RealGM Top 100 List #45

[Clyde Frazier]

As of post #40:

Dolph Schayes - trex_8063, Moonbeam, Clyde Frazier
Alex English - penbeast0, tsherkin
Tracy McGrady - ronnymac2
Bill Walton - Notanoob
Dikembe Mutombo - Chuck Texas

[DQuinn1575]

Vote for #45 - Dolph Schayes

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ydo01.html

- 15 year career
- 12x all NBA (6 1st, 6 2nd)
- 3 top 5 and 3 top 10 MVP finishes
- 1x NBA champion
- 24th all time in RS WS/48
- 15th all time in PS WS/48
-

Vote for Schayes

Resume above is best of players getting support

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Dikembe Mutombo

I've been delaying because I find it tough to decide. I'm wary voting Mutombo in part because of the errors that were in my spreadsheet and the effect they might have had on my opinion. I feel like it would be good for me to see some serious debate between Mutombo, and Cowens, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, etc.

But for now, I rate Mutombo highest of the guys getting votes, and he was highest on my pre-project list. He's a Mt. Rushmore level great on defense, and while his years as a huge minute guy are limited, he kept bringing it pretty well in small minutes for a very long time.

[E-Balla]

I'm voting for Tracy McGrady. I think he is clearly the best of the bunch peakwise. He played at the same time as Vince and Deke and I never once thought either of them were better than TMac during their primes.

I think his playoff performances which were short but spectacular should deserve a mention and he's the only player who I think would be at least 10 spots higher if he had even average teammates.

[penbeast0]

Dolph Schayes - trex_8063, Moonbeam, Clyde Frazier, DQuinn1575
Alex English - penbeast0, tsherkin
Tracy McGrady - ronnymac2, E-Balla
Bill Walton - Notanoob
Dikembe Mutombo - Chuck Texas. Doctor MJ

Well, we clearly don't have a runoff yet, 3 with 2. Strategic voting anyone?

[john248]

Hm...would've went with someone not on the list, but strategic voting for TMac. Great scorer who was a good passer at a playmaking level. Defense was solid too. Longevity isn't the best, so I don't count anything after his back went out.

Can't really get behind Walton yet. Wouldn't vote Schayes here either. I do see McGrady as the better player than English, and the difference in longevity doesn't matter as much to me here since I can get 7 great years out of McGrady. Mutombo is interesting as I have him 48, but I do have McGrady higher at 45...and I am, at the moment, leaning more towards Reed as the next center I vote for and Gasol as the next big.

[Quotatious]

Lately I've been really busy, sorry for not being active, but I'll vote for Alex English here.

Great scorer, really long prime, good longevity (8 seasons with 25+ PPG, one more with 23.8), above average efficiency, solid all-around player (capable playmaker when needed - three 5+ APG seasons, several other with 4+ assists, decent defender for the type of player he was, and also anchored a really great offensive team in 1982 - by far the best in the NBA that year, really versatile scorer because of his ability to excel in many different roles - post up, off-ball shooter, iso scorer, and a solid enough ballhandler to play some point forward), good teammate. Basically Paul Pierce of the 80s - not a really flashy player, didn't have a great peak, but very consistent and fundamentally sound, solid in every aspect of the game. His game translated pretty well to the playoffs, too.

Finally, I have to mention the fact that he scored more total points than anyone else, during the 80s, which were really the Golden Era of the NBA in terms of scoring talent. I don't really care about accolades, but that's a pretty impressive accomplishment, really shows his longevity and consistency (especially considering that he was a late bloomer - his statistical output during the late 70s IMO implies that he was capable of being a star even then, given the opportunity).

[Doctor MJ]

Can you give us your opinion then on your last statement? In your opinion what factors should we adjust for and why?

Sure. I definitely I try to adjust for:

-Era difficulty
-Era-based longevity incentives
-Changes to rules and strategy
-What I'll call "team context", where a guy doing his thing simply isn't as valuable to all teams.

