RealGM Top 100 List #37

[penbeast0]

a. Dikembe Mutombo (or Ben Wallace) is the best defensive big left though Nate Thurmond has an argument. However, Mutombo is at least something of a positive on offense, the other two are zero or active negatives. Neil Johnston or Bob McAdoo are the best offensive bigs left. For two way players, Zo, Dwight or maybe McHale (but I have questions about his rebounding). Would love to see some good big man comps among this set.

b. George Gervin seems the most impactful wing left, but I like my stars to put in effort on defense. Paul Pierce deserves a look too, but Gervin seemed to draw more attention and have a greater impact. He seemed to have a greater impact than McHale too (leading teams with little support, etc, length of career, etc.) though normally I go for the two-way star first. I never worried about the likes of Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, or Glen Rice coming to town the way I did for Gervin.

c. Gary Payton over other PGs left. More efficient scorer, competent though less assist prone playmaker, better defender than Isiah. Isiah's playoff heroics make it close though.
So, Mutombo, McAdoo, Mourning, Gervin, or Payton. Peak impact, it's Durant, longevity it's Gervin, I am open to argument but for now, I will go with:

Vote Gary Payton

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

1990 Finals MVP with one of the great performances by a PG ever. The legendary Game 6 3rd quarter against LA in 1988. 16 points in like, 94 seconds against New York. 24-10 in the playoffs from 1984-1987. Great skillset for the playoffs. Aggressive, creative, arguably GOAT ball-handler, great passer. Underrated strength for finishing. Detroit was normally top 10 in offense with Isiah at the helm.

[dautjazz]

Mutombo? My god he's being overrated.

[trex_8063]

I'll once again go back to the Kidd/Payton comparison (Kidd voted in 3 places ago):
I’d rate Payton’s peak marginally higher than Kidd’s: he's clearly the better scorer, and by a fair margin, too. imo, he’s pretty close as play-maker in the half-court setting as well, and he’s at least Kidd’s equal defensively. It's perhaps just in rebounding, portability, and in transition passing that he's behind. His longevity is minimally behind Kidd.

Looking at it closely, the gap between them looks very small. Payton is +6.9 on Kidd in career rs WS, too.
He's actually #23 all-time in career rs WS.
He's also #39 in RealGM RPoY shares and #39 in MVP Award Shares.

Additionally, Payton really looks very good on impact data, 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/career value looks VERY formidable, and more than legit for #37.
tbh, almost no one really on my radar until after Payton gets voted in. I'd have to get absolutely blown away by an argument for Paul Pierce, perhaps, to sway me from this pick.

Official vote for #37: Gary Payton

[Doctor MJ]

Mutombo? My god he's being overrated.

Don't jump in here just to talk like that. Either come in here with a sincere argument, or stay out.

[tsherkin]

Vote Payton

Solid peak, accolades, team success. Impact not so portable beyond his era, but that made no difference for Mikan or Russell, so I have ceased worrying about portability as relevant in this project, probably for the best.

[ChiTown6rings]

What are some thoughts on Bob Lanier? Very interested in hearing thoughts on him, as I am not very familiar with his career.

[RayBan-Sematra]

I am leaning towards Miller here.

Super efficient volume scorer.
Incredible portability and can get his without detracting at all from his teammates.
Maintained and even raised his offensive efficiency and ORTG while in high usage roles.
Proved he could raise his volume in the playoffs and in bigger games.
Strong longevity with 13 years of Prime level play.

Sure Gervin was a more fearsome individual force and peaked higher but Miller makes up for that with his career long consistency, efficiency and his pro-team intangibles.

I considered Payton also but I think I would prefer Reggie due to his much greater longevity.
I would also take Gervin over him for the same reason.

[SactoKingsFan]

I’ve been voting for Payton for the last several spots and have him ranked a bit higher than Kidd, so he’s clearly my #1 candidate. With his combination of very good longevity, arguably GOAT level PG defense, underrated playmaking and his ability to consistently create his own shot and score on above average efficiency*, I don’t see any remaining players that have a strong case over the Glove for this spot.

*10 Year Prime (94-03) TS% & eFG%: Payton/League Avg. (diff)
TS%: 53.4 / 52.6 (+.8) | eFG%: 50.2 / 48.2 (+2)

Longevity/Durability
10 Year Prime (94-03): 782 GP, 30602 MP | High Quality Seasons: 11-12 | Career: 1335 GP, 47117 MP

9x All-NBA (2x 1st, 5x 2nd, 2x 3rd)
Only PG to win DPOY (96)
9x All-Defensive 1st Team
11x All-Star

Only player since 1974 (STL first recorded) with at least 20k PTS, 8k AST, 5k TRB and 2k STL.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws


Vote: Gary Payton

[john248]

Next on my list are Miller, Pierce, and GP. Bigs coming up are Dwight, McHale, and Zo in no particular order here. Looks like I have to reconsider Dikembe.

