RealGM Top 100 List #48

[lukekarts]

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).

I completely missed that

[Texas Chuck]

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.

I'm a big supporter of Deke obviously, but I agree with this. Mutombo wasn't a bad offensive player by any means, but I don't think he strategically chose to not be an offensive focal point. I think his coaches saw him for what he was offensively and thus didn't make him a primary option.

[lukekarts]

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 (18 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.

To clarify T-Mac's efficiency, I was never really implying he was inefficient, just that he didn't post elite efficiency numbers compared to other similar guys (Durant, Wade, Gervin) hence his position somewhat below them.

Equally, his lack of success as a player is absolutely a factor in him being in the discussion now and not earlier.

You also have to note that, in order to go in, he needs to separate himself from his competition. Sure, this is the point where he's in the discussion but in the last runoff he lost out to a guy who won two titles, an MVP, DPOY, and was generally regarded as a great two way player. Similar knocks were injury shortened careers.

[Clyde Frazier]

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.

I'm a big supporter of Deke obviously, but I agree with this. Mutombo wasn't a bad offensive player by any means, but I don't think he strategically chose to not be an offensive focal point. I think his coaches saw him for what he was offensively and thus didn't make him a primary option.

Right, i give him a sizable advantage over someone like ben wallace, who really wasn’t an option offensively. With mutombo, he did give you a pretty efficient 13 PPG in his prime, and he had basic post moves. I can appreciate that given how talented he was defensively.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #44 (same count as Clyde Frazier had a little bit ago, I see):

Alex English (1) - penbeast0

Tracy McGrady (2) - ronnymac2, E-Balla

Pau Gasol (1) - john248

Dikembe Mutombo (3) - Chuck Texas, Doctor MJ, tsherkin

Robert Parish (1) - trex_8063

Adrian Dantley (1) - Moonbeam

Few guys who have been active in the discussion itt, but have not yet cast a vote: Clyde Frazier, fplii, lukeharts, Owly.

Not sure if DNice has requested to be added to the list of eligible voters (or has any interest in doing so), though I for one would encourage him to do so as long as he's involved in the discussion anyway. Though he and I haven't always seen eye to eye, I def respect his opinion (and the more knowledgeable opinions the merrier, you know?).

[ceiling raiser]

Thru post #44 (same count as Clyde Frazier had a little bit ago, I see):

Alex English (1) - penbeast0

Tracy McGrady (2) - ronnymac2, E-Balla

Pau Gasol (1) - john248

Dikembe Mutombo (3) - Chuck Texas, Doctor MJ, tsherkin

Robert Parish (1) - trex_8063

Adrian Dantley (1) - Moonbeam

Few guys who have been active in the discussion itt, but have not yet cast a vote: Clyde Frazier, fplii, lukeharts, Owly.

Not sure if DNice has requested to be added to the list of eligible voters (or has any interest in doing so), though I for one would encourage him to do so as long as he's involved in the discussion anyway. Though he and I haven't always seen eye to eye, I def respect his opinion (and the more knowledgeable opinions the merrier, you know?).

Probably won't cast a vote until this reaches the run-off. I might support Parish here before then, but I'd have to be convinced that he was responsible for a lot of Boston's D (as opposed to McHale and the rest of the cast).

I'd also advocate adding DNice to the panel. He and I have agreed to disagree before as well, but I definitely respect his POV, and more knowledgeable voices can only improve the panel.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #44 (same count as Clyde Frazier had a little bit ago, I see):

Alex English (1) - penbeast0

Tracy McGrady (2) - ronnymac2, E-Balla

Pau Gasol (1) - john248

Dikembe Mutombo (3) - Chuck Texas, Doctor MJ, tsherkin

Robert Parish (1) - trex_8063

Adrian Dantley (1) - Moonbeam

Few guys who have been active in the discussion itt, but have not yet cast a vote: Clyde Frazier, fplii, lukeharts, Owly.

Not sure if DNice has requested to be added to the list of eligible voters (or has any interest in doing so), though I for one would encourage him to do so as long as he's involved in the discussion anyway. Though he and I haven't always seen eye to eye, I def respect his opinion (and the more knowledgeable opinions the merrier, you know?).

