RealGM Top 100 List #36

[Doctor MJ]

Forget zeke, What makes reggie miller better than Joe Dumars.

I can see the wheels spinning in a question like this: Is Reggie even better than Dumars' sidekick?

My first thought:

Forget Reggie, what makes Zeke better than Dumars?

I can already hear people guffawing, but I don't think it's a trivial question at all. Dumars got as much accolade love as Isiah in the key Piston years, he scored about as well, played far better defense on a team that only mattered because it had guys who did great things on defense, and he sustained his relevancy to a greater age than Isiah.

Now consider that Dumars has a much more portable game. The Pistons jettisoned Dantley, the first superior scorer that point guard Isiah ever played with. Why? Because Isiah's the type of point guard who really needed more control than that. Dumars can be a take-nothing-off-table #2 guy, or he can do decent things as the first option.

So no, I don't think Dumars has any business in a debate about Reggie vs Isiah. I rate both guys above Dumars, but inserting him in a conversation relating to one guy implies an unfounded all-around dominance in the guy you're leaving out that doesn't make sense.

[Doctor MJ]

Forget zeke, What makes reggie miller better than Joe Dumars.

What makes Reggie Miller better than Dantley, Aguirre, English, Worthy, Arizin, Greer??? or Ray Allen for that matter?


Thats not to mention that he cant play at a all star level in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or post 2004.

I think Cheryl Miller might have a better argument than Reggie.

Short answer:

If you've been paying attention to the considerable stuff already stated about Reggie by his supporters, the answer is obvious:

We have a ton of respect for the brand of off-ball scorer Reggie was. Most the guys you listed didn't play at all the same way and required much more of the offense to be designed around them to work (or required a master facilitator to thrive without such designs). The clear exception is Allen, who as has been discussed, we see as a tier below Reggie at doing this job. That still makes him an all-time great at it, but the gap between Reggie and Allen is very clear to us.

[ThaRegul8r]

Forget zeke, What makes reggie miller better than Joe Dumars.

I can see the wheels spinning in a question like this: Is Reggie even better than Dumars' sidekick?

My first thought:

Forget Reggie, what makes Zeke better than Dumars?

I can already hear people guffawing, but I don't think it's a trivial question at all. Dumars got as much accolade love as Isiah in the key Piston years, he scored about as well, played far better defense on a team that only mattered because it had guys who did great things on defense, and he sustained his relevancy to a greater age than Isiah.

Now consider that Dumars has a much more portable game. The Pistons jettisoned Dantley, the first superior scorer that point guard Isiah ever played with. Why? Because Isiah's the type of point guard who really needed more control than that. Dumars can be a take-nothing-off-table #2 guy, or he can do decent things as the first option.

So no, I don't think Dumars has any business in a debate about Reggie vs Isiah. I rate both guys above Dumars, but inserting him in a conversation relating to one guy implies an unfounded all-around dominance in the guy you're leaving out that doesn't make sense.

I wonder how many people are aware of the discussion that went on about the two? I'm guessing not many, if any, because if they weren't specifically keeping track of it, they would have no reason to.

It remains one of the enduring images of NBA lore – Joe Dumars guarding a determined young Michael Jordan in the 1990 Eastern Conference playoffs.

Dumars of the “Bad Boy” Detroit Pistons, the league’s two-time defending champs, looked like a gaucho corralling the ultimate toro, his feet moving furiously (maybe the best defensive slide in the history of the game), one forearm firmly barred into Jordan to keep contact, the other bent arm thrust into the air, giving Dumars his only hope of keeping his balance while trying to ride the Jordan whirlwind.

Jerry West watched the performance and remarked privately that most people considered Isiah Thomas the Pistons’ superstar, but West pointed out that it was Dumars who was the supreme talent.

Why?

Well, West said, both Thomas and Dumars could push the envelope offensively, “but Joe’s defense sets him apart.”

Just how good was that defense?