My vote is for Reggie Miller.

Spoiler:

My official vote is for Reggie Miller. He doesn't have an awesome peak. He's as 1-dimensional as it gets being a off-ball shooter, however he was so effective in that single dimension which helped the team. Defense is mediocre though at least understood rotations and put in effort. The argument for him is mainly how consistent he was over the course of his long career scoring between 18-20 ppg at high percentages. Much has already been said on the PC board about Miller's ability to rise in the postseason with some quotes below. Very competitive and a high IQ player.

Due to his off-ball ability, he can play in any offense. Being able to work off screens and run across the court puts a ton of pressure on the defense, and Miller was the best at doing so. While he had comparatively low scoring volume in comparison to other legit 1st options in the RS, Miller did score more in the post season when needed. He was also able to maintain his efficiency while doing so against great defenses of the time. His RS season high is 24.6 ppg, but he averaged more than that 4 times in the post season while having other post seasons fairly close. He wasn't doing this in just a series or 2, but rather over the course of his post season career; no serious sample size issue here. And of course, we're talking about a very clutch player with some rather famous moments. He's able to hit those clutch shots because his shooting is at that elite level. So whether that shot comes closing the game, or the shots come over the course of the 4th quarter, elimination game, a series, or a playoff run, the consistency is rather remarkable. And at how high level it is, more so.

The thing is, Reggie can create his own shot, he just needs screens. Per the rules of the sport, EVERY player in the NBA can set screens for him, and he runs off those screens better than maybe anyone ever. So he's simply not using his dribble to create the shot with bouncing the ball (threat of a drive) and a quick pullup move getting the shot-release high-enough over a defender...instead he's using speed/quickness without the ball to create this kind of shooting space by running his defender through an obstacle course of obstructions.

It is my belief, having watched his career fairly closely and having analyzed it quite a bit, that this is why his offensive game was essentially "resistant" to any kind of defense. (And, NB, the Pacers offense as a whole was too by extension -- Miller's spacing and attention HELPED all the other players.) It doesn't matter if you have a great defensive scheme, or great individual defenders, no one can run through screens, and everyone has a hard time adjusting to that MANY screens when the guy running off them is (a) super smart and crafty and (b) a GOAT-level shooter.

Literally, just about the only time I can remember Reggie being defended well in a series is by the 98 Bulls, and there you had Phil Jackson's philosophy of taking away the opponent's 3 coupled with two of the GOAT perimeter defenders.

Miller is also a better defender than Richmond IMO. Position (draws charges), feisty, smart...look at his results against the top SG's of the 90's or how well the Pacers defended them -- people might find this surprising. He was an underrated defender.

Elimination games 91-02: 25.4 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.4 apg, 1.8 TOpg, 62.2% TS

Miller time baby!
http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/02/mil ... n-offense/

Elgee's post is very interesting. shows you that Reggie was anchoring some amazing playoff offenses despite playing vs high level defenses all the time (Pacers played Knicks 35 times in the playoffs!).

Here are some of Reggie's series:

1993 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 31.5/3/3 on 69% TS
1994 vs Shaq/Penny, 29/3/4 on 68% TS
1994 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 25/2/5 on 58% TS
1995 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 23/4/3 on 58% TS
1995 vs Shaq/Penny 26/3/1 on 67% TS
1998 vs NYK's "GOAT defense", 25/2/1 on 61% TS
1998 vs Jordan/Pippen, 17/2/2 on 58% TS
2000 vs Sixers, 26/2/3 on 67% TS
2000 vs NYK, 22/2/2 on 56% TS
2000 vs Lakers, 24/3/4 on 59% TS
2001 vs Sixers, 31/3/2.5 on 61% TS
2002 vs Nets, 24/3/3 on 63% TS

Generally, when Pacers lost, it was because of their defense. Meanwhile Reggie's improvement as an individual coincided with Pacers team improvement...and they improved to all-time levels basically. It's not like Reggie's supporting cast was stacked offensively. Smits was solid post presence, and Mark Jackson was a good point guard, but many great players had better supporting cast players (Drexler, Penny, Kemp, Stockton & Hornacek) and couldn't anchor similarly effective playoff offenses.

So was Reggie Miller 2nd best offensive player of the 90s ?

I've quoted ElGee in my vote for Miller since he explains things nicely (as well as the quotes from therealbig3 and bastillon to support the claim. I like that he calls Miller's offense "resistant" to any kind of defense. And the numbers definitely show in elimination games and in series against strong defenses over his playoff career which include several deep runs.From here, I will just share what I got out of his analysis. We know Miller's singular clutch moments. But those moments happen due to Miller's GOAT shooting, off-ball, high BBIQ, and remarkable consistency...pretty much being "resistant" to any kind of defence. That consistency is shown in those singular clutch shots & 4th quarters, and to more plural moments over a series, over an entire playoff run, through his career, and against any defense.I haven't meantioned his clutch moments all that much simply because I see the consistent play in ANY moment. And those moments happen because Miller can recognize when he needs to take a scoring load and understands situations to give his team a chance to win. Doc MJ has talked about the effectiveness of what his off-ball game does.

