RealGM Top 100 List #35

[Doctor MJ]

Miller is far more portable.

How can a guy who played one role for one team be considered far more portable?

A great player, but portable should apply to someone who could fill different roles or adapt.

That's versatillity. Portability is not whether one can adapt to the new situation, but whether he can be valuable in it. Being more versatile helps, but some roles are inherently more portable than others.

[Basketballefan]

How do you guys feel about Kevin Mchale? I feel like he's a worthy candidate for this spot. Great post game, excellent defender and an important piece of 3 championships.

This is not a vote by the way but want opinions.

A little high for a guy who was a complementary player benefiting a lot from single coverage. Should get some love soon, since he was phenomenal at what he was asked to do. Slightly overplayed passing issues (he was a finisher, not really asked to make a lot of plays), good defender and scored on excellent efficiency.

He was good, but more top 50 than top 40, IMO.

That's fair i suppose.

I haven't had much time to research who i should put in my top 40 and not. I know for sure that i have Gervin, Payton, KD, and Iverson in there. Pierce may squeeze into my top 40 as well.

[Doctor MJ]

Id also like to know why LeBron was getting top 20 consideration after 2011 ( on the previous list ) ( 8 seasons ) but Durant has been so knocked on longevity here.

Did a lot more people value peaks stronger?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I'll go back to Win Shares.

LeBron through '11 had 118.8 Win Shares.
Durant currently has 88.6.

All the normal caveats apply about WS not being everything, but there's really no reason to look at Durant being up there with LeBron at that point no matter how I look at it. LeBron was better, better sooner, and he'd played longer at that point. A multiple tier difference imho.

[Colbinii]

How can a guy who played one role for one team be considered far more portable?

A great player, but portable should apply to someone who could fill different roles or adapt.

No it shouldn't. It is a subjective term that could quite easily mean how well their best play complimented others, or how portable a player's peak play is; which is where Reggie may be second to none in NBA history.

Reggie Miller should be in over Kevin Durant. A much longer prime, better playoff performer, much longer longevity.

[Colbinii]

Id also like to know why LeBron was getting top 20 consideration after 2011 ( on the previous list ) ( 8 seasons ) but Durant has been so knocked on longevity here.

Did a lot more people value peaks stronger?

For one, 7 to 8 seasons (total)

LeBron was the best player in the league for the very least 3 seasons, perhaps 4.Durant on the other hand has been arguable the best player in the league for one season, and many posters and myself don't think Durant was the best this past season.

LeBron was a better playoff performer.

LeBron was the anchor of multiple top 3-5 defensive teams year in, year out.

tl;dr he was a more complete player who peaked higher and performed better in the playoffs.

[Basketballefan]

How can a guy who played one role for one team be considered far more portable?

A great player, but portable should apply to someone who could fill different roles or adapt.

No it shouldn't. It is a subjective term that could quite easily mean how well their best play complimented others, or how portable a player's peak play is; which is where Reggie may be second to none in NBA history.

Reggie Miller should be in over Kevin Durant. A much longer prime, better playoff performer, much longer longevity.

In what way is Miller a better playoff performer than KD? No offense but that's a bit ridiculous. Miller's deep playoff runs look like this:

26 4 2 63 ts%
24 2 3 60 ts%

KD: 29 7 4 63 ts%
30 9 4 57 ts%

I know you hate KD but come on dude.

[The Infamous1]

Durant is in another stratosphere from reggie. You can't compare fringe all stars to legitamate franchise Level superstars

[KD35Brah]

How can a guy who played one role for one team be considered far more portable?

A great player, but portable should apply to someone who could fill different roles or adapt.

No it shouldn't. It is a subjective term that could quite easily mean how well their best play complimented others, or how portable a player's peak play is; which is where Reggie may be second to none in NBA history.

Reggie Miller should be in over Kevin Durant. A much longer prime, better playoff performer, much longer longevity.

Atleast try to hide your hate for Durant.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Reggie Miller

I'm torn between Reggie & Artis, but feeling Reggie a bit more right now.

