RealGM Top 100 List #48

[ronnymac2]

I covered it last thread and won't go into detail again since the TMac supporters weren't concerned with it. But beyond just his lack of longevity, I was bothered by how many games he was missing each year and how that effected his team negatively in terms of lack of playoff success--esp in Houston where the team around him was pretty good.

Fair enough. His durability in Orlando wasn't an issue; but his durability in Houston was, especially in 2006, 2008, and 2009.

Im also not fully convinced his individual stats--which admittedly are gaudy--always corresponded with team lifting, but I'm very open to being shown Im wrong in that regard.

Can you explain further? Do you mean his scoring average and scoring efficiency? Was he a poor defender in your opinion?

[Doctor MJ]

Wade = #23 (5-6 Elite Seasons w/ 2-3 being MVP-caliber)
Paul = #31(6 Elite Seasons w/ 2 being MVP-caliber)
Durant = #36 (5 Elite Seasons w/ 2-3 being MVP-caliber)

McGrady (6 Elite Season w/1 being MVP-caliber) still on board at #48?

This does not compute.

Right well, my issue is that I'm just not that sold on McGrady.

So, you know I'm a guy who takes +/- pretty seriously. Inn my RAPM spreadsheet, he doesn't have a single year with a scaled RAPM north of 5.

Now, I really do believe that that sells McGrady's absolute peak short - and there's reason to believe that stat would - but if he's truly having elite impact seasons for half a decade, I'd expect better.

And just for comparison, Wade & Paul have peaks in the 8 plus range and are basically locks to break 6 every year of their healthy primes.

Durant's less clear cut on this, so I could seen an argument there, but that's more an issue with Durant relative to his stature rather than anything else.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Mutombo

Yeah so I'm still lacking momentum here right now. Combination of work business and us reaching a point where it's tough to compare.

With regards to Mutombo vs Thurmond, that's a good one to consider. My initial thing is this:

I think Thurmond's offensive career is basically there for us to know how NOT to strategize on offense. I see Mutombo's approach as far more reasonable, and here's the kicker: When Mutombo came into the league, the "stupid big man volume scorer" offense still existed. It was actually noteworthy the way Mutombo went in the other direction to what I'd now call a modern approach to the game after his rookie year. I tend to see that as a real factor in Mutombo's favor.

Perhaps I shouldn't.

Still, I would tend to see Mutombo as the top defensive player of the past 20 years, while I would see Thurmond as a pretty far cry from being the best defensive player of hisear. That one's a little unfair given that Russell's involved, but my point is really that it's a bit much imho to build up multiple guys from the '60s as if they are better on defense than anyone nowadays.

Russell's results from that era were extreme outliers which to me justify making his defensive GOAT supremacy pretty simple, but as much as I respect Thurmond, I see him as much more the best of the mere mortals.

Of course as I say all this, I have to say that there's a difference in how I see the player's style. I see Thurmond as arguably the best big man man defender in history, which is quite cool, but not what makes that the most important defensive position in the game. I see Mutombo as the superior help defender, which is what makes that so.

[D Nice]

Wade = #23 (5-6 Elite Seasons w/ 2-3 being MVP-caliber)
Paul = #31(6 Elite Seasons w/ 2 being MVP-caliber)
Durant = #36 (5 Elite Seasons w/ 2-3 being MVP-caliber)

McGrady (6 Elite Season w/1 being MVP-caliber) still on board at #48?

This does not compute.

Right well, my issue is that I'm just not that sold on McGrady.

So, you know I'm a guy who takes +/- pretty seriously. Inn my RAPM spreadsheet, he doesn't have a single year with a scaled RAPM north of 5.

Now, I really do believe that that sells McGrady's absolute peak short - and there's reason to believe that stat would - but if he's truly having elite impact seasons for half a decade, I'd expect better.

And just for comparison, Wade & Paul have peaks in the 8 plus range and are basically locks to break 6 every year of their healthy primes.

