RealGM Top 100 List #32

[Quotatious]

Really tough to decide, but I'll vote for Clyde Drexler.

Gilmore not getting serious consideration (BTW - what happened? a few guys seriously considered him in the late 20s, and now no one even talks about him...) forced me to reconsider my list, but Drexler is the highest ranked player on my pre-list (#29) that hasn't been selected yet.

SactoKingsFan's post makes a really good case for Drexler. To me, Clyde is the player with the least amount of weaknesses of any remaining players at this point. Really, he was above average basically in every area (even creating in half-court offense - he wasn't great at that, but definitely solid, and I think it gets blown out of proportion by some posters). Very good scorer (solid effficiency), very good rebounder and playmaker for his position, above average defender (sometimes even more than that - honestly, I think he deserved some All-Defense 2nd team consideration - underrated defender career-wise, just like Pierce), and GOAT level transition player. Very good longevity (SactoKingsFan said that Drexler had 10-11 high quality seasons - I'd say he had even more than that - he was an All-Star caliber player in every season of his career other than his rookie year, and superstar level player in his true prime, 1988-92, ranked in the bottom half of the top 10 every year during that stretch, and the late 80s/early 90s were probably the most stacked era in terms of superstar talent...even his 1995 season was really impressive, particularly in the playoffs). It means that Drexler was an All-Star level player for 13.5 seasons (because he played just 49 games in the 1992-93 season), from 1984-85 to 1997-98 (superstar for 5 seasons, All-Star for about 8.5 more).
He also had some really impressive playoff runs - 1991, 1992, 1995, even 1997 (we're talking about at least 16 playoff games in each of these seasons).

Why Drexler over Kidd? Better overall offensive player, more capable as a first option because of his scoring ability (his scoring was relatively comparable to Kidd's playmaking, but Drexler's playmaking was clearly better than Kidd's scoring).

Why Drexler over Baylor? More efficient scorer, better playmaker and defender, a bit better longevity.

Why Drexler over Isiah? Better scorer, comparable overall offensive player, better defender, better longevity (Isiah was better in the playoffs, relative to his regular season career, but in the absolute sense, Drexler was still at least as good), also Drexler's Blazers were very comparable to Isiah's Pistons on offense (both teams were basically a fixture as top 10 offensive teams in the mid/late 80s).

Drexler vs Gilmore would be tougher to decide for me (honestly, I'd lean towards Artis), but it doesn't make sense to vote for A-Train here, because there's no chance anyone else (other than me) would vote for him at this point, so my vote would be null and void.


I'll start talking about George Gervin pretty soon.

[penbeast0]

I think several posters have Artis on their short list. For me, my short list is Gilmore, Drexler, and Payton with outside looks at McHale and Durant. And I don't know which of the 3 I support most so I haven't posted an actual vote yet (last thread either).

[Texas Chuck]

Interesting how Clyde almost didn't come up at all last thread and is now the leader and Kidd who nearly beat Paul has no votes. Makes me wonder if the Paul guys did a great job discrediting Kidd or if the recent focus on PG's has led to voter fatigue. I do think Clyde is a very worthy guy at this spot.

Official Vote: Jason Kidd

I value longevity and he's 3rd in career minutes and even that last year in NY, he was doing more than just hanging on.

I continue to belief in the Occam's Razor that when Kidd joins a team they immediately win a lot more games(more than 20 on average) and when he leaves, they lose a lot more(9 more). I know Doc thinks if we can't specifically account for that statistically then we should see red flags and assume something else is happening. I don't understand this. If it happened one time he changed teams, fine I could agree that lacking specific statistical evidence it would be easy to dismiss. But the Mavs draft him and go from years of being a joke to a 35 win team. The Suns make a massive improvement, the Nets, the Mavs again don't win that many more games(they were winning 60+ on average) but they win their only title and the Knicks improve. And then conversely every single one of those teams immediately drops and not one of them so much as make the playoffs the following year.

I just don't think because he doesn't have the conventional PG numbers that we should overlook this obvious impact. And I strongly disagree with the concept that if I don't understand every detail of something that I should assume it didn't happen if the most important information we have says it did.

Great rebounding guard.

Great in transition.

Elite basketball IQ at both ends.