As has been stated I think the key things to understand about Reggie are:

1) He had a lot more value at his best than most realize. Any scorer you put ahead of him, you really need to think about why you're doing so. If it's greater volume, look at Reggie's ability to scale when needed while still having a better efficiency than almost anyone you're thinking of. If it's the "all-around" game, understand that so much of that often comes from problematic team strategy where you traditionally just build everything around your anointed star even though he's not great at deciding when to NOT-shoot.

Note: None of this applies to Durant. Durant's a better player than Reggie clearly. It's just a peak vs longevity thing there.

2) Portability is a serious thing here. Every team uses off-ball shooters. They will always be useful. And for a guy like Reggie, you don't even need to set everything up to get him open - he'll just slalom around the half court until he gets open, manipulating space in his wake the whole time. And this incidentally relates to why...

3) Longevity. Miller was a major asset until he was an old man. Guys who require the offense to go to them so often see their impact fall off a cliff rapidly once they lose a step. They can quickly become a player that a smart coach realizes he's better off just trading than he is trying to find a new role for him. Reggie though, since he never took bread off the table in the first place decayed far more gradually, along the lines of an expert playmaker, or really any player whose game requires a great brain.

So yeah, if you're going by peak here, go for Durant over Reggie. No issues there, and I sure don't want to knock Durant. For me though, the longevity thing is still a major problem for Durant.

[john248]

Miller is far more portable. I'd value Gervin's on-ball scoring more if he were better at making his teammates better since he had the ball in his hands more. As it is since his usage was high and on-ball, I don't see much value in his ability to create for teammates which would've been what separated the 2. Also, they're just creating their shots differently. It's not like Miller was a spot up shooter; he was awesome off-ball running screens to create a shot for himself. Those clutch moments we all have watched don't happen if Miller wasn't able to do that. Miller has the efficiency advantage as you've said; part of that is also being able to draw fouls better. Gervin's lack of longevity was he refused to come off the bench at the end of his career like Havlicek. Meanwhile, Miller's game aged far more gracefully. At age 34 near the end of his prime, he was a part of a team that went to the Finals...whereas Gervin was retired by 33. No real point in talking about their defense. Tough for me to side with Gervin any way you slice it. The volume isn't much of a argument to me considering Gervin wasn't on any deep teams with the Spurs. Hell, the Midwest division was especially weak. Just how much does that volume start coming into play on deeper teams? Or better yet, let me quote this:

Okay, certainly makes sense. Thanks for the response. I totally respect your opinion, but I'd still take Gervin becasue of his vastly superior shot creation abilities and actually elite volume scoring. Sure, you can say that volume scoring has no inherent value, but Gervin was actually both very efficient AND impactful (Spurs were a fixture as the 2nd or 3rd best offensive team in the NBA in his prime, that's a bit better than the 90s Pacers - Indiana had the best offense in the league in 1999 and 2000, and 4th best in 1998, but other than that, they never made the top 5 again (a few top 10 finishes though, to be fair).

I understand the portability argument, but I'm a firm believer that Gervin could've led a team to a title if he had the right supporting cast, as the unquestioned lead dog on offense. It's true that he didn't create well for others, but he was such a great scorer that his "selfish" style of play still translated very well to successful team performances, offensively. Neither was a good all-around player, so Reggie didn't really do anything better than the Iceman, except for 3-point shooting (to be fair, Gervin was able to make that shot on a decent percentage for his era, when he wanted to, like 1980, when he shot 31.4% on 1.3 attempts, but first of all, it was introduced in the midst of his prime, and second, Iceman himself admits that he didn't shoot threes because that shot was the lowest percentage shot in basketball, and two, he was really great with a midrange jumper, 18-20 footer).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzTeszStPVs[/youtube]

Here's a fun interview with the Iceman, and he says the same thing that I just said about his shot selection.


Anyway, I really like the fact that Miller is getting traction here, and I admit that I didn't give him enough credit (I ranked Gervin at 37 on my pre-list, Miller at 52, just behind Ray Allen). I still think that Ray and Reggie are extremely close, and I'd still rank a few more wings ahead of them (Pierce, Durant, probably also McGrady), but your post (and all of the posts that you quoted, like ElGee's, bastillon's etc.) are very interesting, and a great food for thought, I admit that. Good job. Really, I can see moving Reggie a few spots higher, but will have to read and think more about him.