I realize I'm weighing playoffs heavily here. He is an outlier though. In the RS, the efficiency is staggering and contributed to winning records. In the PS, volume goes up, at a star level, with little to no effect on his percentages.

john,

Would you mind expounding a bit on why you believe his game is "resistant" to any defense? I'm not sure I'm completely following this idea.

Thanks

People often say that in the postseason the defense gets tougher as they're able to lock in on an opponent, yet despite this, Miller continued to perform, and against the best defense of his era.

With Jordan, you are guessing what he’ll do to embarrass you. With Rice or Indiana’s Reggie Miller, you know the flood is coming, there’s just no sure way to hold it back. ‘With Michael, you wait until he gets the ball, then you go to work because you don’t know what he’s going to do,’ said [Steve] Smith. ‘But Reggie or Glen are running, ducking, moving (to get open) so you’ve got to work before they get the ball.’

Specific to the statement of being "resistant" to any defense, prior to the 2000 NBA Finals, Shaquille O'Neal said that “Reggie’s not really the kind of guy you can stop.” This is an NBA player saying this at the time, not an internet poster years after the fact, so it isn't a matter of revisionism. The 2000 Lakers were the best defensive team in the league, first in the league in defensive efficiency (98.2) and opponents’ field-goal percentage (41.6%), and Miller averaged 24.3 points on 58.8 percent true shooting against them in the Finals, 27.8 points on 47.7 percent shooting and 65.5 percent true shooting after an aberrational Game 1. Which, interestingly enough, is the exact opposite of what Ray Allen did in the 2010 NBA Finals against the Lakers (4th in the league in defensive efficiency [103.7], 26th out of 30 teams in opponents' field-goal percentage [44.6%]), in which he had the one hot game, but outside of the aberrational Game 2 shot 31.4 percent, 13.3 percent from behind the arc, averaging 11.7 points on 43.7 percent true shooting, and averaged 14.6 points on 36.7 percent shooting, 29.3 percent shooting from beyond the arc and 50.5 percent true shooting overall.

Others have posted Miller's numbers against the top defenses of his era, which I have, but I'll let somebody who's actually campaigning for him do it if they're so inclined. But I will repost this:

The New York Knicks, under Pat Riley, were easily, the best defensive team of the 90s. TMACFORMVP already ran the numbers:



A way of proving how great the Knicks were on defense is by looking at they defended at worst the second greatest playoff performer of all time, Michael Jordan.

A myth has grown that prime Jordan destroyed the Knicks in the playoffs the way he did Phoenix and other teams. This is inaccurate.

The NY Knicks, under Riley, were the only team during Jordan’s prime that were able to affect his production during the post-season.

MJ’s suffered decreases in most statistical areas against the Knicks in the playoffs during his prime.

MJ’s production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         32.49, 6.54, 6.14, 2.64, 1.03, 2.62, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 36.18, 6.71, 6.04, 2.07, 0.68, 3.07, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 29.91, 5.59, 5.22, 1.81, 1.02, 2.91, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531

MJ’s, per 40 minutes, production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         34.31, 6.90, 6.48, 2.79, 1.09, 2.77, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 35.18, 6.52, 5.87, 2.01, 0.66, 2.98, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 28.23, 5.27, 4.93, 1.71, 0.96, 2.74, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531


The Knicks were also the most successful team against Chicago. Riley led Knicks met the Chicago Bulls (w/Jordan) 13 times in the playoffs. The Bulls went 8-5, vs everyone else they went 22-6 during that span. This is despite having only an average offense. All their success came from their defense.

In 1993, Jordan struggled against the Knicks, 32.2 points on 40 percent shooting and 52.2 percent true shooting. Miller lit the same team up, to the tune of 31.5 points on 53.3 percent shooting from the floor, 52.6 percent shooting from beyond the arc on 4.8 attempts per game, 94.7 percent shooting from the line, 60.0 percent effective shooting and 68.7 percent true shooting. “Miller had a tremendous series,” wrote Clifton Brown of The New York Times (May 7, 1993). As sp6r=underrated said, those Knicks were the only team during Jordan’s prime that were able to affect his production during the post-season, yet Miller continually raised his production against the same team. The same team that was able to limit the production of the consensus GOAT was unable to do the same to Miller, an example of his "resistance" to elite defense. John Starks, who guarded both, said:

NBA Africa: You played against some of the best players in NBA history. Who was the most difficult for you to play against?