[Texas Chuck]

Interesting post from lukekarts in the 2011 project:

The impact of poor efficiency, with respect to these players, is easily negated by the other positives, both tangible in statistics and intangible in leadership and defensive ability.

Let's take a dividing figure, Jason Kidd. Everyone looks at his FG% and question it, perhaps rightly so. His career average FG% is 40.1%; and he's taken an average of 11.7 FG per game. Career highs being 44.4% and 16 FGA, in separate seasons. Broadly, 41% and 14 FGA was the consistent average in his prime.

So let's analyse those 14 shots. At 41%, it means he's making 5.6 shots a game. With a fantastic efficiency of 50%, he'd be making 7 shots per game. So that's a difference of 1.4 Field Goals Made, or missed, depending on how you look at it. Ultimately, he'd be giving the opposition 1.4 extra possessions, or opportunities per game through defensive rebounds, than a super efficient guy. That probably equates to less than 2pts per game, on average.

It's really not a lot, not a legitimate argument to write off someone like Kidd; because I'm certain his defence, rebounding and passing more than makes up for 2ppg on any other point guard left in this comparison.

[Texas Chuck]

Also interesting to see drza in 2011 was saying the same things Im saying in 2014 about Kidd. Especially the bolded/underlined portion.

Just to be clear, the issue with Kidd is his overall offensive impact. And the closest argument we've seen in all these threads is drza pointing to a few good years in the middle of the decade of on/off numbers...which I suggest has to do with (a) Kidd being a good offensive player and (b) it being easier to elevate really bad offenses, especially given Kidd's skills/circumstance. (Note, for instance, in Kidd's only good run of in/out in 2005, the Nets ALSO didn't have Vince Carter for the first 16 games.)

But when you're "replacing" Kidd with Randy Livingston and Lucious Harris and you see little change in the offense, it suggests something, does it not?

A few things here.

1) Actually, I haven't been pointing out on/off numbers, I've been using RAPM...which is a key difference, especially with your follow-up rebuttals.

2) You've still never, to date, shown any evidence whatsoever that it is easier to post better APM numbers for teams that would otherwise be bad than it is to do so on teams that are good. You keep stating it, but so far have not supported it.

3) As mentioned in (1), your Livingston/Harris rebuttal might make sense for pure on/off numbers. But since APM is designed to account for that, your point doesn't address Kidd having great offensive RAPM numbers.

4) You mention Kidd measuring out great during "a few good years in the middle of the decade" as though those years were anomolous from the rest...like Kidd was measuring poorly, then had this inexplicable 4-year long run out of nowhere. That's not the case. The less misleading way to say it is that "in the first 4 years that we have access to full +/- data, which correspond with the end of Kidd's prime, he measures out among the best in the league in RAPM both on offense and in overall impact".

I think the main issue that I have with your handling of Kidd, and we've discussed this ad nauseum now so I don't expect to change your mind, but my main issue is that by every standard of impact measurements that we have, Kidd clearly has a big impact on his team's success. This can be shown, robustly, with progressively more player-specific methods of evaluating individual impact on team results. About the only level of controversy that I've seen is over whether that impact should be classified as more offensive or defensive, but whatever the breakdown, the overall impact is there and easily (and repeatably) measured.

As such, it seems strange to see such strenuous arguments against Kidd from people that I KNOW value team impact, with the only justification being that since we can't pin down exactly where the impact is coming from it must not be real. I'm not saying you or anyone else have to vote Kidd here...there's lots of room for interpretation in this and none of our methods are set-in-stone as the one correct way to do things. But to keep harping on Kidd not having an offensive impact, when a) our most specific impact measures say he does and b) if his impact isn't on offense, then Kidd is certainly having a huge impact SOMEWHERE because his overall impact shows up in every measure...it just seems strange. This is literally the only example I can remember where it seems like you and I are just arguing past each other to this extent. Even in cases when we've debated in the past, it normally feels like we're still on the same discussion plane but we just don't quite agree. With Kidd, it just seems like we're not even speaking the same language, and that's the part I don't get.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Keeping it very basic as far as math, 1.4 extra made shots are roughly 3 points per game, period. I don't understand really how he gets to 2, if anything you might want to consider the offensive rebounding opportunities out of those 1.4 shots and still it's 2.5
2.5 additional points per game (with no extra opportunity needed) is a lot, that's almost 8 wins for 1 50% team, and it's not considering the impact of having him on the floor has on the offensive and defensive gameplan.