Durant's less clear cut on this, so I could seen an argument there, but that's more an issue with Durant relative to his stature rather than anything else.

Thanks for the reasoning, haven't really read the last few threads and I hadn't looked over his RAPM data between 01-04, I'll admit at a quick glance they do seem a bit pedestrian, but I only put so much stock in that figure so that alone isn't enough to make me feel like a separation of the magnitude being displayed is accurate.

I understand hesitating because, in addition to those figures there are questions about his commitment to defense while shouldering a big load and he had some very apparent (negative) proclivities that hurt him on offense from time to time (namely the ease with which you could turn him into a jumpshot-only player) but when I glance around at the remaining competition...the only players on the board with comparable primes to McGrady for me are KJ an Hill and he's a clear half-step above those guys IMO, at least when on his game. I felt like he was a top 5 or 6 playe 4 consecutive seasons (2001-2004) which isn't something any of the players remaining on board can claim. And as you said, Durant's +/- statistics don't really knock anybody's socks off and Mac has a clear longevity edge over KD (at this point).

[tsherkin]

Tossing in a vote for Deke at this point, to acknowledge his defensive excellence, offensive competence and longevity.

[trex_8063]

Trex,

using that same team defense standard doesnt seem to show any kind of edge for Thurmond. His defenses tended to be good, but being 3rd in the league when there are 9 or 10 teams isn't that impressive.

Now don't get me wrong I think Thurmond is a tremendous defender. I jsut don't see the team defense argument being particularly in his favor over Deke.

fwiw, I didn't intend the showing of Mutombo's team DRtg's to be part of a "Thurmond over Mutombo" argument. I was just looking at his team DRtg's anyway, so decided to put it up there for review. Although I thought it a little interesting (given his reputation) that his presence didn't necessarily create an elite defense, or---at times---even an above average one. Also interesting to me was that, while his defensive impact (looking at years before and after his presence) appears pretty significant in his early years, by circa-2000 his impact on team DRtg appears to be lessened.

At any rate, my statement about Nate Thurmond being a contender for the title of "best defensive player left" was intended as a statement separate from evaluation of Mutombo's team D's.

Few things I'd voice wrt Thurmond's defense:
*He was a pretty decent shot-blocker in his own right. Blocks not recorded until after his 32nd birthday (his final four seasons); he avg. 3.4 blocks per 100 possessions during those years. Over the same years (age-wise: '99 thru '02) Mutombo was averaging 4.2 per 100 possessions. So Thurmond at least somewhat in the same neighborhood.
**And then there's his reputation (apparently justified: see below) as a man defender. If I'm not mistaken, both Wilt and Russell declared Thurmond as the guy they found it hardest to play against.

To investigate this, I went thru a bunch of H2H's, Thurmond vs. all the best centers of the time. Now, we only have FG's made, FT/FTA, and ppg to go by....but based on that stuff, the ONLY center I found who apparently performed similarly (perhaps marginally better) vs. Thurmond as he did against the league was Bill Walton: Walton avg 16.8 ppg and 5.6 FTA vs. Thurmond, whereas he avg 16.4 ppg and 4.6 FTA overall during those years ('75-'77). Bear in mind that this is the twilight of Thurmond's career, though (playing limited minutes the last two years, too).

But otherwise Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Reed, Cowens, Bellamy, Unseld, Hayes, Lanier, McAdoo, Red Kerr........ALL of them performed worse when facing Thurmond (in Wilt's case, quite a lot worse; Reed pretty significantly worse, too):
Dave Cowens
vs. Thurmond (rs): 16.9 ppg, 2.6 FTA (24 games)
Overall rs: 19.1 ppg, 3.7 FTA
vs. Thurmond (playoffs): 18.0 ppg, 5.2 FTA (6 games in ‘76)
rest of ‘76 playoffs: 22.5 ppg, 4.7 FTA

