RealGM Top 100 List #41

[penbeast0]

VOTE: Dwight Howard though I'm open to arguments. Miller and Pierce just don't seem to have the same impact for me although their longevity is certainly a strong advantage.

Howard 10 years, 768 games, 35.9minute per game
18.7reb 2.2ast 4.5to 26.5pts per 100 possessions @ .599ts%
18.7 2.0 4.9 28.3 @.613 for his playoff career
3xDPOY, 4x All-Defense 1st, 1x All-Defense 2nd

Mourning 10 years (+5 injury riddled ones) 31.0 mpg
14.5reb 1.9ast 4.5to 29.1pts per 100 possessions @ .583ts%
14.1 1.7 4.9 27.3 @ .570 for playoffs
2x DPOY, 2x All-Defense 1st (never even made 2nd any other year)

McHale 12 years 31.0mpg
11.4reb 2.7ast 3.0to 27.8pts per 100 possessions @ .605ts%
10.9 2.4 2.8 27.6 @ .618 for playoffs
3x1st All-Defense, 2x 2nd All-Defense

Motombo 16 years (+2 partials) 30.8mpg
17.6reb 1.8ast 3.1to 16.7pts per 100 possessions @ .573ts%
17.2 1.4 2.7 16.4 @ .587 for playoffs
4x DPOY 4x1st All-Defense 3x2nd All-Defense

Just wanted to put the box score numbers up. Except for longevity, Dwight Howard seems to have the edge, Mutombo certainly has the edge there. Howard also played the most minutes during his prime. He did have a system tailored to maximize his impact in Orlando and really ugly A/T numbers (Zo is even worse!), but also plays in an era where the rules have been slanted more to favor perimeter players. Deke had some nice playoff series but Dwight carried less talent farther. I do have some maturity concerns with Dwight that do not exist for any of the others but overall I favor Dwight of these 4 despite the passing which really hurts him.

. . . .

Reed v Cowens v. Beaty

All three shared some things in common . . . undersized, mobile centers with good range and good defense. Reed is the strongest, Cowens the most physical, Beaty has a Bill Laimbeer/Vlade Divac rep for annoying opps with a lot of dirty/veteran tricks.

All had shortened careers, Reed played only 7 years over 20 games in a season, Cowens played 10 but with increasing missed games plus a half year attempted comeback in Milwaukee, Beaty played 12 seasons (2 as reserve) but 2 were cut short by his recurring knee injuries; it's not a coincidence that his best season (72 in Utah) came after being forced to sit out a year. Beaty is considered a step down from Reed and Cowens but seems a reasonable comp to show their strengths.

Prime numbers

Reed (67-71) 20.5ppg 13.5reb 2ast .540ts%
Cowens (72-76) 19.5ppg 15.5reb 4ast .495ts%
Beaty* (65-69) 20ppg 12reb 1.5ast .535ts%
*(using NBA numbers only)

As the numbers show, Cowens was the best passer and rebounder, but the worst shooter. Reed is slightly better than Beaty in all areas but only slightly (and the NBA had expansion in these years so Reed was playing against slightly inferior competition). Beaty has the longevity edge. Very comparable players if you consider their defensive abilities roughly equal. I didn't use Beaty's ABA years because I don't want to get into a debate about how much to discount them.

The main non-big prospect seems to be Paul Pierce. I don't have him up there with the top bigs, never got the impression he had that kind of impact on a game. I have him roughly equal with Alex English and a bit above Dantley, Nique, or Richmond. I am open to arguments for Sam Jones or Paul Arizin but the comps we had 2 threads ago had them looking like a bit below Dolph Schayes who I don't have up with the best bigs left, though I am open to being convinced.

There are also a lot of short career prospects. The shortest and greatest peak would be Walton; others would include Connie Hawkins or Sidney Moncrief on the wing, Nate Archibald (short peak anyway) or Kevin Johnson for point guards.

Willing to listen . . . .

[Quotatious]

I'll just post the very same response as I did in the previous thread, because I feel pretty strongly about Pierce at this point. His overall resume (skillset/prime/longevity/portability) seems to be the best of anyone left, to me.

Vote - Paul Pierce



Okay, so now I can finally vote for Pierce. Honestly, I felt like he was a very deserving candidate also at 38 and 39 (or even as early as 36), but I was trying to be cautious, and rate him fairly (because I may be a little biased, he's my #1 favorite player).

