RealGM Top 100 List #52

[penbeast0]

Looking at:

Players with long, consistent careers . . . mainly wings: English, Sam Jones, Vince Carter, and Nique. My head says English, my heart says Jones.

Players with reasonable but not long careers and some peak seasons: Dave Cowens, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, oh, and Mel Daniels with his 2 MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively.

Players with unreasonably short peaks but who were really extraordinary and special. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, Sidney Moncrief. Walton only had 1 year where he made it to the playoffs as a starter; Hawkins similarly only 1 great year though 1 pretty good year after reinventing his game following his first big knee injury; Moncrief 4-5 good years but not as good as the other two.

Vote: Alex English.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Dominique Wilkins

One of the greatest scorers this league has seen, went toe to toe with peak Bird despite having an inferior squad. Finished 2nd in league mvp voting with peak Bird, Magic, Kareem, Hakeem in the league.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Alex English

My true contenders for this spot are Nate Thurmond, Alex English, Allen Iverson, and VC.

English is a very good all-around player and might be the most consistently great player left. His 1985 REG SEA and playoffs is one of the underrated peak seasons on this board in my opinion. He could score, pass, rebound, and handle. Took pretty good care of the ball. He led the first 110+ offense in NBA history, too.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Dave Cowens, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo

Worms: Dennis Rodman

Wings: Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Paul Arizin, Alex English, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[trex_8063]

Because Joao Saraiva had asked if adding in evaluation of '88 for Dantley helped; answer is no.

’88
12/25/87: 91 pts, .454 TS%, 94.0 ORtg, +7.14 SRS (W)
01/24/88: 111 pts, .589 TS%, 108.2 ORtg, -1.41 SRS (L)
02/09/88: 89 pts, .494 TS%, 101.7 ORtg, +21.76 SRS (W)
02/10/88: 98 pts, .576 TS%, 105.9 ORtg, +8.14 SRS (W)
02/12/88: 108 pts, .562 TS%, 104.9 ORtg, +17.02 SRS (W)
02/13/88: 82 pts, .429 TS%, 87.4 ORtg, +9.76 SRS (W)
02/15/88: 102 pts, .533 TS%, 112.0 ORtg, +3.21 SRS (W)
02/18/88: 108 pts, .577 TS%, 114.1 ORtg, +11.29 SRS (W)
02/19/88: 108 pts, .512 TS%, 105.0 ORtg, -6.79 SRS (L)
02/21/88: 110 pts, .602 TS%, 111.9 ORtg, +0.81 SRS (L)
02/23/88: 121 pts, .633 TS%, 127.0 ORtg, +13.16 SRS (W)
02/24/88: 107 pts, .534 TS%, 110.5 ORtg, +8.62 SRS (W)
04/24/88: 128 pts, .625 TS%, 132.1 ORtg, +6.21 SRS (W)
Avg without Dantley: 104.8 ppg, .548 TS%, 108.8 ORtg, +7.61 SRS.
WITH Dantley: 110.1 ppg (+5.2), .548 TS% (+/- 0), 110.8 ORtg (+2.0), +5.05 SRS (-2.56).
10-3 (.769) record w/o, 44-25 (.638) record with.

Making new totals....
Average effect of having Dantley vs. not having him ('80-'88)
NOT weighted for games played/missed *only three years data for ts% and ORtg (‘86-’88)
+3.3 ppg
+0.4% TS%*
-1.2 ORtg*
+1.26 SRS
Weighted for games PLAYED
+3.4 ppg
+0.4% TS%*
-1.5 ORtg*
+1.63 SRS
Weighted for games MISSED
+2.7 ppg
+0.8 TS%*
+1.8 ORtg*
-0.52 SRS
51-76 (.402) record w/o him, 290-321 (.475) record with: avg +6.0 wins per 82-game season.