I agree Kidd was a great player, but those 2.5 points might be the difference between what he was and being the goat PG, turning him in a almost Nashy 18ppg .60ts player in his prime IN ADDITION to his defense, size, vision, etc...

[penbeast0]

Interesting post from lukekarts in the 2011 project:

The impact of poor efficiency, with respect to these players, is easily negated by the other positives, both tangible in statistics and intangible in leadership and defensive ability.

Let's take a dividing figure, Jason Kidd. Everyone looks at his FG% and question it, perhaps rightly so. His career average FG% is 40.1%; and he's taken an average of 11.7 FG per game. Career highs being 44.4% and 16 FGA, in separate seasons. Broadly, 41% and 14 FGA was the consistent average in his prime.

So let's analyse those 14 shots. At 41%, it means he's making 5.6 shots a game. With a fantastic efficiency of 50%, he'd be making 7 shots per game. So that's a difference of 1.4 Field Goals Made, or missed, depending on how you look at it. Ultimately, he'd be giving the opposition 1.4 extra possessions, or opportunities per game through defensive rebounds, than a super efficient guy. That probably equates to less than 2pts per game, on average.

It's really not a lot, not a legitimate argument to write off someone like Kidd; because I'm certain his defence, rebounding and passing more than makes up for 2ppg on any other point guard left in this comparison.

Maybe it did in 2011, I don't know who was in by that point. But, I don't think Kidd's defensive, rebounding, and passing more than make up for 2ppg on Gary Payton. I don't think anyone is denying that Kidd is a top 10 PG, all-time. Just a question of whether, considering his shooting issues, he is as good as some other GREAT players -- Payton, Isiah, Drexler, Baylor, Gilmore, etc.

[penbeast0]

Current Vote Count:

Isiah (3): Warspite, JordansBulls, ronnymac2

Baylor (2): trex_8063, magicmerl
Durant (2): DQuinn1575, Ryoga Hibiki
Drexler (2): SactoKingsFan, Quotatious

Mutombo (1): Jaivl
Kidd (1): Chuck Texas

[penbeast0]

Formally declaring my vote for Clyde Drexler.....

Sasaki, were you ever on the eligible voters list?

[Texas Chuck]

Keeping it very basic as far as math, 1.4 extra made shots are roughly 3 points per game, period. I don't understand really how he gets to 2, if anything you might want to consider the offensive rebounding opportunities out of those 1.4 shots and still it's 2.5
2.5 additional points per game (with no extra opportunity needed) is a lot, that's almost 8 wins for 1 50% team, and it's not considering the impact of having him on the floor has on the offensive and defensive gameplan.

I agree Kidd was a great player, but those 2.5 points might be the difference between what he was and being the goat PG, turning him in a almost Nashy 18ppg .60ts player in his prime IN ADDITION to his defense, size, vision, etc...

I understand that way of looking at it--- you could simply count the points his team doesn't get as a result of his missed shots. But you could also look at it like luke does, and correctly imo, that you don't automatically get those points. If Kidd doesn't take those shots someone else on the team does, or there is a turnover. No the more accurate way to look at it is the potential extra possessions it generates for the other team.

[ceiling raiser]

Can anybody break down Isiah's defense for me please? Would be greatly appreciated.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I understand that way of looking at it--- you could simply count the points his team doesn't get as a result of his missed shots. But you could also look at it like luke does, and correctly imo, that you don't automatically get those points. If Kidd doesn't take those shots someone else on the team does, or there is a turnover. No the more accurate way to look at it is the potential extra possessions it generates for the other team.

Well, what you say is not really consistent with his reasoning:
- Kidd was a 5.6/14 shooter (41%)
- what if he suddenly became a 7/14 shooter (50%)?
The difference between the scenarios is 1.4 shots made (=3 points, say) vs 1.4 missed shots * OREB% * VOP (=0.5 points, being very generous)
It was not about Kidd not taking them (he would need then 2.8 missed shots less, to reach 50%), but hitting them.

Whatever, I stand by my position that Kidd with those extra points at his actual volumes is the GOAT PG (he briefly was something like that at the beginning of his second Nets season, actually),

[Sasaki]

Formally declaring my vote for Clyde Drexler.....