It isn't really so much that I don't see the value in Gervin's scoring. It's more I don't see him scoring as much on a more balanced team. Miller has an edge in nearly every offensive category (oRTG, TS%, ftr, AST%) aside from volume scoring as an off-ball player. Then you have Miller's volume going up during the playoffs, and it certainly closes that gap a bit.

It's fine if you think Gervin can lead a nice team to the Finals. Miller's been there too in that role. I never called Gervin selfish either. I will say though in comparison to a couple other on-ball wing players you mentioned in Pierce and McGrady, the separation is the passing/playmaking. While I do think that say Pierce and Gervin offer similar offensive value, one reason (amongs others) I'd side with Pierce simply due to being better able to get his teammates involved. Now with Miller, he's just that much more efficient and so much more the outlier in that regard that I can favor him. In any case, agree to disagree.

[trex_8063]

Well, with Baylor and Kidd now voted in, I’m actually left without an overwhelming favorite candidate. My top three candidates are Gary Payton, Artis Gilmore, and Kevin Durant; I find myself leaning perhaps slightly toward Payton as I begin to write this.

I guess that’s reasonable, given I just got thru supporting Kidd, and Kidd/Payton make a nice comparison. I’d rate Payton’s peak marginally higher than Kidd’s. Payton’s clearly the better scorer, and by a fair margin; imo he’s pretty close as play-maker in the half-court setting, too. He’s at least Kidd’s equal defensively, as well.

One might now be asking why I rank Kidd ahead of Payton, given my perceptions outlined above. Well, it’s based on a few things:
*Kidd’s the better rebounder.
**Longevity: 19 to 17 in seasons played. And if looking at “relevant seasons”, it’s more like 19 to 15-16: Kidd was a starter (or mostly a starter) and never less than a primary role-player during each and all of his 19 seasons. The same really can’t be said for Payton’s final season (at the very least), in which he avg 22.1 mpg with a dismal 9.0 PER.
However, I did just notice that Kidd actually only has 56 more rs games played (although can potentially claim the ‘12 hold-out shortened the gap by 16 games; and Kidd does have nearly 3,000 career minutes over him).
***Better transition passer.
****More portable and more consistent: Kidd proved he can meld with multiple supporting casts, and very smoothly transition into whatever role was required of him. Thus he always managed to have some significant value even into his 19th season. The same perhaps cannot quite be said for Payton. Just as a little evidence of this: Kidd had 16 consecutive seasons with an above average (15) PER, and never failed to have a PER >13. Payton had 13 seasons with an above average PER and TWICE failed to have a PER as high as 13 (or even 11).

However, looking at it closely, the gap between them now looks pretty small. As a “for instance”, I just noted that Payton is actually +6.9 on Kidd in career rs WS (although he’s -3.4 in career playoff WS).

Payton really looks very good on impact data, too, even though we’re missing a few years of his prime. Nonetheless, even selecting from the finite years of data available, Payton’s 5 best RAPM’s add up to +16.75, which is better than the “Best 5 total” of Tony Parker and actually marginally better than Chauncey Billups (even though we have the entire careers to select from for those two). Payton’s best (that we have record of) was ‘00 at +6.26 (6th in the league).

His prime looks pretty good by other measures, too:
Payton (‘95-’03)
21.4 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 8.1 apg, 2.1 spg, 2.7 tov on .535 TS%
21.9 PER, .177 WS/48, 113 ORtg/105 DRtg (+8) in 39.6 mpg

Minimal step down in playoffs, but still very very good:
21.9 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 7.2 apg, 1.7 spg, 2.8 tov on .529 TS%
19.5 PER, .130 WS/48, 111 ORtg/110 DRtg (+1) in whopping 43.4 mpg

So his career package is looking more and more formidable. And given some of the parallels with Kidd, he feels like the most natural next choice for me.


But then there’s Artis to consider..……
I think he’s the 2nd-highest peak of the three guys I’m considering, a bit ahead of Payton, and he’s got considerable longevity in his own right.
Of the little I’ve seen of Gilmore (at least prime ABA Gilmore), he did look a bit limited offensively, tbh: not a great post passer, and his only reliable post move was his lefty hook shot. But he was decent at creating space, pretty good on the offensive glass. And what an athlete! Good finisher, and made him a big impact player (on both ends) right from the start.