It left a supremely disappointed Jordan sobbing at the back of the team bus when the series was over (it’s also probably the only NBA defense ever to spawn a best-selling book: Sam Smith’s ‘The Jordan Rules’).

Inch for inch, pound for pound, offense, defense, intangibles, he [Dumars] might be the best player on the team. Joe Dumars is a coach’s Isiah. He does all the dirty work, and makes up for Isiah’s weaknesses and selfishness . . . The Pistons have two of the best five point guards in the league. Isiah will take over the game one-on-one, but Dumars will make the key buckets and make everyone else better as well. Someday, Detroit’s going to trade Isiah, and Dumars will step up, and you won’t even notice Isiah is gone. (Apr. 27, 1989)

A month later, Dumars would win NBA Finals MVP as the Pistons won their first title after defeating the Los Angeles Lakers. “He carried the Pistons offensively in the games in Los Angeles” (Toledo Blade, May 23, 1990).

How many people are aware of contemporary opinion of Thomas and how it changed after the Pistons' championships as opposed to before?

From Jan Hubbard of the Dallas Morning News, calling Detroit’s Isiah Thomas the most overrated player in the league: ‘He had the third-most turnovers in the NBA, shot 46%, and took more shots than any of his teammates. Point guards shouldn’t shoot that much. People praise Thomas, but the most valuable player on the Pistons is center Bill Laimbeer” (Apr 17, 1984)

If Thomas is overrated, his backcourt partner Joe Dumars certainly is underrated. (Jun 7, 1988)

Isiah Thomas is an overrated superstar. I’m not saying Thomas isn’t an excellent player, but there are at least five point guards I’d consider before him—Phoenix’s Kevin Johnson, Utah’s John Stockton, Cleveland’s Mark Price, New York’s Mark Jackson, and the Lakers’ Magic Johnson.

Thomas can’t shoot from the outside and he doesn’t make his teammates better as often as the others do.
(Mar 3, 1989)

After the Pistons won their second consecutive NBA title in 1990, with Thomas averaging 27.6 points on 54.2 percent shooting and 62.9 percent true shooting, 5.2 rebounds and 7.0 assists en route to the Finals Most Valuable Player award, Los Angeles Times writer Sam McManis wrote, “Unquestionably, Isiah Thomas’ dominance in this series may forever obliterate those ‘overrated’ whispers sometimes heard about the Piston guard around the league” (Jun 15, 1990).

This isn't intended to be an anti-Thomas post, as I have no vested interest either way. (Which means to save any "hater" accusations before you put fingers to keyboard. Though there'll inevitably be people who'll do it anyway. Especially since many don't fully read a post before replying to it.) But I track contemporary opinion, and these are some of the things that were being said at the time, which people may or may not be aware of. I find it interesting seeing how things change.

[ceiling raiser]

Just wondering, should Hayes be a part of the conversation to this point? If not, when should he be?

ElGee discussed his defense earlier in the project I believe. I think he noted that Hayes was the paint protector, while Unseld bodied up centers?

[tsherkin]

Just wondering, should Hayes be a part of the conversation to this point? If not, when should he be?

ElGee discussed his defense earlier in the project I believe. I think he noted that Hayes was the paint protector, while Unseld bodied up centers?

I think Hayes' cruddy offense should keep him out of the discussionfor a while yet, personally. Iron man, strong rebounder, not an ideal mentality at all, though.

[ceiling raiser]

Just wondering, should Hayes be a part of the conversation to this point? If not, when should he be?

ElGee discussed his defense earlier in the project I believe. I think he noted that Hayes was the paint protector, while Unseld bodied up centers?

I think Hayes' cruddy offense should keep him out of the discussionfor a while yet, personally. Iron man, strong rebounder, not an ideal mentality at all, though.

What do you think his ideal offensive role would be?

[tsherkin]

Just wondering, should Hayes be a part of the conversation to this point? If not, when should he be?