Again, for comparison, here is Iverson ('99-'02, '04-'06):
AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him over these years:
NOT weighted for games played/missed
+7.3 ppg
+1.1% TS%
+2.3 ORtg
+4.61 SRS
WEIGHTED for games played
+7.4 ppg
+1.2% TS%
+2.5 ORtg
+4.21 SRS
Weighted for games missed
+7.1 ppg
+0.8% TS%
+1.4 ORtg
+2.90 SRS
39-59 record (.398) without, 251-193 record (.565) with (avg of +13.7 wins per 82-game season).


Vote for #52: Allen Iverson.

[Moonbeam]

Because Joao Saraiva had asked if adding in evaluation of '88 for Dantley helped; answer is no.

’88
12/25/87: 91 pts, .454 TS%, 94.0 ORtg, +7.14 SRS (W)
01/24/88: 111 pts, .589 TS%, 108.2 ORtg, -1.41 SRS (L)
02/09/88: 89 pts, .494 TS%, 101.7 ORtg, +21.76 SRS (W)
02/10/88: 98 pts, .576 TS%, 105.9 ORtg, +8.14 SRS (W)
02/12/88: 108 pts, .562 TS%, 104.9 ORtg, +17.02 SRS (W)
02/13/88: 82 pts, .429 TS%, 87.4 ORtg, +9.76 SRS (W)
02/15/88: 102 pts, .533 TS%, 112.0 ORtg, +3.21 SRS (W)
02/18/88: 108 pts, .577 TS%, 114.1 ORtg, +11.29 SRS (W)
02/19/88: 108 pts, .512 TS%, 105.0 ORtg, -6.79 SRS (L)
02/21/88: 110 pts, .602 TS%, 111.9 ORtg, +0.81 SRS (L)
02/23/88: 121 pts, .633 TS%, 127.0 ORtg, +13.16 SRS (W)
02/24/88: 107 pts, .534 TS%, 110.5 ORtg, +8.62 SRS (W)
04/24/88: 128 pts, .625 TS%, 132.1 ORtg, +6.21 SRS (W)
Avg without Dantley: 104.8 ppg, .548 TS%, 108.8 ORtg, +7.61 SRS.
WITH Dantley: 110.1 ppg (+5.2), .548 TS% (+/- 0), 110.8 ORtg (+2.0), +5.05 SRS (-2.56).
10-3 (.769) record w/o, 44-25 (.638) record with.

Making new totals....
Average effect of having Dantley vs. not having him ('80-'88)
NOT weighted for games played/missed *only three years data for ts% and ORtg (‘86-’88)
+3.3 ppg
+0.4% TS%*
-1.2 ORtg*
+1.26 SRS
Weighted for games PLAYED
+3.4 ppg
+0.4% TS%*
-1.5 ORtg*
+1.63 SRS
Weighted for games MISSED
+2.7 ppg
+0.8 TS%*
+1.8 ORtg*
-0.52 SRS
51-76 (.402) record w/o him, 290-321 (.475) record with: avg +6.0 wins per 82-game season.


Again, for comparison, here is Iverson ('99-'02, '04-'06):
AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him over these years:
NOT weighted for games played/missed
+7.3 ppg
+1.1% TS%
+2.3 ORtg
+4.61 SRS
WEIGHTED for games played
+7.4 ppg
+1.2% TS%
+2.5 ORtg
+4.21 SRS
Weighted for games missed
+7.1 ppg
+0.8% TS%
+1.4 ORtg
+2.90 SRS
39-59 record (.398) without, 251-193 record (.565) with (avg of +13.7 wins per 82-game season).


Vote for #52: Allen Iverson.

Not sure if you've seen it, but I've posted TS stats for Dantley's 1982-83 and 1984-85 seasons here. I also touched on Detroit's 1987-88 season here. It's not relevant now that Dantley is in, but I think context is quite important with these sorts of things, I think context makes Dantley's dubious impact statistics not look so bad and Iverson's dubious efficiency not look so bad.