Starks: The hardest player to guard was Reggie Miller because he ran a lot. Michael Jordan obviously was the toughest of the tough, but he was easy to guard from a standpoint that he was not going to run off a lot of picks. He was just going to pretty much get the ball, set you up and ask “can you stop me?” You know, those two guys right there were probably the most difficult players for me to defend.

It isn't to be construed that Miller was better, and anyone who takes offense to it in that way is missing the point. Miller's style made him a tougher matchup, and to refer back to the above quoted article, with Miller you knew what was coming, but “there’s just no sure way to hold it back.” This was said at the time, so it isn't a matter of revisionism. (Which is the entire point of paying attention to what's said about players at the time they're actually playing.)

When you are one of the GOAT shooters, you can score from all over the court. Covering the 3-point line is roughly 75-feet of territory. Covering the rim is only a few feet of territory. It's not a weakness in the Knicks defense, but a strength in Miller.

TheRegul8r with a great response. Thanks for sharing part of your catalog of historical quotes.

Anyone would like to explain to me why Reggie should be ranked over Gervin? Other than longevity, I don't really see any good arguments for Miller. Well, playoff success, too, but Iceman was a very good playoff performer, I wouldn't say Reggie was really better than him in this regard. More decorated? Yes. Better player who helps you win more games? Not really. Reggie was more efficient, but his scoring volume, shot creation abilities and usage% doesn't even compare to Gervin's.

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:

2-When you look at Gervin's volume, and relative efficiency advantage (+4.3 over lg avg TS%)

...

The only way anyone can make a case for Gervin would rely upon the fact he carried a weak team offensively and his numbers didn't reflect his true offensive ability as a result of the load. The problem with this is that he'd have to be so much more efficient with a better cast to make up for his relative weaknesses that it's just not possible. He'd need to make up maybe a 4 pt Drexler difference with even more efficiency and his current extra 5% of USG alone. He'd need to be more relatively efficient than Jordan (+5.4 TS). He'd need to be almost as efficient as Reggie Miller (off the charts +9.3) at ridiculously high usage. Nope.

I have some sympathy for Gervin's lack of support, but by late 70s/early 80s standards of haves and have nots, it wasn't awful. The Spurs played in some really awful divisions. Total number of +1 SRS division rivals in Gervin's first 7 years in the league: 4. Cutting the list further, the total number of +2 SRS division opponents in those 7 years: 1. The Spurs were a 50ish win team often playing a soft schedule with one superstar and a limited group of good players (Silas, Kenon, Gilmore for a bit, some others), but not a ton of help. Roll him out there with that kind of support in the WC during Drexler's time at the same age, and he'd miss the postseason more often than he made it and would never have gotten out of the first round. Put him on a team with better help, and I'm not sure that he could do the other things to make up for the loss of volume. His skill curve was such that I don't think he'd become much more efficient with fewer shots either. He wasn't a catch and shoot guy. Didn't matter if he took 20 shots a night or 30, he created them and was efficient hitting high degree of difficulty shots and easy ones alike.

Great player despite his deficincies all things considered, and one of the most fun to watch ever, but no way was he as good as Drexler

Stats per/100 ... Seasons past 1st round in prime.
94 30.7/4.1/4.8, 63.6% TS, 123 ORTG, .212 ws/48
playoffs 35.2/3.5/4.6, 58.1% TS, 120 ORTG, .236 ws/48

95 31.8/4.2/4.8, 62.5% TS, 123 ORTG, .204 ws/48
playoffs 37.3/5.2/3.1, 63.2% TS, 125 ORTG, .197 ws48

98 30.8/4.5/3.3, 61.9% TS, 121 ORTG, .206 ws/48
playoffs 28.6/2.5/2.9, 58.8% TS, 116 ORTG, .151 ws/48

99 28.6/4.2/3.5, 59% TS, 119 ORTG, .172 ws/48
playoffs 30.3/4.4/5.9, 55.5% TS, 117 ORTG, .188 ws/48

00 25.4/4.1/3.2, 60.3 %TS, 118 ORTG, .162 ws/48
playoffs 31.9/3.2/3.6, 59.6% TS, 122 ORTG, .195 ws/48

[penbeast0]

What are some thoughts on Bob Lanier? Very interested in hearing thoughts on him, as I am not very familiar with his career.

Very good offensive player; not much of a defender, led a series of really bad defenses in Detroit through his prime except for one outlier year in 1975. Can't see him over Robert Parish, much less the guys we have been discussing.

[Texas Chuck]

My current top 3 look a bit different as one guy hasn't come up at all yet, and I think I'm the only person to bring up another one: Deke. Cowens, and Rodman.

And yes I expect the Rodman candidacy to be unpopular this high. Don't want to get too much into him here, tho, since he's 3rd on my own list and not even on the radar yet I would imagine for most of you.

I am surprised by how little love Dave Cowens is getting. Not the prettiest player ever by any means, but ruthlessly effective and has an MVP and other MVP-caliber seasons and was the best player on 2 champions. A really good rebounder and great defender.