‘72 (wherein I think the ABA was a somewhat competitive league where top-end talent is concerned) he takes the ABA MVP, while averaging about 24/18 with 5 blocks for a team that went 68-16! (although they faltered in the playoffs).
Estimated Per 100 Possessions (‘72): 23.7 pts, 17.7 reb, 2.7 ast, 5.0 blk, 4.0 tov @ league-leading .620 TS%
26.6 PER (best in league), .259 WS/48 (best in league; actually led league in BOTH offensive and defensive WS that year).
So he was legitimately beastly. Although he never really developed or got better as a player from there, he did more or less hold steady at near that quality throughout his ABA years. His decline (very slow though it was at first) would begin ~1980 (basically once he crossed into his 30’s). He still had 16 relevant seasons, however.

Career comparison between he and Payton looks very close:
Gary Payton
Per 100 poss.: 24.0 pts, 5.8 reb, 9.9 ast, 2.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.3 tov @ 52.8% TS (-0.1% to league avg)
18.9 PER, .148 WS/48, 111 ORtg/106 DRtg (+5), 145.5 total WS (11.1 playoff WS)

Artis Gilmore (5 ABA seasons, 12 NBA seasons)
Estimated Per 100 poss. (estimated for '72 and '73; and est correction for bbref's error): 24.4 pts, 15.8 reb, 2.9 ast, 0.8 stl, 3.1 blk, 4.0 tov @ 62.3% TS% (+9.4% to league avg)
21.4 PER, .193 WS/48 (20.2 PER and .174 WS/48 in NBA), 115 ORtg/101 DRtg (+14), 189.7 total WS (107.4 in NBA), 13.2 playoff WS (though only 2.7 of those in the NBA)

Strength of era and/or ABA considerations perhaps apply, but Gilmore appears to have a legitimate case against Payton.


And then there's Durant......
He's obv the highest peak of these three candidates. But tbh, I'm leaning away from him, and it's largely a longevity issue as it pertains to total career value. It's just hard to compare seven seasons to seventeen (and it's not as though Payton or Gilmore were slouches).

To some degree, I think some of the databall numbers have soured me on him, too, although only slightly. I'm still not at all convinced of the reliability of RAPM, so it's merely one more little piece of the puzzle for me. In some instances I merely use it to settle a comparison where I am otherwise stumped and could go either way. That could be the case here.
In his first two seasons his RAPM is atrocious; he had his first positive one in '10 (just +0.87), and is steadily getting better, although his best 5 years combined comes to +12.42......which is slightly less than that of Tracy McGrady, or ~2 pts less than that of Tony Parker or even Chris Webber (and we don't even have the data to select from for Webber's first four seasons).
Again, I don't put a ton of weight on that; but where I'm having trouble deciding, that certainly doesn't help his case (especially because Payton looks very good via RAPM).


So thru the course of writing this, I find myself leaning to either Payton or Gilmore. Although I'm still open to an mind-blowing post on Durant (or perhaps even Paul Pierce, who is getting close for me too). Thoughts?

[TrueLAfan]

About Artis: His knee injury changed his game far more than is being discussed here. Nba.com describes it as “devastating,” a 1981 SI article discussed the October 1979 surgery to “remove cartilege.” Gilmore had played in 670 straight games when he went down in October 1979. It was a different time, when those types of streaks were something to be proud of. “Resting” a great player that needed it was an almost nonexistent option. My guess is that Artis had at least a strained—and probably torn—ACL to go with a substantial meniscus tear. Today, if you need a meniscectomy, you’ve almost certainly got a torn ACL. Artis returned to play less than 11 weeks after surgery, and played 250 straight games after that.

