird, Alex English, Bernard King, Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller, Dirk Nowitzki, Ray Allen, Mitch Richmond, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Joe Johnson, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony, Dominique Wilkins, Paul Pierce, Clyde Drexler, and Derrick Rose.

For simplicity sake, I just used career rs numbers.....
TS%: Isiah Thomas is dead last out of 26 (both in absolute, and in TS% relative to league average).
Pts/Missed FGA: Thomas is 23rd of the 26.
Pts/TO: Thomas is dead last, and by a pretty substantial margin (more than 1.7 pts behind the player in 25th place).
(Pts + Ast)/TO: Thomas is dead last of the 26.


Thomas is a player who, imo, is propelled forward by narrative and by nostalgic memory of some of those heroic playoff performances (i.e. a mere handful of games). He's perhaps a prime example of some of the "finals nostalgia" that Doc referred to.

[ChiTown6rings]

The whole "Detroit won with defense and rebounding" argument doesn't resonate with me as far as being a legitimate knock on IT. They did not win with defense and rebounding. The won by having more points than the other team because of the combined prowess of their offense and defense — just like every other champion.

1988 — 110.5 ORTG (+2.5, 6th)
1989 — 110.8 ORTG (+3, 7th)
1990 — 109.9 ORTG (+1.8, 11th)

Detroit had an effective offense, and Isiah was certainly the man driving that offense.

If this is the argument to push for Isiah Thomas at this point in the project, I hope you're very soon willing to lend your support to Allen Iverson......because similar arguments can be made for him.

To recap the Piston years you've cited to include size of the league:
'88--->110.5 ORtg (+2.5 over league avg, 6th of 23: top 26.1% of league)
'89--->110.8 ORtg (+3 over league avg, 7th of 25: top 28% of league)
'90--->109.9 ORtg (+1.8, 11th of 27: top 40.7% of league)

Some note-worthy Iverson teams:
'01 Sixers--->103.6 ORtg (+0.6 over league average, 13th of 29: top 44.8% of league)
'03 Sixers--->105.0 ORtg (+1.4 over league average, 11th of 29: top 37.9% of league)
'08 Nuggets--->110.0 ORtg (+2.5 over league average, 11th of 30: top 36.7% of league)

Granted he had some good help in Denver, but where those Sixer squads are concerned, I don't think it can be reasonably argued that Joe Dumars isn't a better 2nd option than Aaron McKie or Keith Van Horn; or that Mark Aguirre isn't a better 3rd option than Eric Snow, aging Mutombo, or Kenny Thomas.

And so on and so on (we can go thru 4th and 5th options, which will likewise probably favor those Piston squads). Point being that Thomas clearly had significantly more help on offense, and nonetheless there were a couple years in Philly where the team offense wasn't too far behind some of those contender years in Detroit.......and they did that with Iverson shouldering WAY more of the load and putting up way more volume than Thomas ever did, because those Sixer teams simply had no offensive depth whatsoever.

Disclaimer: before someone tries to twist my words and say I'm trying to push a top 30 agenda for Allen Iverson--->NO, that is NOT what I'm saying. What I'm saying by drawing this comparison is that I don't think Isiah Thomas belongs near the top 30 either.

And where Iverson will get crucified for his efficiency (or lack thereof) while putting up such huge volume, I would ask two questions: 1) What else were those Sixer teams going to do? Who else were they going to turn to? Do you really want to be getting more than ~12 ppg/4-5 apg from Aaron McKie (does he strike you as the kind of guy who SHOULD be averaging more?)? Do you want to ask more than 12 ppg from 34-year-old Mutombo? Or from Theo Ratliff? Or Eric Snow? And 2) Why isn't Thomas being crucified for his efficiency? His individual efficiency is worse than Iverson's. When Thomas is putting up less volume on lower usage (and presumably less attention from opposing defenses), seems if anything his efficiency should be better.

In another thread I brought up a little comparison I'd done for a group of scorers from the modern/semi-modern era (mostly perimeter players and/or isolation scorers), comparing offensive volume, usage, and various measures of offensive efficiency.
I compared the following 26 players: Isiah Thomas, Allen Iverson, Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, Adrian Dantley, Larry Bird, Alex English, Bernard King, Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller, Dirk Nowitzki, Ray Allen, Mitch Richmond, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Joe Johnson, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony, Dominique Wilkins, Paul Pierce, Clyde Drexler, and Derrick Rose.

For simplicity sake, I just used career rs numbers.....
TS%: Isiah Thomas is dead last out of 26 (both in absolute, and in TS% relative to league average).
Pts/Missed FGA: Thomas is 23rd of the 26.
Pts/TO: Thomas is dead last, and by a pretty substantial margin (more than 1.7 pts behind the player in 25th place).
(Pts + Ast)/TO: Thomas is dead last of the 26.


Thomas is a player who, imo, is propelled forward by narrative and by nostalgic memory of some of those heroic playoff performances (i.e. a mere handful of games). He's perhaps a prime example of some of the "finals nostalgia" that Doc referred to.