Would still love for one of you geniuses to compare Zo to Deke as I just don't a strong case for Zo this high.


edit: Can't believe I left Gary Payton off my list. He's definitely in the mix for me here too.

[Quotatious]

Vote - Gary Payton

One of the best perimeter defenders of all-time. Good scorer capable of creating his own shot, and taking advantage of post up opportunities. Good rebounder for a PG. Excellent in terms of taking care of the ball. Not a great playmaker, but makes up for it (at least to a certain degree) with low turnover rate. Really good longevity - 9 seasons when he averaged his usual 21 points/4.5 rebounds nad 8 assists on about 22 PER, 18 WS/48, and 53.5% TS, and durability (missed only 6 games during his prime, between 1995 and 2003, playing almost 40 minutes per game, as a guard, and played with great intensity most of the time - pretty amazing).
Also had an excellent peak (1997-98 season, in my opinion), when he also delivered in the playoffs - it's worth mentioning, because he was very inconsistent as a scorer in the postseason - that's his biggest weakness, but he also had seasons when he was very good - like 1996 and 1998. Also looks excellent in RAPM, in certain seasons (+3.8 overall in 1997 NPI, +3.6 in 1998, +4.35 in 2000, including +3.3 offensive split).

Basically, Payton seems to be the best all-around player left on the board - good, versatile skillset (very good offensive player, elite defender, however I'm relatively low on his portability, in terms of adjusting to different team situations), combined with good peak and longevity.

[ceiling raiser]

I’m not sure if he belongs here, but I think it might be worth our time to take a look at Nate Thurmond (arguably the GOAT man defender in the post, and considered to be one of the GOAT defensive players overall)…

1) Man defense:

I’m not too big on box score stats, but Djoker at Hoops Nation (also posts as danko8 on ISH) did some great research on Nate:

Spoiler:

We have almost all the numbers and quite honestly I hardly see an argument for anyone else... Here are the numbers of other great scoring centers of the era against Nate the Great. I only included the period from 1964-1965 midway through the season when he became a starting center up to and including 1972-1973 because Nate really started to decline after.

* indicates a missing FG% in a single game
PS indicates postseason

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

1970: 21.0 ppg on 34.8 %FG
1971: 26.6 ppg on 48.8 %FG
1972: 24.0 ppg on 44.1 %FG
1973: 25.8 ppg on 48.8 %FG

vs Nate: 25.1 ppg on 45.6 %FG
vs Everyone: 30.5 ppg on 55.3 %FG

1971 PS: 27.8 ppg on 48.9 %FG
1972 PS: 22.8 ppg on 40.5 %FG
1973 PS: 22.8 ppg on 42.7 %FG

vs Nate PS: 24.4 ppg on 43.8 %FG
vs Everyone: 29.7 ppg on 51.0 %FG



Wilt Chamberlain

1965: 26.7 ppg on 50.0 %FG
1966: 28.6 ppg on 48.9 %FG
1967: 20.8 ppg on 63.3 %FG
1968: 13.3 ppg on 37.9 %FG*
1969: 13.8 ppg on 54.7 %FG
1971: 10.2 ppg on 55.3 %FG
1972: 6.8 ppg on 67.9 %FG
1973: 5.3 ppg on 68.4 %FG

vs Nate: 15.7 ppg on 53.7 %FG
vs Everyone: 23.1 ppg on 58.1 %FG

1967 PS: 17.7 ppg on 56.0 %FG
1969 PS: 12.0 ppg on 50.0 %FG
1973 PS: 7.0 ppg on 61.1 %FG

vs Nate PS: 12.5 ppg on 54.2 %FG
vs Everyone: 19.0 ppg on 53.7 %FG



Elvin Hayes

1969: 28.2 ppg on 46.3 %FG*
1970: 21.5 ppg on 33.3 %FG*
1971: 26.0 ppg on 37.2 %FG***
1972: 20.3 ppg on 37.4 %FG

vs Nate: 23.8 ppg on 40.6 %FG
vs Everyone: 27.4 ppg on 44.0 %FG

I didn't include 1973 because Hayes now shared the court with Unseld and it's unclear who Thurmond defended.


Willis Reed

1969: 15.4 ppg on 41.2 %FG***
1970: 17.0 ppg on 40.0 %FG*
1971: 14.0 ppg on 33.3 %FG*

vs Nate: 15.4 ppg on 37.6 %FG
vs Everyone: 21.3 ppg on 49.7 %FG

I included Reed's numbers from midway in 1969 when he became a starting C following the Bellamy trade until his injury in the 1971 playoffs.


There's still a lot of data missing but other centers like Cowens and Lanier also seemed to have shot just horrific % against Nate. I'll post the numbers as I get them.

source: http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic ... e-history/

2) Praise from his peers:

Maybe someone else can help flesh this category out (I believe ThaRegul8r has some other great stuff on him, Dipper 13 might as well), but both Wilt and Kareem have at (at least) one point called Nate their toughest defenders.