ElGee discussed his defense earlier in the project I believe. I think he noted that Hayes was the paint protector, while Unseld bodied up centers?

I think Hayes' cruddy offense should keep him out of the discussionfor a while yet, personally. Iron man, strong rebounder, not an ideal mentality at all, though.

What do you think his ideal offensive role would be?

Much less? Beaten with a stick for taking the turnaround fade too often, for sure. Offensive boards, cuts in trailing a driving wing, limited isos. In short, a role his ego wouldn't accept in his prime. Hayes' passing precluded good volume offense, and that's without regard for his efficiency.

[Clyde Frazier]

Just wondering, should Hayes be a part of the conversation to this point? If not, when should he be?

ElGee discussed his defense earlier in the project I believe. I think he noted that Hayes was the paint protector, while Unseld bodied up centers?

This is pretty interesting. Per author Dave Heeren:

Remember the Elvin Hayes incident? During the 1978 playoffs, the Championship series between Washington and Seattle reached the seventh game. Rick Barry, whose Golden State team had not qualified for the playoffs that year, was announcing that game and doing his usual candid job. He pointed out that one of the referees had a short temper and that he was especially apt to make hasty foul calls against Hayes, whom he did not like because Hayes did a lot of complaining about his calls.

Hayes, who had been the series' outstanding player to that point, picked up his fourth foul during the third quarter and argued before going to the bench. The same official whistled him for his fifth and sixth fouls in quick succession after he reentered the game early in the fourth quarter. Replays showed that Hayes had not committed either of the fouls. On one of them there had been no physical contact at all.

But Hayes was out of the game, and a vindictive referee could have deprived Washington of a league championship because the Bullets were ahead by 8 or 10 points when Hayes went out. Paced by Bob Dandridge, the Bullets did hold on to win. But Hayes was deprived of an award he wanted and deserved. Since he had not played during the closing minutes of the championship game, the championship series MVP trophy was given to Wes Unseld. Unseld, then in the twilight of his career, had produced little offense for the Bullets and had been victimized by Seattle center Marvin Webster for 30 points, or a basket more or less, in the final game.

http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=333#p1235

[Warspite]

Forget zeke, What makes reggie miller better than Joe Dumars.

What makes Reggie Miller better than Dantley, Aguirre, English, Worthy, Arizin, Greer??? or Ray Allen for that matter?


Thats not to mention that he cant play at a all star level in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or post 2004.

I think Cheryl Miller might have a better argument than Reggie.

Short answer:

If you've been paying attention to the considerable stuff already stated about Reggie by his supporters, the answer is obvious:

We have a ton of respect for the brand of off-ball scorer Reggie was. Most the guys you listed didn't play at all the same way and required much more of the offense to be designed around them to work (or required a master facilitator to thrive without such designs). The clear exception is Allen, who as has been discussed, we see as a tier below Reggie at doing this job. That still makes him an all-time great at it, but the gap between Reggie and Allen is very clear to us.

So its not about talent or achievement but style? You like Reggie because of the way he plays even though it doesnt work or lead to wins or in the current NBA is even legal (Davis bros screens).

I have np with you using any criteria but I can see anyone rightfully insulted if you questioned their criteria.

At least your not voting based on jersey or hair color. Maybe next top100 you can expand your criteria to something more meaningful.... Like how hot the players wife/girlfriend is or what kind of car they drive.

[RSCD3_]

I think Hayes' cruddy offense should keep him out of the discussionfor a while yet, personally. Iron man, strong rebounder, not an ideal mentality at all, though.

What do you think his ideal offensive role would be?

Much less? Beaten with a stick for taking the turnaround fade too often, for sure. Offensive boards, cuts in trailing a driving wing, limited isos. In short, a role his ego wouldn't accept in his prime. Hayes' passing precluded good volume offense, and that's without regard for his efficiency.