Probably won't cast a vote until this reaches the run-off. I might support Parish here before then, but I'd have to be convinced that he was responsible for a lot of Boston's D (as opposed to McHale and the rest of the cast).

I'd also advocate adding DNice to the panel. He and I have agreed to disagree before as well, but I definitely respect his POV, and more knowledgeable voices can only improve the panel.

I'd made mention of his defensive stats and contributions in my voting post (#14 itt), noting his apparent defensive prowess during his first seven seasons anyway (which include first three Boston years). I'll state the relevant numbers:

He was 4th in league in bpg in '81, 5th in '82.
Was 5th in league in DWS in '81, 6th in '82, 3rd in '84, 5th in '86, 10th in '87.
Was 2nd in DRtg in '81, 3rd in '82, 10th in '83, 9th in '84, 6th in '86.

And while I don't exactly understand how it's calculated, I'll nonetheless cite shutupandjam's Defensive Estimated Impact for Parish during his Boston years:

'81--->2nd in league
'82--->5th in league
'83--->tied for 16th in league
'84--->tied for 15th
'85--->tied for 37th
'86--->tied for 15th
'87--->tied for 21st

I wish we had more in the way of a before/after or with/without look at team defense, but to Parish's credit: he was almost never absent. His arrival corresponds with the departure of Dave Cowens (so there could be some give and take there), and he didn't depart until he was past his prime. So those kinds of evaluations are significantly muddied.

But hopefully the above is enough to indicate he was significant to what you're asking about.

EDIT: Add to that the fact that he was obv not at all an offensive slouch, and his incredible durability and longevity.....

[Clyde Frazier]

Thru post #44 (same count as Clyde Frazier had a little bit ago, I see):

Alex English (1) - penbeast0

Tracy McGrady (2) - ronnymac2, E-Balla

Pau Gasol (1) - john248

Dikembe Mutombo (3) - Chuck Texas, Doctor MJ, tsherkin

Robert Parish (1) - trex_8063

Adrian Dantley (1) - Moonbeam

Few guys who have been active in the discussion itt, but have not yet cast a vote: Clyde Frazier, fplii, lukeharts, Owly.

Not sure if DNice has requested to be added to the list of eligible voters (or has any interest in doing so), though I for one would encourage him to do so as long as he's involved in the discussion anyway. Though he and I haven't always seen eye to eye, I def respect his opinion (and the more knowledgeable opinions the merrier, you know?).

I was originally between cowens and Hayes (and still might be), but then started looking at dantley vs. English. I know they've been discussed a fair share over the last few threads, but ultimately wanted to watch some more game footage of them before voting.

If I do end up voting, will probably be in the 5 pm (eastern) range.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ronnymac2]

Robert Parish was the one battling Kareem, Akeem, Laimbeer, and Moses in the paint, too. He may have been the one to sacrifice the most out of the Big 3. Look at his 1989 season on basketball-reference when Bird missed 76 games. It was Parish who upped his rebound rate, minutes, USG%, and scoring volume, not Kevin McHale.

[trex_8063]

Robert Parish was the one battling Kareem, Akeem, Laimbeer, and Moses in the paint, too. He may have been the one to sacrifice the most out of the Big 3. Look at his 1989 season on basketball-reference when Bird missed 76 games. It was Parish who upped his rebound rate, minutes, USG%, and scoring volume, not Kevin McHale.

Wow, yeah. I hadn't even noticed that: highest TRB% in the league in '89 (playing 35.5 mpg at age 35, too!).

EDIT: While also dropping 25.6 pts per 100 poss on .607 TS%. Nice.

[Owly]

...

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.

One note on a "for whatever it's worth", information comment and one perhaps more pertinent one on it.

The first is that in his rookie year he was second on the Denver team in ppg with 16.6 ppg. Not that his usage was huge (so part of it is minutes). How much that had to do with the quality of Denver's O (not good) is something for each of us to make for ourselves.