I could really write a lengthy post, describing Pierce's game at any given point of his career, but I don't think it's really necessary - he's a current player and basically all of us saw him play in his prime.

So, I'll say this - Pierce was a top 10 player in the league in a few seasons (2002, 2003, 2006, 2008), very good scorer (usually clearly above average efficiency, even during his volume scoring, 25+ PPG seasons, during a really inefficient era, like the early 2000s). Very good rebounder, decent playmaker (it's never been his best role, and he usually turned the ball over a bit too often, when asked to play like a point forward, but he could certainly create off the dribble in half-court, even without screens, just using his footwork and a vast array of fakes and spin moves), above average defender, career-wise (at times, I even thought that he deserved some All-Defensive 2nd team consideration - 2002 and 2005, in particular, if we're talking about about the pre-Big 3 era). Inconsistent playoff performer, but not a bad one, and it's understandable considering how much pressure opposing defenses were putting on your team's star wing player, in the era where a lot of teams were basically "one man teams", like for example the Raptors with VC, Sixers with AI, Magic with T-Mac, Celtics with Pierce (okay, Toine was certainly talented, but Pierce was a much better player than him, and your primary goal as an opposing coach was to slow down PP).

Truth's best argument may be his overall scoring arsenal (creating off the dribble, pick & rolls, get to the rim, shoot a midrange jumper, 3-ball, post game, amazing footwork, change of pace and direction, and also an excellent ability to get to the foul line, as well as even play some point forward, at times).

Pierce looks pretty well in RAPM (sometimes almost elite, like 2002, 2005, 2008, even 2009) as well as boxscore numbers, and he's remarkably consistent throughout his career. Also a very portable player - had a pretty smooth transition from your typical volume scoring wing, to a 19 point scorer on very high efficiency, with good all-around game and defense (very high basketball IQ and great toughness/competitive nature).

Even his peak was pretty good - IMO just outside the top 5 in 2002 (that's IMO his overall peak, offense + defense), and top 10 in a very stacked year, in terms of the top level talent, like 2006 (I'd say that's his offensive peak, but his defense was clearly worse than usual, so I'd say 2002 was slightly better, overall) - in '06, he also had a stretch when he could totally go toe-to-toe with the very best wings in the league (on February 15, he dropped 50/7/8 on 56% TS against LeBron, then on February 26th he scored 39 against Kobe, who had 40, but PP had higher percentage from the field, and in the very next game, scored 38 against Wade and the Heat, on March 1st) - I know it looks like I'm cherry-picking, but I'm not implying that Pierce was as good as Kobe, LeBron or Wade - he certainly wasn't as athletic as these guys, and as a result, not nearly as capable of performing at that level consistently, but on a good day, he was just as good as any player in the league, and certainly wasn't afraid of any opponent, especially his matchups with Kobe were always pretty intense (http://bkref.com/tiny/CHzSM <------- here are Pierce's career numbers against Kobe - pretty interesting that they're almost equal in the RS - obviously, I'm NOT trying to say that Pierce was as good as Kobe, no, it would be insane, but he certainly stepped up his game in those matchups).

Where Pierce really shines is his longevity - almost 16 seasons as a meaningful contributor, including about 6 seasons as a superstar, and a very long prime (I'd say 2001-11 was his prime, so 10.5 seasons, counting his 2006-07 season, when he played just 47 games, as half a season).

Looking back at my votes in the previous threads, and this analysis of Pierce, right here, he actually seems to have a very good case against someone like Isiah.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Paul Pierce.

Pierce = very good all-around game. Gives you very very good scoring (always decent to very good efficiency, even when putting up large volume), very good play-making from the SF, good rebounding, and entirely decent (probably underrated) defense.
He can scale it up to lift a poor or mediocre team, yet has the portability to fit in as #2 (or 1B) on a more talent-laden contender. With the exception of one awful series in '04, he pretty consistently upped his game in playoffs during his prime, and in the last handful of years has (imo) been one of the most clutch guys in the league.

RAPM: his 5-year best is on par with Dwight Howard; his 3-year best is barely behind what data we have for Reggie Miller; he's had 16 consecutive positive seasons. Which brings us to the longevity case: 16 value-added seasons. Looks good via WOWY data, too.

He's 25th all-time in career rs WS.
He's 38th all-time in career playoff WS.

"...The Truth will set you free" -John 8:32.



Can I get an amen?!?!