I sensing a strong correlation to Jermaine O' Neal would you say they are closely related as players in the ways listed above


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[RSCD3_]

Forget zeke, What makes reggie miller better than Joe Dumars.

I can see the wheels spinning in a question like this: Is Reggie even better than Dumars' sidekick?

My first thought:

Forget Reggie, what makes Zeke better than Dumars?

I can already hear people guffawing, but I don't think it's a trivial question at all. Dumars got as much accolade love as Isiah in the key Piston years, he scored about as well, played far better defense on a team that only mattered because it had guys who did great things on defense, and he sustained his relevancy to a greater age than Isiah.

Now consider that Dumars has a much more portable game. The Pistons jettisoned Dantley, the first superior scorer that point guard Isiah ever played with. Why? Because Isiah's the type of point guard who really needed more control than that. Dumars can be a take-nothing-off-table #2 guy, or he can do decent things as the first option.

So no, I don't think Dumars has any business in a debate about Reggie vs Isiah. I rate both guys above Dumars, but inserting him in a conversation relating to one guy implies an unfounded all-around dominance in the guy you're leaving out that doesn't make sense.

Do you think there could be a similar but to a lesser extent a Baylor west dynamic where the older star continued to use possession over the other even when it was not optimal.

Would be interesting to see how they played without each other compared to together. I don't know where that info would be/if it even exists but it would be interesting

Also how well of floor general would you rate joe Dumars as.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[KD35Brah]

Forget zeke, What makes reggie miller better than Joe Dumars.

What makes Reggie Miller better than Dantley, Aguirre, English, Worthy, Arizin, Greer??? or Ray Allen for that matter?


Thats not to mention that he cant play at a all star level in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or post 2004.

I think Cheryl Miller might have a better argument than Reggie.

Short answer:

If you've been paying attention to the considerable stuff already stated about Reggie by his supporters, the answer is obvious:

We have a ton of respect for the brand of off-ball scorer Reggie was. Most the guys you listed didn't play at all the same way and required much more of the offense to be designed around them to work (or required a master facilitator to thrive without such designs). The clear exception is Allen, who as has been discussed, we see as a tier below Reggie at doing this job. That still makes him an all-time great at it, but the gap between Reggie and Allen is very clear to us.

Wouldn't Durant fit this description?

[tsherkin]

What do you think his ideal offensive role would be?

Much less? Beaten with a stick for taking the turnaround fade too often, for sure. Offensive boards, cuts in trailing a driving wing, limited isos. In short, a role his ego wouldn't accept in his prime. Hayes' passing precluded good volume offense, and that's without regard for his efficiency.

I sensing a strong correlation to Jermaine O' Neal would you say they are closely related as players in the ways listed above


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Hayes was a better rebounder than JO, and while JO was crap on O, he didn't think he was the bee's knees and didn't shoot as much.

[Doctor MJ]

What makes Reggie Miller better than Dantley, Aguirre, English, Worthy, Arizin, Greer??? or Ray Allen for that matter?


Thats not to mention that he cant play at a all star level in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or post 2004.

I think Cheryl Miller might have a better argument than Reggie.

Short answer:

If you've been paying attention to the considerable stuff already stated about Reggie by his supporters, the answer is obvious:

We have a ton of respect for the brand of off-ball scorer Reggie was. Most the guys you listed didn't play at all the same way and required much more of the offense to be designed around them to work (or required a master facilitator to thrive without such designs). The clear exception is Allen, who as has been discussed, we see as a tier below Reggie at doing this job. That still makes him an all-time great at it, but the gap between Reggie and Allen is very clear to us.

So its not about talent or achievement but style? You like Reggie because of the way he plays even though it doesnt work or lead to wins or in the current NBA is even legal (Davis bros screens).

I have np with you using any criteria but I can see anyone rightfully insulted if you questioned their criteria.

At least your not voting based on jersey or hair color. Maybe next top100 you can expand your criteria to something more meaningful.... Like how hot the players wife/girlfriend is or what kind of car they drive.

