RealGM Top 100 List #63

[penbeast0]

PG: Never been sold on Cousy but you have to consider him here. Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys. Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left.

Wings: Sam Jones had a long outstanding career though Sharman and Greer were considered better than Sam Jones in their peaks but the numbers for Jones look better, Arizin is the other main 50s guy. . Sidney Moncrief may be the 3rd greatest 2 guard ever . . . for 4 years. Billy Cunningham, Chet Walker, Bernard King, Glen Rice, Mitch Richmond, there are a lot of scorers out there, how many are at this level, I'm not sure.

Best bigs left: My favorite is Mel Daniels with his 2 ABA MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, and Bob McAdoo for short peak guys . . . in that order for me I would guess. McAdoo, Neil Johnston, Amare, Issel, Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play defense are problematic for me. Ben Wallace, Nate Thurmond, or the Worm also could come up here as well as guys like DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, etc., even Zelmo Beaty and Yao Ming.

Vote: Sidney Moncrief -- very short peak but gives you GOAT man defense and superefficient 20ppg scoring. His peak is at least 1/4 of Walton's peak in my opinion and with Walton only staying reasonably healthy to the playoffs once as a starter, I'd rather take my chances on a 5 year ride with the Squid. He lost out to the Bird Celtics or (when he beat them) the fo fo fo Moses/Erving Sixers during the era of superteams and his playoffs are mixed -- he had some monster runs but also some weak ones -- though his defense shut down several opposing scorers even in the weaker offensive runs.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Nate Thurmond

Still going with Thurmond for now. I'm trying to figure out why I shouldn't vote for Bob McAdoo however. Guy's peak was insane in the mid-70s.

Also looking at Grant Hill. His longevity is pretty impressive all things considered.

Thurmond was great though. Top-10 defensive player ever, was sort of like Joakim Noah with worse scoring on offense (so average, but useful).

Spoiler:

Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman

Wings: Paul Arizin, Penny Hardaway, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[SactoKingsFan]

Sticking with Grant Hill. Although Hill has relatively poor prime longevity, you still get 5 elite seasons, a very portable skill set and excellent role player seasons in PHO which when added to a great rookie season and 5 top 5-10 seasons gives Hill decent longevity. I still don't think any of the candidates being discussed have a clear edge over Hill.

Vote: Grant Hill

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[penbeast0]

Of the short peak guys, who are you most likely to win a title with during their approximately 5 years of dominance?

Moncrief -- the stopper, has the best chance of anyone in history to actually shut down a James Harden type scoring wing. Offensively, the most efficient of the 3, will get you around 20/game on .600 efficiency.
Hill -- the stat box stuffer, not terribly efficient scorer but gives you terrific rebounding, playmaking and solid enough defense.
McAdoo -- the scorer, can get you 30 a game on good efficiency and average rebounding at the cost of defense and some locker room issues. Would he have been better if his defensive issues could have been hidden at PF or would forwards have been more able to defend him out on the floor more effectively than the centers of his day did?

I prefer Moncrief's chance to get you rings. He's the most efficient scorer, did it within a share the ball offense (which has generally been the most efficient) rather than being the featured star, and he's the most impactful defender, not just individually but with his aggression translating to his teammates so that during his star seasons, his team was consistently at the top of the league defensively despite never having great defensive bigs (it continued there 1 season after he left with Paul Pressey taking his spot but then slipped and never recovered). Hill on good team wont be as ball dominant and would probably not be a first option which means his boxscore numbers will decline across the board and McAdoo's individual brilliance never translated into team success for whatever reason. Moncrief's did, the most of the three, though he had the bad luck to run into either the Bird/McHale/Parish Celtics or the Moses/Erving led Sixers almost every year of his prime. It was the era of the superteam and Milwaukee never had that third star to go with Sid and either Marques Johnson or Terry Cummings and fell short of those 2 all-time top 10 stacked teams.

I like Hill as a role player but he isn't a significant difference maker from an average starting wing, same goes for McAdoo's shorter stretch as a role player though each had real value. So, for me it comes down to peak for these three and Moncrief's peak was the highest.