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Bill Walton

Surprised no mention yet. Sure didn't last a whole lot of time in the NBA but when he was there he led the Blazers to it's first title, won league mvp one year and outplayed peak in Kareem in a playoff series sweeping him with an inferior team and no HCA.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Bill Walton

Surprised no mention yet. Sure didn't last a whole lot of time in the NBA but when he was there he led the Blazers to it's first title, won league mvp one year and outplayed peak in Kareem in a playoff series sweeping him with an inferior team and no HCA.

You may have just outed yourself as not actually reading the discussion in this project. He's received multi-post discussion on multiple threads; has even received votes in multiple past threads.

[john248]

Considering Pierce, Ray Allen, Dwight, McHale, and Pau for this spot. Most likely going with Pierce though because I like his game and longevity. TMac, Nique and Manu are worth a mention too.

[lorak]

If I recall correctly...

What issue

He's telling you. "RAPM is a process that makes it so that 1 "point" of value in its results is no longer the same thing as 1 point on the scoreboard".

[/quote]

Please elaborate - why do you think 1 APM point is equal to 1 scoreboard point and 1 RAPM isn't equal to 1 socreboard point?

[drza]

(Modified post from last thread, removing Reggie Miller and focusing on the bigs vs Pierce)

Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo, Rasheed Wallace and/or Dwight Howard vs Pierce

Right now, I'm looking more at the dominant defensive bigs of the most recent eras, particular Zo Mourning, Mutombo and Howard (actually, I guess Sheed may just fit into this group as well, so I won't rule him out as a candidate either).

The player getting the most traction thus far in this thread has been Pierce. He's mainly here for his offensive contributions, though Pierce's well-rounded game does include solid defense on the wing as well. But without going into heavy analysis, I feel like the dominant defensive big is a more valuable commodity than a good scoring wing of similar caliber. The big is the more limited resource, he can change the way the game is played, and you could build a strong unit around them without having to bring in other All-Star caliber defenders. No one can make a defensive unit elite by themselves, but if you surround Mutombo or Mourning with 4 reasonable defenders/defensive role players in a good defensive system you should get one of the better defenses in the league. On the other hand, even with a good system, if Pierce is your offensive anchor but your other four offensive players are role players/reasonable offensive types it's unlikely that you've got one of the best offenses in the league.

That was a rambling way to say that. Let me try again. The dominant defensive bigs can be your franchise centerpiece on that end of the floor, and this group can also contribute to some extent on offense as well (varying from offensive neutral with some valuable attributes to semi-offensive force). Pierce isn't really the franchise centerpiece type for a good team at either end...he's more of an excellent offensive lieutenant that can also contribute to the defense. Which is a very valuable thing, but not as valuable to my eyes as a true franchise, dominant defensive big.

Estimating impact
If we wanted to put numbers to it, we'd have to use RAPM as much as possible because the box score stats just don't do relative defensive impact that well. That's another reason that I'm focusing here on players that at least overlapped some of their prime with the databall era, so that we can try to quantify their relative impacts a bit. Once again, using Doc MJ's normalized PI RAPM spreadsheet form 1998 - 2012 (with disclaimers as mentioned before):

3-year peaks (best 3 1-year scores from 1998 - 2012, averaged together):

Mourning: +8.8 *
Rasheed Wallace: +8.2
Howard: +6.7 *
Mutombo: +6.7 *
Pierce: +6.3

(*I put asterisks next to Mourning and Mutombo because the 1998 cut-off missed big chunks of their primes so their best numbers could be even better. Similarly, Howard's best 3 scores come from 2010 - 2012, but 2009 was very arguably his best season and there's a famous calculation conundrum with calculating RAPM for the 2009 Magic (e.g. that Howard and Gortat played all available center minutes with 0 overlap between them) so I'd argue that it's very possible that Howard's 2009 RAPM score as listed is too low)

There's a clear difference here between the measured RAPM peaks of the best dominant defensive bigs than Pierce. To me, this helps quantify some of the qualitative descriptions that I rambled through above. Pierce was a very high impact players, but the bigs had more.