Wilt Chamberlain
vs. Thurmond (rs): 15.7 ppg, 8.0 FTA (47 games)
Overall rs: 23.1 ppg, 9.7 FTA
vs. Thurmond (playoffs): 12.5 ppg, 7.5 FTA (17 games in ‘67, ‘69, ‘73)
rest of ‘67/’69/’73 playoffs: 16.4 ppg, 8.5 FTA

Willis Reed
vs. Thurmond (rs): 14.9 ppg, 4.5 FTA (46 games)
Overall rs: 19.0 ppg, 5.1 FTA

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
vs. Thurmond (rs): 26.3 ppg, 5.7 FTA (37 games)
Overall rs: 29.5 ppg, 7.3 FTA
vs. Thurmond (playoffs): 24.4, 6.7 FTA (16 games in ‘71-’73)
rest of ‘71-’73 playoffs: 29.0 ppg, 5.5 FTA

Walt Bellamy
vs. Thurmond (rs): 15.4 ppg, 6.5 FTA (62 games)
Overall rs: 18.4 ppg, 7.3 FTA

Bill Russell
vs. Thurmond (rs): 12.2 ppg, 4.5 FTA (42 games)
Overall rs: 13.0 ppg, 5.5 FTA
vs. Thurmond (playoffs): 11.2 ppg, 4.8 FTA (5 games in ‘64)
rest of ‘64 playoffs: 14.0 ppg, 8.6 FTA

Red Kerr
vs. Thurmond (rs): 11.2 ppg, 2.4 FTA (25 games)
Overall rs: 12.0 ppg, 3.5 FTA

Bob Lanier
vs. Thurmond (rs): 19.1 ppg, 5.9 FTA (34 games)
Overall rs: 22.5 ppg, 5.4 FTA

Wes Unseld
vs. Thurmond (rs): 7.8 ppg, 2.1 FTA (34 games)
Overall rs: 11.5 ppg, 3.3 FTA
vs. Thurmond (playoffs): 7.0 ppg, 3.6 FTA (8 games in ‘76 and ‘77)
rest of ‘76/’77 playoffs: 7.5 ppg, 0.9 FTA

Bob McAdoo
vs. Thurmond (rs): 25.7 ppg, 7.7 FTA (18 games)
Overall rs: 28.0 ppg, 7.7 FTA

Elvin Hayes
vs. Thurmond (rs): 22.0 ppg, 6.0 FTA (41 games)
Overall rs: 24.3 ppg, 7.1 FTA
vs. Thurmond (playoffs): 20.1 ppg, 7.6 FTA (8 games in ‘76 and ‘77)
rest of ‘76/’77 playoffs: 21.0 ppg, 6.6 FTA


I looked at H2H's for several major defensive bigs, aside from Thurmond; looked at guys from all eras. In addition to Thurmond, I also looked at H2H's vs. Mutombo, Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Shaq, D.Robinson, Wilt, Russell, and Bill Walton........I did not see such a consistent mitigating effect by ANY other big. Thurmond stands alone in the consistency of this particular effect.

wrt Mutombo's H2Hs (without posting all the numbers), suffice to say:
Shaq was substantially worse when facing Mutombo. Shawn Kemp in the playoffs was MUCH worse when facing Mutombo (though we only have that 5-game sample from '94); his rs numbers were actually marginally BETTER when facing Mutombo.
Ewing was marginally worse when facing Mutombo.
Hakeem and Brad Daugherty were pretty stable vs. Mutombo (neither better nor worse than normal).
David Robinson and Jermaine O'Neal's numbers were actually a little BETTER than normal when facing Mutombo.

[ceiling raiser]

Wade = #23 (5-6 Elite Seasons w/ 2-3 being MVP-caliber)
Paul = #31(6 Elite Seasons w/ 2 being MVP-caliber)
Durant = #36 (5 Elite Seasons w/ 2-3 being MVP-caliber)

McGrady (6 Elite Season w/1 being MVP-caliber) still on board at #48?

This does not compute.

Right well, my issue is that I'm just not that sold on McGrady.