Sasaki, were you ever on the eligible voters list?

I've contributed to discussions here and there, and thought that was enough to make me eligible. If I was mistaken, then well I'm mistaken.

[ronnymac2]

I do feel George Gervin has been underrated. He was an offensive monster.

Why Artis Gilmore over Willis Reed?

[Owly]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Amazing 7-year prime where he proved to be one of the best playoff point guards in NBA history. One of the great NBA Finals in 1990, averaging 27.6 points and 7 assists on 62.9%TS against the 4th-ranked defense in the league. Underrated defender, too. He used his quickness to cut off point guards and fight through screens, and he gave 2 non-Larry Hughes type steals, too.

Why's he better than Billups (or Gus Williams)?

If you're looking at 7ish year primes, Billups has 20+ PER seasons as bookends of an excellent 8 year span ('03-'10). For that span he's 20.6 PER, .211 WS/48.
Isiah's 7 years (84-90 I'm assuming) is 19.4 and .134. Thomas here appears either a little worse or much worse.

Same span for playoffs Isiah is 20.9; .161.
Billups is 19.7; .199. Billups is a little worse or a fair chunk better in the playoffs.

I'll throw in that DWS overcredits Isiah on D.

His D isn't underrated, his boxscore numbers overrate it. Being a non- gambler and fighting through screens is dubious too. Reviews on his D ranged from very bad

All-Sieve Team
These are the men who habitually end their oponents scoring slumps
F Billy Knight
F Campy Russell
C Dan Issel
G Magic Johnson
G Isiah Thomas
Russell didn't play last year. But he long ago established the standard to which all non-defensive forwards aspire. Interesting, isn't it, that both Magic and Isiah rank high in steals?

(and this jives team analyis from that time notes backcourt D as a weakness, naming Isiah and Vinnie specificically) to above average (noting activity, though notably not getting through picks "he's not consistent getting through screens" according to the generally positive, post title potentially halo effect influenced '89-90 Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Scouting Report) though this latter designation would still make him worse than his boxscore D (and particularly DWS).


Main guys on my radar are Baylor (reputation makes me think of him and the 5 year real prime at this point is is pretty much as good as anyone on the board except perhaps ...), Durant (supreme peak/short prime) or Gilmore (high value over career, hard to precisely translate ABA but he was dominant despite sharing the court with an all-time notable big).


Edited to correct formatting error.

[Jim Naismith]

Vote: Elgin Baylor



Elite player for 4 years, great scorer, good rebounder. All-star player 7 other years.

Regular season
1960: 29.6 ppg / 16.4 rpg
1961: 34.8 ppg / 19.8 rpg
1962: 38.3 ppg / 18.6 rpg
1963: 34.0 ppg / 14.3 rpg

Postseason
1960: 33.4 ppg / 14.1 rpg
1961: 38.1 ppg / 15.3 rpg
1962: 38.6 ppg / 17.7 rpg
1963: 32.6 ppg / 13.6 rpg


Playoff seasons with at least 25 PER (min 6 games)
01 Michael Jordan...........9
02 Shaquille O'Neal..........9
03 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar....6
04 Tim Duncan...............6
05 Hakeem Olajuwon........6
06 Wilt Chamberlain.........5
07 LeBron James.............5
08 Charles Barkley...........4
09 Elgin Baylor..............4
10 Dirk Nowitzki.............4

Note that Jordan, LeBron, and Baylor are the only wing players on the above list.

Playoffs Games with 40+ points
Jordan........38
West..........20
Baylor........14
Wilt...........13
Kobe..........13
LeBron........12
Shaq..........12
Hakeem......11

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Amazing 7-year prime where he proved to be one of the best playoff point guards in NBA history. One of the great NBA Finals in 1990, averaging 27.6 points and 7 assists on 62.9%TS against the 4th-ranked defense in the league. Underrated defender, too. He used his quickness to cut off point guards and fight through screens, and he gave 2 non-Larry Hughes type steals, too.

Why's he better than Billups (or Gus Williams)?

If you're looking at 7ish year primes, Billups has 20+ PER seasons as bookends of an excellent 8 year span ('03-'10). For that span he's 20.6 PER, .211 WS/48.
Isiah's 7 years (84-90 I'm assuming) is 19.4 and .134. Thomas here appears either a little worse or much worse.