The more relevent question might be how willingly he went in the right direction
The Barry Books

While early on he pouted about not being the "main man" on offense (more nonverbally than through anything he said), Mutombo soon enough got his priorities straight: defense, rebounding and then scoring

When Mutombo joined the NBA in 1991, Nuggets coach Paul Westhead made him the go-to guy ... Mutombo was the go-to guy under coach Dan Issel in 1992-92 -- as long as three or four other options weren't available ... In 1993-94, Mutombo decided to forego offense and rebounding ... Smart move ... The reason has a lot to do with ESPN -- and CNN, NBC, Sports Illustrated and other prime-time media outlets ... Mutombo thrives on the fame game ... The Nuggets wisely tapped into Mutombo's hunger for publicity by finally convincing him that defense and shot blocking were the path to real prominence

Say what you want about Mutombo -- he's too concerned about individual stats, he too often complains about not getting the ball or the calls, but the fact is he delivers most every night
...
Though he'd like the pill more often (Mutombo went ballistic after an early-season win over Chicago where he took only one shot, an outburst that didn't endear him to his teammates and was symptomatic of the attitudes that prevailed in the Mile High city last year), he doesn't yet possess a repertoire that demands a lot of touches

...

In Sum
[talk about his great D] ... but we question whether his offense will ever catch up ... Indeed, the best strategy for the Nuggets -- and Mutombo -- would be for the big guy to focus on his defense and rebounding, leave the scoring to others ... However we suspect, no make that know that such a suggestion would never sit well with him.

[DQuinn1575]

I'll vote for mcgrady
It looks like it's him or mutombo and I'm definitely a peak over lifetime achievement guy


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[D Nice]

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.

Yeah…this line of thinking makes 0 sense to me. A guy being bad/mediocre at something does not make him better than a guy who is pretty good at the same thing (all else being equal). At best you could argue it keeps a coach from trying to “jam a square peg into a round hole” by adopting a sub-optimal approach, but when comparing the players as individuals I do not see how being less capable in one or several makes that person better or more impactful/useful.

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).

Right…THIS is why I rank McGrady significantly lower than Wade.Despite having an extremely portable skill set the Yao-McGrady Rockets, even when healthy, were extremely underwhelming, enough so for me to question his ability to lead championship-quality teams in comparison to Kobe/Wade/Lebron and even Durant. For whatever reason he couldn’t blend his game with an elite post scorer the way Kobe & Wade did despite being a better shooter than Wade and (arguably) a better passer than Kobe.

To clarify T-Mac's efficiency, I was never really implying he was inefficient, just that he didn't post elite efficiency numbers compared to other similar guys (Durant, Wade, Gervin) hence his position somewhat below them.

Equally, his lack of success as a player is absolutely a factor in him being in the discussion now and not earlier.

You also have to note that, in order to go in, he needs to separate himself from his competition. Sure, this is the point where he's in the discussion but in the last runoff he lost out to a guy who won two titles, an MVP, DPOY, and was generally regarded as a great two way player. Similar knocks were injury shortened careers.

Eh, I think my post indicates rather clearly he was just as efficient as Wade. Gervin was a pure scorer who didn’t offer much else so that comparison really doesn’t hold too much water, and KD is much much more efficient than not just T-Mac but Kobe/Wade (obviously not comparable as a playmaker though) too so I’m not sure why you decided to group Wade/Ice/KD together.

And I definitely DO think he's separated himself form the other people being discussed. I've got his '03 season as the #14 or #15 peak ever (flip-flopping with '09 Wade), and even if others aren't similarly high on it I don't see how it isn't at least a top 20 peak. The only guys remaining on the board with peaks even close to that are Walton (who I have 10th) and Penny (who I have 29th-30th) and neither one of those guys are being discussed (and rightfully so with their extremely limited careers). He's got 4 seasons as a legitimate top 5-7 player which, again, I think only KJ/Hill come close to, and by come close I mean they were good but still clearly miss this mark. They might have 2 or 3 top 7 seasons combined between the two of them.

[Owly]

Anyhow will stick to my Parish vote. By the numbers (RS, at least) he looks about as good as McHale for the years both were playing, and adds a bit of vale from his GS years. Career value wise I think he is probably best player on the board and the peak isn't bad so even with the higher value of elite seasons, I think that remains true.