So, you know I'm a guy who takes +/- pretty seriously. Inn my RAPM spreadsheet, he doesn't have a single year with a scaled RAPM north of 5.

Now, I really do believe that that sells McGrady's absolute peak short - and there's reason to believe that stat would - but if he's truly having elite impact seasons for half a decade, I'd expect better.

And just for comparison, Wade & Paul have peaks in the 8 plus range and are basically locks to break 6 every year of their healthy primes.

Durant's less clear cut on this, so I could seen an argument there, but that's more an issue with Durant relative to his stature rather than anything else.

Doc - Two RAPM questions for you:

1) Do you have any reservations with using RAPM data in the first prior informed season (98 for ATC's set, 02 for J.E.'s)? Or do you think one year of the prior is fine?

2) Are you concerned with the first few years of J.E.'s set? colts18 linked a post from APBRmetrics in which J.E. noted that at least 01 is missing a good deal of data. Do you feel it can act as a suitable prior for 02, even while incomplete?

[colts18]

2) Are you concerned with the first few years of J.E.'s set? colts18 linked a post from APBRmetrics in which J.E. noted that at least 01 is missing a good deal of data. Do you feel it can act as a suitable prior for 02, even while incomplete?

I should correct your post. The 2002 Prior informed RAPM does not use 2001 data as a prior. Its just 1/3 of the 2002 non-prior informed RAPM which makes it curious as to why Doc MJ even included it in his spreadsheet.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc - Two RAPM questions for you:

1) Do you have any reservations with using RAPM data in the first prior informed season (98 for ATC's set, 02 for J.E.'s)? Or do you think one year of the prior is fine?

2) Are you concerned with the first few years of J.E.'s set? colts18 linked a post from APBRmetrics in which J.E. noted that at least 01 is missing a good deal of data. Do you feel it can act as a suitable prior for 02, even while incomplete?

1) A slight amount, but I try not to let one year have too much influence in how I see a guy anyway.

2) Same deal. If I saw crazy stuff that year i'd raise my eyebrows before using that to massively shift my assessment of a guy.

[ceiling raiser]

2) Are you concerned with the first few years of J.E.'s set? colts18 linked a post from APBRmetrics in which J.E. noted that at least 01 is missing a good deal of data. Do you feel it can act as a suitable prior for 02, even while incomplete?

I should correct your post. The 2002 Prior informed RAPM does not use 2001 data as a prior. Its just 1/3 of the 2002 non-prior informed RAPM which makes it curious as to why Doc MJ even included it in his spreadsheet.

Do you know if 02 is complete?

EDIT: Just re-read your post. That's strange indeed that J.E. calculated 02 in that manner. I guess 03 is the first year we can trust.

[Doctor MJ]

2) Are you concerned with the first few years of J.E.'s set? colts18 linked a post from APBRmetrics in which J.E. noted that at least 01 is missing a good deal of data. Do you feel it can act as a suitable prior for 02, even while incomplete?

I should correct your post. The 2002 Prior informed RAPM does not use 2001 data as a prior. Its just 1/3 of the 2002 non-prior informed RAPM which makes it curious as to why Doc MJ even included it in his spreadsheet.

To be honest, I included it because it was part of J.E.'s dataset. Nothing more, nothing less. The talk of it being incomplete didn't seem enough to make it make sense to have nothing in its place.

Now I have to confess: What exactly is it that people think the big deal is here?

If it's about TMac, I said from the start I wasn't challenging the assessment of his absolute peak, and these concerns do nothing to change the fact that his RAPM mediocrity extends throughout his elite years.

[lukekarts]

Wade = #23 (5-6 Elite Seasons w/ 2-3 being MVP-caliber)
Paul = #31(6 Elite Seasons w/ 2 being MVP-caliber)
Durant = #36 (5 Elite Seasons w/ 2-3 being MVP-caliber)

McGrady (6 Elite Season w/1 being MVP-caliber) still on board at #48?

This does not compute.