Alex English is probably going to be my next vote, but I want to take a closer look at a few others before I make it official.

[trex_8063]

Not sure if you've seen it, but I've posted TS stats for Dantley's 1982-83 and 1984-85 seasons here.

I did see that, and thanks. I haven't yet incorporated it into my numbers, but will do so soon (I hope). I'd just already killed so much time compiling the stuff I had, and the SRS and win-rate numbers were the more important ones to me, so I didn't figure them into the mix yet.

I also touched on Detroit's 1987-88 season here.

I hadn't read that yet, actually. It doesn't---I would say---excuse the fact that Detroit played better without him in the rs. You kind of explain how (defense over offense) and who the responsible characters were, who came in and consistently lifted Detroit's performance to a level they were apparently incapable of with Dantley in the line-up.......but that doesn't exactly excuse Dantley's inability to lift them higher than they were otherwise capable of in the rs.
The post-season case is a much more substantial counter-argument. And to some degree I'm not surprised someone like Dantley can shine in the post-season. He absolutely must be one of the top-tier isolation scorers in history; and isolation scoring becomes so much more of a premium skill in the playoffs, when facing better and more intense defenses (imo).

It's not relevant now that Dantley is in, but I think context is quite important with these sorts of things, I think context makes Dantley's dubious impact statistics not look so bad and Iverson's dubious efficiency not look so bad.

That's one of the huge points I (among others) are trying to hammer home, and I'm glad to hear it come from the person who was Dantley's most stalwart supporter.
I feel like there's this tendency by many here to say "oh, those volume stats must have been empty; just look at the efficiency......"; boom: case closed. But clearly (at least I would hope it's clear by this point) there's more to it. And to some degree I think we've already been thru this with people like Jason Kidd, who consistently showed a bigger impact than we would intuitively think his efficiency would allow for. For different reasons (context being the largest reason) I think the same is true of Iverson.
I already went thru and showed that Iverson had an impact on team success/improvement/winning similar to that of Kevin Johnson......only Iverson did it for longer.

I mean, it's not illusion. I didn't fabricate or manifest these impact studies on Iverson; but there still seems to be skepticism that it could possibly be true (because....efficiency, yo).

[Joao Saraiva]

My vote will go to Allen Iverson again.

I have my reasons in the previous threads.

[Texas Chuck]

Official Vote: Dave Cowens

MVP, 3 other top 5 finishes.

Best player on two champions.

Bridged the gap from Russell to Bird while keeping Boston very competitive until the last 2 seasons prior to Bird.

Good rebounder/defender/hustle guy.

Offensively he wasn't efficient by modern standards but he gave you 18 ppg shooting 46% which isn't bad considering scoring was well down the list of things he brought to the game. Outstanding passing big man.

I wonder if the fact that the only Dave Cowens highlight people ever see is him stumbling, bumbling, diving after a loose ball affects perception of him because Im honestly surprised he hasn't gotten a little more attention in this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHqBKOhgrEE[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4rYDi_AAN4[/youtube]

[E-Balla]

I will vote for Allen Iverson. As said previously I like his ability to lead a team better than the others left and I think his career was the most impressive once you take team situation and era into account. Towards the end of his career he had a major rule change and he capitalized on it like no one other than Kobe and Ray Allen averaging 33/4/7.

[Clyde Frazier]

Most likely between cowens, hayes and english here. Will take a look at a few others before making a decision.

Back in the mutombo run off vs. iverson, I made some points about how when you look a little closer at him statistically, he brought more to the table than just high volume low efficiency scoring:

Spoiler:

Going to throw in a vote for iverson. I was thinking about staying out of the runoff completely, but i think iverson has a lot going for him if you don’t focus solely on his lackluster efficiency. Here’s a comparison of the 2 players until their last “prime” season:

http://bkref.com/tiny/bYMoK

Iverson’s TS% in his 01 MVP season (51.8%) matched the league average exactly. It was a crowded MVP race that season, but when you include narrative, I think he had a good case (if i had a vote back then, it would’ve gone to shaq). Iverson would finish top 10 in MVP voting 6 other times, whereas mutombo had 1 MVP finish at 13th.