Wilt (from his eponymous autobiography):

Spoiler:

When I rejoined the Warriors that season, I’d missed all our exhibition games and our first five regular-season games, and the team was clearly in trouble. They’d had to change their whole style of play without me, and they’d lost four of those first five games, even though Nate Thurmond was already showing lashes of the brilliance that would soon make him one of the best centers in NBA history. In later years, when I had to play against Nate, I came to appreciate how tremendously talented he was. He’s probably the toughest center of all for me to play against—tougher than either Kareem Abdul-Jabbar *or* Bill Russell. Kareem says the same thing‚ that Nate gives him his hardest games. But Nate wasn’t mature enough yet to handle all the shifting around necessitated by my presence—and absence. In his rookie year, he was primarily a forward, playing about 25 minutes a game behind Wayne Hightower and Tom Meschery, and filling in at center only for the minute or two I missed. Then, when I got stuck in the hospital for so long in his second year, Alex had to shift Nate to center. When I returned to the lineup, it was back to forward for Nate. That’s a tough way for anyone to break into the NBA.

Kareem:

Spoiler:

Recently on Twitter, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was asked who was the greatest defender he ever faced. Kareem, who played from 1970 to 1989, didn’t respond with Wilt Chamberlain, Hakeem Olajuwon or Robert Parish. His answer was Nate Thurmond, a player that seems to be lost in modern NBA discussion, his legacy overshadowed by Wilt, Russell and Kareem. So who exactly was this man that defended the all-time leading scorer better than anyone else, and what made him special?

Nate Thurmond’s work ethic was tremendous. He never wanted to be outworked by his opponent.

"When I score on Nate, I know I've done something. He sweats and he wants you to sweat, too," said Kareem in an interview with Sport.

source (original sources are Twitter and Sport magazine): http://beatsdimesanddrives.blogspot.com ... -best.html

A nice article on Nate that was forwarded to me a while back:

Spoiler:

Here's something a bit longer:

http://www60.zippyshare.com/v/31226392/file.html

I have a hard copy of a third piece on Nate. Not sure how useful it is, but since he doesn't have an autobiography out there (or any biography), more information always helps. I'll see if I can scan it for you guys when I have a chance.
Nate on defending Wilt & Kareem:

Spoiler:

You played during the golden era of NBA centers and two of them – Wilt and Kareem – credit you as their toughest defender. How did you earn that praise?

Thurmond: First of all, it’s like for Muhammed Ali to be recognized as great, he had to have Joe Frazier. If I wanted to be known as a great defensive ballplayer, then I had to be able to stop other big men who liked to score. That was my attitude.

So any time I played against Wilt, any time I played against Kareem, it was a full night’s work, it was attention to detail, not let them get tip-ins or easy shots.

And I will say that with Wilt, I had an advantage because I practiced against him for a year-and-a-half. I was a kind of guy who liked to study his opponents. So I knew what he liked to do, what he didn’t like to do, etc.

With Kareem, when he first played against Wilt in L.A., I took a flight down to Los Angeles to see him play in person because I wanted to see his footwork on the hook shot. And once I saw that, I got back on the plane and the next night and that was the least amount of points he’d scored all season.

Studying great offensive players was the key to my game.

3) WOWY:

I'll defer to ElGee (or whoever else is interested) here if he wants to interpret, just thought I'd include this data. Nate seems to project as a reasonably positive impact player:

Spoiler:

source: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1333570

4) Team defenses:

Great regular season defenses from 67-69, and again in 72 and 73. In the playoffs, his team's defenses were terrific in 67 and 69. The numbers from 71-73 don't look great, but his teams faced exactly four opponents during that span: the Lakers once, and the Bucks three times.

Spoiler:

source: basketball-reference.com

5) Tape:

Obviously a bit of a highlight reel, but it might be useful in getting an idea visually of how Nate played:

Spoiler:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwS6dxlR6g[/youtube]

6) My concerns:

Physically I don't have much of a doubt he'd match up well in today's game. Nate probably played at 240lbs, was a legit 6'11" and I believe had a superior standing reach/wingspan when compared to Wilt. Maybe he isn't big enough to body a Shaq, but he gave Old Wilt and Kareem a legitimately difficult time.

I see Mutombo has been in the discussion for a bit now, and I appreciate his being mentioned. One of Deke's advantages over Nate is that we have legitimate +/- data on him. While WOWY and Team ORtg/DRtg give us a reasonable proxy to impact, they're not quite RAPM obviously.