Same span for playoffs Isiah is 20.9; .161.
Billups is 19.7; .199. Billups is a little worse or a fair chunk better in the playoffs.

I'll throw in that DWS overcredits Isiah on D.

His D isn't underrated, his boxscore numbers overrate it. Being a non- gambler and fighting through screens is dubious too. Reviews on his D ranged from very bad

All-Sieve Team
These are the men who habitually end their oponents scoring slumps
F Billy Knight
F Campy Russell
C Dan Issel
G Magic Johnson
G Isiah Thomas
Russell didn't play last year. But he long ago established the standard to which all non-defensive forwards aspire. Interesting, isn't it, that both Magic and Isiah rank high in steals?

(and this jives team analyis from that time notes backcourt D as a weakness, naming Isiah and Vinnie specificically) to above average (noting activity, though notably not getting through picks "he's not consistent getting through screens" according to the generally positive, post title potentially halo effect influenced '89-90 Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Scouting Report) though this latter designation would still make him worse than his boxscore D (and particularly DWS).

Thanks for the scouting report on Isiah's defense. I still think that underrates him, because whenever I watch him play, he seems to be a solid decision-maker who competes on that end and has good lateral quickness, but maybe I overrated him before.

Billups and Williams are interesting. Williams has a clear longevity issue (only around 25,000 career minutes), but his peak is pretty awesome. He had some great playoff performances, too.

Chauncey is one of my favorites. If I were building an all-time team, Billups would be a guy I'd take to compliment any number of superstars. His 2009 playoff run is one of the greatest in modern history for a PG. 22/7 on 66%TS, under 2 turnovers, massive foul draw rate and a strong spacing effect, and great decision-making which maximized Carmelo Anthony's scoring talent.

Like Isiah though, he had his ups and down in the playoffs, especially with Detroit. Isiah is much more of a creative PG though and puts constant pressure on defenses by blitzing past his defender at every opportunity and making sure at least 4 eyes are on him at all times instead of 2. He's like Westbrook; I'm a proponent of Westbrook's global impact on offense despite the mediocre scoring efficiency paired with high-volume scoring. The pressure those guys put on opposing defenses is huge, and when they burn nuclear with their own production, they can take over in ways a guy like Billups or John Stockton can't or won't.

[Narigo]

Vote: Clyde Drexler

Im surprised he slipped so far. I dont think he is ten spots worse than Wade. He was a top 5 player in his prime and was able to put up all-star seasons after that. He is defintely a capable first option and was able to adapt and win a NBA title as the second go to scorer behind Olajuwon

[Jim Naismith]

Vote: Clyde Drexler

Im surprised he slipped so far. I dont think he is ten spots worse than Wade. He was a top 5 player in his prime and was able to put up all-star seasons after that. He is defintely a capable first option and was able to adapt and win a NBA title as the second go to scorer behind Olajuwon

Drexler RPoY rank
1991 — #7
1992 — #3
1995 — #9


I think some people here are overestimating Drexler's prime relative to his contemporaries.

He received one (4th-place) vote in 1991 and one (5th-place) vote in 1995.

In other words, Drexler was solidly in the top 5 only in 1992.

[Quotatious]

I do feel George Gervin has been underrated. He was an offensive monster.

Indeed, he was an offensive monster (definitely a top 10 scorer of all-time, and the Gervin-led Spurs were top 5 offensive teams in the late 70s/early 80s, basically every year, usually the 2nd or 3rd best), but I wouldn't really call Gervin underrated, just because he isn't getting any serious traction yet, at 32. I think he belongs in the top 40, just for his scoring/offensive impact, but at the same time he was a very one-dimensional player, really unremarkable all-around game.

As I said in my previous post here though, I'll post some things about Gervin pretty soon, maybe even in the next thread, just to see how he compares to the other top 40 candidates.

Why Artis Gilmore over Willis Reed?

Longevity. Gilmore played literally twice as many games and minutes as Reed. I think they are very close in terms of peaks and primes (Gilmore peaked in the ABA, but Reed peaked in 1969 or 1970, when the talent level was already divided between the two leagues, so it's a moot point, to a certain degree - the late 60s/early 70s NBA was a better league than the mid 70s ABA, but I don't believe it's really that big of a factor).