The fact that iverson finished top 3 in MPG in 10 seasons (7 of which he was #1) is astounding and at least partially a comment on the makeup of his teams over the years. I’m not going to completely ignore his attitude towards being “the man” in his sixers days, but there were never major reports on him clashing with carmelo. Under a better management situation, maybe he gets a complementary scorer that gives him some rest and his efficiency increases.

I also never considered him a “selfish” stat padder when he would rack up steals and assists. The guy was just relentless and had boundless energy at times. He finished top 5 in SPG 7 times, leading the league in 3 straight seasons. He was also top 6 in STL% 5 times. His overall AST% from 97-08 at 29.3% barely dropped in the playoffs to 28.6%. I find that rather impressive for a guy still putting up ~28-30 PPG.

I don’t think his other contributions statistically were empty by any means. He wasn’t in a great situation in philly over the years, and I don’t put the majority of the blame on him being difficult to build around. Some players end up luckier than others with team makeup during their prime.

[Owly]

I already went thru and showed that Iverson had an impact on team success/improvement/winning similar to that of Kevin Johnson......only Iverson did it for longer.

I mean, it's not illusion. I didn't fabricate or manifest these impact studies on Iverson; but there still seems to be skepticism that it could possibly be true (because....efficiency, yo).

On the (relative) skeptic side (which is just to say he's not at the top of my board right now), I'd say the counterpoint is those teams.

We've had a lot of "well look at his lousy teammates" and I think yourself saying that they were already pushing teammates to high (perhaps higher than ideal) usage. Well if you invest so much of your shot creation responsibility into one player, and don't have any replacement for that, and have built a team contingent upon having that, then taking that away is naturally going to lead to bad results. With/without type numbers will also tend to show high (inflated?) impact for high minutes guys becuase they typically involve more minutes to reserves and deeper reaching down the depth chart (i.e. the without drops off for injuries etc, but does that necessarily mean you are a contender with). The question (for me at least) is how "real", important or typical that value is for what better teams could do without him.

Anyhow I'm voting Bob Lanier
Reasoning: looks like the best career added value by crude faux-EWA/WS combination. He's also high on a similar peak based ranking which I ended up posting a few threads back (43rd, and all those above him still available didn't maintain their peak anything close to how he did, and/or have era concerns). Team level D might be held against him but his Drtg (hardly perfect, but I think sufficient for the point/claim being made) in '74 when he played 81 games led the league.

A concern might be that he missed quite a few games, including playing (just) less than 65 games and 2500 minutes for three of his five short prime/extended peak years ('76, '77 and '78 of '74-'78). Still for that 5 year span he looks like the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league (even after minutes are factored in) and he lasted much better than McAdoo.
cf:
The five year span in question http://bkref.com/tiny/64BQL
The 70s: http://bkref.com/tiny/0DbJe

Reviews on D

Lanier is the big difference. He played only when in the mood before last season. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.

[individual bio]
Called "Moses" by his teammates ... For leading them out of the wilderness ...... trimmer last season ...... Defense was his biggest improvement

Depending on who's in there, the Pistons can make you work. When one of the "whos" is either Trapp or Howard Porter, the opponents can relax a bit. But Rowe, Ford, Mengelt, Kevin Porter, Money and Lanier will get down and play some defense. Lanier, in fact often surprises people by jumping out to pick up guards or forwards. He also clogs the middle nicely.
[individual bio]
Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards.

Somewhat confusing. Lanier is a mammoth figure to try and get around [and some other decent players but the Porters are bad and the bench "woefully weak" ... comunication and fouling called a problem, perhaps coaching semi-implied as a problem based on that?]
[individual bio]
Can rebound, block shots, play defense, do everything but clean the kitchen floor ...... [unrelated but I've touched on this] Injuries have been a problem, though, but he has always played hurt

[Vitale will be looking to emphasize D] Lanier gives him a head start. That is the advantage of having a big center. Lanier seals off the middle and is tough and aggressive.