Nate would legitimately stack up as a premier shotblocker in his prime. From articles in the Oakland Tribune, here are some mentions of block totals:

Spoiler:

66 - 3
67 - 6, 15, 8, 8, 6, 9, 8
68 - 12, 9
69 - 14, 2
70 - 5, 6
71 - 2, 8, 7, 2
72 - 8, 8, 2
73 - 7, 9, 9, 2, 5

Some comments:

69: "about six shots a game" (1/20/69)
72: “[best he’s been in] three or four years” ; “[h]e’s blocking so many shots now and he’s more mobile” (1/12/72)
72: “[i]t looked at times he was playing volleyball the way he was blocking shots” (1/28/72)
73: “[t]he thing about Nate’s shot blocking tonight was we were turning them into fast-break baskets” (1/5/73)

For those interested, here are his TRB% numbers (again, I'm not big on box score numbers, but these might be valuable for some):

Spoiler:

pre-B-R (source: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=955514):
64 - 16.45 (14.27 playoffs)
65 - 17.14
66 - 17.34
67 - 18.81 (17.92 playoffs)
68 - 19.46
69 - 17.70 (16.42 playoffs)
70 - 17.21
B-R:
71 - 14.8 (12.3 playoffs)
72 - 16.6 (17.7 playoffs)
73 - 18.0 (15.1 playoffs)
74 - 16.8
75 - 17.3 (17.8 playoffs)
76 - 15.3 (16.6 playoffs)
77 - 19.1 (47.5 playoffs)

The numbers before 64-65 and after 74-75 don't really have as much value since Nate wasn't a full-time player. Durability and longevity are legitimate concerns for him to be honest. He missed a good deal of time, particularly in 68, 70. Barry jumped shipped for the ABA after the Warriors' Finals appearance in 67, but you'd have to think that Nate missing as much time as he did hurt them.

Nate also took a good deal more shots than you'd like him to during his career. Had a fadeaway with some range (see the video linked above), but he was terribly inefficient. Nate was considered arguably the best screen setter of his era and seems to have been a great passer for a big, but I don't think I'd be content with him as an offensive anchor, or a major contributor on that end.

Bottom line: Am I comfortable voting for Thurmond here? I think so. I'm not 100% convinced he's the best big man on the board (though I'm also not 100% convinced he isn't), but there's been a run of guards and wings recently (aside from Gilmore I believe), so Nate might warrant consideration. Reed or Dwight to me would be the other two big men that should be in discussions coming up (apologies if I'm forgetting anybody), but neither has a legitimate longevity/durability edge on Thurmond (who, again, does have real injury concerns) upon a cursory glance (Dwight might develop one throughout his career, and both were definitely better offensively than Nate).

[penbeast0]

Nate was a major defensive force; better than Mutombo? I don't know; I'd rather have Nate as a man defender on the centers of his day than Mutombo on the centers of Deke's day but there were more post up centers in Nate's day so you didn't need to come out on the floor as much. Similarly, there is no doubt Thurmond was a good help center also; as good as Mutombo? I'd have to be convinced of that.

My problem is that I think of Nate Thurmond as an absolute negative offensively. An inefficient volume scoring big in an era where bigs had much better efficiency numbers than smaller players and not a particularly good passer either; made Elvin Hayes's offense look good. Mutombo may not be a good offensive player but he was reasonably efficient on relatively low usage letting his teammates take the lead. It may not be Nate's fault that they tried to force him to be a scoring hub when he was poorly suited to the role, but it is the role he played.

[ceiling raiser]

Nate was a major defensive force; better than Mutombo? I don't know; I'd rather have Nate as a man defender on the centers of his day than Mutombo on the centers of Deke's day but there were more post up centers in Nate's day so you didn't need to come out on the floor as much. Similarly, there is no doubt Thurmond was a good help center also; as good as Mutombo? I'd have to be convinced of that.

My problem is that I think of Nate Thurmond as an absolute negative offensively. An inefficient volume scoring big in an era where bigs had much better efficiency numbers than smaller players and not a particularly good passer either; made Elvin Hayes's offense look good. Mutombo may not be a good offensive player but he was reasonably efficient on relatively low usage letting his teammates take the lead. It may not be Nate's fault that they tried to force him to be a scoring hub when he was poorly suited to the role, but it is the role he played.

Two questions:

1) What do you think Nate's ideal role offensively would be today?

2) Do you think he'd have any problem accepting that role? I haven't heard any issues about ego/conflicts with coaches or teammates, and he seems well-grounded from articles/interviews, so I'd think so, but just want to be sure.

[lorak]

Are there any games with Thurmond on youtube, where we can see his GOAT level man to man defense?

[ceiling raiser]

Are there any games with Thurmond on youtube, where we can see his GOAT level man to man defense?

I'm not sure if they're on YouTube, but here are the games of him that exist somewhere in the trading community according to ihaveplanet.com:

Dec. 24 1967 - @ SEA
Jan. 4 1974 - @ LAL
Apr. 13 1975 - @ KCO (playoffs)
Apr. 20 1975 - vs. KCO (playoffs)
May 4 1975 - vs. GSW (playoffs)
May 11 1975 - vs. GSW (playoffs)
May 14 1975 - @ GSW (playoffs)

Not sure how many are complete. There are some more games from his last two seasons, but he was only averaging 20 or fewer minutes a night, so they might not be valuable.