Right well, my issue is that I'm just not that sold on McGrady.

So, you know I'm a guy who takes +/- pretty seriously. Inn my RAPM spreadsheet, he doesn't have a single year with a scaled RAPM north of 5.

Now, I really do believe that that sells McGrady's absolute peak short - and there's reason to believe that stat would - but if he's truly having elite impact seasons for half a decade, I'd expect better.

And just for comparison, Wade & Paul have peaks in the 8 plus range and are basically locks to break 6 every year of their healthy primes.

Durant's less clear cut on this, so I could seen an argument there, but that's more an issue with Durant relative to his stature rather than anything else.

Thanks for the reasoning, haven't really read the last few threads and I hadn't looked over his RAPM data between 01-04, I'll admit at a quick glance they do seem a bit pedestrian, but I only put so much stock in that figure so that alone isn't enough to make me feel like a separation of the magnitude being displayed is accurate.

I understand hesitating because, in addition to those figures there are questions about his commitment to defense while shouldering a big load and he had some very apparent (negative) proclivities that hurt him on offense from time to time (namely the ease with which you could turn him into a jumpshot-only player) but when I glance around at the remaining competition...the only players on the board with comparable primes to McGrady for me are KJ an Hill and he's a clear half-step above those guys IMO, at least when on his game. I felt like he was a top 5 or 6 playe 4 consecutive seasons (2001-2004) which isn't something any of the players remaining on board can claim. And as you said, Durant's +/- statistics don't really knock anybody's socks off and Mac has a clear longevity edge over KD (at this point).

Adding to DoctorMJ's concerns, I'm really not sure how good T-Mac's prime was, generally. His efficiency as a scorer only hit the elite in one season, peaking at 52.6% TS% outside of that, and generally speaking his teams were not good. Even in Houston, I don't think he performed well enough. They were a bad playoff team despite the talent suggesting otherwise. My worry is that T-Mac, outside of his one outlier of a season, had impact closer to James Harden than to Kobe Bryant.

Now, with CP3 mentioned - I must admit I think he went too high. But the other comparisons are valid, Wade and Durant are just that much more efficient, and successful.

Also, it surely stands to reason that if T-Mac is starting to get serious traction, then someone like Gervin should also be in the discussion?

[Moonbeam]

Vote for Adrian Dantley.

Dantley has a great case to be considered one of the top 10 scorers of all time, perhaps even top 5. Just how potent was his scoring? Dantley is the all-time leader in my simple Score+ metric for combining volume and efficiency for players with at least 5000 MP. Since 1951-52, there have been 50 player seasons with at least 500 MP with a Score+ of at least 5. Dantley has 5 of those 50 seasons, including 2 of the top 7. Adjusting for position, there are 39 such seasons above 5, of which Dantley has 4, including 2 of the top 5.

His Utah years are just incredible, but I want to add a bit about his years in Detroit. His role was reduced, though he was still very, very efficient and a potent scorer. He was particularly good during their 1988 Finals run, and had a good case for Finals MVP. Although he has no reputation for defense, Dantley was notably putting in a lot of effort there in the playoffs for Detroit, taking away from the notion of him being a 1-dimensional player. There's ample evidence that he bought in.

Dantley bought in to Detroit's system and put in effort on the defensive end.

Source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988 ... tley-guy/2

"I don't think the players appreciated as much as they should have how much he's adjusted for us," McCloskey said.

"I know I can do more, but I didn't want to let my ego get involved,"

Dantley said. "I've just kept my mouth shut and done my job."

He has continued to do his job in the playoffs, averaging 20 points, shooting 60 percent from the field and playing rugged, late-game defense that has helped the Pistons almost invariably win when they lead entering the last quarter.

"No one should ever underestimate this man's desire for a (championship) ring," Versace said. "You want a horse to ride in this league, and he`s ours."