What I don't try to adjust for in this list would include:

-Health issues
-Unnecessary limiting of opportunities beyond the team context
-Bad locker room stuff, and other things that mentally influence a guy to not play his hardest
-Actual basketball talents and skills

I can elaborate on some of these in specific if people want me to.

I spend a lot of time thinking about how the guys played, whether it would work across eras, and also how well they adapted to the changes that were thrown their way.

I'm also hoping you will expound more on this. How do you determine how a guy playing under say 1960's rules and conditions would play he if was born 40 years later? I really struggle with this personally.

Well don't let me give the impression I consider myself amazing at it. It's tough. What I always try to remember is this:

You don't have to get it perfect in order to justify using your thoughts. You'll never get it perfect, and the only alternative to using your own thoughts is using a default determined by other people's thoughts. I don't go against contemporary opinions of the past lightly, but if I see something they didn't talk about that I know to be an issue, I can't simply assume they left it out because everything was okay.

So I'd say there are 2 big things:
1) Is he playing a role people play today, and is he in the ballpark in terms of size, agility and skill?

So for example, in tennis, probably the closest thing we ever saw to Rafael Nadal before in terms specific clay court dominance was Ken Rosewall who played mainly in the '60s.

The good news: he was a grinder like Nadal, so he was using the same fundamental approach, which frankly has always been the way someone becomes a clay court legend.

The bad news: Rosewall is half a foot shorter and nearly 50 pounds lighter. D'oh!

So then, the question: Could Rosewall come into the game today and be a dominant Nadal-like player? Pretty unlikely. Doesn't mean I dismiss him drastically in my all-time list necessarily, but he's going to take a hit.

Among the old time basketball guys that tend to get discussed, I'm afraid Schayes it the guy who always strikes me hardest like this. The bottom line to me is that I don't believe Schayes could be a true star by playing the same way he did back then. It's possible he'd adapt and find some new way, but I don't think he has the size to be a true big, nor the agility to be a true slasher, and while he's a very nice shooter, even if we assume he adapts to the jump shot without issue, that still only leaves him as a catch & shoot guy. And even if he were miraculously as good at Kyle Korver at that, Korver's still no all-star.

2) How did he adapt when he faced new challenges and contexts that meant he should have changed?

Here while I talk about this with regards to Schayes, Baylor is the main example for me. Over everything is the matter that as that league was progressing, competition was getting fiercer and yet offensive efficiency was going way up. What this meant essentially was that the sea of BBIQ was rising pretty quickly, and the smart guys were seeing their efficiencies climb.

And of course, Baylor wasn't. He had injuries of course, but that only should have made it more clear he needed to take less primacy.

And of course, that doesn't even get into teammate West. You've got that guy next to you, you ought to be able to tell how much more effective he is than you, and encourage West and the coach to relegate you. He didn't do this.

Now: I understand one asking, "But wouldn't a smart coach today just make Baylor play the right way?"

2 comments:
1) There's just no substitute for bandwidth. This isn't football. Guys have to be able to think out there, and if a guy's thinking showed issues relative to 1960s BBIQs, he's not going to look like Einstein today.

2) People need to be careful to not look at players as being X good with a context getting in the way that could be solved. The only reason most people rate Baylor higher than I do is that they are judging "goodness" based on the volume stats (or based on the impressions they've been given from other people who focused on volume stats), while to me volume stats acquired in a dumb way lack that fundamental meaning. Remember:

Jerry Stackhouse once averaged 29.8 PPG. There's no deep mystical explanation to it, it was just him taking a lot of shots in a dumb offensive scheme. The smart coach wouldn't find a way to have him score 30 a night efficiently, he'd stop letting him shoot.

[penbeast0]

So, still a tie between TMac and English for the right to go up against the perennial contender that is Dolph Schayes (English played with his son, Danny, fwiw)

[Notanoob]

I'll re-cast my vote for Tracy McGrady. Incredibly peak, solid prime despite injuries. Beautiful to watch with the ball in his hands.