Let's also look at the offensive and defensive splits. Because say, for example, you have a player that's dominant on one end but weak on the other end. With the right coaching you could possibly embellish their strengths and hide their weaknesses enough to make them more valuable than a more rounded player (think Phoenix version of Steve Nash, or perhaps Allen Iverson). Also, keep in mind that the offensive and defensive 3-year peaks may not necessarily be the same years so combining the following 2 numbers won't necessarily result in the numbers above:

Offense 3-year RAPM peaks:
Pierce: +4.6
Mourning: +3.7 (+3.3 with 1998 correction)
Sheed: +3.5
Howard: +3.3
Mutombo: +0.0

Defense 3-year RAPM peaks:
Mutombo: +8.7 (7.9 w/ '98 correction)
Mourning: +6.0 (+5.5 w/ '98 correction)
Sheed: +5.7
Howard: +4.7
Pierce: +3.4

Among this group, Mutombo stands out as the most one-sided that a smart coach could build a unit around (to differentiate from just looking at the pure overall RAPM scores). Mutombo's defensive impact looks larger than Pierce's combined impact. And among the more 2-way players, Mourning and Sheed's defensive impact was larger than Pierce's offensive, and interestingly their offense was also a bit better than Pierce's defense.

Anyway, the point isn't to scrape the decimal points to look for differences because a) RAPM isn't that precise and b) we know of an issue with the 1998 values that could change some of these estimates by some tenths of points. But the point is to look on a more macro scale, and on that scale it seems to me that this group of bigs tends to have overall more impact and more specialized impact than the two wings, making them more valuable commodities.

Now, the longevity point is out there on the table Pierce has great longevity. Sheed and Mutombo have pretty strong longevity themselves, but by dint of health (Zo) and age (Howard) both of them have about a decade of longevity to work with. Everyone's mileage can (and has) varied widely on what to do with longevity. But for me, I don't think Pierce's longevity advantages is enough for them to shoot to the top of this particular grouping. Thus, my vote in this thread likely comes from among the 4 bigs I discussed here.

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

Reed v Cowens v. Beaty

All three shared some things in common . . . undersized, mobile centers with good range and good defense. Reed is the strongest, Cowens the most physical, Beaty has a Bill Laimbeer/Vlade Divac rep for annoying opps with a lot of dirty/veteran tricks.

All had shortened careers, Reed played only 7 years over 20 games in a season, Cowens played 10 but with increasing missed games plus a half year attempted comeback in Milwaukee, Beaty played 12 seasons (2 as reserve) but 2 were cut short by his recurring knee injuries; it's not a coincidence that his best season (72 in Utah) came after being forced to sit out a year. Beaty is considered a step down from Reed and Cowens but seems a reasonable comp to show their strengths.

Prime numbers

Reed (67-71) 20.5ppg 13.5reb 2ast .540ts%
Cowens (72-76) 19.5ppg 15.5reb 4ast .495ts%
Beaty* (65-69) 20ppg 12reb 1.5ast .535ts%
*(using NBA numbers only)

As the numbers show, Cowens was the best passer and rebounder, but the worst shooter. Reed is slightly better than Beaty in all areas but only slightly (and the NBA had expansion in these years so Reed was playing against slightly inferior competition). Beaty has the longevity edge. Very comparable players if you consider their defensive abilities roughly equal. I didn't use Beaty's ABA years because I don't want to get into a debate about how much to discount them.

The main non-big prospect seems to be Paul Pierce. I don't have him up there with the top bigs, never got the impression he had that kind of impact on a game. I have him roughly equal with Alex English and a bit above Dantley, Nique, or Richmond. I am open to arguments for Sam Jones or Paul Arizin but the comps we had 2 threads ago had them looking like a bit below Dolph Schayes who I don't have up with the best bigs left, though I am open to being convinced.

There are also a lot of short career prospects. The shortest and greatest peak would be Walton; others would include Connie Hawkins or Sidney Moncrief on the wing, Nate Archibald (short peak anyway) or Kevin Johnson for point guards.

Willing to listen . . . .

Having seen very VERY little footage of him playing, I'd assumed Zelmo wasn't all that good defensively (based on something I'd read once). After reading your post, though, I was reading some other stuff online that indicated he was actually decent on that end.
Why, do you think, is this guy repeatedly passed over historically? Casual fans I'm sure have never even heard of him. A couple years ago I figured him only around the ~#175 rank; and I noted he's never made the top 100 here in the past.

But recently I'm coming to the conclusion that he does indeed deserve some consideration (though not in the peri-50 range, imo).

[Joao Saraiva]

Isn't it time to start talking about Allen Iverson?