[Joao Saraiva]

My candidates at this point are Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace and Bill Walton. I would like one of them to get any traction at this point so I could cast my vote on one of them.

[penbeast0]

My candidates at this point are Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace and Bill Walton. I would like one of them to get any traction at this point so I could cast my vote on one of them.

I can see Rodman or Wallace if you think their defensive impact is that strong but remember what you get with Walton if you are a team. He demanded max money in his day, needed a team built with off ball players to showcase his unique offensive skills, then once you build that team and assuming you make the playoffs, he's injured EVERY YEAR but one (two if you include his end of career role player year with Boston and even there he was injured again the next year) . . . you have a one year window in his entire career for him to be a difference maker. His peak is higher but do you really have more of a chance to win rings in that one year than you do in 5-6 years of superstar Moncreif, Hill, or McAdoo (or even Mel Daniels)?

[Joao Saraiva]

My candidates at this point are Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace and Bill Walton. I would like one of them to get any traction at this point so I could cast my vote on one of them.

I can see Rodman or Wallace if you think their defensive impact is that strong but remember what you get with Walton if you are a team. He demanded max money in his day, needed a team built with off ball players to showcase his unique offensive skills, then once you build that team and assuming you make the playoffs, he's injured EVERY YEAR but one (two if you include his end of career role player year with Boston and even there he was injured again the next year) . . . you have a one year window in his entire career for him to be a difference maker. His peak is higher but do you really have more of a chance to win rings in that one year than you do in 5-6 years of superstar Moncreif, Hill, or McAdoo (or even Mel Daniels)?

I understand your point, but for me it seems like blaming the guy for being injured doesn't seem right.

[Owly]

My candidates at this point are Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace and Bill Walton. I would like one of them to get any traction at this point so I could cast my vote on one of them.

I can see Rodman or Wallace if you think their defensive impact is that strong but remember what you get with Walton if you are a team. He demanded max money in his day, needed a team built with off ball players to showcase his unique offensive skills, then once you build that team and assuming you make the playoffs, he's injured EVERY YEAR but one (two if you include his end of career role player year with Boston and even there he was injured again the next year) . . . you have a one year window in his entire career for him to be a difference maker. His peak is higher but do you really have more of a chance to win rings in that one year than you do in 5-6 years of superstar Moncreif, Hill, or McAdoo (or even Mel Daniels)?

I understand your point, but for me it seems like blaming the guy for being injured doesn't seem right.

Whilst I absolutely understand the shades of gray here ...

1) I wouldn't say penbeast is "blaming" him for being injured.
2) Whilst I understand the temptation to take factors outside a players control out of the comparison, where do you end (factor out height, athleticism, hand eye coordination?).

As I said there's legitimate room for disagreement (I would, by nature, lean against penalizing Walton for his salary, but understand a hypothetical GM model, if carrying any weight in ones rankings, would have to do so).

[Joao Saraiva]

I can see Rodman or Wallace if you think their defensive impact is that strong but remember what you get with Walton if you are a team. He demanded max money in his day, needed a team built with off ball players to showcase his unique offensive skills, then once you build that team and assuming you make the playoffs, he's injured EVERY YEAR but one (two if you include his end of career role player year with Boston and even there he was injured again the next year) . . . you have a one year window in his entire career for him to be a difference maker. His peak is higher but do you really have more of a chance to win rings in that one year than you do in 5-6 years of superstar Moncreif, Hill, or McAdoo (or even Mel Daniels)?

I understand your point, but for me it seems like blaming the guy for being injured doesn't seem right.

Whilst I absolutely understand the shades of gray here ...

1) I wouldn't say penbeast is "blaming" him for being injured.
2) Whilst I understand the temptation to take factors outside a players control out of the comparison, where do you end (factor out height, athleticism, hand eye coordination?).

As I said there's legitimate room for disagreement (I would, by nature, lean against penalizing Walton for his salary, but understand a hypothetical GM model, if carrying any weight in ones rankings, would have to do so).

I used blame in a way like: hurting Walton's legacy. He asked for a big salary, he delivered and showed he deserved it, but then he was unlucky and got injured a lot. Should that really hurt his legacy a ton or should we foccus more on the bright side of his short but really good peak?