[penbeast0]

That should do it . . . runoff here we come.

[Owly]

So, still a tie between TMac and English for the right to go up against the perennial contender that is Dolph Schayes (English played with his son, Danny, fwiw)

Am willing to break the tie, and haven't voted yet, but would feel I should then switch to Schayes as he is the player I think has the "greater" career.

Anyway if that's okay, I'll tie break vote McGrady This vote is moot. It was for between T-Mac and English. Please do not count it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=2012

The numbers seem convinced he had (fairly clearly) better per minute impact, and WS suggest roughly even total impact, but with T-Mac spreading it less thinly. He had a higher peak. Whilst his teams didn't go far in the playoffs (when he was healthy and contributing) his playoff stats for his prime are excellent, whilst English's are variable (some strong years, some not so much) and I suspect against worse competition (80s West, playoff wise, wasn't up to much, and only two of Denver's series are versus LA) which somewhat counteracts the "didn't get past the 1st round argument" (if that's required, it's pretty superficial argument) and puts Englishes numbers in a less favourable context.

WARP has English behind too (English 1980 onwards: 95; T-Mac, through 2010: 146).

Okay: Just previewed the post. Seen that McGrady's through to the runoff.


I'll vote Schayes because though his peak is a little lower, he was nonetheless consistently amongst the game's elite for longer, was healthier and thereby sustained that impact better by staying on court. Vague though this is (and this is more an evaluation of his contribution than a reason for voting for him) I think, off the top of my head, he might be the last guy who you'd think, "this guy gives me a pretty decent chances to win a title/titles as my main guy", over an extended span (that class of players mostly in by the mid 20s, and probably all in by the late 30s). I've got him penalised a little for era, but there's a limit to how much I can punish him for playing at the time he did skill set wise.

Post edited for clarity.

[Basketballefan]

I'm not as big on Tmac's impact as others and i'm not sure he belongs in this runoff.

He never once got his team past the first round and aside from a few good series he generally played poor in the playoffs.

2000 playoffs: 3 game sweep 49 ts% 15 PER
2001 playoffs 4 game exit 48 ts%
2007 playoffs 48 ts%
2008 playoffs 48 ts%

As i said he did play well in the playoffs in 2002, 2003, 2005 which was his prime but it still didn't get the job done. Playoff success and longevity are 2 things i weigh fairly heavily and TMAC doesn't fair well in either. Yes i know that level of play must be considered, but when you consider his stint in Houston he certainly could've won a series or 2 with the cast he had.

Aside from that he only had about 6-7 healthy productive seasons.

Also aside from his peak in 03 Tmac wasn't particularly efficient either:

52 ts% in 2001
53 ts% in 2002, 04,05...these are all prime years

So with that said Vote : Dolph Scayes he has healthy productive seasons over Tmac, playoff success and better accolades to go with it.

[tsherkin]

Vote T-Mac for breadth of game, defense and peak.

[E-Balla]

I'm not as big on Tmac's impact as others and i'm not sure he belongs in this runoff.

He never once got his team past the first round and aside from a few good series he generally played poor in the playoffs.

2000 playoffs: 3 game sweep 49 ts% 15 PER
2001 playoffs 4 game exit 48 ts%
2007 playoffs 48 ts%
2008 playoffs 48 ts%

As i said he did play well in the playoffs in 2002, 2003, 2005 which was his prime but it still didn't get the job done. Playoff success and longevity are 2 things i weigh fairly heavily and TMAC doesn't fair well in either. Yes i know that level of play must be considered, but when you consider his stint in Houston he certainly could've won a series or 2 with the cast he had.

Aside from that he only had about 6-7 healthy productive seasons.

Also aside from his peak in 03 Tmac wasn't particularly efficient either:

52 ts% in 2001
53 ts% in 2002, 04,05...these are all prime years

So with that said Vote : Dolph Scayes he has healthy productive seasons over Tmac, playoff success and better accolades to go with it.