If by "style" you mean, "playing in a way that works instead of forcing alpha status through the teeth of defense whose sees your strategy coming a mile away and stops you...and thus only loses because your teammates play good defense", then yes.

[Doctor MJ]

What makes Reggie Miller better than Dantley, Aguirre, English, Worthy, Arizin, Greer??? or Ray Allen for that matter?


Thats not to mention that he cant play at a all star level in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or post 2004.

I think Cheryl Miller might have a better argument than Reggie.

Short answer:

If you've been paying attention to the considerable stuff already stated about Reggie by his supporters, the answer is obvious:

We have a ton of respect for the brand of off-ball scorer Reggie was. Most the guys you listed didn't play at all the same way and required much more of the offense to be designed around them to work (or required a master facilitator to thrive without such designs). The clear exception is Allen, who as has been discussed, we see as a tier below Reggie at doing this job. That still makes him an all-time great at it, but the gap between Reggie and Allen is very clear to us.

Wouldn't Durant fit this description?

There's zero doubt whether Durant is better than Reggie. That's just a peak vs longevity thing.

[Doctor MJ]

Forget zeke, What makes reggie miller better than Joe Dumars.

I can see the wheels spinning in a question like this: Is Reggie even better than Dumars' sidekick?

My first thought:

Forget Reggie, what makes Zeke better than Dumars?

I can already hear people guffawing, but I don't think it's a trivial question at all. Dumars got as much accolade love as Isiah in the key Piston years, he scored about as well, played far better defense on a team that only mattered because it had guys who did great things on defense, and he sustained his relevancy to a greater age than Isiah.

Now consider that Dumars has a much more portable game. The Pistons jettisoned Dantley, the first superior scorer that point guard Isiah ever played with. Why? Because Isiah's the type of point guard who really needed more control than that. Dumars can be a take-nothing-off-table #2 guy, or he can do decent things as the first option.

So no, I don't think Dumars has any business in a debate about Reggie vs Isiah. I rate both guys above Dumars, but inserting him in a conversation relating to one guy implies an unfounded all-around dominance in the guy you're leaving out that doesn't make sense.

Do you think there could be a similar but to a lesser extent a Baylor west dynamic where the older star continued to use possession over the other even when it was not optimal.

Would be interesting to see how they played without each other compared to together. I don't know where that info would be/if it even exists but it would be interesting

Also how well of floor general would you rate joe Dumars as.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

In all honesty I don't think the offensive issues relating to Isiah are all that egregious along the lines of what we saw with Baylor. It's just that people completely re-wrote Isiah's narratives based on the titles when the reality is that he lucked into playing with an incredibly dominant set of defensive teammates.

And as a result, I feel like the same people who say "isiah was so much more than Iverson" in the face of Isiah's play and GMing indicating he saw nothing more than Iverson would be championing Iverson right now if Iverson had been as lucky as Isiah was.

Re: Dumars. I don't see Dumars as a great floor general. Where Dumars excels is in being a secondary guy who doesn't take anything off the table. If I need an alpha, I take Isiah over Dumars, I'm just under no illusion that Isiah did everything with some master plan in mind.

[Joao Saraiva]

Mutombo and Ben Wallace are great players but I don't think they are in this range yet. Is the gap on D really big to peak Dwight? Because Dwight's offensive gap is really big over them. How about Mourning too?

[Quotatious]

Just wondering, should Hayes be a part of the conversation to this point? If not, when should he be?

ElGee discussed his defense earlier in the project I believe. I think he noted that Hayes was the paint protector, while Unseld bodied up centers?

Gilmore's already in, so now I feel comfortable saying that Hayes is one of my top candidates. Before the project, I had him roughly on the same level as Kidd, Barry, Baylor, Hondo etc. His defense, as noted by ElGee (he mentioned that even way before the project) combined with his ironman streak (durability + longevity), good rebounding, and not really efficient, but still solid scoring (he was roughly Baylor's, Kidd's, Havlicek's equal in terms of efficiency) makes him a pretty good candidate, in my estimation.