I also understand the points against Walton and the 1 year window. I just don't think we can fault him a lot there and I'd rather look more to his great peak. But that's me, of course.

[trex_8063]

I understand your point, but for me it seems like blaming the guy for being injured doesn't seem right.

Whilst I absolutely understand the shades of gray here ...

1) I wouldn't say penbeast is "blaming" him for being injured.
2) Whilst I understand the temptation to take factors outside a players control out of the comparison, where do you end (factor out height, athleticism, hand eye coordination?).

As I said there's legitimate room for disagreement (I would, by nature, lean against penalizing Walton for his salary, but understand a hypothetical GM model, if carrying any weight in ones rankings, would have to do so).

I used blame in a way like: hurting Walton's legacy. He asked for a big salary, he delivered and showed he deserved it, but then he was unlucky and got injured a lot. Should that really hurt his legacy a ton or should we foccus more on the bright side of his short but really good peak?

I also understand the points against Walton and the 1 year window. I just don't think we can fault him a lot there and I'd rather look more to his great peak. But that's me, of course.

Walton isn't being treated any differently from everyone else in this project. Longevity/durability have been big considerations for ALL players up to this point. It just so happens that Walton is absolutely in the BOTTOM 5% of all-time where longevity/durability is concerned.

With this not being a "peaks project", most of us are in our own way considering total career value. And Walton's horrid durability/longevity severely limits his total career value. There's no two ways around that. It's unfortunate, but no less true. That's not being "unfair" to him, it's just the reality of his circumstance. Again: he's being considered under the same principles/criteria everyone is.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Paul Arizin

I'll jump back on this bandwagon. As I've said: Of all the player in the earliest era of the NBA, Arizin is the one who played the most like a modern player. The strengths he utilized are still today the the way someone his size should play NBA basketball. So it's only a question of whether the athleticism gap would be too much to make up.

Coming in at #63 on the list, I think we've already injected a good deal of skepticism on to that question. I don't have any huge concerns about letting him in at this stage.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #63 - Paul Arizin

Wasn't quite ready to vote for him, but had been going back and forth between a few of the older guys (Arizin, Sharman, Cousy and Jones) lately, so I don't have a problem with him here. Really impressive production in his 56 championship run:

28.9 PPG, 8.4 RPG, 2.9 APG, 45% FG, 83.8% FT (9.9 FTAs per game), 53% TS

He had decent longevity for his era, and didn't miss any significant time throughout his career. His 10 year career was shortened by 2 years of service in the military. He was solid every year of his career, and still productive into the 60s in his last season at 33 years old. Like Schayes (voted in at #45), he had an impressive career FT rate of .463 and shot it well at 81%.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Paul Arizin.

Peak similar to Dolph Schayes (perhaps even higher), who was voted in at #45. This was true (in era) dominance; and at least in the short-term basis is the most dominant player of that era left on the table (probably by far). Not a terribly long prime, but not exactly his fault (military service). And while he didn't have any other years which really approached the level of dominance he displayed in '52, he did have nine other years ranging from "solid role player" (at worst) to "legit All-NBA". Three times in the top 5 in MVP voting (as high as 2nd), is 53rd all-time in MVP award shares. 37th all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.

I'll also give him a scant few "bonus points" for helping to popularize the jump-shot, as well as acknowledging that as a game component that lends him some era portability.

I could certainly go for one of his contemporaries at this time (Bob Cousy), but the support just doesn't appear to be there. So I'll jump on this bandwagon.

[Quotatious]

Another vote for Paul Arizin.

One of the top 5 players of his era, high volume, efficient scorer for his era, good playoff performer. In a nutshell, that's my reasoning.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #14 (man, we are def weak-sauce at this point):

Sidney Moncrief (1) - penbeast0

Nate Thurmond (1) - ronnymac2

Grant Hill (1) - SactoKingsFan

Paul Arizin (4) - Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063, Quotatious

About 8 hrs left; unless we get better turn-out, we maybe avoid a run-off for this spot.

[penbeast0]

OK, calling it for Paul Arizin.