In 2001 he averaged 8.3 assists per game and had a 5.4 TOV%. Overall he had a 110 ORTG. He averaged 33.8/6.5/8.3. How is that poor at all?

And in 2007 and 2008 he had to carry his team. Yao in 2007 was more efficient than Mac but he was turning the ball over constantly. In 2008 Yao was hurt and he had crappy teammates with him.

Looking at his TS% and nothing else to determine if a performance is good will yield horrible results.

[trex_8063]

I'm not as big on Tmac's impact as others and i'm not sure he belongs in this runoff.

He never once got his team past the first round and aside from a few good series he generally played poor in the playoffs.

2000 playoffs: 3 game sweep 49 ts% 15 PER
2001 playoffs 4 game exit 48 ts%
2007 playoffs 48 ts%
2008 playoffs 48 ts%

As i said he did play well in the playoffs in 2002, 2003, 2005 which was his prime but it still didn't get the job done. Playoff success and longevity are 2 things i weigh fairly heavily and TMAC doesn't fair well in either. Yes i know that level of play must be considered, but when you consider his stint in Houston he certainly could've won a series or 2 with the cast he had.

Aside from that he only had about 6-7 healthy productive seasons.

Also aside from his peak in 03 Tmac wasn't particularly efficient either:

52 ts% in 2001
53 ts% in 2002, 04,05...these are all prime years

So with that said Vote : Dolph Scayes he has healthy productive seasons over Tmac, playoff success and better accolades to go with it.

In 2001 he averaged 8.3 assists per game and had a 5.4 TOV%. Overall he had a 110 ORTG. He averaged 33.8/6.5/8.3. How is that poor at all?

And in 2007 and 2008 he had to carry his team. Yao in 2007 was more efficient than Mac but he was turning the ball over constantly. In 2008 Yao was hurt and he had crappy teammates with him.

Looking at his TS% and nothing else to determine if a performance is good will yield horrible results.

While I'm in the Schayes camp, I must agree with E-Balla wrt to McGrady's efficiency (though I do agree with Basketballefan that McGrady's durability is a bit dicey).

fyi, I'd looked at scoring and scoring efficiency measures for a variety of modern/semi-modern era (mostly perimeter) players (30 of them to be exact: all the REALLY big names, plus guys like Manu, Tony Parker, Reggie, Ray, English, Isiah, Kidd, Iverson, Joe Johnson, Vinsanity, Derrick Rose, Nique, Paul Pierce, etc.....McGrady, too).

In TS% he ranked 27th of 30 (27th of 30 in relative TS%, too).
In Pts/Missed FGA he was 28th of 30.

So it looks bad, right?

But then in Pts/turnover he was 7th of 30.
In (Pts+Ast)/turnover he was 5th of 30.

[Basketballefan]

I'm not as big on Tmac's impact as others and i'm not sure he belongs in this runoff.

He never once got his team past the first round and aside from a few good series he generally played poor in the playoffs.

2000 playoffs: 3 game sweep 49 ts% 15 PER
2001 playoffs 4 game exit 48 ts%
2007 playoffs 48 ts%
2008 playoffs 48 ts%

As i said he did play well in the playoffs in 2002, 2003, 2005 which was his prime but it still didn't get the job done. Playoff success and longevity are 2 things i weigh fairly heavily and TMAC doesn't fair well in either. Yes i know that level of play must be considered, but when you consider his stint in Houston he certainly could've won a series or 2 with the cast he had.

Aside from that he only had about 6-7 healthy productive seasons.

Also aside from his peak in 03 Tmac wasn't particularly efficient either:

52 ts% in 2001
53 ts% in 2002, 04,05...these are all prime years

So with that said Vote : Dolph Scayes he has healthy productive seasons over Tmac, playoff success and better accolades to go with it.

In 2001 he averaged 8.3 assists per game and had a 5.4 TOV%. Overall he had a 110 ORTG. He averaged 33.8/6.5/8.3. How is that poor at all?