Accodales:
- MVP;
- 4 time scoring champion;
- 3 time steal leader;
- 7 times leader in MPG - proves his durability;
- 11 times all-star;
- voted top 5 in MVP runs 3 times;
- 2 all-star MVP awards;
- Rookie of the year;


Allen Iverson was a great volume scorer. I know he didn't do it with the best efficiency, but there are reasons for it. His roster in Philadelphia were actually not that good, and they didn't have another good option scoring points. Also Iverson was playing a ton of minutes, so he will naturally feel tired at some point, decreasing his efficiency. He went to the NBA finals playing 46.2 MPG in 2001! How is he supposed to be deadly efficient?

Another point I see about Iverson's efficiency: when he was past his peak, he went to Denver. He produced 25.6 PPG on 55.9ts%. For a guard, that's a good contribution, both in terms of volume and efficiency.

Iverson had one of the most impressive seasons in 2001, that post season was truly amazing, and it takes a special talent to take that team to the NBA finals. That roster has Cleveland 2007 written all over it, and I think most us would agree LeBron taking that team to the NBA finals was a win in his career. Iverson taking Philadelphia to the NBA finals has to be regarded as a great win aswell.

Isiah got voted in earlier, and he wasn't exactly the king of efficiency. In terms of scoring Isiah wasn't at Iverson's level, and in terms of playmaking he turned the ball a lot more than Iverson.

Also Allen Iverson was a great playmaker, despite what some might say. He averaged above 7 APG 5 times in his career. That's a great accomplishment, considering he was putting a crazy volume in scoring too.

I don't know if Iverson deserves this particular spot, but I hope he gets consideration to be in the top 45.

[trex_8063]

Once Pierce gets in, I could get behind Iverson. Pierce is the only guy not yet voted in who I very firmly have ahead of Iverson (handful of other guys I probably/might rank ahead of Iverson, too).

So first off, I want to get Pierce in. I know that doesn't mean I can't also be writing some supportive stuff for Iverson, but to be frank, he's not a fav around here (to put it lightly); so it'd be a quixotic endeavor at this point.

[DayofMourning]

I'd take Zo over Deke, PP, or Howard any day of the week. Its sad that Zo finally got his head straight (focused his emotions) and then went down with a severe disease. We could have had 3 plus years of dominant Zo with a darn good team around him to magnify his effectiveness. That likely would have polished his resume and maybe sent the Heat to a Finals behind his leadership. Could've beens....

Having said that, I don't know if I'd consider him a top 50 player, or 41st as this thread might be suggesting.

P.S. Its been stated before, but he was not a good passer. Not even average I'd say. His mindset didn't allow for that part of his game to develop.

[john248]

I'm considering Iverson a little later. I think he may be a top 50-60 guy. I only keep a top 50 list and have started adding names to the pool as they are brought up in this project, and I do look at him favorably.

[Jaivl]

"RealGM is this", "RealGM is that". RealGM is considering all options, but just doesn't think Iverson deserves it yet. He's receiving a lot of mentions and he is gonna enter sooner or later, in the top 50-55 for sure.

I'd personally be surprised if AI gets before Deke, though.

[tsherkin]

Hmmm.

Pierce, Ray-Ray, Dwight, Zo, Deke. All interesting choices.

Not ready to consider AI yet, because I still think he's overrated based solely on crappy volume scoring and a one-year peak where his team defense outstripped the roster's offensive inadequacy, which really shouldn't be an ATG sell IMO.

Someone like Dwight has a more sustained peak of team success correlating with his performance, was properly dominating his major area of impact (defense and rebounding) and had more than one significant postseason run.

I do believe we're getting closer to AI. Second half top 40s, maybe, top 50s certainly. IMO, he won't and shouldn't slip much farther, but I just don't see him yet.


For me, this is a contest between Zo, Dwight and Pierce. Cowens is an entertaining diversion, but not there for me just yet. Billy C is on my mind. McGrady is hovering in a zone similar to AI for me. Melo and Nique in the same general zone. Alex English, Tim Bug, Grant Hill, Squid, Mitch Richmond, B-King, Mullin, Big Ben, Tony Parker, Billups, Mark Price, Vince, Dantley, Dumars...

[EDIT: Mention for Glen Rice. Doesn't really deserve to get into the top 50, but he was pretty impressive, especially his short-3 peak in 97.]

Lots of guys coming up in a clump that are a little tough to separate. Tons of individually impressive wings who weren't quite at the Next Level like many who've already gone.