I've noticed over time that there's a notion that since Isiah was the "superstar" of the franchise for so many years that his legacy has become intertwined with the success of the Bad Boys. Yes, he was the perennial all-star. Yes, he was the main guy on some of the earlier Pistons teams. He's, it's arguable that he was the best talent of all the Pistons players in that era. But at a time when the league FG% was on the north of 45%, he was south of it for the final 5 seasons of his career. In that time, he Was usually first or second in FGAs for the Pistons.

[batmana]

I missed the last vote but here I'll have to vote for Bill Walton.

I respect his healthy prime so much and I really believe he would have been a top 5 center of all time if he had stayed healthy. It's really a shame that he showed such brilliance and then had his career ruined by injuries.

I would probably prefer Havlicek and Durant the most out of the rest of the field but Walton impresses me too much with his 1977 season, post-season run and the way he did everything for his Portland team. Walton has a case for being better than Abdul-Jabbar in Kareem's prime (and Kareem went No.2 in this project).

To add to this (very little, I know, in comparison to players who had 12+ healthy seasons), Walton was able to be an impactful sub for the 1986 Celtics and win 6th Man and another ring.

I think I won't be able to pick too much support for Walton here so I'll probably change my vote for the next several picks but I just wanted to be honest to myself here.

[ronnymac2]

The whole "Detroit won with defense and rebounding" argument doesn't resonate with me as far as being a legitimate knock on IT. They did not win with defense and rebounding. The won by having more points than the other team because of the combined prowess of their offense and defense — just like every other champion.

1988 — 110.5 ORTG (+2.5, 6th)
1989 — 110.8 ORTG (+3, 7th)
1990 — 109.9 ORTG (+1.8, 11th)

Detroit had an effective offense, and Isiah was certainly the man driving that offense.

If this is the argument to push for Isiah Thomas at this point in the project, I hope you're very soon willing to lend your support to Allen Iverson......because similar arguments can be made for him.

To recap the Piston years you've cited to include size of the league:
'88--->110.5 ORtg (+2.5 over league avg, 6th of 23: top 26.1% of league)
'89--->110.8 ORtg (+3 over league avg, 7th of 25: top 28% of league)
'90--->109.9 ORtg (+1.8, 11th of 27: top 40.7% of league)

Some note-worthy Iverson teams:
'01 Sixers--->103.6 ORtg (+0.6 over league average, 13th of 29: top 44.8% of league)
'03 Sixers--->105.0 ORtg (+1.4 over league average, 11th of 29: top 37.9% of league)
'08 Nuggets--->110.0 ORtg (+2.5 over league average, 11th of 30: top 36.7% of league)

Granted he had some good help in Denver, but where those Sixer squads are concerned, I don't think it can be reasonably argued that Joe Dumars isn't a better 2nd option than Aaron McKie or Keith Van Horn; or that Mark Aguirre isn't a better 3rd option than Eric Snow, aging Mutombo, or Kenny Thomas.

And so on and so on (we can go thru 4th and 5th options, which will likewise probably favor those Piston squads). Point being that Thomas clearly had significantly more help on offense, and nonetheless there were a couple years in Philly where the team offense wasn't too far behind some of those contender years in Detroit.......and they did that with Iverson shouldering WAY more of the load and putting up way more volume than Thomas ever did, because those Sixer teams simply had no offensive depth whatsoever.

Disclaimer: before someone tries to twist my words and say I'm trying to push a top 30 agenda for Allen Iverson--->NO, that is NOT what I'm saying. What I'm saying by drawing this comparison is that I don't think Isiah Thomas belongs near the top 30 either.

And where Iverson will get crucified for his efficiency (or lack thereof) while putting up such huge volume, I would ask two questions: 1) What else were those Sixer teams going to do? Who else were they going to turn to? Do you really want to be getting more than ~12 ppg/4-5 apg from Aaron McKie (does he strike you as the kind of guy who SHOULD be averaging more?)? Do you want to ask more than 12 ppg from 34-year-old Mutombo? Or from Theo Ratliff? Or Eric Snow? And 2) Why isn't Thomas being crucified for his efficiency? His individual efficiency is worse than Iverson's. When Thomas is putting up less volume on lower usage (and presumably less attention from opposing defenses), seems if anything his efficiency should be better.

In another thread I brought up a little comparison I'd done for a group of scorers from the modern/semi-modern era (mostly perimeter players and/or isolation scorers), comparing offensive volume, usage, and various measures of offensive efficiency.
I compared the following 26 players: Isiah Thomas, Allen Iverson, Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, Adrian Dantley, Larry Bird, Alex English, Bernard King, Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller, Dirk Nowitzki, Ray Allen, Mitch Richmond, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Joe Johnson, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony, Dominique Wilkins, Paul Pierce, Clyde Drexler, and Derrick Rose.

For simplicity sake, I just used career rs numbers.....
TS%: Isiah Thomas is dead last out of 26 (both in absolute, and in TS% relative to league average).
Pts/Missed FGA: Thomas is 23rd of the 26.
Pts/TO: Thomas is dead last, and by a pretty substantial margin (more than 1.7 pts behind the player in 25th place).
(Pts + Ast)/TO: Thomas is dead last of the 26.


Thomas is a player who, imo, is propelled forward by narrative and by nostalgic memory of some of those heroic playoff performances (i.e. a mere handful of games). He's perhaps a prime example of some of the "finals nostalgia" that Doc referred to.

Agreed, Iverson should be brought up soon, too.