And in 2007 and 2008 he had to carry his team. Yao in 2007 was more efficient than Mac but he was turning the ball over constantly. In 2008 Yao was hurt and he had crappy teammates with him.

Looking at his TS% and nothing else to determine if a performance is good will yield horrible results.

Well scoring is considered his calling card, so i'm simply pointing out that he wasn't all that efficient. As for the 2001 series, he took 31 shots to get that 34 so yeah, i'm not all impressed by that. Perhaps "poor" was a bit of an exaggeration but im not sure i'd call it a great performance.

As for the thing about Yao, he was there come playoff time so no excuses. His teams there were good enough to win a series.

[RayBan-Sematra]

I'll toss in my hat for Mcgrady here.
VOTE : Big Mac

Great as Dolph was I don't think he was on the level of Mcgrady. Talent gap is pretty big but then again there are few who were equal with T-Mac when it came to raw talent.

The longevitiy gap (3-4 years) isn't enough to sway me.
I also feel like T-Mac got kinda unlucky career wise. Never really had good teams around him. Yao was his first blessing but then he ended up being injury plagued.

[Owly]

The context of what I'm discussing in the spoiler

Spoiler:

I'm not as big on Tmac's impact as others and i'm not sure he belongs in this runoff.

He never once got his team past the first round and aside from a few good series he generally played poor in the playoffs.

2000 playoffs: 3 game sweep 49 ts% 15 PER
2001 playoffs 4 game exit 48 ts%
2007 playoffs 48 ts%
2008 playoffs 48 ts%

As i said he did play well in the playoffs in 2002, 2003, 2005 which was his prime but it still didn't get the job done. Playoff success and longevity are 2 things i weigh fairly heavily and TMAC doesn't fair well in either. Yes i know that level of play must be considered, but when you consider his stint in Houston he certainly could've won a series or 2 with the cast he had.

Aside from that he only had about 6-7 healthy productive seasons.

Also aside from his peak in 03 Tmac wasn't particularly efficient either:

52 ts% in 2001
53 ts% in 2002, 04,05...these are all prime years

So with that said Vote : Dolph Scayes he has healthy productive seasons over Tmac, playoff success and better accolades to go with it.

In 2001 he averaged 8.3 assists per game and had a 5.4 TOV%. Overall he had a 110 ORTG. He averaged 33.8/6.5/8.3. How is that poor at all?

And in 2007 and 2008 he had to carry his team. Yao in 2007 was more efficient than Mac but he was turning the ball over constantly. In 2008 Yao was hurt and he had crappy teammates with him.

Looking at his TS% and nothing else to determine if a performance is good will yield horrible results.

Well scoring is considered his calling card, so i'm simply pointing out that he wasn't all that efficient. As for the 2001 series, he took 31 shots to get that 34 so yeah, i'm not all impressed by that. Perhaps "poor" was a bit of an exaggeration but im not sure i'd call it a great performance.

As for the thing about Yao, he was there come playoff time so no excuses. His teams there were good enough to win a series.

I'm not as big on Tmac's impact as others and i'm not sure he belongs in this runoff.

He never once got his team past the first round and aside from a few good series he generally played poor in the playoffs.

2000 playoffs: 3 game sweep 49 ts% 15 PER
2001 playoffs 4 game exit 48 ts%
2007 playoffs 48 ts%
2008 playoffs 48 ts%

As i said he did play well in the playoffs in 2002, 2003, 2005 which was his prime but it still didn't get the job done. Playoff success and longevity are 2 things i weigh fairly heavily and TMAC doesn't fair well in either. Yes i know that level of play must be considered, but when you consider his stint in Houston he certainly could've won a series or 2 with the cast he had.

Aside from that he only had about 6-7 healthy productive seasons.

Also aside from his peak in 03 Tmac wasn't particularly efficient either:

52 ts% in 2001
53 ts% in 2002, 04,05...these are all prime years

So with that said Vote : Dolph Scayes he has healthy productive seasons over Tmac, playoff success and better accolades to go with it.