Right now, I'd say Zo/Dwight/Pierce are my next three choices in one order or another. I think Pierce has been constantly devalued because he wasn't a 30 ppg guy, even though he was the best on the wing at consistently drawing fouls in the worst era for that we've seen in ages, and was a 25+ ppg scorer 5 times (3 in a row BEFORE the 05 rules change), peaking at 26.1 ppg before 05 and 26.8 after. Post, slash, PnR, 3pt shot, FT shooting and draw, just the whole package.

My big deal with Pierce is that he generally sucked ass in the playoffs before 05. Now, that's only 3 seasons and 30 games, but he was typically quite unimpressive, shooting poorly and generally not showing up the way he did in the RS. Obviously, SINCE then, the story has been quite different. His teams were crap and he wasn't as experienced, shouldering more of a load, etc. But I penalize McGrady and Iverson and others for the same because they don't hold to the standard of the truly remarkable individual offensive players, so Pierce must then face the same critique. That said, because of his ability to draw fouls, his efficiency was only properly awful in 04, was quite good in 03 and was around league average in 02. Of course, 12 and 13 weren't exactly banner years for him either, but still. In this section of the project, a player of this sort fits in nicely.

He's a B-level first star, which is still quite nice, and a fan-bloody-tastic second star.

Zo and Dwight are hard for me to separate. They are quite similar in root concept, each a little better than the other at one thing or another. I like Zo's range, Dwight's rebounding, etc, etc. THe main pro-Howard argument is longevity, though, and it's not insignificant.


I think I'll vote Dwight Howard here, then Pierce for #42, in an appropriate DA reference, since Pierce loves his towels.

[Basketballefan]

Considering Pierce, Ray Allen, Dwight, McHale, and Pau for this spot. Most likely going with Pierce though because I like his game and longevity. TMac, Nique and Manu are worth a mention too.

Not Manu. I don't think his production has been enough. He's only had one season of 20 ppg.

[tsherkin]

Considering Pierce, Ray Allen, Dwight, McHale, and Pau for this spot. Most likely going with Pierce though because I like his game and longevity. TMac, Nique and Manu are worth a mention too.

Not Manu. I don't think his production has been enough. He's only had one season of 20 ppg.

It's possible that you could frame a reason for Manu not belonging at this stage of the argument, but that wasn't it.

Jason Kidd, for example, has ZERO seasons at 20 ppg, invalidating your entire line of reasoning.

What you're probably trying to say is that, between his health issues and limited minutes, his on-court productivity doesn't really stand up to everyone else outside of stuff like RAPM.

Also, dismissing his 19.5 ppg season in order to make your arbitrary scoring volume criterion work was disingenuous.

[Basketballefan]

Considering Pierce, Ray Allen, Dwight, McHale, and Pau for this spot. Most likely going with Pierce though because I like his game and longevity. TMac, Nique and Manu are worth a mention too.

Not Manu. I don't think his production has been enough. He's only had one season of 20 ppg.

It's possible that you could frame a reason for Manu not belonging at this stage of the argument, but that wasn't it.

Jason Kidd, for example, has ZERO seasons at 20 ppg, invalidating your entire line of reasoning.

What you're probably trying to say is that, between his health issues and limited minutes, his on-court productivity doesn't really stand up to everyone else outside of stuff like RAPM.

Also, dismissing his 19.5 ppg season in order to make your arbitrary scoring volume criterion work was disingenuous.

Jason kidd was a terrible example. Hes's a point guard who's role was never to take on such scoring loads. I clearly said Manu's production wasn't enough meaning his output of ppg rpg apg, defense etc.

Also where the hell did i dismiss his 19.5 ppg season? I said he had one season of 20 ppg and that was it. So don't put words in my mouth.

[tsherkin]

Jason kidd was a terrible example. Hes's a point guard who's role was never to take on such scoring loads.

No, he's a perfect example, since your comment was devoid of contextual reasoning or any explanation for why mere scoring volume should matter. You said, in response to john's comment:

Not Manu. I don't think his production has been enough. He's only had one season of 20 ppg.

There's absolutely NO comment on role, where the player's value lies, playoff performance, , just a bland comment regarding scoring volume. You didn't even consider minutes per game.

Manu's been a 20+ ppg scoring in the playoffs twice and 18+ in two other seasons. He's a career postseason 29.8 mpg player and 27.1 mpg in the regular season.