He was not the same, though. This injury functionally messed with Artis. On defense, it affected his mobility substantially so that he went from being a hybrid help/man defender to a purely man defender. This lessened his value on that side, although he was still good in either scenario. But on offense, the post injury effects were much more severe. Artis had often set up on the mid-post with the Colonels and pre-injury Bulls and often faced the basket as a center. He was a mechanical player, but a smooth one; he wasn’t super quick, but his length combined with “enough” quickness allowed him to give a fake (usually to the left), and swing toward the basket for a short shot or, if he put the ball on the ground, a dunk. Playing a bit farther away allowed him to see passing lanes better in a world that rarely used the three. Artis had an assist % of 11.1 going into the 1979-80 season. That’s markedly better than Hakeem’s pre-1993 years; better than Ewing. About 10% below Drob in his best years, and DRob was a good passer. Artis’s assist/TO ratio was bit under 1:1 in those first 8 years, but that’s not unusual for a C. He was a moderately high usage player that took around 15-17 shots a game and was very efficient.

After the injury, Artis was a totally different player. He set up about five feet closer to the basket, fully in the low post. He still had an okay first step, but the knee injury kept him from moving quickly from that step or having as much lift. He became a full time back to the basket player and put the ball on the ground much less. Since he was more frequently pushing and shoving down low and had more players between him and perimeter players, his assist numbers went down drastically. From 1981 to 1986, his assists percentage was 6.6%, down over 40% from 1972-9. His shots per minute of court time went down almost 25%. Because he set up so much closer to the basket, his FG%--always good—went even higher. But the fact remains that he was a wildly different basketball player.

So, when considering Artis, you’ve got to consider three factors

1) The value of his ABA years.
2) The length of his peak period (those first eight seasons).
3) The value of his “second phase” from 1980-86.

I’ll leave #1 off for the moment.

#2 is interesting because it brings up a couple of things. For another, Artis had a good to very good length peak—666 games. And for another, the common criticism that Artis was “different” or “worse” in the NBA is not true—at least not in his first three seasons. The Reb% adjusts for some league/team differential. Artis scored maybe 10% less, and blocked fewer shots. He was marginally more efficient. All in all, he was the same player

Code: Select all

                    G   MPG   PPG   RPG   APG  BPG  FG%   FT%   TS%   Reb%
ABA Artis          420  41.5  22.3  17.1  3.0  3.4  .557  .668  .591  19.6
1977-9 NBA Artis   246  37.4  21.7  12.9  3.0  2.2  .554  .701  .598  18.6

1972-9 Totals      666  40.0  22.1  15.5  3.0  3.0  .556  .681  .594  19.0


I’d compare that peak with Ewing’s peak

Code: Select all

                    G   MPG   PPG   RPG   APG  BPG  FG%   FT%   TS%   Reb%
1972-9 Artis       666  40.0  22.1  15.5  3.0  3.0  .556  .681  .594  19.0
1990-7 Ewing       638  37.6  24.6  11.1  2.3  2.7  .506  .751  .556  17.0


and say Artis is better. Ewing might be/probably was a better defender and was a better volume scorer (especially in terms of possessions)—but I don’t think that makes up for the marked loss of efficiency, poorer passing, increased TO, and lesser rebounding. And Patrick Ewing is a great player.

With regard to #3 above—Artis’s back nine is interesting. He wasn’t much of a passer, but his assist and assist/TO numbers mimic peak Ewing. His efficiency was astronomical. He no longer had the side to side quicks to be a help defender, and that also cost him about a rebound a game—but he was still a 7’2” 260 pound guy with decent defensive instincts that rebounded very well.

Code: Select all

                    G   MPG   PPG   RPG   APG  BPG  FG%   FT%   TS%   Reb%
1980-6 NBA Artis   510  33.7  17.7  12.9  1.7  2.1  .633  .730  .678  16.9


Gilmore essentially was a moderately effective defensive stopper that was a devastatingly efficient third option on offense. Those 18 points per game? He got them on a hair over 10 shots a game.

So that’s a good length peak with a good length, high effective second phase that add up to close to 1300 games as a top level player. Whether it’s on peak or longetivity, it seems Artis is playing a winning hand.