On the PS struggles ...
In mitigation: The East was definitely the tougher conference. Metrics are typically reduced in the playoffs both because the bar of the average player is higher (the avg playoff player is better than the average NBA player) and beacuse tougher competition hurts each players production anyway and within the context a higher level of competion within the conference, maybe that helps explaina away what's happening.

A negative factor: Most playoff "fall-off guys" e.g. Robinson, Malone, Wilt (though I'd tend to argue their struggles are a little overstated and overemphasised) or at least those most recalled, tend to be guys who were clear first options, often without much in the way of second options, scoring wise, which made them vulnerable to game planning. Parish is the opposite. He should perhaps be benefitting from an increased focus on Bird. Now he was a big part of the O, especially in the early 80s, but he certainly wouldn't be the primary focus of any scouting reports.

[D Nice]

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

Definitely the C's best player on that end (or perhaps most impactful while being tied with DJ for "best") but their approach was closer to an ensemble-style defense than to a "funnel to our monster anchor" defense. He was always an excellent defensive player though, clearly a tier or 2 ahead of Pau in that regard which separates them pretty clearly in my mind. If I had to lay out a modern defensive template for Parish...it's hard...I'd probably say '10 Gasol just better at most things - more athletic, better defending the post one on one, equally adept at contesting shots without fouling, better deterrent at the rim as he was stronger and less likely to be muscled out of the way by an attacking wing, better when switched out onto a small player (although this happened a lot less to Boston).

[penbeast0]

Even with Owly, it looks like Mutombo v. McGrady. I don't think either deserve to be this high, Parish and Dantley both rate higher for me, but I won't vote just to send it into a runoff.

Dikembe Mutombo — Chuck Texas, DoctorMJ, tsherkin

Tracy McGrady — ronnymac2, E-Balla, DQuinn1575

Alex English — penbeast0

Pau Gasol — john248

Robert Parish — trex_8063, Owly,

Adrian Dantley — Moonbeam

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Right, but of course none of those guys are in contention here.

I think though an understandable riposte to me regarding Thurmond would be to say "Yes, he had less impact than Mutombo due to the offensive issues, but if you put them each in each other's shoes, it would have been Mutombo who was attempting to volume score and failing miserably."

[Basketballefan]

I dont think either one belongs but ill vote tmac. Prime tmac was in the convo as a top 5 player, mutumbo would be lucky if he had one season as a top 10 player. I dont believe that mutumbo's defense was more impactful than tmac's all around game.

[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.

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.

This project is making me revisit my opinion of him. I did catch some of his games in Orlando, but I was a grad student in Salt Lake City at the time, so I mostly saw Jazz games on TV and they obviously only played the Magic twice a year. I do appreciate that he was a real phenom during that season, but it is well outside of his norm from a scoring perspective:

Code: Select all

Year  Score+  PosScore+  TeamScore+
1998  -0.743   -0.839       0.026
1999  -0.314   -0.338       0.036
2000  -0.671   -0.922      -0.092
2001   0.199   -0.317       0.492
2002   0.770    0.490      -0.023
2003   3.351    3.313       2.852
2004   0.675    1.001       1.527
2005  -0.240   -0.422      -0.570
2006  -3.006   -3.087      -1.768
2007  -1.839   -2.246      -1.722
2008  -3.383   -3.480      -2.599
2009  -2.604   -2.582      -2.784
2010  -3.057   -2.813      -3.219
2011  -1.406   -1.375      -1.089
2012  -0.574   -0.435      -0.844


I don't actually think he was a bad player for Houston or anything, but I can't help but feel that seeing him so much more as a Rocket probably does cause me to rank him lower than I perhaps should.

[penbeast0]

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.

Right, but of course none of those guys are in contention here.

I think though an understandable riposte to me regarding Thurmond would be to say "Yes, he had less impact than Mutombo due to the offensive issues, but if you put them each in each other's shoes, it would have been Mutombo who was attempting to volume score and failing miserably."

I don't think he would fail as miserably as Thurmond; I think his impact would be more like the ATL version of Bellamy with reasonable volumes at decent efficiency but just not mobile enough to do much more. I can't see Mutombo shooting as much from midrange or with those ugly turnarounds like Thurmond. He didn't have that game (neither did Thurmond but Thurmond didn't seem to realize it).