[individual bio]Devensively he can be as imposing as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore

Depending on how much you allow hypotheticals, you might also consider that Detroit rushed him back in his rookie year which may have been detrimental to his long term health.

[trex_8063]

I already went thru and showed that Iverson had an impact on team success/improvement/winning similar to that of Kevin Johnson......only Iverson did it for longer.

I mean, it's not illusion. I didn't fabricate or manifest these impact studies on Iverson; but there still seems to be skepticism that it could possibly be true (because....efficiency, yo).

On the (relative) skeptic side (which is just to say he's not at the top of my board right now), I'd say the counterpoint is those teams.

We've had a lot of "well look at his lousy teammates" and I think yourself saying that they were already pushing teammates to high (perhaps higher than ideal) usage. Well if you invest so much of your shot creation responsibility into one player, and don't have any replacement for that, and have built a team contingent upon having that, then taking that away is naturally going to lead to bad results. With/without type numbers will also tend to show high (inflated?) impact for high minutes guys becuase they typically involve more minutes to reserves and deeper reaching down the depth chart (i.e. the without drops off for injuries etc, but does that necessarily mean you are a contender with). The question (for me at least) is how "real", important or typical that value is for what better teams could do without him.

Few things I want to reply to in this paragraph:

1) fwiw, I never stated anything to the effect that you can easily build a contender around Iverson. I never even called that '01 team a contender; I don't think that '01 team is true contender (at least not in a broad sense.....there may have been as many as 2-4 years in NBA history where they could have seriously contended).

2) I don't think it's fair at all (or even makes sense) to hold Iverson's minutes against him. In fact---since most of our stats for comparison (e.g. PER, WS/48, RAPM, ORtg/DRtg, Per 100 possession numbers) are all per minute/per possession metrics---I would say a player's ability to produce at whatever level for HIGHER mpg than his peers is something to laud (and I for one have done so in Iverson's case).

3) Fair point regarding what his impact would be on a better team. I agree it's unlikely to be as dramatic. However, couple points about his impact in Denver:

In '06 (pre-Iverson): Denver has a +0.36 SRS and ORtg of 105.5 (-0.7 to league avg).
In '07 (Iverson arrives early in season, traded there primarily for Andre Miller and draft pick): +1.69 SRS, ORtg 107.6 (+1.1 to league).
'08 (Iverson there all year; Nene missed most of year): +3.74 SRS, ORtg 110.0 (+2.5 to league).
'09 (Iverson traded away for Chauncey Billups; Nene is both healthy and improved as a player): +3.13 SRS, ORtg 110.4 (+2.1 to league). It's been argued that this team was so much better than the year before (based on trip to WCF). But in truth, the West was weaker this year, allowing for 4 games better record despite being -0.61 SRS from the year before; and that mere four games was enough to improve their playoff seeding from 8th in '08 to 2nd in '09 (so they weren't faced with the Lakers in the first round--->who would ultimately eliminate them in '09, as well).
And note that despite getting Billups (a very fine player in his own right) in the swap, as well as a recovered and improved Nene, their offense did not improve from '08.

Food for thought, anyway.

[Dubeta]

Melo says hi

[Owly]

I already went thru and showed that Iverson had an impact on team success/improvement/winning similar to that of Kevin Johnson......only Iverson did it for longer.

I mean, it's not illusion. I didn't fabricate or manifest these impact studies on Iverson; but there still seems to be skepticism that it could possibly be true (because....efficiency, yo).

On the (relative) skeptic side (which is just to say he's not at the top of my board right now), I'd say the counterpoint is those teams.