Source: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1988 ... he-celtics

Larry Bird, meanwhile, who has shot just 37 percent in five games, continues to say his rhythm is off, but he did offer this assessment: "The officiating has been different in the playoffs and I don't think it's fair to anybody. You prepare during an 82-game season and then it's completely different. It's a tough adjustment."

But also giving Bird trouble, and for the second consecutive year and equally unnoticed by most, is noted scorer Adrian Dantley.

"I've never seen him player harder on defense in my life," said Laimbeer. "He's working so hard. He just wants it so bad."

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-08/ ... it-pistons

Dantley, a two-time NBA scoring champion, has always been known for his offense, but the Pistons say that he has concentrated on defense this season.

And Dantley's work ethic on defense was a key as the Pistons held the Lakers to 39.8% shooting from the floor.

"I've always played defense, but when people talk about me, they talk about my offense," Dantley said. "The last time I played this hard on defense was in the 1976 Olympics. Defense is how we've been winning all our games this year. We don't even think about offense."

[penbeast0]

Adding to DoctorMJ's concerns, I'm really not sure how good T-Mac's prime was, generally. His efficiency as a scorer only hit the elite in one season, peaking at 52.6% TS% outside of that, and generally speaking his teams were not good. Even in Houston, I don't think he performed well enough. They were a bad playoff team despite the talent suggesting otherwise. My worry is that T-Mac, outside of his one outlier of a season, had impact closer to James Harden than to Kobe Bryant.

Now, with CP3 mentioned - I must admit I think he went too high. But the other comparisons are valid, Wade and Durant are just that much more efficient, and successful.

Also, it surely stands to reason that if T-Mac is starting to get serious traction, then someone like Gervin should also be in the discussion?

Gervin went in at 38.

The problem I saw with TMAC was that he looked like superman when he got to play one man team . . . in Orlando, in Houston when Yao went out with an injury (which was pretty common), but didn't maintain that level when playing with Yao. Thus, when they played together, they seemed unimpressive, but would put together win streaks with Yao injured. IF this is true, it weakens TMac's case for me because he isn't good enough to be a contender without another star (even MJ wasn't).

[Moonbeam]

With T-Mac, part of my hesitation is that I mostly saw him in Houston, and I never felt he was as dominant of a wing as say, Kobe. He was still a great player, but not transcendent outside of 2002-03. That year screams "outlier" like few others, and while he had a few more great seasons, his proneness to injury was a big limitation. Still, I feel he's a worthy candidate to discuss at this point, but there are a good 5 or so guys I think I'd take ahead of him at this stage.

[D Nice]

Adding to DoctorMJ's concerns, I'm really not sure how good T-Mac's prime was, generally. His efficiency as a scorer only hit the elite in one season, peaking at 52.6% TS% outside of that, and generally speaking his teams were not good. Even in Houston, I don't think he performed well enough. They were a bad playoff team despite the talent suggesting otherwise. My worry is that T-Mac, outside of his one outlier of a season, had impact closer to James Harden than to Kobe Bryant.

Now, with CP3 mentioned - I must admit I think he went too high. But the other comparisons are valid, Wade and Durant are just that much more efficient, and successful.

Also, it surely stands to reason that if T-Mac is starting to get serious traction, then someone like Gervin should also be in the discussion?

Him not being efficient in other prime years is a complete myth. In 2001 and 2002 he sported a 52TS% and 53TS% in the GOAT defensive era. When you adjust for era he becomes a 55-56TS% player (simply giving him +2.5TS%). 2003 becomes a 59TS% season. In 2004 he was generally less interested in drawing contact, so I can see tempering the adjustment to 54TS% (+1.5TS%) here as valid, but that still hardly screams inefficiency. He’s no more or less efficient than Wade was in his prime years as he takes MUCH better care of the ball. His PPG would rise accordingly with said adjustments, but even ignoring such an extrapolation he matches up just fine.