The only thing that can color Artis’s career, then, is #1. Well, in his five ABA seasons, Artis went up against Mel Daniels (3), Zelmo Beaty (2), Caldwell Jones (3), Mo Lucas (2), and Billy Paultz (5). Those guys were all pretty good (Paultz) to really good (Lucas, Beaty, Daniels) players. That’s about 30-35% of his opponents. There were plenty of other players like Dave Robisch and Swen Nater and Tom Owens and Moses (who was a kid in the ABA—but a monster already) that were pretty good too. I don’t think it matches up too well against the NBA at the time, which was in the Golden Age of Centers. But in 1974, for instance, the ABA fielded Artis, Paultz, Jones, Daniels, Nater, and Beaty in a 10 team league. If Swen Nater was the worst of those guys—kind of a clompy guy that had no quickness and was a pretty poor defender, but rebounded like a madman, shot over 55%, and averaged 14.1 and 12.6 in barely 30 minutes a game—it seems like that’s a decently high bar for an average to below average starter in the league.

[DQuinn1575]

Miller is far more portable.

How can a guy who played one role for one team be considered far more portable?

A great player, but portable should apply to someone who could fill different roles or adapt.

That's versatillity. Portability is not whether one can adapt to the new situation, but whether he can be valuable in it. Being more versatile helps, but some roles are inherently more portable than others.

Thanks for the explanation. Isn't there a downside if he is paired with a similar player- say Ray Allen or Steve Kerr


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Owly]

How can a guy who played one role for one team be considered far more portable?

A great player, but portable should apply to someone who could fill different roles or adapt.

That's versatillity. Portability is not whether one can adapt to the new situation, but whether he can be valuable in it. Being more versatile helps, but some roles are inherently more portable than others.

Thanks for the explanation. Isn't there a downside if he is paired with a similar player- say Ray Allen or Steve Kerr


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Well firstly how many teams play a Kerr or Allen as their main pg?

But in any case spacing the floor and running around screens isn't (necessarily) limited to one player per play. You can get value from more than one player doing those things. After a certain point adding more volume scorers or rebounding is going to see diminishing returns, but spacing rarely will (I guess if all 5 guys have 3 point range you probably don't line them all up on the perimeter but that's a real stretch).

This isn't to say that I'm a big Miller advocate here. I guess with Miller you are demanding (or at least hoping for) playmaking and rebounding elsewhere, but those aren't wholly unreasonable given he's an SG, and the spacing he provides should help somewhat on the offensive glass - it's hard to get offensive boards if the opposing D is packing the paint and Miller prevents this.

[trex_8063]

Some interesting posts re: Gilmore from Quotatious, penbeast0, Owly, and TrueLAfan. Descriptions and comparisons to Howard (or Ewing) make me think my limited eye-test is undercrediting his offense.

I'm swayed a little, so I think I'll just go ahead and put it out there: my vote for #35 is Artis Gilmore.

I reserve the right to switch my vote to Payton if it seems that will give my vote more "value" (not to be political, as it's pretty much splitting hairs in my mind to decide between these two anyway), but for now I'll go with Gilmore.

[penbeast0]

Gary Payton – penbeast0
Reggie Miller – john248, Doctor MJ
Kevin Durant -- RSCD3_
Isiah Thomas – ronnymac2 (if serious)
Artis Gilmore – trex_8063

[DQuinn1575]

Broken record time -

I feel Durant's peak is much higher than anyone (other than Walton) 's left - 2nd best player in league over a five year span - most everyone else being considered here were rarely in the Top 5.

There is a huge difference between Top 2 and Top 10.

Vote Kevin Durant

[Warspite]

Vote Isiah Thomas

Great volume scorer and GOAT level passing to go along with a playoff career that is superior to every player not already voted in.

[penbeast0]

Despite McGinnis's co-MVP, Gilmore was considered the second most valuable player in the ABA for at least 4 years (73-76). Now, with Kareem in the NBA, he would not have been considered second most valuable in pro basketball, but top 5 in the two leagues combined during his ABA career, very likely. Certainly Chicago considered him as such; the consistently blocked any merger talk that didn't have them getting Artis.

[Dubeta]

durant shouldn't even be in this discussion. Hes been playing with stacked all time best players and STILL has won nothing. Hes been gifted with superstars and elite staff his entire career which gives off the illusion how he is seemingly better than players like Miller. Switch Leonard and durant and okc would have a title. I still believe durant is the product of a system created from playing with elite shot creators/ playmakers and high IQ players. I'm a durant fan but even i gotta be completely honest.