We've had a lot of "well look at his lousy teammates" and I think yourself saying that they were already pushing teammates to high (perhaps higher than ideal) usage. Well if you invest so much of your shot creation responsibility into one player, and don't have any replacement for that, and have built a team contingent upon having that, then taking that away is naturally going to lead to bad results. With/without type numbers will also tend to show high (inflated?) impact for high minutes guys becuase they typically involve more minutes to reserves and deeper reaching down the depth chart (i.e. the without drops off for injuries etc, but does that necessarily mean you are a contender with). The question (for me at least) is how "real", important or typical that value is for what better teams could do without him.

Few things I want to reply to in this paragraph:

1) fwiw, I never stated anything to the effect that you can easily build a contender around Iverson. I never even called that '01 team a contender; I don't think that '01 team is true contender (at least not in a broad sense.....there may have been as many as 2-4 years in NBA history where they could have seriously contended).

2) I don't think it's fair at all (or even makes sense) to hold Iverson's minutes against him. In fact---since most of our stats for comparison (e.g. PER, WS/48, RAPM, ORtg/DRtg, Per 100 possession numbers) are all per minute/per possession metrics---I would say a player's ability to produce at whatever level for HIGHER mpg than his peers is something to laud (and I for one have done so in Iverson's case).

3) Fair point regarding what his impact would be on a better team. I agree it's unlikely to be as dramatic. However, couple points about his impact in Denver:

In '06 (pre-Iverson): Denver has a +0.36 SRS and ORtg of 105.5 (-0.7 to league avg).
In '07 (Iverson arrives early in season, traded there primarily for Andre Miller and draft pick): +1.69 SRS, ORtg 107.6 (+1.1 to league).
'08 (Iverson there all year; Nene missed most of year): +3.74 SRS, ORtg 110.0 (+2.5 to league).
'09 (Iverson traded away for Chauncey Billups; Nene is both healthy and improved as a player): +3.13 SRS, ORtg 110.4 (+2.1 to league). It's been argued that this team was so much better than the year before (based on trip to WCF). But in truth, the West was weaker this year, allowing for 4 games better record despite being -0.61 SRS from the year before; and that mere four games was enough to improve their playoff seeding from 8th in '08 to 2nd in '09 (so they weren't faced with the Lakers in the first round--->who would ultimately eliminate them in '09, as well).
And note that despite getting Billups (a very fine player in his own right) in the swap, as well as a recovered and improved Nene, their offense did not improve from '08.

Food for thought, anyway.

On 2 it's not holding minutes against him. His ability to play big minutes is of course an asset. It is however relevent to note in with-without studies where absences are temporary (injury suspension) the team is unlikely to have high calibre players (even for reserves) at positions where said players can only play 8 or so minutes (assuming rigid positional designations, obviously in practice this varies). Suddenly those players are playing big minutes, and peripheral rotation minutes going to third stringers or waiver wire/CBA/D-League players is an issue that should be accounted for with that measure. It makes the team without such a player look bad but it doesn't necessarily show that he can make a team look good. Now I don't know how much this is an issue with Iverson in particular (otoh, for instance, McKie is a solid reserve guard, though I suspect he played a fair bit alongside AI a bit so couldn't always "replace" his minutes). But I can't see how there would be an issue with pointing out that this net impact type measure could inflate "positive" impact by emphasizing a high "without" downside which is contextually probable out of necessity (i.e. you shouldn't be spending money on players who won't play).

If you disagree with the analysis that's fine, but let's not pretend that this is something which it isn't (holding Iverson's minutes against him, as apposed to a measure of his performance).

[trex_8063]

Melo says hi

I'm not sure how you feel this statement is relevant to the above observations, as Melo was a constant thru all years in question: was in his prime by '06 with no significant improvement thru '09, nor did he miss overly significant games in any of these years.

[trex_8063]

If you disagree with the analysis that's fine, but let's not pretend that this is something which it isn't (holding Iverson's minutes against him, as apposed to a measure of his performance).