RS: 14.7 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 4.0 apg, 45.2% FG (50.2% 2FG), 37.0% 3P, 83.3% FT, 58.9% TS, 114 ORTG
PS: 15.4 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 4.0 apg, 43.6% FG (48.6% 2FG), 36.3% 3P, 82.1% FT, 58.2% TS, 111 ORTG

Pretty solid stuff from him.

Note that I don't necessarily disagree with you; I don't think Manu really has a place here at this point in the project; I suspect his mention extends from participating in multiple title runs as a significant contributor. I think he generally didn't spend enough time on the court to really stand with the titans we're discussing, since he was typically number 3 behind Duncan and Parker, even once Pops reorganized the squad's order of battle on offense.

But I actually expound upon these points instead of making fodder commentary about an arbitrary scoring volume marker, which was my original point.

You didn't put any effort into that comment; you didn't note Manu's value as a change-of-pace guy, or his PnR activity, or the value of his full-floor offensive utility, etc, etc. You didn't really treat the player, you just looked at scoring volume, which as a wholly empty way of participating in this sort of discussion.

I clearly said Manu's production wasn't enough meaning his output of ppg rpg apg, defense etc.

Also where the hell did i dismiss his 19.5 ppg season? I said he had one season of 20 ppg and that was it. So don't put words in my mouth.

That was actually me misreading what you wrote as "he doesn't even have one season of 20 ppg," so my bad on that one. Need more coffee, oops! But no, you didn't say anything about his production besides scoring volume.

"I don't think his production has been enough" is still an impotent statement devoid of content. You clearly measured production mainly through his scoring volume, so my original criticism still stands, regardless of what you thought you were implying... especially since what you were implying still relies upon contextual factors which you blithely ignored. Please in the future actually address such issues, so as to foster legitimate conversation, in line with the purpose of this project.

[Basketballefan]

Jason kidd was a terrible example. Hes's a point guard who's role was never to take on such scoring loads.

No, he's a perfect example, since your comment was devoid of contextual reasoning or any explanation for why mere scoring volume should matter. You said, in response to john's comment:

Not Manu. I don't think his production has been enough. He's only had one season of 20 ppg.

There's absolutely NO comment on role, where the player's value lies, playoff performance, , just a bland comment regarding scoring volume. You didn't even consider minutes per game.

Manu's been a 20+ ppg scoring in the playoffs twice and 18+ in two other seasons. He's a career postseason 29.8 mpg player and 27.1 mpg in the regular season.

RS: 14.7 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 4.0 apg, 45.2% FG (50.2% 2FG), 37.0% 3P, 83.3% FT, 58.9% TS, 114 ORTG
PS: 15.4 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 4.0 apg, 43.6% FG (48.6% 2FG), 36.3% 3P, 82.1% FT, 58.2% TS, 111 ORTG

Pretty solid stuff from him.

Note that I don't necessarily disagree with you; I don't think Manu really has a place here at this point in the project; I suspect his mention extends from participating in multiple title runs as a significant contributor. I think he generally didn't spend enough time on the court to really stand with the titans we're discussing, since he was typically number 3 behind Duncan and Parker, even once Pops reorganized the squad's order of battle on offense.

But I actually expound upon these points instead of making fodder commentary about an arbitrary scoring volume marker, which was my original point.

You didn't put any effort into that comment; you didn't note Manu's value as a change-of-pace guy, or his PnR activity, or the value of his full-floor offensive utility, etc, etc. You didn't really treat the player, you just looked at scoring volume, which as a wholly empty way of participating in this sort of discussion.

I clearly said Manu's production wasn't enough meaning his output of ppg rpg apg, defense etc.

Also where the hell did i dismiss his 19.5 ppg season? I said he had one season of 20 ppg and that was it. So don't put words in my mouth.

That was actually me misreading what you wrote as "he doesn't even have one season of 20 ppg," so my bad on that one. Need more coffee, oops! But no, you didn't say anything about his production besides scoring volume.

"I don't think his production has been enough" is still an impotent statement devoid of content. You clearly measured production mainly through his scoring volume, so my original criticism still stands, regardless of what you thought you were implying... especially since what you were implying still relies upon contextual factors which you blithely ignored. Please in the future actually address such issues, so as to foster legitimate conversation, in line with the purpose of this project.

Well im happy you felt the need to respond with an essay, over a point that shouldve been understood without the need to over analyze it.