01 T-Mac: 27.0/7.5/4.5 55TS% 9TO%
02 T-Mac: 25.5/8.0/5.5 56TS% 9.5TO%
03 T-Mac: 32.0/6.5/5.5 59TS% 8.5TO% (This is a top 15 peak all-time IMO)
04 T-Mac: 28.0/6.0/5.5 54TS% 9TO%

The Magic’s team offenses over this span (when he had probably the worst supporting cast in all of basketball) ranked 14th, 7th, 10th, and 13th

05 Wade: 24.0/5.0/7.0 56TS% 16.5TO%
06 Wade: 27.0/6.0/7.0 58TS% 13TO%
09 Wade: 30.0/5.0/7.5 57TS% 11.5TO%
10 Wade: 26.5/5.0/6.5 56TS% 12TO%

The Heat’s team offenses in these years ranked 5th/7th in the Shaq years and 20th/19th in the bad years. McGrady clearly looks like the more impressive offensive anchor per this data.

Mac's playoff numbers are gaudy as **** as well. Between 01-05 (22 games) he averaged 31.5/7.0/6.0 on 54TS% (no adjustment) 10TO%.

I was pretty vocal about Wade being a top 25 player so I absolutely see his placement as legitimate, and even if Paul went a bit high I have him at #38 on my list so still clearly above McGrady (who I have at #50). And I have nothing against Deke or Gervin being voted in here, I have Gervin at #27 on my list and Deke at #46 so again, higher than they will end up going on this list.

But T-Mac’s lower ranking just screams inconsistency to me, given the similar number of prime seasons and similar ranking league-wide in said prime seasons to guys that have already been voted. Really I wouldn’t have much of an issue with it if KD didn’t go in the top 40, but when Durant makes it solely on the basis of 5 seasons, 2 of which weren’t even top 5-7 seasons league-wide, I feel like McGrady needs to be voted in very soon after that.

With T-Mac, part of my hesitation is that I mostly saw him in Houston, and I never felt he was as dominant of a wing as say, Kobe. He was still a great player, but not transcendent outside of 2002-03. That year screams "outlier" like few others, and while he had a few more great seasons, his proneness to injury was a big limitation. Still, I feel he's a worthy candidate to discuss at this point, but there are a good 5 or so guys I think I'd take ahead of him at this stage.

I think you mostly seeing him in Houston is a big issue, because (by far) his best basketball was played in Orlando. His best year as a Rocket he spent half the year supplicating/trying to fit in with Yao/JVG, and when the reigns were handed over to Mac the team took off. This is hardly an indictment IMO. And I knock him for losing in the 1st round in 2005 and 2007, but only so much, it’s not like he was actually badly stymied like some of the guys who went in the top 20.

[ceiling raiser]

How much do you guys credit Parish for those C's defenses?

[The Infamous1]

Tmac had one great year in 2003, a couple of good years(01/02/04) and nothing much after that

[Clyde Frazier]

Through post #48:

Dikembe Mutombo — Chuck Texas, DoctorMJ, tsherkin

Tracy McGrady — ronnymac2, E-Balla

Alex English — penbeast0

Pau Gasol — john248

Robert Parish — trex_8063

Adrian Dantley — Moonbeam

[Clyde Frazier]

With regards to Mutombo vs Thurmond, that's a good one to consider. My initial thing is this:

I think Thurmond's offensive career is basically there for us to know how NOT to strategize on offense. I see Mutombo's approach as far more reasonable, and here's the kicker: When Mutombo came into the league, the "stupid big man volume scorer" offense still existed. It was actually noteworthy the way Mutombo went in the other direction to what I'd now call a modern approach to the game after his rookie year. I tend to see that as a real factor in Mutombo's favor.

Perhaps I shouldn't.

Mutombo was inherently limited offensively, though. It wasn't really an approach he had from a strategic standpoint. He just wasn't as talented offensively as other centers. I understand your being critical of running an offense at a volume level through a big, but I can't see giving him a boost simply because he wasn't capable of doing that. And when I look at guys like hakeem, robinson and ewing, none of them had a teammate of penny's caliber like shaq did. They were forced into that volume role, with varying levels of success.