I messaged Dipper 13, so maybe he has some links.

[Owly]

Are there any games with Thurmond on youtube, where we can see his GOAT level man to man defense?

I'm not sure if they're on YouTube, but here are the games of him that exist somewhere in the trading community according to ihaveplanet.com:

Dec. 24 1967 - @ SEA
Jan. 4 1974 - @ LAL
Apr. 13 1975 - @ KCO (playoffs)
Apr. 20 1975 - vs. KCO (playoffs)
May 4 1975 - vs. GSW (playoffs)
May 11 1975 - vs. GSW (playoffs)
May 14 1975 - @ GSW (playoffs)

Not sure how many are complete. There are some more games from his last two seasons, but he was only averaging 20 or fewer minutes a night, so they might not be valuable.

I messaged Dipper 13, so maybe he has some links.

Even if they are out there and became available, to get a fair view of the impact of a good man defender you'd probably want to see them against strong offensive centers. Off the top of my head you're looking at games against Bob Rule, Elmore Smith, Sam Lacey (x2) and Ray and Johnson (x3). Not bad players but really notable scorers with the exception of Rule (and even he isn't exactly elite). Not that I wouldn't love to see these games if they're out there, I'm in favour of as many games being available as possible, just that I'm not sure they'd necessarily show Thurmond's full impact.


Anyhow, the most obvious way to see Thurmond's man D impact would be to look at Jabbar's series numbers versus him. The impact isn't absolutely consistent, but (for instance) Thurmond might have the best claim to (boxscore) outplaying Jabbar over a series in the 70s. IIRC there's one year that's roughly even at a time when Jabbar was dominant, and he frequently brought down down Jabbar's fg% quite a lot (vague recollection of something like 60% RS to mid 40s not being atypical). I think the main threads I've seen it on are on ISH. I don't know their sources, so can't absoultely guarantee the numbers are right (though why make them up?), but assuming they are accurate they did seem to suggest significant impact.

[ceiling raiser]

Are there any games with Thurmond on youtube, where we can see his GOAT level man to man defense?

I'm not sure if they're on YouTube, but here are the games of him that exist somewhere in the trading community according to ihaveplanet.com:

Dec. 24 1967 - @ SEA
Jan. 4 1974 - @ LAL
Apr. 13 1975 - @ KCO (playoffs)
Apr. 20 1975 - vs. KCO (playoffs)
May 4 1975 - vs. GSW (playoffs)
May 11 1975 - vs. GSW (playoffs)
May 14 1975 - @ GSW (playoffs)

Not sure how many are complete. There are some more games from his last two seasons, but he was only averaging 20 or fewer minutes a night, so they might not be valuable.

I messaged Dipper 13, so maybe he has some links.

Even if they are out there and became available, to get a fair view of the impact of a good man defender you'd probably want to see them against strong offensive centers. Off the top of my head you're looking at games against Bob Rule, Elmore Smith, Sam Lacey (x2) and Ray and Johnson (x3). Not bad players but really notable scorers with the exception of Rule (and even he isn't exactly elite). Not that I wouldn't love to see these games if they're out there, I'm in favour of as many games being available as possible, just that I'm not sure they'd necessarily show Thurmond's full impact.


Anyhow, the most obvious way to see Thurmond's man D impact would be to look at Jabbar's series numbers versus him. The impact isn't absolutely consistent, but (for instance) Thurmond might have the best claim to (boxscore) outplaying Jabbar over a series in the 70s. IIRC there's one year that's roughly even at a time when Jabbar was dominant, and he frequently brought down down Jabbar's fg% quite a lot (vague recollection of something like 60% RS to mid 40s not being atypical). I think the main threads I've seen it on are on ISH. I don't know their sources, so can't absoultely guarantee the numbers are right (though why make them up?), but assuming they are accurate they did seem to suggest significant impact.

I posted the boxscore numbers (courtesy of Djoker/danko8) for Jabbar in my first post of the thread (in a spoiler though, didn't want to take up too much vertical space):

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

1970: 21.0 ppg on 34.8 %FG
1971: 26.6 ppg on 48.8 %FG
1972: 24.0 ppg on 44.1 %FG
1973: 25.8 ppg on 48.8 %FG

vs Nate: 25.1 ppg on 45.6 %FG
vs Everyone: 30.5 ppg on 55.3 %FG

1971 PS: 27.8 ppg on 48.9 %FG
1972 PS: 22.8 ppg on 40.5 %FG
1973 PS: 22.8 ppg on 42.7 %FG

vs Nate PS: 24.4 ppg on 43.8 %FG
vs Everyone: 29.7 ppg on 51.0 %FG