In 2001 he averaged 8.3 assists per game and had a 5.4 TOV%. Overall he had a 110 ORTG. He averaged 33.8/6.5/8.3. How is that poor at all?

And in 2007 and 2008 he had to carry his team. Yao in 2007 was more efficient than Mac but he was turning the ball over constantly. In 2008 Yao was hurt and he had crappy teammates with him.

Looking at his TS% and nothing else to determine if a performance is good will yield horrible results.

While I'm in the Schayes camp, I must agree with E-Balla wrt to McGrady's efficiency (though I do agree with Basketballefan that McGrady's durability is a bit dicey).

fyi, I'd looked at scoring and scoring efficiency measures for a variety of modern/semi-modern era (most perimeter) players (30 of them to be exact: all the REALLY big names, plus guys like Manu, Tony Parker, Reggie, Ray, English, Isiah, Kidd, Iverson, Joe Johnson, Vinsanity, Derrick Rose, Nique, Paul Pierce, etc.....McGrady, too).

In TS% he ranked 27th of 30 (27th of 30 in relative TS%, too).
In Pts/Missed FGA he was 28th of 30.

So it looks bad, right?

But then in Pts/turnover he was 7th of 30.
In (Pts+Ast)/turnover he was 5th of 30.

I too am a Schayes voter but the McGrady wasn't efficient in the playoffs idea is a fairly poor argument. Firstly because he was never about efficiency in terms of a high ts%. His offensive value came through creating in volume both for himself and for others (see, for instance, Trex above) and efficiency in terms of limiting turnovers. The use of PER for just one year is conspicuous. The focus just on TS% ignores other data that goes in to combined boxscore metrics, such as an assist % comparable with a pg's, the low turnovers and the extremely high usage burden.

[E-Balla]

I'm not as big on Tmac's impact as others and i'm not sure he belongs in this runoff.

He never once got his team past the first round and aside from a few good series he generally played poor in the playoffs.

2000 playoffs: 3 game sweep 49 ts% 15 PER
2001 playoffs 4 game exit 48 ts%
2007 playoffs 48 ts%
2008 playoffs 48 ts%

As i said he did play well in the playoffs in 2002, 2003, 2005 which was his prime but it still didn't get the job done. Playoff success and longevity are 2 things i weigh fairly heavily and TMAC doesn't fair well in either. Yes i know that level of play must be considered, but when you consider his stint in Houston he certainly could've won a series or 2 with the cast he had.

Aside from that he only had about 6-7 healthy productive seasons.

Also aside from his peak in 03 Tmac wasn't particularly efficient either:

52 ts% in 2001
53 ts% in 2002, 04,05...these are all prime years

So with that said Vote : Dolph Scayes he has healthy productive seasons over Tmac, playoff success and better accolades to go with it.

In 2001 he averaged 8.3 assists per game and had a 5.4 TOV%. Overall he had a 110 ORTG. He averaged 33.8/6.5/8.3. How is that poor at all?

And in 2007 and 2008 he had to carry his team. Yao in 2007 was more efficient than Mac but he was turning the ball over constantly. In 2008 Yao was hurt and he had crappy teammates with him.

Looking at his TS% and nothing else to determine if a performance is good will yield horrible results.

Well scoring is considered his calling card, so i'm simply pointing out that he wasn't all that efficient. As for the 2001 series, he took 31 shots to get that 34 so yeah, i'm not all impressed by that. Perhaps "poor" was a bit of an exaggeration but im not sure i'd call it a great performance.

As for the thing about Yao, he was there come playoff time so no excuses. His teams there were good enough to win a series.

Tracy's value was in his ability to completely shoulder the load and still get good results. Sure his scoring wasn't efficient but he was taking 31 shots a game, getting 8.3 assists a game, and still had under 2 TOV per game. His scoring efficiency was low but his overall efficiency in terms of what he contributed to the offense was very high.