I gotcha. Yes, throw him into scenarios where it is only required of him to play more "normal" star-level minutes (maybe 36-39 mpg), his impact by these types of studies is apt to look less impressive. I'd tend to agree with that.

However, a counter-point question would be to ask if guys like, idk.......Kevin Johnson, Ray Allen, whoever else......would have their impacts rise in the same way Iverson did within the Philly situation. Could they shine in that role in the same way he did?

[Dubeta]

Melo says hi

I'm not sure how you feel this statement is relevant to the above observations, as Melo was a constant thru all years in question: was in his prime by '06 with no significant improvement thru '09, nor did he miss overly significant games in any of these years.

i'm just saying melo should be in this discussion. Keep hating though... your hate is hilarious

[E-Balla]

Melo says hi

I'm not sure how you feel this statement is relevant to the above observations, as Melo was a constant thru all years in question: was in his prime by '06 with no significant improvement thru '09, nor did he miss overly significant games in any of these years.

Melo definetly improved in 09 playing more of a defined scoring role and letting his team focus on everything else.

I do think I'll start voting Melo by the time we hit 60 since he's easily in my top 60.

[Clyde Frazier]

Melo says hi

I'm not sure how you feel this statement is relevant to the above observations, as Melo was a constant thru all years in question: was in his prime by '06 with no significant improvement thru '09, nor did he miss overly significant games in any of these years.

i'm just saying melo should be in this discussion. Keep hating though... your hate is hilarious

FYI -- you're better off contributing to the discussion in support of a player than making blanket "keep hating" statements.

Just a quick comment on carmelo. Haven’t thought about where he should rank yet as I know this board has pretty mixed feelings about him. He has improved as a player since 2011, and I think he definitely deserves to be higher than his rank at 93 back then.

A few things that get overlooked when reflecting on his post season career:

- Before the 09 WCF run, he lost to very good teams in those 1st round exits

- In 09, they were 2 games away from the finals, losing to the eventual champion lakers, and he played a major role in that run

- Carmelo is at his best with even an average PG rotation. It keeps the ball moving, and allows him to flourish as an off the ball player, especially now that he’s a great spot up 3 pt shooter. The PG rotations he had around him in the 2011 and 2012 playoffs were some of the worst in NBA history. It was abhorrent.

- He was playing hurt in the 2013 playoffs (http://tinyurl.com/kqwhgud), and chandler yet again didn’t show up for whatever reason (it was an "undisclosed illness" this time). If they had a healthy chandler in against indiania, good chance they make it to the ECF, and who knows what happens.

- Even if we agree that pierce was a better player than carmelo before garnett and allen came along, their careers paralleled each other pretty closely until that point. Carmelo hasn’t had the same luxury to this point in his career. I think he’d be able to capitalize just fine if he eventually does.

[Owly]

If you disagree with the analysis that's fine, but let's not pretend that this is something which it isn't (holding Iverson's minutes against him, as apposed to a measure of his performance).

I gotcha. Yes, throw him into scenarios where it is only required of him to play more "normal" star-level minutes (maybe 36-39 mpg), his impact by these types of studies is apt to look less impressive. I'd tend to agree with that.

However, a counter-point question would be to ask if guys like, idk.......Kevin Johnson, Ray Allen, whoever else......would have their impacts rise in the same way Iverson did within the Philly situation. Could they shine in that role in the same way he did?

Certainly versus my candidate (Lanier), Iverson's big minutes is an advantage. It's remarkable for a foul drawing, attack the basket guy like AI (see for instance KJ, Archibald, Arenas, Steve Francis; guys sized more like conventional 2s like David Thompson, Moncrief at a lower level Marciulionis. Lower foul draw guys like Price and Tim Hardaway. Paul and Rose these days) to sustain his health (not that he didn't miss games but big mpg, highish total season minutes on average and '04 aside it didn't affect him) whilst playing that way for big minutes. He's a remarkable athlete. I'd just rather have Lanier.