[Doctor MJ]

Mutombo and Ben Wallace are great players but I don't think they are in this range yet. Is the gap on D really big to peak Dwight? Because Dwight's offensive gap is really big over them. How about Mourning too?

Some RAPM numbers - just doing absolute peak hear because we lack data for the older guys, know though that that to me means the numbers are noisier:

Code: Select all

Player   Peak    All    Off    Def
Mourning 1998  11.90   4.74   7.18
Mutombo  2000   8.54   0.44   8.11
Howard   2011   7.35   2.27   5.08
Wallace  2004   5.69  -1.11   6.80

Note that this is just for the year of overall peak. For example, Mutombo's defensive peak gave him a Defensive RAPM of 9.74, but his Offensive numbers that year - like most years, was negative.

Just looking at the numbers and trying to think how they could be true:

The first thing I always have to point to with Howard is that RAPM has just never loved him as much common perception has. I'd say the keys are two-fold: 1) His reputation as a help defender is overrated, he's never blocked an extreme amount of shots, and he's never shown an extreme BBIQ in his coverage, 2) His signature stat is his defensive rebounding, and that's actually a very problematic stat because crashing the boards on defense as an individual isn't necessarily the best way to play - and regression analysis on rebounding has confirmed that while Howard has very nice impact there, it's not extreme.

What about that offense? Howard's way ahead of the two one-way guys, but Mourning seems considerably ahead of him. In all honesty, I'm not sure, and I'd be reluctant to go too far based on Zo having the offensive edge.

So now, when I look at all of this my general thinking is that if we just look at impact, Zo seems pretty far ahead of the rest. Again, I take his number with a grain of salt because of limited data, but he's so far ahead of Howard - and we do have other years that seem to show this as not that much of an outlier relative to Zo's other years - that I can't help but see a difference.

Mutombo vs Howard to me is basically within the same tier, and then also I start asking myself about era differences. If I'm siding with Mutombo over Howard (which I actually think I probably will here), it's more because of longevity than anything else.

Wallace is clearly below Howard, and while he has a longevity edge, I still rate Howard above him based on his prime edge.

[Doctor MJ]

Just wondering, should Hayes be a part of the conversation to this point? If not, when should he be?

ElGee discussed his defense earlier in the project I believe. I think he noted that Hayes was the paint protector, while Unseld bodied up centers?

My general take on Hayes vs Unseld is this:

Unseld got some key accolades back then, but the more rationally-minded observers (both at the time and folks like me later) looked at all Hayes did on the court and concluded that while Unseld could be said to "do more" than his numbers and Hayes less, there was no way that could truly make up for the objective gap, and they rated Hayes higher.

Over time as I've realized just how much good a player can undo with undue primacy, I'm not so sure. Well and good to say that if Unseld were asked to score like Hayes he couldn't do it as well...but the reality is that neither should have been doing it. If we look at the guys in terms of whether every moment out there they were doing the right thing so as to have positive impact, it's clearly Unseld. If Unseld played today, you'd have him do basically exactly what he did back then, while Hayes would be asked to do something very different. (And then you also get into Hayes' negative reputations. How happy would he be with the offensive role he should actually be playing in?)

So, on offense and intangibles, I'm perfectly happy giving Unseld the edge. My dilemma is the defense. Hayes was a legit interior, help defender, and I see no reason to see his impact as suspect on that front.

Of course on the other hand, in Unseld's ROY/MVP season (which granted was an overreaction to him), we can now say that it was the defense that was transformed with the Bullets that year rather than the offense. As with everything else, Unseld's defense is solid, but there's a question of how much impact he can truly have as a short big. I welcome the thoughts of others, but it makes me feel a little more confident in him knowing at the very least that he was instrumental in the original creation of an elite defense.